4 ms·

I'm not sure I follow how this is supposed to be progress. This looks like NASA did before the had real shuttles, and (though I'm not an aeronautical engineer)

I'm not sure I follow how this is supposed to be progress. This looks like NASA did before the had real shuttles, and (though I'm not an aeronautical engineer) it seems really strange to me that they think launching and bringing down, not one, but 3 different parts of a space vehicle safely and exactly where they want it... Sounds far fetched to me. Virgin Galactic seems to have a much better design and plan - plus, they actually have a working spacecraft, spaceport, and they're selling tickets for the first flights in 2013 right now. SpaceX is a CG animation of a rehashed 30-year old design. Wanna know who my money's on?

learc83 15y ago
You know SpaceX has successfully launched and recovered space vehicles right? In fact they were the first private firm to launch and recover an orbital spacecraft. I'm a big fan of Virgin Galatic, but their design so far is for suborbital tourist visits.
ednc 15y ago
SpaceX is a lot more than CG animation. They have done some pretty amazing things in just a few years, and successfully privatized space exploration. Their first ISS mission is a month from now, and their past and future manifest is impressive http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php No disrespect to anything Virgin Galactic is doing (I hope to buy a ticket one day!, and am also a big fan of Rutan's work), but SpaceX is doing a lot more impressive things than suborbital passenger flight.
mbenjaminsmith 15y ago
I'll bite. VG is putting tourists into sub-LEO. SpaceX is building rockets that can reach any orbit, carry many tons of payload and even send manned missions to the Moon or Mars. When Musk started SpaceX he decided to use tried and true designs and instead focus on refining those designs for performance, safety and cost. He did so by moving the entire manufacturing chain in-house. Many would argue that he has achieved his goal. Rockets (which usually have to be multi-stage) are more cost effective and more capable than the Shuttles. The Shuttles are too fuel hungry and too inflexible (in the configuration they settled on) to fly to the Moon or Mars (or even move beyond LEO). They are not "space planes", capable of zooming around space at will, they are Earth gliders with rockets attached. I haven't read his rationale for the self-landing rocket stages, but I would guess it's about recovery costs. It's not cheap to track down and fish rockets stages out of the ocean. They also have to be completely rebuilt after their plunge into salt water. Heat damage is likely an issue as well. If keeping that amount of reserve fuel would not limit the rocket's main mission, it would undoubtedly save a lot of money in recovery and restoration costs. It's progress because the Shuttle missions were a step in the wrong direction if the ultimate goal is to make space accessible. Well designed rockets can be more capable, just as safe (if not more so) and can operate at a fraction of the Shuttle program's cost.
- MikeCapone 15y ago
  "I haven't read his rationale for the self-landing rocket stages, but I would guess it's about recovery costs." At the press club he mentioned that a $50m rocket might have 200k of fuel costs in it, so if you can reuse most of it, you are way ahead on cost.
pinwale 15y ago
Virgin Galactic only does LEO hops that last for ~10 minutes. SpaceX has actually sent a rocket in orbit around the earth and are on track to send successive launches to the ISS in 2012 and 2013. Just 'cause it looks like an Apollo design; there's a reason why they were chosen in the first place. It's cause they're simple and pretty reliable. Also, I wouldn't bet against Elon Musk.
tsotha 15y ago
>I'm not sure I follow how this is supposed to be progress. This looks like NASA did before the had real shuttles... That's not exactly an engineering critique. Yes, it's progress - sometimes you have to go back to where you took a wrong turn.
- ednc 15y ago
  >>Yes, it's progress - sometimes you have to go back to where you took a wrong turn. Great way to describe it!

learc83 15y ago

You know SpaceX has successfully launched and recovered space vehicles right? In fact they were the first private firm to launch and recover an orbital spacecraft. I'm a big fan of Virgin Galatic, but their design so far is for suborbital tourist visits.

ednc 15y ago

SpaceX is a lot more than CG animation. They have done some pretty amazing things in just a few years, and successfully privatized space exploration. Their first ISS mission is a month from now, and their past and future manifest is impressive http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php No disrespect to anything Virgin Galactic is doing (I hope to buy a ticket one day!, and am also a big fan of Rutan's work), but SpaceX is doing a lot more impressive things than suborbital passenger flight.

mbenjaminsmith 15y ago

I'll bite. VG is putting tourists into sub-LEO. SpaceX is building rockets that can reach any orbit, carry many tons of payload and even send manned missions to the Moon or Mars. When Musk started SpaceX he decided to use tried and true designs and instead focus on refining those designs for performance, safety and cost. He did so by moving the entire manufacturing chain in-house. Many would argue that he has achieved his goal. Rockets (which usually have to be multi-stage) are more cost effective and more capable than the Shuttles. The Shuttles are too fuel hungry and too inflexible (in the configuration they settled on) to fly to the Moon or Mars (or even move beyond LEO). They are not "space planes", capable of zooming around space at will, they are Earth gliders with rockets attached. I haven't read his rationale for the self-landing rocket stages, but I would guess it's about recovery costs. It's not cheap to track down and fish rockets stages out of the ocean. They also have to be completely rebuilt after their plunge into salt water. Heat damage is likely an issue as well. If keeping that amount of reserve fuel would not limit the rocket's main mission, it would undoubtedly save a lot of money in recovery and restoration costs. It's progress because the Shuttle missions were a step in the wrong direction if the ultimate goal is to make space accessible. Well designed rockets can be more capable, just as safe (if not more so) and can operate at a fraction of the Shuttle program's cost.

MikeCapone 15y ago
"I haven't read his rationale for the self-landing rocket stages, but I would guess it's about recovery costs." At the press club he mentioned that a $50m rocket might have 200k of fuel costs in it, so if you can reuse most of it, you are way ahead on cost.

pinwale 15y ago

Virgin Galactic only does LEO hops that last for ~10 minutes. SpaceX has actually sent a rocket in orbit around the earth and are on track to send successive launches to the ISS in 2012 and 2013. Just 'cause it looks like an Apollo design; there's a reason why they were chosen in the first place. It's cause they're simple and pretty reliable. Also, I wouldn't bet against Elon Musk.

tsotha 15y ago

>I'm not sure I follow how this is supposed to be progress. This looks like NASA did before the had real shuttles... That's not exactly an engineering critique. Yes, it's progress - sometimes you have to go back to where you took a wrong turn.

ednc 15y ago
>>Yes, it's progress - sometimes you have to go back to where you took a wrong turn. Great way to describe it!