Actually, I believe that they met them of the time. That was why I did not say the first one. But, you may have a good point. My guess is that SpaceX will likely be found guilty of some issue no matter how much they work at it. Sad, but the safety council will probably want to hold something (politics and all). Funny thing, is that Constellation was already headed towards KNOWN compromises.
First, they did not put 9 engines together and simply test it. If you will recall (or simply google), you will find that they started with 3, then 5, then 9. My understanding is that they did have issues. In fact, one guy that I talked to said that even in the test runs, they have had engine fail (apparently, engine out means massive outage to many of the engineers). They have also adjusted various items, things that were not accounted for. HOWEVER, they still run it on the ground for the length multiple times.
Personally, I would be amazed if they had a failure similar to falcon 1-1.
However, I would not be surprised to see something minor such as an engine failing part way up. But hey, that is the point of this launch.
They are the important ones. BA will give us the private space stations and Mr. B wants to be on the moon. They devote a lot of effort to not just figuring our the station, but how to land and protect these on the moon. Hopefully, they are working with the other companies esp. Blue Origin, L-Mart, and Boeing (all with stakes on landing on the moon).
Actually, I give the chance of success to be quite high. First, they have done the testing of separation, monitoring, nav, etc via Falcon 1. Likewise, they tested Merlin on the Falcon 1. Basically, the 2'nd stage is nothing but a stage 1 of Falcon 1. So, that leaves running the engines in parallel. Well, the folks down in Texas will tell you that SpaceX did a number of tests of that. Never had an issue with it. Then add the fact that NASA, and DOD are all working with SpaceX to make certain that this bird flies right, and I think that it is a pretty safe bet that this one will be right. I do have to say, that I would have preferred more than that just 2 successful falcon 1 launches. But, then again, SpaceX does have other customers who do not want their schedule known. IOW, it is quite possible that there were more launches.
Falcon 9 was developed with Human Ratings. The others were not. In fact, Falcon 9 may actually be the first LV designed with human launch being the biggest part of it in nearly 40 years.
Delta and Atlas were fully funded by the feds. Falcon was mostly funded by Musk. Falcon 9 is 100% new. Delta/Atlas are one offs from many decades ago. BIG difference.
Just the opposite. If this works and CONgress approves of Bolden's plan, then NASA will get an increase. If Falcon 9 fails, then NASA and Bolden will have a VERY DIFFICULT time arguing to CONgress to kill Constellation. As it is, the 1999, and 2002 CONgress did a great deal of damage to NASA, but may have helped make the case. the neo-cons of the time forbade NASA to develop transhab or VASIMR. Thankfully, NASA spun those off into separate companies and helped fund one of them. Bigelow and Adastra are now making the case for the new set-up.
Ares 1-X was an SRB with a payload and a few minor mods. IOW, not a new rocket. Falcon 9 is the first truly new rocket that America has had in quite some time.
The 133 is for everything. And the cargo contract was designed to help get USA private space re-launched.
OTH, The 120 for Ariane is base price. The real launch is about 160-200 million. In the end, EU will fly Ariane and some private space, and America and most likely most of Private Space will fly SpaceX, L-Mart, Boeing, and OSC. Once BA goes up there, I think that will see several launches per month from the American side.
Cleaner than Coal. Can be used in mobile applications (i.e. semi's, cars, etc) if you ignore the costs. In a home/business, the heat can be used to heat AND cool the home.
However, the first thought is, how long does it last? If it never dies, and a home version cost 50K or less, then it is VERY useful. OTH, if it dies every 10 years (or more likely in 6 months ), then it is a rip-off at just about any price.
Not really. With the old plan, we would not be heading back to the moon before 2025 (most likely later). With this approach, we are using Private money to get us there.
Funny that you speak about that. I recall W blasting Clinton for the NK agreement as well as for dealing with Iran. And here we now stand with NK having done supposedly 2 nukes and Iran close. And you think that it all occurred in the last year? Really?
Neo-cons like you are SOOOO FUCKING STUPID. Sadly, there are far too many indies that will listen to idiots like you. Next you will be blaming Obama for increasing the Debt, while ignoring the fact that 80% of it is from republicans (reagan and W accounted for 60% of it).
