Role is the same as it always was, pork.And now i'm completely puzzled. Taking into account a single-stage solution SpaceX offered to this competition, what is Orion's role and fate now?
Minds being blown across the aerospace industry! NASA team is doing a good job threading the needle about the transition from SLS/Orion to a more sustainable system, without being so blunt. Nevertheless, it is now up to @SpaceX to deliver. If they do, the writing is on the wall.
Congrats to the whole team - you continue to crush the competition - good on ya!
Literally my face when
LOL. I didn't make it but when I saw it figured I had to post it here.Literally my face when
There is also this part as well.SpaceX’s plans to self-fund and assume financial risk for over half of the development and test activities as an investment in its architecture, which it plans to utilize for numerous commercial applications, presents outstanding benefits to NASA. This contribution not only significantly reduces the cost to the Government (which is reflected in SpaceX’s lower price), but it also demonstrates a substantial commitment to the success of HLS public-private partnership commercial model and SpaceX’s commitment to commercializing technologies and abilities developed under the Option A contract.
Finally, within Technical Area of Focus 7, Approach to Early Systems Demonstrations, I agree with the SEP’s assignment of a significant strength for SpaceX’s robust early system demonstration ground and flight system campaign, which focuses on the highest risk aspects of its proposed architecture. This will allow SpaceX to isolate and address performance and operational issues early in its development cycle, which will
11 meaningfully inform the maturation of its capability and increase overall confidence in its performance abilities.
This isn't practical. It is much more efficient to use dedicated Lunar Starship (without all ths additional atmospheric mass), which would made LEO-Luna-LEO flights, and would be refueled on LEO by winged Tanker Starship.and has suddenly wings and heat shield
View: https://twitter.com/lori_garver/status/1383160125683331076
Minds being blown across the aerospace industry! NASA team is doing a good job threading the needle about the transition from SLS/Orion to a more sustainable system, without being so blunt. Nevertheless, it is now up to @SpaceX to deliver. If they do, the writing is on the wall.
View: https://twitter.com/lori_garver/status/1383162573600743429
Congrats to the whole team - you continue to crush the competition - good on ya!
I'm very surprised that SpaceX won the Lunar lander design, (my guess was Dynetics ALPACA)
biggest issue to SpX lander is the hight they crew get down and up
That approach could end up backfiring badly though.It looks like Space X cut their cloth to meet NASA’s budget so to speak to win the award.
Well, yes and no. It used to be a fairly regular avenue of development in aerospace and other defence related engineering, deliberately or otherwise, once upon a time. And despite CAD/CAM and the like (or sometimes even because of it!) it still occasionally shows up.Which is not a thing that happens in the real world, generally.
For SpaceX maybe. Now they've saddled themselves with NASA, who WILL be sticking their noses into Starship.That approach could end up backfiring badly though.It looks like Space X cut their cloth to meet NASA’s budget so to speak to win the award.
Yes. And it's also a way of politically de-risking any future failure if we come to that.That approach could end up backfiring badly though.It looks like Space X cut their cloth to meet NASA’s budget so to speak to win the award.
No. A split architecture is best, but the correct split isn't "wingless ship refueled at leo", it's "wingless lunar ship refueled at llo".This isn't practical. It is much more efficient to use dedicated Lunar Starship (without all ths additional atmospheric mass), which would made LEO-Luna-LEO flights, and would be refueled on LEO by winged Tanker Starship.and has suddenly wings and heat shield
The part of the mission where you genuinely don't gain from the wings and heatshield is the landing burn and takeoff from the moon. Therefore, full starship tanker flies to lunar orbit to refuel the ship there, then does direct return from llo to earth surface.
The key point is that returning from llo to leo is *expensive*, and the ∆v is specifically in circularizing. (That is, starting from llo the burn to get your perigee low is cheap, while once you get to the perigee the burn to lower your apogee is crazy expensive.)
that what i meantHow about aerobraking ?
That is going to be fun. Fetch the popcorn!Now there is to be a formal contract between NASA & Space X it will involve formal oversight of Starship development by NASA & involvement by them.
Well it was fun while it lasted.Now there is to be a formal contract between NASA & Space X it will involve formal oversight of Starship development by NASA & involvement by them.
Crew 2 arrive in Florida; NASA completes launch review of reused capsule
Washington DC (UPI) Apr 16, 2021 - Four astronauts arrived in Florida on Friday for their mission to the International Space Station planned for next week - the third launch of people aboard a SpaceX rocket and capsule.www.spacedaily.com
How OneWeb, SpaceX Satellites Dodged a Potential Collision in Orbit - Slashdot
"Two satellites from the fast-growing constellations of OneWeb and SpaceX's Starlink dodged a dangerously close approach with one another in orbit," reported The Verge, citing representatives from both OneWeb and the U.S. Space Force. UPDATE (April 22): SpaceX strongly disputes OneWeb's...science.slashdot.org
That would just make them more of a competitor to Blue Origin and then their engine supply gets cut.The Angry Astronaut reaction on SpaceX lunar lander
he has one point right ULA must react and has to build larger post Vulcan rocket
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEoa7XDo1rM
They might want to give Aerojet a call.That would be a danger of such an option, yes. But, would they have a choice but to risk it?
I'm not sure ULA could. They are conglomerate of old, inflexible aerospace companies, with zero vision besides "squeeze more money" and ruled by boards of directors, with confusing and conflicting interests, who mostly interested only in profits for their share. They could not possibly compete with centrally-controlled SpaceX and Blue Origin in originality or flexibility, they stayed on market mostly by political influence. Most likely ULA would settle for downslope ride, just trying to make sure that major shareholders would not lose money.he has one point right ULA must react and has to build larger post Vulcan rocket
or ULA take over the Remains of Blue OriginThat would just make them more of a competitor to Blue Origin and then their engine supply gets cut.The Angry Astronaut reaction on SpaceX lunar lander
he has one point right ULA must react and has to build larger post Vulcan rocket
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEoa7XDo1rM
Your comment is frankly disingenuous being as Space X wouldn’t be where they are now without past NASA contracts.Well it was fun while it lasted.Now there is to be a formal contract between NASA & Space X it will involve formal oversight of Starship development by NASA & involvement by them.
That's your conscience talking to you for deliberately mischaracterizing my post.Your comment is frankly disingenuous being as Space X wouldn’t be where they are now without past NASA contracts.Well it was fun while it lasted.Now there is to be a formal contract between NASA & Space X it will involve formal oversight of Starship development by NASA & involvement by them.
How OneWeb Lied About a Near-Miss Collision With a SpaceX Satellite - Slashdot
In a follow-up to a story previously reported, Slashdot reader Turkinolith shares a report from Teslarati: In the latest trials and tribulations of a SpaceX Starlink competitor that went bankrupt after spending $3 billion to launch just 74 small internet satellites, it appears that OneWeb...science.slashdot.org
Interesting if true.
"As it turns out, OneWeb's "near-miss" appears to have been a farce and the company scrambled to promise to retract those statements in an April 20th meeting with the FCC and SpaceX."
This comes from a filing by, well, SpaceX. Other, less Musk-boot-licky sources, checked on OneWeb's response - and in their own filing they say they made no such promise or offer to retract anything, and stand by the story. Also, complaints about SpaceX's behavior in this particular venture are not exactly peculiar to OneWeb. This may or may not be a publicity game, but the posted article is essentially an unquestioning parroting of the SpaceX official line.
https://arstechnica.com/inform... [arstechnica.com]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/te... [telegraph.co.uk]
https://www.pcmag.com/news/spa... [pcmag.com]