I'm not even sure the parent poster is correct. As far as I have been able to research it, they say they needed to make the engine throttable, just because at full power it was too powerful. But they *did* make it throttable. No-where did I see that SpaceX still had the same problem with their engine being throttled to the lowest power.
Well, agreed, but only if you take the goal to be an orbital flight. If - as it is with Blue Origin - the goal is to get rich tourists go up into space at a reasonable price, then clearly *they* are much closer.
For that goal, they just have to demonstrate 1)they can go into space (which is defined at reaching a height of 100km, NOT reaching low earth orbit), and 2)have a reusable rocket, so they can drastically lower the price. They have now shown to have reached those sub-goals, so they can now reach their (that specific) goal, and do sooner than anyone else.
However, I largely agree with you, if one takes the long term goal, which is getting payloads into LEO, which, no doubt, Blue Origin will try too, sooner or later.
Anyway, the problem I have with many comments, is that they tend to be derisive of one or the other. It's pretty silly, and reminiscent of the 'Xbox vs playstation' flamewars. It's silly and immature. As some journalists have pointed out, it's NOT about 'blue orgin vs spaceX', but about the new ideas versus the old. And Blue Origin and SpaceX are both in the camp of the novel and visionary ideas, which can potentially be a disruptive technology. Can't happen soon enough, imho.
Well, it's a point of contestation I suppose, but certainly we seem to agree that they *are* both cars, then.
Also... if one looks at the reusable part(s), the difference is mainly in weight-carrying capacity. More akin to an analogy where spaceX is a SUV which is carrying another small car, while the other is a normal city car. Now, the combination of the SUV + small car will far outweigh the city car and be able to go much further, but if one only compares the SUV with the city car, the discrepancy won't be *that* big. Sure, the SUV might still go a bit faster and a bit further, but not drastically so, at least not to the point where one would say they can't be compared with eachother anymore, or that it's like a 'bicycle versus a car', as some have put it. It doesn't mean the SUV isn't more powerful and can't carry more weight, because it certainly is and can, but it's perfectly fine to acknowledge both have improved the miles/gallon considerably.
And if the city car was first to show it's possible to do 100miles a gallon, it deserves as much recognition as the SUV showing the same thing later on, even if it's about a SUV with more power and load-capacity, then.
And when one can hold ones' balance and don't need the training wheels, it wouldn't matter, even if the extra wheels were still on it. It would still mean you could ride a bicycle.
What you and your ilk are claiming, would be more akin to this: because one person carries another with him on his bicycle, that is considered 'riding a bicycle' (since he takes another person (aka payload), and even goes faster and further... while the other does not, because he doesn't carry a passenger and doesn't go as fast and as far.
Clearly, such an arbitrary defining measurement is nonsensical.
Riding a bicycle, thus, is not defined by the *existence* of the training wheels on itself, nor by carrying a person, or going faster or further. Similarly, a "reusable space-rocket" does not need to put something into orbit. It only has to demonstrate it 1) can reach space (which it did), and that it is 2) reusable (which it did).
? Even when taking your example: one would be hard pressed, even when saying " the one feels far better and can get a woman pregnant while the other can't" to say one or the other *does not* involve ejaculation.;-)
But anyhow, a rather incorrect remark. I didn't refuse to acknowledge anything of the sort. Blue Origin had a payload, just like SpaceX. SpaceX had a far bigger payload, and put it far further, thanks to a second, non-recoverable stage.
So?
What I'm contesting here, is the fact that people act as if the two systems (the reusable part) are totally different concepts, and act as if the two can't be compared. They use arguments like 'it was a sounding rocket', and 'it was suborbital' to substantiate their claims. But the fact is, BOTH systems which are compared (aka, the returnable/reusable part, as THAT is what the fuzz is about), were suborbital and 'like a sounding rocket'. There isn't an inherent difference in it, thus, as far as the return-part is concerned. They both use the same basics, the same systems, and the same mode of operandi.
This does not mean one doesn't acknowledge that SpaceX had to put more work into it and created a more powerful version - which was a strawman-fallacy of your part, since I certainly didn't say anything of the sort.