And no doubt that intellectuals like yourself are busy watching Wallace and Grommit 24x7.
We will be heading back for the moon before the end of the decade.
Very sad, actually. I am one of many opposed to what Chinese gov. is doing, but to be racists against the people is a very different thing. Sad that kids are being raised this way.
I am going to skip doing mods on this article.
Google is interested in many of these, but their investments have been interesting. In particular, they are supporting Potter Drilling and just about anything to do with geo-thermal. I am waiting for them to make some major investments into it (On the order of 100's of millions or even billions). The other one that they are exploring is Solar Thermal. Combine that with Coal plants around the world, and they could lower the coal used by 10-20%. That would likely mean a 10% lowering of CO2 all while making loads of money.
Google is NOT evil, HOWEVER, I wonder what will happen when the top ppl leave? I think in terms of HP, IBM and GE today. All were once decent companies. Now, IMHO, they are TOTAL BUNK.
IF they can make good stuff and pay their people less, it will not be long before a middle class develops and maybe we can sell to them.
ZERO chance of that. The reason is that CHina has their money fixed to ours (7 rmbs to 1 dollars) when best estimates are that if China frees the money, that it would be 1 to 1 or possible 2 dollars to 1 rmb. Likewise, China has a number of trade barriers in places, subsidizes, and dumps here. Basically, China is in an one sided cold war with us, using economy as the main instrument. I have noticed that Obama is ramping up stuff with China, we will see if he means it, or if he will be a W and just lie.
Yes, they are. The problem is that China's energy use is growing faster than the amount of power that they brought on-line via none-fossil fuel. Each WEEK, they bring on line 1-2 NEW.5GW COAL PLANTS. YES, EACH WEEK. 3 Gorges was good. In fact, if they build out all of their hydro and do not suffer any water loses from AGW, they can theoretically get 15% of their final amount. Double what America has. In the end, those hydro and nuke plants and AE will not matter. China's fossil fuel usage will go up unless something hits them HARD.
Electric Vehicles using 100% Coal, even with its issues is about the same as using Gas, Diesel, or Natural Gas. I am NOT advocating using that. I am saying that the WORST that it will be is about the same. Now, as to the SO2 and NO(x), we scrub the majority of that out. Hg is a different story. Because of the scrubbers on the west, as well as mostly using "cleaner" coal (as in from the ground), the west pollutes less than countries like China. Right now, China puts out about 1/2 of the Hg that is emitted. Worse, it is growing, not slowing down. Japan is suffering big from it. So is the pacific.
In the end, Electricity will come from many sources. Even in the US, we only use 48% Coal (and dropping) and 20% NG. That means that WORST CASE for electric vehicles is that they are about 70% of the pollution of ICE. That is a HUGE improvement.
That is already taken into consideration. Basically, the worst case scenario is better than the best case ICE situation. The motors do not require transmissions and run at near 100% efficiency. Batteries have a high efficiency, though they are economically expensive.
The biggest loses in electricity is transmissions, but that is still 7% or so. And THAT will be changed over the next decade (in the west) to be less.
OTH, ICE OPERATE BELOW 40% (typically 25%) with a lose of 60-75%. That does not include the loses in areas such as moving the fuel around, vapors, etc. The loses of moving the fuel and vapors alone are more than 5%.
So the answer is, that fossil fuel can never improve much even if using Natural Gas, Diesel or hydrogen (of which more than 95% is from Methane because it is much cheaper). OTH, Electricical devices WILL continue to improve because of cost of Storage and Transmission will drop.
If the electricity comes from 100% pure coal, then it is nearly 100% swap (assuming that all cars are kept tuned up). However, even with 100% coal, you have a big advantage. You can
dump the CO2 into the ground.
Run it through a green house.
Run it through an algae farm.
etc.
Basically, it is much easier said to clean up a single source than millions of tiny ones.
With that said, electricity is actually better, because few countries rely 100% on Fossil Fuel for their Electricity. China probably has the most at more than 90% Fossil Fueled (and growing). America is less than 50% Coal (and dropping) with another 20% Natural gas (rising, but not that fast). Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there (???? not sure about that).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I believe that they met them of the time. That was why I did not say the first one. But, you may have a good point. My guess is that SpaceX will likely be found guilty of some issue no matter how much they work at it. Sad, but the safety council will probably want to hold something (politics and all). Funny thing, is that Constellation was already headed towards KNOWN compromises.
