Quote from: Darren Dirt on September 10, 2014, 08:27:58 AM
Quote from: Thorin on September 09, 2014, 06:51:00 PM
According to the UN Charter, you can't attack a country. Not with nuclear arms, not with conventional arms. Unless there is a specific UN resolution that says you can.
I love how quickly this thread turned into ^ this ^ ... my guess is "Cold War: The Resurrection" is on the minds of a lot of people?
It's pretty much already a thing. Russia has moved its space flight training to Sevastopol. Meaning anyone wanting to go to the ISS on a russian rocket has to go to Sevastopol. If you miss that part of the training, you just can't go up. And as timing goes, the ISS crews are due to be changed up soon. go figure.
Right now there is a competition between SpaceX and Boeing to deliver the next generation (non-Russian) manned launch systems
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/musk-s-spacex-vies-with-boeing-to-build-nasa-taxi-to-mars.html
Then there are military projects that already have "unmanned" reusable shuttles buzzing around.
Personally I'd like to see SpaceX take it, but then again Boeing has a successful history of launch systems, as I saw an astronaut comment today it's basically "sexy vs safe"
Yeah, though the commercial rides are probably still a couple years out. and SLS isn't meant for crew launches (and would likely be prohibitively expensive to use for crew launches).
Hm, sexy vs. safe.. I thought spacex was doing rather well on the safety front. For a brand new entrant, they have had a pretty damn good launch record. Both the air force and nasa have had worse accidents by /far/. Boing too (planes that start on fire because they cheaped out on battery packs?)
When talking about safety over time Boeing has been putting men successfully into space since, quite literally, Alan Shepard (with Freedom 7 on the Atlas D.) They've got experience building platforms that go from LEO all the way to the moon
Keeping in mind that Convair went into McDonnell Douglas which was absorbed by Boeing
So far there have, in total, been 18 deaths during spaceflight out of 4 missions (Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, STS-51-L and STS-107). So that's 2 missions in a Boeing manned system out of over a 160 successes. In fact you're more likely to die from training than anything else.
SpaceX has yet to have a manned mission and missed the previous deadline for such a mission to the ISS by not meeting the deadlines / requirements set out by NASA. So they have yet to be human-rated, which is what this competition is all about.
Indeed. Though I place less faith in large corporations to actually keep up safety over the long term. they cut corners (aka: maximize value), because they have to, or the shareholders get upset, the board and management is changed and/or sued.
I guess though I'm thinking a little too far in the future when these companies have their own routes that aren't controlled by NASA or other government agencies that have strict safety rules.
Boeing and SpaceX are both profit motivated corporations
Take your pick
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2014, 03:41:33 PM
Boeing and SpaceX are both profit motivated corporations
Take your pick
Sure, but the larger (especially publically traded) corporations tend to be far detached from humanity, and basic decency.
Quote from: Tom on September 10, 2014, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2014, 03:41:33 PM
Boeing and SpaceX are both profit motivated corporations
Take your pick
Sure, but the larger (especially publically traded) corporations tend to be far detached from humanity, and basic decency.
Well, that's your opinion
There's very little altruism on both sides, however one is trying to win back a big part of it's long term relationship with the US government, which means if astronauts die the government would be on a serious witch hunt and it would do a lot more damage, the whole reason it's out to tender at all is the shuttle program was finally terminated. That little program with over 130 missions formerly supported by Boeing
In my
opinion SpaceX would love to tout a few manned missions to advertise the safety of their delivery systems. If they can put people in space surely they can put other stuff there safely. They're a smaller company and have touted that they could do the job for millions less which means cheap as you can go systems with limited resources. Worst case scenario somebody dies, SpaceX folds and Elon Musk floats gently away with a golden parachute to some other venture (like underwater cities or something).
Then again if they can do it cheaper and better than Boeing it opens the doors to other commercial launch systems and maybe a whole industry that doesn't really exist outside of a few large aerospace companies.
Again: Sexy vs Safe
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2014, 04:02:40 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 10, 2014, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2014, 03:41:33 PM
Boeing and SpaceX are both profit motivated corporations
Take your pick
Sure, but the larger (especially publically traded) corporations tend to be far detached from humanity, and basic decency.
Well, that's your opinion
There's very little altruism on both sides, however one is trying to win back a big part of it's long term relationship with the US government, which means if astronauts die the government would be on a serious witch hunt and it would do a lot more damage, the whole reason it's out to tender at all is the shuttle program was finally terminated. That little program with over 130 missions formerly supported by Boeing
Boeing and its execs will get a free pass no matter what happens. They have the money to pay off the right people. Maybe some techs will get fired. maybe scapegoat a manager. Either way, none in charge will really face any real consequences, thats why you incorporate in the first place. So you don't have to care about consequences. And when you get /large/ you further distance yourself from humanity, all you're paid to do is look at numbers, not any possible real life consequences of actions taken.
SpaceX still does have to care about it's image though. Boeing not so much, why should they care? They have billions upon billions, and even a major @%&# up wouldn't hurt them that much in the long run.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2014, 04:02:40 PM
In my opinion SpaceX would love to tout a few manned missions to advertise the safety of their delivery systems. If they can put people in space surely they can put other stuff there safely. They're a smaller company and have touted that they could do the job for millions less which means cheap as you can go systems with limited resources. Worst case scenario somebody dies, SpaceX folds and Elon Musk floats gently away with a golden parachute to some other venture (like underwater cities or something).
