Even better, it is only spilled fuel, kerosene. Falcon 9's lighter fluid is TEA-TEB, a very toxic, self-igniting fluid which creates the green flame when Falcon 9 engines start.
A current top suspect for initial trigger is solid oxygen in the overwrap around the container causing an explosion by combusting with the overwrap. This would then release the helium explosively and create fire.
It did not need the payload in place, and they used to do it without the payload on top.
With their experience built up and rocket design finally(?) standardized, they judged the risk to the payload was small enough to be worth saving an extra day or so of work to do the test without the payload. This is the first time a payload was or would have been harmed by a static fire on the pad.
Doing the test without the payload means after the test they have to lower the rocket, bring it back into the building to attach the payload, and then take it back out to the pad and run some more tests of the final integration.
The Commercial Resupply Services contract is fixed cost and has had SpaceX supply the ISS 7 times already. At $133 million per mission, a traditional NASA cost-plus contract would have cost much more.
The sentence did NOT imply a sitting USA President was in Cuba DURING the revolution. Just like the 1928 visit being the first since independence does not mean one was there when Cuba received independence.
A cryogenic fuel ICBM is terrible for quickly sending a bomb less than 500 km away. South Korea has no one to target beyond that, unlike North Korea who wishes to threaten the much further USA.
However, it is useful for upstaging North Korea who got to orbit first. Like USA using the Moon Landings to upstage the Sputnik and Gagarin achievements.
the company’s service agreements stipulate a minimum height of at least 50 miles, or 80 kilometers. Whitesides said that has been the case since Virgin Galactic first began selling rides on SpaceShipTwo about nine years ago.
Given their engine troubles, it is not known if it will reach 100km, and they are not required to.
Peanuts were found in the new world, and do not grow in Europe, so there would be no sickness from them until they were heavily imported after the Americas were discovered. After being introduced, many people may have died without it being diagnosed as "peanut allergy". Only recently have we gotten a lot better about keeping people alive who would have quickly died 1 or 2 hundred years ago.
Though I did read an article recently about babies not being exposed to enough 'things' was causing them to be more vulnerable to related things as they grew older, including peanut products.
the software side has been storing up efficiency improvements for a long time. Just get rid of the extras, like bloatware, and hastily programmed apps, and nobody will notice.
Cherry-pick the best possible cases for the latter among the billions of local stars and one can be found. Huge difference between measuring the solid surface and subsurface composition of a very dimly lit object versus measuring how a very strong light changes when going through a gaseous atmosphere.
Reducing cost to orbit is precisely what Musk has been working on for the last 15 years. SpaceX has been reducing the cost, and looks to do it even more with re-use of its current rockets. And it is developing a much larger, cheaper launcher, to be completely re-used, since the vast majority of the cost is in building the things. The Shape Shuttle became a bad design because of politics, not because re-use of chemical rockets cannot work well.
All the tests are testing separate things. It does not matter when they are tested, as long as the work before crewed flights.
3. Test the SuperDracos and overall system ability to quickly get away from a coming explosion. Nothing to do with parachutes, aside from getting enough altitude for future parachutes to work.
2. Test SuperDracos throttle functionality and its damage to Dragon by doing hover and drop tests. No parachutes, and harder than pad abort test.
1. Test the backup system (parachutes) capability if the SuperDracos fail to work at beginning of landing approach. Parachutes are to be backup only, as soon as NASA allows it.
Any given thing should be cheaper now (in real terms) then in the 1960s. And it is...if you look at SpaceX.
They might contract SpaceX to do something but the only realistic route to the first boots on Mars is through NASA or some other nation's equivalent agency.
That is the point. NASA needs companies like SpaceX who are about developing the technology to drastically reduce costs to make the program/mission efficient enough. NASA enables companies to develop the cost-efficient technology, and then those companies' technologies enable NASA do the expensive missions within a lower budget.
They have successfully 'landed' some Falcon 9 first stages onto the sea, for a few seconds. It is not designed strong enough to withstand the ocean's waves, so they break up within a few seconds. Adding more strength to survive the ocean would add too much mass to the rocket.
and catches NASA unprepared. This makes it look like actual Mars mission hardware (precursor) is to be built soon, while also preparing for development of the lunar stations NASA's prime partners (ESA, JAXA, etc) view as higher priority than Mars.
