Add to that that that the solar panels are not designed to be easily removed from Dragon / installed to ISS.
The replacement of the optical module to allow Hubble to be saved wasn't designed to be changed in orbit either so it's possible but then, the Hubble operation took months of preparation and billions of $$$. The marginal addition of a few % of electrical generation that would need major ESA work every Dragon launch isn't just worth it.
Because Dragon still needs them as the onboard batteries are not of sufficient size to last from ISS uncoupling all the way down to splashdown. Because adding them to ISS would take more work than their marginal addition would bring.
You'll probably have to wait for Dragon 2 to see that and Space-X will almost certainly perform the first test with with another dummy payload like the wheel of cheese they put in the first Dragon before Nasa accepts it's use for returning anything from ISS.
Dragon has flown to ISS on multiple occasions but this will be the first time that a Dragon capsule that has previously flown to ISS is being launched for a second visit.
So XS-1 is the flip side of the X-37, instead of a reusable payload, it's a reusable booster for light launches but it'll never be built in quantity and thus the dangled $5M/launch will in all probability never happen because it presupposes a rapid & regular launch regime. It'll have the occasional operational launch but will spend most of it's time as an expensive hangar queen, to be used to repopulate the USG's stable of Sats in case an adversary starts taking them out.
OK, so it's a light launcher (thanks for calling me on that - i missed it).
That brings up a whole new set of remarks/questions though: The XS-1 is seeking to be an actor in the light satellite market that Electron (for one) is targeting, that Space-X abandoned after a single Falcon-1 commercial launch & that BO won't even look at. It's true that there have been noises about sats being miniaturised and no longer having to be as big to have equivalent performance and that the more pertinent strangle point is being able to launch without having to wait 5 years to find a compatible ride to orbit as a secondary payload without it costing an inordinate amount of money. Thats something the XS-1 adresses quite clearly but the light sat market won't really exist until these inexpensive, "low latency" launchers starts lofting paying customers si it might not be as big a market as they hope.
It's interesting that Space-X & BO plan on going big to go reusable and cheaper while ULA is planning on going the opposite way.
I do get your point that there are so many things that are unneeded in XS-1 compared to SLS: XS-1 will be Unmanned so all the human baggage like life support, seats, Space toilets & the themselves astronauts are unneeded. No multi-ton Orbit-to earth payload recovery capability. The Flyback booster doesn't achieve orbit so there's 150000lb of "payload" that get lopped off and a _much_ lighter TPS is needed for a booster than to return from orbit. Etc...
I _do_ still question the use of shuttle derived H2/Lox engines for the first stage for much the same reasons I gave initially. As a reusable, RP-1 has issues with coking but Methane that both Space-X & BO have chosen for the future would have been a much better choice technically. The only reason for going with shuttle derived engines is that it keeps Rocketdyne in the market but on that path I also see the madness that affected SLS : Bloat and Pork.
If only ULA had used the $1B/year they were being handed by the USG to "preserve launch capability" to begin working on this 5 years ago.
Losing the Shuttle's cargo bay & manned section won't help (enough) to bring their launch costs down to their announced costs of $5M/Launch. Delta IV uses H2/Lox as well, doesn't have wings that'll impose their own weight & drag penalties and yet it still needs 2-4 costly strap-on boosters for many payloads. They're claiming just $5M per launch, without recovering the second stage nor (as far as I have seen) the payload shroud. Hell, Space-X is now working on recovering their shrouds because they cost $1-2M.
It's clearly a better system than SLS and probably better costwise than AV & D4, it's just that I suspect they're vastly overselling what's achievable ($$$/launch) with it much like the Shuttle did in the 80s. They may need to oversell for for their continued existence, as had they announced costs globally equivalent with Space-X's current costs (what I suspect this is capable of) they'd be little point to developing it as we already _know_ that those costs are achievable with F9.
Who is paying the development costs? ULA? The USG?
It's not a scramjet as it uses Shuttle derived AR-22 H2/LOX rocket engines.
The problem is that either there is something missing in the released info or the XS-1 will never be able to deliver the claimed performance. H2/LOX is a great upper stage combination but a very poor first stage as liquid H2 has so little density (1/12th the density of RP-1) that it needs massive (heavy) tanks. The Shuttle needed SRBs to get off the ground for the very same reason.
So where are the missing SRBs, where do they attach and how much is throwing them away every launch adding to the claimed $5 million per launch? *
* The Shuttle's claimed reusability of it's SRB's was a farce. The cost of refurbishing the SRBs was higher than just expending them would have been.
Not agreeing with you != Not reading nor understanding what you've written. The problem is that you either refuse or cannot describe why Putin's Russia maps better to an Elective Monarchy rather than a Fascist Dictatorship
As neither you nor dunkelfalke have ever given a clear definition, the point you and dunkelfalke were attempting to make is indeed of no interest whatsoever.
