Slashdot Mirror
Russian Supply Vehicle To ISS Burns
First time accepted submitter Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "The Russian cargo spacecraft 'Progress' developed problems and burned up in the atmosphere shortly after its launch at 1300 GMT. From the article: 'The Russian space agency said the Progress M-12M cargo ship was not placed in the correct orbit by its rocket and fell back to Earth. The vessel was carrying three tonnes of supplies for the ISS astronauts.'"
Say what you will about Russia, but they can still put humans in space...
I actually believe vodka was used as fuel here...
Mmmm... BBQ.
it was automated. No loss of life, thank goodness. Here's hoping the engineers find the fault quickly so we can keep our astronauts on schedule.
I wouldn't risk it. It's the 4th or so launch that ends badly in a row.
We have a backup.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
...they just may not be there for long...
Now that the Shuttle is gone, it will be possible to focus on much better ways to send humans to space. If we really wanted, there are American companies that could send humans in space, with Dragon or Atlas, at the same level of risk of the Shuttle. It's only a matter of certifications, after all. I think that the Russians are *very* nervous.
I got this game. Learned how to put a rocket into orbit. Pretty cool.
Could the Russians use a little sim training, perhaps? Orbital insertion is really not that hard, once you get the hang of it.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
how much of that was people?
What? This was the FIRST failure of a progress module. Also as far as I know, they haven't had a single fatality related to their current manned space vehicle (the Soyuz) and unless they are hiding some early issues, they have never lost any crew on manned flights. Remember, the shuttle lost 2 crews, and we lost an Apollo crew on the ground. I would say the Russian human spaceflight program is safer than the US program, although IMHO losing 2 shuttle crews is a reasonable amount of loss for a pioneering program. Just think about how many ships were lost when man first started exploring the globe.
Visualize Whirled Peas
You know, SpaceX is looking pretty good about now.
Life is not for the lazy.
In related news, food prices on the ISS are expected to spike in early trading tomorrow.....
In more news, 17 Murdock newspapers printed leaks about concerns that relatives of ISS crew have about their safety.
-Charlie
Since Progress uses the Soyuz rocket, I was curious about the Soyuz escape system. Looks like it's pretty well thought through.
Still, I'd like to see Space X's Falcon 9 ready to replace the Soyuz rocket.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
They had a lot of bad luck lately. Losing at least three launches this year. I hope they get back on track soon. Who else could transport new people up and down to the ISS. Freight can be done by ESA's ATV, but human space flight is right now Russia only.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
Just saying...
Maybe it's time to bring the shuttle back out of retirement?
Hoping there wasn't anything important on that Progress .. crew consumables and delta-V definitely being in the "important" category .. :p
I'm pretty sure Vladimir Komarov would disagree with you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1.
Also, there seem to be quite a few Russian space program deaths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program#Incidents_and_setbacks
today is spelling optional day.
Soyuz 1 crashed with Vladimir Komarov on re-entry and Soyuz 11 depressurized during preparations for re-entry. But Soyuz still has a pretty good safety record.
Things are not looking good for the Russian space program right now. This is the second loss they've had in a week. On August 18, rocket failure resulted in a new communication satellite going into an essentially useless orbit. The real worry about this sort of thing is what it will do to the human space program. The US may not be as willing to hire the Russians to go into space when things are running this badly. I can't imagine a PR disaster much worse than American astronauts getting killed on a Russian spacecraft. On the other hand, I'm very happy that this problem occurred on an unmanned supply vehicle rather than anything with people on it. It is also a bit scary to note that even a very well-understood set of systems like the Soyuz still sometimes runs into such severe problems. Hopefully they will be able to identify what precisely caused this problem.
Wait, are we relying on these guys to get us into space... great.
Nasa better step up their game..
I would say the Russian human spaceflight program is safer than the US program
Nedelin: 165 dead.
Plesetsk: 48 dead.
The Russians (Soviets at the time) had two loss-of-crew accidents with the Soyuz. Just like the Shuttle, except that the Shuttle flew more times than the Soyuz (yes, the Soyuz is considerably older than Shuttle, and has flown fewer missions).