A Dragon launch is/will be about the NASA cost of 2 Soyuz seats, not 1. Though Soyuz seats are a lot cheaper for celebrities, similar to Dragon's cost, somehow.
The boost stage is roughly 70% of the cost of a launch. So, if we're able to reuse it and refly it with minimal work between flights, and customers are comfortable with that - and it might take a few years for customers to get comfortable with that - then obviously there's as much as - ultimately - a 70% reduction from where things are today. - Elon Musk
The boost stage is roughly 70% of the cost of a launch. So, if we're able to reuse it and refly it with minimal work between flights, and customers are comfortable with that - and it might take a few years for customers to get comfortable with that - then obviously there's as much as - ultimately - a 70% reduction from where things are today. - Elon Musk
If they speed up the probe with an extra slingshot, it would arrive at Mars with increased velocity which changes the entry-descent-landing, possibly going beyond what it is designed to handle. The planets might not be aligned correctly for the slingshot at the time(I have not checked). InSight was designed to travel away from the Sun, so it might be damaged by the higher radiation.
A lot of studying, testing, and probably redesigning would be required, which is a lot more funding and time. The humanned mission would be designed early on for the Venus slingshot.
They have always publicly said no to the idea of launch in Texas and land at the Cape, at least for now. Musk even detailed that with Falcon Heavy the side boosters would not be able to reach the Cape and the central core would go too far past Florida.
They have long detailed the plan as try at sea at first and later have it return directly to the original launch area. Although, with some launches of Falcon Heavy they expect to only be able to try landing the central core downrange at sea, if at all.
Slashdot Mirror
A little bit of lighter fluid spilled out
Even better, it is only spilled fuel, kerosene. Falcon 9's lighter fluid is TEA-TEB, a very toxic, self-igniting fluid which creates the green flame when Falcon 9 engines start.
Carter was also an exception, lest we forget the landslide that kicked him out of office.
A current top suspect for initial trigger is solid oxygen in the overwrap around the container causing an explosion by combusting with the overwrap. This would then release the helium explosively and create fire.
Wish I had mod points to give. Cannot fathom why previous poster would think there was no RP-1.
It did not need the payload in place, and they used to do it without the payload on top.
With their experience built up and rocket design finally(?) standardized, they judged the risk to the payload was small enough to be worth saving an extra day or so of work to do the test without the payload. This is the first time a payload was or would have been harmed by a static fire on the pad.
Doing the test without the payload means after the test they have to lower the rocket, bring it back into the building to attach the payload, and then take it back out to the pad and run some more tests of the final integration.
No doubt if he was pardoned like Nixon, someone would use an "officially different" charge once in US control, even though part of the same events.
The Commercial Resupply Services contract is fixed cost and has had SpaceX supply the ISS 7 times already. At $133 million per mission, a traditional NASA cost-plus contract would have cost much more.
The sentence did NOT imply a sitting USA President was in Cuba DURING the revolution. Just like the 1928 visit being the first since independence does not mean one was there when Cuba received independence.
A cryogenic fuel ICBM is terrible for quickly sending a bomb less than 500 km away. South Korea has no one to target beyond that, unlike North Korea who wishes to threaten the much further USA.
However, it is useful for upstaging North Korea who got to orbit first. Like USA using the Moon Landings to upstage the Sputnik and Gagarin achievements.
the company’s service agreements stipulate a minimum height of at least 50 miles, or 80 kilometers. Whitesides said that has been the case since Virgin Galactic first began selling rides on SpaceShipTwo about nine years ago.
Given their engine troubles, it is not known if it will reach 100km, and they are not required to.
Peanuts were found in the new world, and do not grow in Europe, so there would be no sickness from them until they were heavily imported after the Americas were discovered. After being introduced, many people may have died without it being diagnosed as "peanut allergy". Only recently have we gotten a lot better about keeping people alive who would have quickly died 1 or 2 hundred years ago.
Though I did read an article recently about babies not being exposed to enough 'things' was causing them to be more vulnerable to related things as they grew older, including peanut products.
the software side has been storing up efficiency improvements for a long time. Just get rid of the extras, like bloatware, and hastily programmed apps, and nobody will notice.