So sayeth the Huawei sockpuppet. After seeing their smartphones I have little confidence that they will achieve the high end they aspire to - at least for 4-5 years
Hadn't noticed that those replying to my posts had changed but then your claim of moving goalposts is even less coherent as you only came in a post or two ago.
As for my definitions being crap, i referred to Wikipedia which, for non obscure subjects like fascist dictatorships is in phase with other references. You appear to contest that Russia is a FD but other than it being your unexplained opinion you refuse to say why. If you disagree you need to explain giving more than "My unsupported opinion is that"...
Verhoeven never made it to (or was incapable of understanding) the books more subtle points, and in particular that people only have the rights that they are willing to defend. Even considering it completely divorced from Heinlein's Starship troopers the movies fails to stand on it's own.
I stated that Putin's Russia is closer to a Fascist Dictatorship than a monarchy and referenced the Wikipedia paragraphs that do indeed make that apparent.
You call Russia an elected monarchy without ever stating what common element there is between elected monarchies & Russia. I ask you to detail how elected monarchies are arguably a better definition than fascist dictatorships and you sidestep, claiming moving goalposts. Given that I'm the only one who clearly defined what my definition is & why it is more apt, the goalpost manoeuvring is all on your your end of the field.
That the Swedish charges qualify as rape has been settled. Read the U.K. High court proceedings posted elsewhere in comments.
He cannot be condemned by Sweden until he shows up in court (& the interview is a necessary prerequisite in the Swedish justice system).
Is he guilty? He broke his word, jumped bail and uses laughably false conspiracy theories (Easier to extradite from Sweden than from the U.K? Really?!?) Add to that he refused to allow the interview to take place unless all questions are detailed beforehand with no follow-ups allowed. That all adds up and saps his credibility. So yeah, IMO the accusations are far more credible than his claims of innocence.
You need not agree with my opinion that he's a rapist but not that he is dishonestly fleeing a rape charge. Thus there is no quandary and the problem is that you're either voluntarily blinding yourself to the facts or just too dense to understand them.
What I said was "It wasn't until Putin was coming into power that Russia began to systematically kill and repress their reporters". Does that mean thet no reporters were targeted before he ruled unrivalled? No. Does that mean that I condone all actions by Russian leaders before his rise? No. Does that mean that you're dreaming up straw men? Very much so.
You go ahead and play with your straw men all by yourself, they're your fantasies, not mine..
Never said that there weren't exceptions. Are you trying to say that all elective monarchies have a supposed similar political composition that Putin's Russia matches better than it does a fascist dictatorship? Because otherwise, the point you're attempting to make is excessively obscure.
Yeltins Russia was highly corrupt but It wasn't until Putin was coming into power that Russia began to systematically kill and repress their reporters.
Your citation of "extraordinary rendition" doesn't refute what squiggleslash wrote. If Obama or Bush for that matter had wanted Assange through external rendition, they would have had him. That they didn't just proves Assange's justifications to be straw men.
Elective Monarchies are a transitory state, besides Fascist Dictatorship by the former/current members of the USSR's Intelligence communities is clearly a better fit. Current day Russia hits all the high and low notes of Fascism.
From Wikipedia: Fascism/fæzm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce... Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
The U.K. can and has refused to extradite to the U.S. They might have done so for him before. Now, no. That's why I mentioned the goodwill of the U.K. Justice system and general population. Maybe no great loss there as you point out but it's still his loss and for a man who's only rival as raison d'être = living in the public eye is Kim K, that's saying something.
With all the confusion over the issue, I don't think they think it's that cut-and-dried, but I haven't seen polls on the issue. You?
Directly, no but the first hand knowledge of how Wikileaks was treated for leaking the manipulated data from the Macron campaign by the press & public was telling. No French press was normal as it came during the last minute press blackout & would have been illegal but from social media & since then, the only people defending XL & Assange were some FN loyalists. That's a massive change from a few years ago.
That's probably the most damning accusation, but it has nothing to do with the rape accusation, unless you know differently.
Sorry, this is a non-event. The only real events are when the Anointed One, the divine Assange seizes the microphone to render the holy truths: ME ME ME ME!!!!
The point is that Assange will be justifiably arrested for jumping bail instead of respecting his given word. But then for the true believers, the divine Assange can commit no crime, do no evil, speak no untruth. Yea, verily, he IS the Anointed One!
I walked into a jail a few years ago. You're far from free to enter/exit as you like. Lots of making sure that you are who you say you are. Walked in, followed the declared rules, replaced the firewall & walked out. That last bit is going to take longer for Assange.
Slashdot Mirror
Add to that that that the solar panels are not designed to be easily removed from Dragon / installed to ISS.