In addition, the Soyuz has failed its mission considerably more often than Shuttle has.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Say what you will about Russia, but they can still put humans in space...
Or at least high into the atmosphere. I'm more interested in being able to get them *back* from space.
The Soviets lost Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11 for four dead in space flights.
The two Shuttles add up to more deaths because the Shuttles carried more people than any Soviet or Russian Federation craft.
Michael J. Adams died while piloting a North American X-15 rocket plane on reentry from 50.4 miles up.
Shuttle did 135 launches with two lost craft
Soyuz has done 111 launches with two lost craft
Apollo did 16 launches with no lost craft
Gemini did 10 launches with no lost craft
Vostok did 6 launches with no lost craft
Mercury did 6 launches with no lost craft
Voskhod did 2 launches with no lost craft
US 167 launches - 2 losses
USSR/Russian Federation 119 launches - 2 losses
supply ship burn on you!
l just don't trust Russia now, don't trust their space program to serve the U.S., never trusted them in the past and Putin's statement show me I can't trust them in the future.
Our legislators need to revisit how they direct and fund NASA. It doesn't mean NASA doesn't need to change, but NASA overseeing plans to keep us in space are a matter of the Federal Government's proper duty under the constitution to protect the U.S.'s interests and protect our borders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
According to wikipedia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents), 277 Americans have flown in space, compared to 96 for USSR/Russia. 14 Americans have been killed in spaceflight (technically 13, because one was Israeli), and 4 Soviets were killed. That's a death rate of 5% for USA and 4.2% for Russia.
Better known as 318230.
Dark Templars? Where? Scan now! ... oh. What is it we are watching again?
Based on my extensive knowledge of cartoons, I suggest a big explosion, a see-saw with a 10tn weight on it or a Pokemon attack.
They've had two fatal accidents in the 1970ies. One because of moronic Soviet orders to have a premature flight. Soyuz 1 - the first manned flight - failed, after all previous unmanned test flights had failed to land intact. Soyuz 1 crashed after vaporized (and then re-solidified) glue prevented the parachute from opening. The only cosmonaut died.
Soyuz 11 was a classic case of "someone had to find out the hard way" - a pressure valve opened due to bad luck, three cosmonauts on board suffocated. For a long time after, Soyuz only flew with two people on board - as they had to wear pressure suits during flight. They still do wear them, but lighter suits and a slightly bigger capsule allowed three to get on board again.
After that, all incidents were without fatalities. Although there was one flight where the cosmonauts had to bail out right at the launch pad, when an engine failed, the rocket fell over and exploded on the pad.
Note that Soyuz is on about its 7th or 8th generation of craft. The soyuz deaths occurred in some pretty ancient models.
Standard /. car analogy is its like being scared to hitch a ride in your kid's ford focus because in your dad's generation ford made the incredible exploding pinto. There's a lot of water under the bridge in the last 5 generations of vehicle and 40 years. I'd feel much safer in a current model soyuz than a current model space shuttle, for obvious reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(spacecraft)
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The ISS Burns? Excellent...
If it had only made it higher and exploded, they would have lost 0 tonnes of supplies.
Damn you gravity. Damn you!
Something witty.
These methods sound like they are Michelle Bachmann approved
Misleading statistics.
There have been 277 DIFFERENT Americans in space. Quite a few have flown more than once.
Ditto the Russians.
Note that Shuttle had 135 flights, with seven crew each. Call it 950 total Shuttle crew. Fourteen fatalities, so about 1.5% death rates on Shuttle
The Russians have flown Soyuz 110 times, two crew per shot. 220 Russians, four dead. Or about 1.8% death rate.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Note that Soyuz is on about its 7th or 8th generation of craft. The soyuz deaths occurred in some pretty ancient models.
And the Soyuz 11 problem wouldn't have affected the current crews since they wear suits.
BTW, weren't there a couple of close calls when the re-entry module didn't separate properly? AFAIR the crews survived but had an exciting ride.
