General > General Technical Chat
Starship 12.5km launch
wraper:
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 12, 2020, 04:29:38 pm ---why NASA still buying the Proton launch?
--- End quote ---
I never heard NASA buying Proton launch, for what? Soyuz astronaut launches is a different thing and they are launching on Falcon 9/Crew Dragon since this year. AFAIK the last seat they booked on Soyuz launched in October, as Dragon just started to launch astronauts they needed redundancy. And Boeing CST-100 is not ready yet. I doubt they will ever launch any astronaut on Soyuz after a year, if at all, and especially once CST-100 is ready and they have a second option. BTW NASA pays almost 2 times less per astronaut seat on Dragon compared to Soyuz, and can take significant cargo as well. BTW they can launch up to 7 people on a single Dragon if they need, and it still will be way more spacious than on Soyuz.
EDIT: BTW both Crew Dragon and F9 boosters will be reused for crewed launches as well https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-allow-reuse-of-crew-dragon-spacecraft-and-boosters/
Mr. Scram:
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 12, 2020, 10:31:22 am ---You'll probably be surprised. But this big rocket is cheaper than the small Falcon, as far as I know. In addition, the wreckage is collected and recycling.
By the way, the heavy Angara is being prepared for launch, already on the launch pad.
However, you can't hear me... Everyone can plant steps, but for some obviously good reason, they don't. It is possible that the reason is actually not so weighty and will continue to develop in this direction. My opinion: the Shuttle was a much-much bigger breakthrough. It would be more reasonable to make a new rocket based on its principle. This is my opinion, I'm not a rocket science professional.
--- End quote ---
The point is derived from basic physics. Take a good look at the rocket equation and tell us what you see. To launch a small payload you need a big rocket. Now imagine a scenario where instead of throwing almost the entire rocket away you can recover and comparatively trivially rebuild and refuel it. It completely changes how much stuff you can launch at what cost and rate completely. It makes space flight much more mundane, which has been Musk's goal from the start.
The Space Shuttle promised to do something similar, but was an utter failure in the sense of cost and turnaround. It was a woefully expensive and finicky spacecraft. It also should be noted that what SpaceX is doing has not been done before. Landing a small craft on the Moon isn't the same game as landing a huge craft through an atmosphere. The challenges involved are nowhere near similar and the maths involved are a recent development. We literally could not do this before.
S. Petrukhin:
I try to write in detail, but you don't read or I don't explain well... I will write briefly.
I wish success to all who work in space and to all engineers in general.
While Russian space is still needed. But there are concerns.
I don't see complex tasks solved in SpaceX, normal work, repetition of the past, but a lot of shows.
By the way, if I had my own rocket, I would be the first to fly into space. :)
wraper:
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 12, 2020, 06:01:17 pm ---I try to write in detail, but you don't read or I don't explain well... I will write briefly.
--- End quote ---
When I read what you write about rockets, my first thought is you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Such as: Falcon 9 is a small rocket, NASA buys Proton launches, landing a rocket is easy, and so on. Simply :palm:
Monkeh:
--- Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 12, 2020, 06:01:17 pm ---I don't see complex tasks solved in SpaceX, normal work, repetition of the past
--- End quote ---
Then you're not looking. You're dismissing out of ignorance.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version