The replacement of the optical module to allow Hubble to be saved wasn't designed to be changed in orbit either so it's possible but then, the Hubble operation took months of preparation and billions of $$$. The marginal addition of a few % of electrical generation that would need major ESA work every Dragon launch isn't just worth it.
Because Dragon still needs them as the onboard batteries are not of sufficient size to last from ISS uncoupling all the way down to splashdown.
Because adding them to ISS would take more work than their marginal addition would bring.
You'll probably have to wait for Dragon 2 to see that and Space-X will almost certainly perform the first test with with another dummy payload like the wheel of cheese they put in the first Dragon before Nasa accepts it's use for returning anything from ISS.
Dragon has flown to ISS on multiple occasions but this will be the first time that a Dragon capsule that has previously flown to ISS is being launched for a second visit.
So XS-1 is the flip side of the X-37, instead of a reusable payload, it's a reusable booster for light launches but it'll never be built in quantity and thus the dangled $5M/launch will in all probability never happen because it presupposes a rapid & regular launch regime. It'll have the occasional operational launch but will spend most of it's time as an expensive hangar queen, to be used to repopulate the USG's stable of Sats in case an adversary starts taking them out.
They could have said so...
Cheers
OK, so it's a light launcher (thanks for calling me on that - i missed it).
That brings up a whole new set of remarks/questions though:
The XS-1 is seeking to be an actor in the light satellite market that Electron (for one) is targeting, that Space-X abandoned after a single Falcon-1 commercial launch & that BO won't even look at. It's true that there have been noises about sats being miniaturised and no longer having to be as big to have equivalent performance and that the more pertinent strangle point is being able to launch without having to wait 5 years to find a compatible ride to orbit as a secondary payload without it costing an inordinate amount of money. Thats something the XS-1 adresses quite clearly but the light sat market won't really exist until these inexpensive, "low latency" launchers starts lofting paying customers si it might not be as big a market as they hope.
It's interesting that Space-X & BO plan on going big to go reusable and cheaper while ULA is planning on going the opposite way.
I do get your point that there are so many things that are unneeded in XS-1 compared to SLS: XS-1 will be Unmanned so all the human baggage like life support, seats, Space toilets & the themselves astronauts are unneeded. No multi-ton Orbit-to earth payload recovery capability. The Flyback booster doesn't achieve orbit so there's 150000lb of "payload" that get lopped off and a _much_ lighter TPS is needed for a booster than to return from orbit. Etc...
I _do_ still question the use of shuttle derived H2/Lox engines for the first stage for much the same reasons I gave initially. As a reusable, RP-1 has issues with coking but Methane that both Space-X & BO have chosen for the future would have been a much better choice technically. The only reason for going with shuttle derived engines is that it keeps Rocketdyne in the market but on that path I also see the madness that affected SLS : Bloat and Pork.
If only ULA had used the $1B/year they were being handed by the USG to "preserve launch capability" to begin working on this 5 years ago.
Losing the Shuttle's cargo bay & manned section won't help (enough) to bring their launch costs down to their announced costs of $5M/Launch. Delta IV uses H2/Lox as well, doesn't have wings that'll impose their own weight & drag penalties and yet it still needs 2-4 costly strap-on boosters for many payloads. They're claiming just $5M per launch, without recovering the second stage nor (as far as I have seen) the payload shroud. Hell, Space-X is now working on recovering their shrouds because they cost $1-2M.
It's clearly a better system than SLS and probably better costwise than AV & D4, it's just that I suspect they're vastly overselling what's achievable ($$$/launch) with it much like the Shuttle did in the 80s. They may need to oversell for for their continued existence, as had they announced costs globally equivalent with Space-X's current costs (what I suspect this is capable of) they'd be little point to developing it as we already _know_ that those costs are achievable with F9.
Who is paying the development costs? ULA? The USG?
It's not a scramjet as it uses Shuttle derived AR-22 H2/LOX rocket engines.
The problem is that either there is something missing in the released info or the XS-1 will never be able to deliver the claimed performance. H2/LOX is a great upper stage combination but a very poor first stage as liquid H2 has so little density (1/12th the density of RP-1) that it needs massive (heavy) tanks. The Shuttle needed SRBs to get off the ground for the very same reason.
So where are the missing SRBs, where do they attach and how much is throwing them away every launch adding to the claimed $5 million per launch? *
* The Shuttle's claimed reusability of it's SRB's was a farce. The cost of refurbishing the SRBs was higher than just expending them would have been.
Not agreeing with you != Not reading nor understanding what you've written. The problem is that you either refuse or cannot describe why Putin's Russia maps better to an Elective Monarchy rather than a Fascist Dictatorship
As neither you nor dunkelfalke have ever given a clear definition, the point you and dunkelfalke were attempting to make is indeed of no interest whatsoever.