First, they did not put 9 engines together and simply test it. If you will recall (or simply google), you will find that they started with 3, then 5, then 9. My understanding is that they did have issues. In fact, one guy that I talked to said that even in the test runs, they have had engine fail (apparently, engine out means massive outage to many of the engineers). They have also adjusted various items, things that were not accounted for. HOWEVER, they still run it on the ground for the length multiple times.
Personally, I would be amazed if they had a failure similar to falcon 1-1. However, I would not be surprised to see something minor such as an engine failing part way up. But hey, that is the point of this launch.
The RD-180 was developed by Russia in early to mid 80's, while the RS-68 is from early 90's. All pretty old.
They are the important ones. BA will give us the private space stations and Mr. B wants to be on the moon. They devote a lot of effort to not just figuring our the station, but how to land and protect these on the moon. Hopefully, they are working with the other companies esp. Blue Origin, L-Mart, and Boeing (all with stakes on landing on the moon).
Actually, I give the chance of success to be quite high. First, they have done the testing of separation, monitoring, nav, etc via Falcon 1. Likewise, they tested Merlin on the Falcon 1. Basically, the 2'nd stage is nothing but a stage 1 of Falcon 1. So, that leaves running the engines in parallel. Well, the folks down in Texas will tell you that SpaceX did a number of tests of that. Never had an issue with it. Then add the fact that NASA, and DOD are all working with SpaceX to make certain that this bird flies right, and I think that it is a pretty safe bet that this one will be right. I do have to say, that I would have preferred more than that just 2 successful falcon 1 launches. But, then again, SpaceX does have other customers who do not want their schedule known. IOW, it is quite possible that there were more launches.
Falcon 9 was developed with Human Ratings. The others were not. In fact, Falcon 9 may actually be the first LV designed with human launch being the biggest part of it in nearly 40 years.
Delta and Atlas were fully funded by the feds. Falcon was mostly funded by Musk. Falcon 9 is 100% new. Delta/Atlas are one offs from many decades ago. BIG difference.
Just the opposite. If this works and CONgress approves of Bolden's plan, then NASA will get an increase. If Falcon 9 fails, then NASA and Bolden will have a VERY DIFFICULT time arguing to CONgress to kill Constellation. As it is, the 1999, and 2002 CONgress did a great deal of damage to NASA, but may have helped make the case. the neo-cons of the time forbade NASA to develop transhab or VASIMR. Thankfully, NASA spun those off into separate companies and helped fund one of them. Bigelow and Adastra are now making the case for the new set-up.
Ares 1-X was an SRB with a payload and a few minor mods. IOW, not a new rocket. Falcon 9 is the first truly new rocket that America has had in quite some time.
The 133 is for everything. And the cargo contract was designed to help get USA private space re-launched.
OTH, The 120 for Ariane is base price. The real launch is about 160-200 million. In the end, EU will fly Ariane and some private space, and America and most likely most of Private Space will fly SpaceX, L-Mart, Boeing, and OSC. Once BA goes up there, I think that will see several launches per month from the American side.
Cleaner than Coal. Can be used in mobile applications (i.e. semi's, cars, etc) if you ignore the costs. In a home/business, the heat can be used to heat AND cool the home.
However, the first thought is, how long does it last? If it never dies, and a home version cost 50K or less, then it is VERY useful. OTH, if it dies every 10 years (or more likely in 6 months ), then it is a rip-off at just about any price.
Not really. With the old plan, we would not be heading back to the moon before 2025 (most likely later). With this approach, we are using Private money to get us there.
Funny that you speak about that. I recall W blasting Clinton for the NK agreement as well as for dealing with Iran. And here we now stand with NK having done supposedly 2 nukes and Iran close. And you think that it all occurred in the last year? Really? Neo-cons like you are SOOOO FUCKING STUPID. Sadly, there are far too many indies that will listen to idiots like you. Next you will be blaming Obama for increasing the Debt, while ignoring the fact that 80% of it is from republicans (reagan and W accounted for 60% of it).
