|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 16, 2015 - 8:32 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
I've been checking out the SpaceX website, too. Their Dragon 2 capsule/spacecraft would actually land ON EARTH without deployment of parachutes. They intend it to be able to touchdown just like the LEM did on the surface of the moon under the thrust of it's own engines, which only fire to slow down based on pre-calculated efficiency curves. Indeed, the ship is designed to be so general-purpose that it could fly to the moon and land there, if the mission profile existed for it. I don't know if it would be capable of lifting off the moon and flying back to earth without tanking up either while on the moon's surface or when back in orbit over the moon. It's capabilities would knock everything that came before it to whack if it ever becomes real-world operational. It does seem to be a somewhat fanciful vehicle, however, as far as SpaceX is concerned, it's just a matter of time before the reality of their all-purpose vehicle prevails. Their ambition is truly off the scale. Sol, you should have noticed that SpaceX has a very specific ethos: which is to simplify and streamline everything it does to the bare knuckle without sacrificing efficiency or reliability in any way whatsoever. Their design solutions are meant to solve several problems at a single stroke. In short, their philosophy is to optimise, optimise, optimise with a view to maximise, maximise, maximise. There's never been a can-do attitude like this is the whole history of the world. We'll just have to wait and see if their enthusiasm hits a brick wall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 16, 2015 - 10:20 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Sol, you should have noticed that SpaceX has a very specific ethos: which is to simplify and streamline everything it does to the bare knuckle without sacrificing efficiency or reliability in any way whatsoever. Their design solutions are meant to solve several problems at a single stroke. In short, their philosophy is to optimise, optimise, optimise with a view to maximise, maximise, maximise. There's never been a can-do attitude like this is the whole history of the world. We'll just have to wait and see if their enthusiasm hits a brick wall. Well I hope that is the case. I'm all for cutting needless expenses and doing things as economically as possible. My concern however is privatization simply means all the money goes to the CEO and board members and the employees get shafted.And I have not seen a cost analysis of how much this saves NASA, (AKA The tax payers). Also when we are talking about today's business philosophy of maximizing profits at all costs, it usually leads to cutting (safety) corners. There's another company that lost the bid from Space X, but are (anyway) developing a mini shuttle that only needs to sit on top of a single stack. First it will fly as an unmanned cargo ship, but eventually use it as a shuttle for astronauts. It will land on a runway like the bigger shuttle did and be reusable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|