Cherry-pick the best possible cases for the latter among the billions of local stars and one can be found. Huge difference between measuring the solid surface and subsurface composition of a very dimly lit object versus measuring how a very strong light changes when going through a gaseous atmosphere.
Reducing cost to orbit is precisely what Musk has been working on for the last 15 years. SpaceX has been reducing the cost, and looks to do it even more with re-use of its current rockets. And it is developing a much larger, cheaper launcher, to be completely re-used, since the vast majority of the cost is in building the things. The Shape Shuttle became a bad design because of politics, not because re-use of chemical rockets cannot work well.
All the tests are testing separate things. It does not matter when they are tested, as long as the work before crewed flights.
3. Test the SuperDracos and overall system ability to quickly get away from a coming explosion. Nothing to do with parachutes, aside from getting enough altitude for future parachutes to work.
2. Test SuperDracos throttle functionality and its damage to Dragon by doing hover and drop tests. No parachutes, and harder than pad abort test.
1. Test the backup system (parachutes) capability if the SuperDracos fail to work at beginning of landing approach. Parachutes are to be backup only, as soon as NASA allows it.
Any given thing should be cheaper now (in real terms) then in the 1960s. And it is...if you look at SpaceX.
They might contract SpaceX to do something but the only realistic route to the first boots on Mars is through NASA or some other nation's equivalent agency.
That is the point. NASA needs companies like SpaceX who are about developing the technology to drastically reduce costs to make the program/mission efficient enough. NASA enables companies to develop the cost-efficient technology, and then those companies' technologies enable NASA do the expensive missions within a lower budget.
They have successfully 'landed' some Falcon 9 first stages onto the sea, for a few seconds. It is not designed strong enough to withstand the ocean's waves, so they break up within a few seconds. Adding more strength to survive the ocean would add too much mass to the rocket.
EEZ can reach up to 370 km radius. This gives Ascension Island over 430,000 sq km. The UK is about 244,000 sq km of land.
For a while the distance of control was based on how far your cannon could shoot, but that does not work when you can send a cannonball to orbit.
and catches NASA unprepared. This makes it look like actual Mars mission hardware (precursor) is to be built soon, while also preparing for development of the lunar stations NASA's prime partners (ESA, JAXA, etc) view as higher priority than Mars.
A Dragon launch is/will be about the NASA cost of 2 Soyuz seats, not 1. Though Soyuz seats are a lot cheaper for celebrities, similar to Dragon's cost, somehow.
The boost stage is roughly 70% of the cost of a launch. So, if we're able to reuse it and refly it with minimal work between flights, and customers are comfortable with that - and it might take a few years for customers to get comfortable with that - then obviously there's as much as - ultimately - a 70% reduction from where things are today. - Elon Musk
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-press-conference-at-the-national-press-club-2014-04-25
So even with launch and other non-stage-specific costs factored in, the first to second stage cost ratio is no where near 6-1.
The boost stage is roughly 70% of the cost of a launch. So, if we're able to reuse it and refly it with minimal work between flights, and customers are comfortable with that - and it might take a few years for customers to get comfortable with that - then obviously there's as much as - ultimately - a 70% reduction from where things are today. - Elon Musk
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-press-conference-at-the-national-press-club-2014-04-25
Must wait until 2018 for planets to align for a Venus slingshot, which means it is useless for launching the probe earlier.
If they speed up the probe with an extra slingshot, it would arrive at Mars with increased velocity which changes the entry-descent-landing, possibly going beyond what it is designed to handle. The planets might not be aligned correctly for the slingshot at the time(I have not checked). InSight was designed to travel away from the Sun, so it might be damaged by the higher radiation.
A lot of studying, testing, and probably redesigning would be required, which is a lot more funding and time. The humanned mission would be designed early on for the Venus slingshot.
They have always publicly said no to the idea of launch in Texas and land at the Cape, at least for now. Musk even detailed that with Falcon Heavy the side boosters would not be able to reach the Cape and the central core would go too far past Florida.
They have long detailed the plan as try at sea at first and later have it return directly to the original launch area. Although, with some launches of Falcon Heavy they expect to only be able to try landing the central core downrange at sea, if at all.