If you mean the current generation of Soyuz hasn't lost any crew then you are correct but there were fatalities with the first generation. However, the last fatality was over 40 years and 100 launches ago so you are absolutely correct that the Russian program has a much better safety record than NASA.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Here are more accurate statistics:
http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/english/other/stat_kk.sht
Russia / USSR launched 282 man-flights into space. USA launched 881 man-flights. Thus the fatality rate for Russia is 1.4%, and for USA 1.6%.
China has launched 6 man-flights on 3 launches with a 0% fatality rate.
Better known as 318230.
Apollo did 16 launches with no lost craft
Only if you don't count a fire during a launch rehearsal. Sure it's not actually a launch... but they had to scrap that whole flight. But still, I consider it close enough. For instance, if a couple dies during their wedding rehearsal, history should record that but for the deaths, they would have married. (In France, it would probably be good enough to get presidential approval to actually construct the marriage despite them being dead, especially if one were to survive.)
The point is, it's kind of dick to not include the lost Apollo mission on account of it "never having actually launched"... when in truth, but for the fire, it would have launched.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I'd feel much safer in a current model soyuz than a current model space shuttle
There is no current model space shuttle, only a retired model space shuttle.
This is correct, and lying governments are not restricted to just the US.
I think you will find most governments around the world lie to their citizens at
various times.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
We're all saying "well thank goodness it's not a manned spacecraft, no big deal."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Progress basically a Soyuz with the seats ripped out? Which is to say, don't unmanned Progress mission failures tell you something important about the likelihood of manned Soyuz disasters?
And Atlantis, Discovery and Endeavor were different shuttle "generations" from Columbia and Challenger.
In both American accidents it was the rocket or fuel tank that lead to the loss of the craft, in both of the Soviet losses it was capsule design that lead to the loss of the craft.
If the Russians get the Soyuz out to 135 launches like Shuttle we might see another loss.
Looking at newer generation Soyuz launch history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_(rocket_family)
Soyuz-U - 19 losses in 727 launches - 2.6% loss rate or worse than Shuttle's 1.48% loss rate
Soyuz-U2 - 2 losses in 92 launches - 2.1% loss rate - no longer active
Soyuz-FG - 0 losses in 29 launches
Soyuz-2.1a - 1 loss in 4 launches - 25% loss rate
Soyuz-2.1b - 0 losses in 3 launches
763 launches of active Soyuz rocket models and 20 lost rockets give us a 2.62% loss rate, or worse than Shuttle.
So no, getting on a Soyuz-U, FG, or 2.1x is not safer than a Shuttle was.
The point is, it's kind of dick to not include the lost Apollo mission on account of it "never having actually launched"... when in truth, but for the fire, it would have launched.
But I believe it was being tested in a configuration that would never have flown; if I remember correctly, the cabin atmosphere changed from normal air to low-pressure (6psi?) pure O2 during launch, whereas the test was about 16psi pure O2.
That said, there were enough flaws with the Block I Apollo capsules that the odds of killing a crew at some point without the Block II redesign were pretty high.
So far, there's not proof that an "American company" could even replicate the 1961 mission that sent Alan Shepard into space.
Maybe you should wait until a private corporation sends one single human into space and brings him back alive before making claims about what they can do. And it's not just a "matter of certifications" because if they wanted proof of concept they could launch from some third world country (where they'll probably end up building their craft anyway).
I think a lot of people overestimate private industry's ability to achieve safe human space travel.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Uh...yes they have lost crews on soyuz:
Soyuz 1 (parachute failure),
Soyuz 11 (depresurization).
Soyuz 18, 23 damn near killed the crew. One was dragged under water by the parachute after a water landing, and the other one suffered a second stage failure which hurtled the entire stack pointing towards the earch at 21g's, fortunetly the emergency abort worked....but after landing the vehicle rolled down a hill and stopped just short of a high cliff . There comander never fully recovered.
There are several other close calls and probably other undocumented "loses". You can read them here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
Neither agency has had an incedent free history. I think its mostly sheer luck (and some truly smart, quick thinking individuals) there where not more deaths from both NASA or USSR.