Then again if they can do it cheaper and better than Boeing it opens the doors to other commercial launch systems and maybe a whole industry that doesn't really exist outside of a few large aerospace companies.
Again: Sexy vs Safe
I see what you're saying. I think competition would do a world of good. But that still doesn't solve the whole greed aspect.
Either way, one company (or both!) will become a sub-contractor for the other, really what they're fighting for is the larger slice of a 3 way pie.
I'm willing to bet we'll see one company's crew module on the other company's lifting platform
I hope something good comes of all this.
Quote from: Tom on September 10, 2014, 04:19:00 PM
I hope something good comes of all this.
Yup! A man-rated launch system that isn't beholden to the Russians, new competition for man-rated platforms and possibly a secondary line of employment for astronauts (manning SpaceX systems)
For the first time it is me SUGGESTING a thread split (instead of me being the REASON it is suggested ;) )
Starting @ http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,10356.msg81641.html#msg81641 and onwards, imo.
... or maybe just add it to the discussion about the space shuttle program being replaced by [??]
http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,8064.0.html
Done
September 16, 2014 it's official...
Boeing and SpaceX share $6.8B contract for ferrying U.S. astronauts, hope to remove need for Russians by 2017 (http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/16/boeing-and-spacex-will-share-duties-and-multi-billion-dollar-contract-for-ferrying-u-s-astronauts-to-space/)
"...`The greatest nation on Earth should not be dependent on any other nation to get into space,` said one NASA administrator... `We are one step closer to launching our astronauts from U.S. soil on American spacecraft and ending the nation?s sole reliance on Russia by 2017`"
I like how this turned out
That SpaceX space taxi looks kinda unusable in its current state. Like, how does that escape the atmosphere?
Ah, got it. It sits on a big rocket, the Falcon 9, which pushes it up to orbit.
Elon Musk went on about how we can't just keep throwing rockets away otherwise people will never be able to easily get into space. They're working on getting the Falcon 9 rocket and boosters to come back to Earth under controlled descent. And they're realistic enough to say that they expect the first few to blow up ("fail").
I wonder if the Russians will just lock off the Russian segments of the ISS or something..
So far the Russians are going to participate in ISS until 2020, the Russians had planned to build a new station "OPSEK" using the ISS as a base of operations as an eventual path to Mars but this is all up in the air (or rather not) until issues surrounding funding is sorted out. The Russian Federal Space Agency has been hard up for cash for some time, almost ending the mission in 2009. The politics around it are kind of fuzzy but the treaties signed are very clear on what they can and can't do up there (i.e. nothing to put any mission at risk, including blocking access to required areas, etc) so hopefully nobody has to paint a line between the modules :)
Meanwhile the US is currently funded to 2024 and after that who knows (possibly another 4 years)
The ISS currently holds the record for longest continuous habitation of humans in space (14 years, with a planned 20 years)
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 16, 2014, 03:08:48 PM
I like how this turned out
But I doubt Jeff "Mr. Amazon" Bezos is happy
(http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-09-17/space.gif) (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-17/jeff-bezos-vs-dot-elon-musk-in-spaaaace)
Fight! Fight! Fight!
TBH I think he is because once the decision was made to split the effort between both SpaceX and Boeing he made his announcement, this really means there is room for competition in manned space flight. I think if NASA had gone 100% Boeing he might be more hesitant.
Having NASA select both options is good for manned space in this hemisphere (the rockin'est hemisphere around)
what makes Elon succeed at what he does
http://www.quora.com/How-did-Elon-Musk-learn-enough-about-rockets-to-run-SpaceX/answer/Jim-Cantrell
Jim was key to SpaceX "at the beginning" so his perspective is especially fascinating.
I had no idea just how MUCH cheaper space flight cnow is looking to be vs earlier NASA days.
"...his true strength lies in his ability to reinvent a much better wheel. That is why SpaceX is by far the cheapest ride into space available today. Not even the Chinese can beat his price.
For, in the begining, when pricing rockets from everyone out there, from the Russians to Rocketdyne, he intuitively saw that the prices were out of whack with costs. So he estimated the weights of all the raw materials necessary to build a rocket then sought their costs which came to about 2% of the price. The businessman/engineer understood this vast inefficiency and knew he could do much better and did.
Looking into it further, he affirmed his assumption that the layers of middle management encouraged by cost plus contracting was the culprit. Again, he was right.
Therefore, cost plus contracting encouraged a corporate structure that brought middle management bloat into the aerospace industry resulting in extremely profitable pricing for them while gouging the American tapayer.
Thankfully, Mr. Musk is nailing the lid on the cost plus contracting model of business which will save us, billions, if not trillions of dollars.
"
^ From a comment @ http://www.quora.com/How-did-Elon-Musk-learn-enough-about-rockets-to-run-SpaceX/answer/Jim-Cantrell/comment/5750132
Also someone in the discussion linked to this from way back in 2012... before all the successes
http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-interview-1212
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrsfB13V-eU
Space travel is actually gonna suck. Says Cracked. Therefore true.