So sayeth the Huawei sockpuppet. After seeing their smartphones I have little confidence that they will achieve the high end they aspire to - at least for 4-5 years
Hadn't noticed that those replying to my posts had changed but then your claim of moving goalposts is even less coherent as you only came in a post or two ago.
As for my definitions being crap, i referred to Wikipedia which, for non obscure subjects like fascist dictatorships is in phase with other references. You appear to contest that Russia is a FD but other than it being your unexplained opinion you refuse to say why. If you disagree you need to explain giving more than "My unsupported opinion is that"...
Verhoeven never made it to (or was incapable of understanding) the books more subtle points, and in particular that people only have the rights that they are willing to defend. Even considering it completely divorced from Heinlein's Starship troopers the movies fails to stand on it's own.
I stated that Putin's Russia is closer to a Fascist Dictatorship than a monarchy and referenced the Wikipedia paragraphs that do indeed make that apparent.
You call Russia an elected monarchy without ever stating what common element there is between elected monarchies & Russia. I ask you to detail how elected monarchies are arguably a better definition than fascist dictatorships and you sidestep, claiming moving goalposts. Given that I'm the only one who clearly defined what my definition is & why it is more apt, the goalpost manoeuvring is all on your your end of the field.
Only to mentally deficient Anonymous Cowards such as yourself.
Nah, sniffing strange substances just turns people into drooling Anonymous Cowards such as you.
That the Swedish charges qualify as rape has been settled. Read the U.K. High court proceedings posted elsewhere in comments.
He cannot be condemned by Sweden until he shows up in court (& the interview is a necessary prerequisite in the Swedish justice system).
Is he guilty? He broke his word, jumped bail and uses laughably false conspiracy theories (Easier to extradite from Sweden than from the U.K? Really?!?) Add to that he refused to allow the interview to take place unless all questions are detailed beforehand with no follow-ups allowed. That all adds up and saps his credibility. So yeah, IMO the accusations are far more credible than his claims of innocence.
You need not agree with my opinion that he's a rapist but not that he is dishonestly fleeing a rape charge. Thus there is no quandary and the problem is that you're either voluntarily blinding yourself to the facts or just too dense to understand them.
What I said was "It wasn't until Putin was coming into power that Russia began to systematically kill and repress their reporters".
Does that mean thet no reporters were targeted before he ruled unrivalled? No.
Does that mean that I condone all actions by Russian leaders before his rise? No.
Does that mean that you're dreaming up straw men? Very much so.
You go ahead and play with your straw men all by yourself, they're your fantasies, not mine..
Never said that there weren't exceptions. Are you trying to say that all elective monarchies have a supposed similar political composition that Putin's Russia matches better than it does a fascist dictatorship? Because otherwise, the point you're attempting to make is excessively obscure.
Yeltins Russia was highly corrupt but It wasn't until Putin was coming into power that Russia began to systematically kill and repress their reporters.
Your citation of "extraordinary rendition" doesn't refute what squiggleslash wrote. If Obama or Bush for that matter had wanted Assange through external rendition, they would have had him. That they didn't just proves Assange's justifications to be straw men.
Elective Monarchies are a transitory state, besides Fascist Dictatorship by the former/current members of the USSR's Intelligence communities is clearly a better fit. Current day Russia hits all the high and low notes of Fascism.
From Wikipedia: /fæzm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce ...
Fascism
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
No great loss there.
The U.K. can and has refused to extradite to the U.S. They might have done so for him before. Now, no. That's why I mentioned the goodwill of the U.K. Justice system and general population. Maybe no great loss there as you point out but it's still his loss and for a man who's only rival as raison d'être = living in the public eye is Kim K, that's saying something.
With all the confusion over the issue, I don't think they think it's that cut-and-dried, but I haven't seen polls on the issue. You?
Directly, no but the first hand knowledge of how Wikileaks was treated for leaking the manipulated data from the Macron campaign by the press & public was telling. No French press was normal as it came during the last minute press blackout & would have been illegal but from social media & since then, the only people defending XL & Assange were some FN loyalists. That's a massive change from a few years ago.
That's probably the most damning accusation, but it has nothing to do with the rape accusation, unless you know differently.
It goes to character, your Honor...
Sorry, this is a non-event. The only real events are when the Anointed One, the divine Assange seizes the microphone to render the holy truths: ME ME ME ME!!!!
The point is that Assange will be justifiably arrested for jumping bail instead of respecting his given word. But then for the true believers, the divine Assange can commit no crime, do no evil, speak no untruth. Yea, verily, he IS the Anointed One!
I walked into a jail a few years ago. You're far from free to enter/exit as you like. Lots of making sure that you are who you say you are. Walked in, followed the declared rules, replaced the firewall & walked out. That last bit is going to take longer for Assange.
Lest we forget: His present conditions and the preconditions imposed during the interview are entirely of his own making.