Having known NASA engineers, there sentemint on russian hardware was that is was shitty (like duct tape, bubble gum and tinfoil shitty). No, I would not use a pre or post soviet era rocket given the choice.
As far as vehical loss which resulted in deaths...USSR takes the cake.
R-12 pad explosion: 145 deaths,
Vostok 2 pad explosion: 45 deaths
- Russia lost two shuttles in 60s and 70th with total 4 crew members lost
- US lost one in 80s and 2000's, with 14 crew members lost.
Based on the more recent nature of US accidents (and massive loss of lives), any insurance carrier will confirm that US missions are riskier (would command higher insurance premiums). Good thing they got discontinued, I guess.
Source: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
Apollo did 16 launches with no lost craft
You have conveniently overlooked Apollo 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
Stupid Russians, acting like they *invented* modern space flight or something.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Just make sure to use the small straw for the roast beef dinner, it'll last longer that way.
not every shuttle flight had the max crew of seven, STS-135 for instance, had only four crewmembers, since there was no back-up shuttle available if some malfunction prevented normal de-orbit. The plan in case of failure was to stay over on the ISS and use soyuz's to come back down. All test flights with enterprise (which arent counted in the 135 number) had two crew, the four initial flights for columbia were 2-man missions. Counting up all STS flights on wikipedia comes to 816 crew members. 14 dead on 816 makes a 1.7% death rate
Also, starting with soyuz flight TM-2, every flight (which is 60-70 flights since) except two have been crewed with three, Prior to the pressure loss of Suyoz-11, the lack of pressure suits allowed for a few three crew flights as well on the older models.
I count 55 two man soyuz flights, two one man flights and 53 three man flights for 271 cosmonauts.
Also, Soyuz 1 was crewed by one, soyuz 11 by two, which makes three dead kosomonauts on 272, for a 1.1% death rate.
People, what a bunch of bastards
Yard Sale?!?! Wonder where it's gonna land. I could use some supplies. :)
BTW, weren't there a couple of close calls when the re-entry module didn't separate properly? AFAIR the crews survived but had an exciting ride.
That's because Soyuz, unlike the shuttle, has a "survive but have an exciting ride" mode - when the controls on the descent module fail, it can re-enter on a ballistic trajectory and survive. Shuttle only had "textbook-perfect re-entry" and "loss of vehicle and crew" modes.
Soyuz-2.1b - 0 losses in 3 launches
763 launches of active Soyuz rocket models and 20 lost rockets give us a 2.62% loss rate, or worse than Shuttle.
So no, getting on a Soyuz-U, FG, or 2.1x is not safer than a Shuttle was.
Except that the shuttle killed two crews and Soyuz over the same time period killed none. That's the wonder of building an actual escape system into your design so the crew don't die as soon as something goes wrong.
Though the capacity is rather small, I wonder if the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle could carry critical supplies to the ISS? It's designed for quick turn-around and maneuverability. Would have to spacewalk for those supplies, though. No docking system on OTV that I know of.
Invenio via vel creo
When they Soyuz get to 135 manned launches (they are at 119 right now) without a loss, then we can compare to Shuttle.
THis was super weapon used to shoot down missle with standing electromagnetic wave EM shield. Was confused thinking it was a missle and blew it up. Possibly was not on mission to bring supplies to IIS and maybe had nefareous intent.
Technically the craft wasn't lost, just the contents. Caution: Contents may shift states during rapid oxidation of module!
Rule number one for Russian Space Missions:
No critical business during summer and white nights !!!
At least it wasn't people.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Um. It looks like you folks will have to re-read all that old porn for a while longer.
Have gnu, will travel.
Alan Shepard's Freedom 7 flight was suborbital space flight, a feat that has been repeated by a US company, Scaled Composites, on the three SpaceShipOne flights. Unfortunately, about the only use of a suborbital flight is to validate your spacecraft design before an orbital launch. However, neither SpaceShipOne nor Two were designed to reach orbit, so really they're only good for wining the X-Prize (SS1) and joyriding (SS2). It is true noone is ready for a John Glen-style orbital flight, but hopefully the three-way competition between SpaceX's Dragon, Boeing's CST-100, and SpaceDev's Dream Chaser will keep them motivated.