I respectfully disagree, at least to some extent. The reason why we compare both things (the first stage of spaceX, and Blue Origin Shepard, is because they are similar. In both cases, the same principles apply, and the same mode of operandi is used. So the analogy would be rather be two cars. One could say one is a Polo Volkswagen (Blue Origin), and the other a Porche (SpaceX first stage), but no-one would claim they aren't both cars. EVEN when then saying "Ah, but the Porche is much faster, goes a longer way, has more comfort, is safer, etc. That may all be, but it's still an evolutionary, not a revolutionary difference. there is no way you would take one to be a bicycle, and the other a car - since those would be completely DIFFERENT systems, with completely different modes of operandi.
Which why one does not compare that with , say, a winged vehicle. Because that IS a completely different kind of machine. Think about this yourself. If you really would want to put all these vehicles in groups, similar to species or families in biology, would one *really* place those two together? I don't think so. Idem with rockets, and any other vehicles for that matter. I can't imagine people saying a polo isn't a car because a porche is faster and can do more. Such an arbitrary distinction makes no sense. (Which doesn't mean the Porche isn't faster, btw, just like SpaceX first stage is, indeed, more powerful and ha to do more work. )
Thus, similarly, it's obvious that, if you want to compare Orbitals' Pegasus, you'd compare it to virgins galactic White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo. And I think almost everyone can see why: they're similar concepts. This would be true EVEN if spaceship two would be able to go in a low Earth orbit. Nothing *inherently* changes to the concept and method, after all. It's just more and better of the same. Yes, it reaches a new milestone, but that doesn't change the basic concept of it.
Look at it this way: an airplane doesn't stop being an airplane because it can't break the sound barrier neither. Would one, thus, following the same (your) reasoning, claim it's like comparing 'a kite to an airplane', if it doesn't reach the sound of speech? Argue that an airplane that can't breach that barrier shouldn't be considered an airplane anymore, because it is *intrinsically different*?
That sort of analogy doesn't make sense, if you look at it objectively.
It's NOT about the cost of the fuel itself; that's only a minor part. What IS of importance, is, that any additional fuel for landing means additional weight, which cuts back on the maximum amount of payload you can get up in a given orbit.
The spaceshuttle was extremely complex and needed far more maintenance than expected, and THAT was the reason it wasn't economically viable. If your refurbishing costs are about as much as building a new one, than obviously, you don't make a good economic case.
But for any given rocket (returning stage) vs spaceplane (or system like Adeline) where the refurbishing costs are similar, the spaceplane/adeline system will ALWAYS be economically more advantageous. Simply for the fact it doesn't need the fuel to land (nor the 9.23 as much fuel to lift that fuel up), and thus, for the same type of rocket/power, you can get MORE payload into the same orbit.
FOR FUCK SAKE! Do you even read what was written?!
You say now:
"However, the main thing that you're not taking into account is that the fuel costs are a tiny part of the total launch costs (just a few percent) "
While I said in my original post:
"This is not about the cost of the fuel, which is only a minor part of the costs, but, as you correctly point out, a loss of capacity for the maximum payload."
WHAT did you not understand? It's NOT about the cost of the fuel. I've EXPLICITLY said that, and yet you glance over that and STILL use that false counter-argument. In essence, saying the same thing as me, but wrongly asuming it was part of my argumentation.
And thus: no, it doesn't mean the same for systems like Adeline. Did you even bother to read the link? Adeline is estimated to need 2000 kg of fuel, SpaceX needs 35000 kg. The wings only marginally make it more heavy, just as the wings/rods of SpaceX or Shepard. Ego: it still means the first stage is a multitude times more heavy with spaceX. And it's the weight that counts, since the cost is the ratio of useful weight (aka, payload) vs total cost to send it somewhere.
In the long run, whether they want to recuperate the whole stage or not, they'll need another system then the engine/fuel-burning one they have now.
Mayhaps. But after a while, when 10, 20, 100 stages are up there, what would you use it for? I'm not certain there is such a big market for booster parts. Not on themselves. And if you put a payload them, it just gets more expensive and heavy.
Anyway, I don't think you can keep the current method (burning of fuel by engines) and still be economical viable in the long run, compared to alternative systems.