And no doubt that intellectuals like yourself are busy watching Wallace and Grommit 24x7. We will be heading back for the moon before the end of the decade.
Oh cool. I could swear that I have seen that same posting here before.
Very sad, actually. I am one of many opposed to what Chinese gov. is doing, but to be racists against the people is a very different thing. Sad that kids are being raised this way.
I am going to skip doing mods on this article.
Google is interested in many of these, but their investments have been interesting. In particular, they are supporting Potter Drilling and just about anything to do with geo-thermal. I am waiting for them to make some major investments into it (On the order of 100's of millions or even billions). The other one that they are exploring is Solar Thermal. Combine that with Coal plants around the world, and they could lower the coal used by 10-20%. That would likely mean a 10% lowering of CO2 all while making loads of money.
Google is NOT evil, HOWEVER, I wonder what will happen when the top ppl leave? I think in terms of HP, IBM and GE today. All were once decent companies. Now, IMHO, they are TOTAL BUNK.
IF they can make good stuff and pay their people less, it will not be long before a middle class develops and maybe we can sell to them.
ZERO chance of that. The reason is that CHina has their money fixed to ours (7 rmbs to 1 dollars) when best estimates are that if China frees the money, that it would be 1 to 1 or possible 2 dollars to 1 rmb. Likewise, China has a number of trade barriers in places, subsidizes, and dumps here. Basically, China is in an one sided cold war with us, using economy as the main instrument. I have noticed that Obama is ramping up stuff with China, we will see if he means it, or if he will be a W and just lie.
Yes, they are. The problem is that China's energy use is growing faster than the amount of power that they brought on-line via none-fossil fuel. Each WEEK, they bring on line 1-2 NEW .5GW COAL PLANTS. YES, EACH WEEK. 3 Gorges was good. In fact, if they build out all of their hydro and do not suffer any water loses from AGW, they can theoretically get 15% of their final amount. Double what America has. In the end, those hydro and nuke plants and AE will not matter. China's fossil fuel usage will go up unless something hits them HARD.
Electric Vehicles using 100% Coal, even with its issues is about the same as using Gas, Diesel, or Natural Gas. I am NOT advocating using that. I am saying that the WORST that it will be is about the same. Now, as to the SO2 and NO(x), we scrub the majority of that out. Hg is a different story. Because of the scrubbers on the west, as well as mostly using "cleaner" coal (as in from the ground), the west pollutes less than countries like China. Right now, China puts out about 1/2 of the Hg that is emitted. Worse, it is growing, not slowing down. Japan is suffering big from it. So is the pacific.
In the end, Electricity will come from many sources. Even in the US, we only use 48% Coal (and dropping) and 20% NG. That means that WORST CASE for electric vehicles is that they are about 70% of the pollution of ICE. That is a HUGE improvement.
I am Sorry; I was thinking of Alberta. Sorry again.
That is already taken into consideration. Basically, the worst case scenario is better than the best case ICE situation. The motors do not require transmissions and run at near 100% efficiency. Batteries have a high efficiency, though they are economically expensive. The biggest loses in electricity is transmissions, but that is still 7% or so. And THAT will be changed over the next decade (in the west) to be less.
OTH, ICE OPERATE BELOW 40% (typically 25%) with a lose of 60-75%. That does not include the loses in areas such as moving the fuel around, vapors, etc. The loses of moving the fuel and vapors alone are more than 5%.
So the answer is, that fossil fuel can never improve much even if using Natural Gas, Diesel or hydrogen (of which more than 95% is from Methane because it is much cheaper). OTH, Electricical devices WILL continue to improve because of cost of Storage and Transmission will drop.
Whoops. Thanx. I think that it was Edumunton that I was thinking of. Basically, it is similar to what We have in Colorado.
Basically, it is much easier said to clean up a single source than millions of tiny ones.
With that said, electricity is actually better, because few countries rely 100% on Fossil Fuel for their Electricity. China probably has the most at more than 90% Fossil Fueled (and growing). America is less than 50% Coal (and dropping) with another 20% Natural gas (rising, but not that fast). Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there (???? not sure about that).
No, but good point. I doubt that most here really have a sense of what that was about.