#include <signature.h>
And maybe some new private American ones in a couple of years. Only the Russian may be passenger-rated. Most of these are one-way with no shielding to return to earth. You fill with garbage, and jetison into the ocean if it doesnt burn up first.
Measuring it per country is not particularly relevant for anything but a dick-measuring context. What matters is how well a particular design handles, whatever the nationality of engineers who designed it.
Or as if one of them actually theorized the entire rocketry field into existence. You go ahead, tell them.
You can't handle the truth.
So NASA should get that Space Elevator gig going, right? Although geostationary orbits are WayTF (26.200 mi.) out there, huh? Or maybe launch supplies with the old 'Railgun' - perhaps a good project to build along the Equator in Africa - and build up some of those economies.
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
Check again. TM-2 launched with two guys, picked up a third in orbit from MIR. TM-8 and TM-9 had only two apiece. Unfortunately, the swapping of crews via MIR makes it difficult to determine quickly just how many guys went up in the thing.
Note also that there were THREE cosmonauts in Soyuz 11, not two. Accepting your 272 number (it's off by at least a few mentioned above), four dead out of 272 is 1.5%. Essentially the same as Shuttle.
So, no, there isn't all that much evidence that Soyuz is intrinsically safer than Shuttle....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
X-37B - unmanned at present. Capable of reuse, reaching orbit. orbital manuevering, and controlled re-entry and landing..
The only thing "motivating" those three companies is the hope that they can get government money.
These companies will never be involved with the private sector's use of space. Their entire purpose is to become government contractors and join the corporate welfare state.
It's not the "X-Prize" they're hoping for, it's the "Haliburton/KBR/Lockheed" prize where they tie up long-term, no-bid, no-competition government contracts. The privatization of the space program is just another way to funnel money from taxpayers to corporations.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Storage Area Nine self destructed last week and destroyed the ship's entire supply of toilet paper."
My word is EXCELSIOR!
In Soviet Russia, the Vaccuum of Space blows you down rather than sucks you up.
"My name is Cornholio and I need TP for my bunghole."
At least according to wikipedia they were planning to launch in that configuration
The high-pressure oxygen atmosphere was consistent with that used in the Mercury and Gemini programs. The pressure before launch was deliberately greater than ambient in order to drive out the nitrogen-containing air and replace it with pure oxygen. After liftoff, the pressure would have been reduced to the in-flight level of 5 pounds per square inch (34 kPa), providing sufficient oxygen for the astronauts to breathe while reducing the fire risk.
After the fire the plans were changed to launch with an oxygen nitrogen mix (though still a VERY oxygen rich one) in the cabin and then replace the atmosphere in space.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Hooray! The ISS has finally been named! For Mr. Burns!
The only thing "motivating" those three companies is the hope that they can get government money.
I don't know about that. They say that if you want to make a million dollars in the airline industry, you start with a billion. Space flight has got to be even harder when it comes to predictable, scalable profits.
If Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos just wanted to make another billion dollars, they'd have to be crazy to get involved in space flight. There are too many easier ways to do it. Clearly, they're after something besides just money.
The point is, it's kind of dick to not include the lost Apollo mission on account of it "never having actually launched"... when in truth, but for the fire, it would have launched.
But I believe it was being tested in a configuration that would never have flown; if I remember correctly, the cabin atmosphere changed from normal air to low-pressure (6psi?) pure O2 during launch, whereas the test was about 16psi pure O2.
That said, there were enough flaws with the Block I Apollo capsules that the odds of killing a crew at some point without the Block II redesign were pretty high.
Someone else already addressed this, but you are not correct, the configuration was indeed intended to launch. It was going to be a manned launch as a test, with some further unmanned launches as more tests and then a manned launch of what-would-have-been Apollo 2, which ended up being Apollo 4. When the launch failed, they were originally expected to not use Apollo 1 for the flight, because it never launched, and then Apollo 4 would have been Apollo 1. It was later petitioned that because NASA was fully intending to launch Apollo 1, that the name should be bound to the disaster, regardless of the launch.