Even if - in fact, especially when- we're talking about the second stage, there is need for such an alternative system. They have to figure out something which makes use of the atmosphere: parachutes that can withstand hyperspeeds, or inflatable heatshields, or wings that can withstand extreme heat, etc. So that the weight/lift ratio gets better.
How impressive it may be, and even if it's an economic advantage compared to one-time-usable rockets, I don't think this system will be economical viable to systems that don't use this kind of engine/fuel related re-entry method.
Yes, but one has to be honest, here. The thing which is comparable, is the part that gets returned (aka, is recuperable). That's what all the fuzz is about. So, taken that it handles bout that part, it means comparing Shepard to the first stage of SpaceX. Not shepard compared to the whole rocket.
In the end, it's not the first stage that puts up the satellite into orbit, but the second and third stage. The first stage, on itself, only manages to get into a suborbital plane too.
Granted, it has to put more effort into it, *because* it need to lift the other stages, but it's not drastically different. IF you compare the comparable parts, that is.
For instance, let's assume SpaceX gets into space-tourism too, and uses only its first stage for it. Well, than you get something which is more powerful, but not something drastically different than Blue Origin. It would still be suborbital, as 'sounding rocket', etc.
I think much of the confusion stems from how one looks at it. If one does it from the point of the totality of the rocket, and see what it can accomplish, or if you just compare the part where the novelty and innovation is, namely in the recuperable part.
But it wasn't payload-less. Let's agree to that, at least. Making the argument into a 'sounding rocket' is another argument.
In that case: the problem is, how you make the comparison. If you only take the part that actually returns - which makes sense, since it's that which all the fuzz is about - then one has to acknowledge the first stage of SpaceX ALSO only reaches a suborbital plane, and thus, is also nothing more than a 'sounding rocket'. The fact that the rocket in its totality wasn't, doesn't mean the stage that returns is any more than the equivalent of a sounding rocket.
I'm not saying it's not harder for SpaceX, but I do find it annoying when people act as if it's something totally different. It ain't. It's difficult for the other stages, but for the first stage, which comes back, it has to do more or less (mostly more) the same as what Blue Origin does. there is no *intrinsic* difference between the two. For instance, you could launch the first stage od SpaceX on its own too, and it would almost be exactly the same as Shepard, then. The fact that it now has a second and third stage that manages to go into orbit, does nothing for the fact that the first stage, which is returnable and similar to that of Blue Origin, has the same basic features as the one of Shepard.
I agree that it's more difficult, because of the fact they, indeed, have to put up the second and third stage too, but it's not like it's totally incomparable, as some seem to imply. The part that returns is what counts, and both were not payload-less, nd both can be considered sounding rockets, if comparing the recuperable parts.
It's just exaggerated nonsense and hyperbole. I'm getting a bit fed up with all this fanboism on both sides.
Yes, SpaceX has it harder, but not THAT much harder. The main systems and mode of operandi is largely the same for both rockets. There is nothing drastically and qualitative different between it, only quantitative. Blue Origin also has to compensate for winds, also has to make sure the avionics work perfectly, also has to see that the propulsion negates the downwards (falling) speed, etc. SpaceX has it *more*, but it's not like it's another beast altogether. No, it's the same kind of beast, only more ferocious. That's the gist of it.
People who pretend it's *drastically* different just are spouting nonsense. It's like, otherwise, it would somehow diminish the accomplishment of Elon Musk and SpaceX. Which it doesn't. Both make great contributions in novel rocketry. I don't see the need of dishing someone to let another shine more. We're not in kindergarten anymore, I would have presumed.
Ermm... Everyone makes mistakes, but if you're going to base your whole reasoning and conclusion on an argument, you'd better be sure it's true.
Alas, it ain't. It was not payload-less, and thus, following your own reasoning; it did do actual work. Ergo, it *IS* a lot different than your shooting-off model. Hence, it *IS* accomplishing a goal other than shooting-off rockets.
Let's give this a rest. It sounds as immature as the "playstation vs. Xbox" flamefest-conundrums.
As far as *the 1st stage* goes, both are sub-orbital. Yes, SpaceX' one gets further and faster and has a bigger one than Blue Origin. Fine, they win the d*ck-contest.