God, look at me, sounding all authoritative, I read this shit 5 minutes ago on Wikipedia.....
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I think you will find most governments around the world lie to their citizens at various times.
Only when their lips are moving... or fingers, I guess..
And yet, in under 6 months, US private dragon will undergo final testing, to be followed by first full cargo launch. Not the couple of years that you claim. Likewise, in 8 months, OSC will be there as well (assuming that all goes well). And Dragon not only has shielding, but it is the ONLY one that is designed to come from Mars/asteroids/etc. Soyuz can only come from the moon and even that is not tested. Thankfully, unlike all others, Dragon lands under chutes so, they will likely have humans up in 3 years. Of course, there is now a push for more money to private space, which might speed them up to 2 years. Issues solved. Add a fuel depot and a tug and lo and behold, the ISS has no real issues left. Nor will other private space stations such as Bigelow.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, in this case, technically Soyuz 11 wasn't lost either, just the contents perished due to unsatisfactory ventilation conditions.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Safety in the hands of a private company? Only if you mandate insurance, else I fear for the life of every astronaut.
I've been in safety and security long enough to know one thing: The ONLY reason why a dime gets spent on it is that not spending it would cost more.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
right, derp, i dont know how i missed the third soyuz-11 member. And you are right for the whole mir-exchange stuff. Doing that kind of research late at night after a ten hour day is just asking for trouble.
Anyway, i would still prefer going up in a soyuz rather then a shuttle. Even if the two have similar death rates, the only two lethal soyuz incidents where very long ago, in the first flights of the platform, which is by now very mature. By comparison, the shuttle had its two failures spread out far more across its life, with the the columbia crash pretty much saying that even as late as 2005 there were still rather serious design issues with the platform.
People, what a bunch of bastards
Do you really feel *that* unsafe when you take a Southwest flight?
They already answered to the suborbital flights part. Regarding orbit, “If there were people sitting in the Dragon capsule today, they would have had a very nice ride,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/science/space/09rocket.html The main reason they do not fly humans on Dragon (yet) is because it still lacks an escape system (that the Shuttle never had, and would have probably saved the Challenger crew). "Musk: Well actually if our safety threshold was equal to that of the Shuttle, then we could do that this year. In fact the Dragon spacecraft that we flew in December, if we had put someone in there with a seat, they would have had a fine journey. However we think that there needs to be an additional level of safety which is that there should be a launch escape system which the Shuttle does not have. And so that launch escape system will take us a few years to develop and verify all the functionality and so that's why we're expecting our first astronaut flight in about a few years." http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/07/08/pm-elon-musk-on-the-future-of-space-travel-and-exploration/ Apparently they are so ahead of schedule that they will be berthing the Dragon Capsule to the ISS this December instead of waiting for another year as originally planned. Of course the road is still long but I'll make sure to be near Vandemberg to witness the launch of Falcon Heavy, double the payload of the Shuttle and a tenth of the cost. As for the "third world countries" where you think they will be building their stuff: "[E. Musk] also outlines why he believes American innovation will trump countries like China in space –even though that country has the fastest growing economy in the world and lower labor rates than the US" http://www.universetoday.com/85409/elon-musk-why-the-us-can-beat-china/
No, mostly because first of all the insurance and/or regress would kill them, and second they'd instantly lose landing privileges with most airports if their planes keep falling from the sky at random. Airports do not like interruptions due to planes going kaboom.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ah, the famous dick fighting between USA ans USSR (now Russia)...
WAIT!
You imply that they are truthful in general?
-- no sig today
The most tragic thing about that fire exactly the same thing happened in a Russian ground based test years before, but they covered it up and the news never reached NASA. If they had known they could have prevented it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
...Barrel porks YOU!
"If..."
And if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If that's so, why does SpaceX's launch manifest list a bunch of launches for non-government and non-US organizations? They already are "involved with the private sector's use of space".