The real point however, is that both are working on reusable vehicles, where none did before. (No, I'm not counting the spaceshuttle). There is nothing wrong with some good competitive tong(s)-in-cheek(s). I don't get why fanboys of either side are getting so riled up about. As far as I remember, Blue Origin has been working for the last 3 years on a much larger, orbital rocket based on the New Shepard, which probably we'll get some news of this year. So no doubt some are going to complain about who has the biggest rocket that does the hardest job then too, but in reverse... until SpaceX makes the second stage reusable. Rince, repeat.
The whole "how dare they say they play in the same courtyard as us?!" is really absurd. They are both doing an admirable job.
Mostly true, but every kg that is needed to land, needs about many times as much for it to get lifted off in the first place. This is why it gets increasingly difficult to do the same for the second and third stage. (And a 'completely reusable rocket' is what Musk said he wants).
This is not about the cost of the fuel, which is only a minor part of the costs, but, as you correctly point out, a loss of capacity for the maximum payload. To propel 1 pound of mass would require 9.39 pounds of propellant. This means, that if you need 35000 kg extra to land the thing (which is what SpaceX needs), you'll need 9 TIMES as much to get it up. That's why, if one didn't realise this, that SpaceX never lands the first stage when it has to deliver a heavy geostationary satellite in orbit: it's because they need all the fuel to get their payload up there. Ergo, the fuel they spend on it, needs more fuel to lift it, and that inveriably reduces the amount of weight of the payload they can send up. There is no way around this.
And that is only for the first stage. The second stage - and if they want to be 'like airplanes', you'll need to recuperate all stages - is going to be much, much more difficult to recuperate. But worse, this, in turn, will need, again, extra fuel, to transport the fuel tht will be needed to land it. WORSE STILL: since now the second stage is much heavier, that weight will need to be lifted by the first stage too, so that will need even MORE fuel, which in turn will need 9 times more fuel to lift this up too. Then we come to the third stage. Rince, repeat. It needs extra fuel to land, thus it gains weight, thus the second stage needs ectra fuel, plus it needs extra fuel to lift that extra fuel, plus the third stage who has to lift all the other stages up needs extra fuel to do so, and it needs extra fuel to lift that extra fuel.
Ergo: it gets exponentially more difficult to launch a rocket where all stages are recuperated. Or let me refrase that: it becomes exponentially more difficult for it to be economically viable, compared to a system where you'll only need a fraction of the mass to put the same payload into orbit.
That is why, as I said in another post, there is definitely an economic point to be made to use other systems, like that of Adeline. ( http://www.space.com/29620-air... )
Of course, that doesn't mean that 10 years from now, one already has far better systems to land the whole stages. It just means the current system (using engines/fuel) isn't probably going to cut it in the long run compared to systems that don't use this approach, economically speaking.
I said this before with the SpaceX story not long ago (and got some pretty nasty responses by fanboys), but the question remains whether IN THE SHORT RUN and *only comparing the current whole-1ste-booster stage return versus partial systems* like Adeline ( http://www.space.com/29620-air... ) or that of the ULA don't make more *economic* sense.
Do note the domain where I'm talking about (capital letters/ asterix). I'm NOT comparing a "rocket that is like an airplane" (costwise) with a one-time usable rocket.
Now, I'm looking pretty favourable at newcomers like SpaceX and Blue Origins, and I think it's great what those companies do, and their CEO's are visionaries imho. But still, that doesn't mean one should be blind to other things. One can say it's because the others are 'getting behind' and try to dish a potential threat, but I think it's more than that. I might be they have a point, especially for rockets that have to get into an orbit. It's exponentially difficult to get the second and third stage to be 'recoverable' as well, and, certainly with the current system of using the engines (and thus fuel), it doesn't seem viable in an economic sense, compared to Adeline-esque systems.
NOT because of the cost of the fuel, as so many think I'm arguing (but which is a relative minor cost), but because it reduces the maximum payload. It's all there in the link, so please read *before* giving ignorant replies, thank you.
Indeed, but that contradiction is the consequence of laws going awry. In some states, sexual 'offences' - even between minors, and even when voluntary - are deemed so grave, one can convict them as adults.
Which, as other posters already pointed out, begs the question:
If they are legally deemed to be able to be sentenced as an adult, why can't they be legally deemed to be allowed having sex as an adult in the first place?
The problem, however, is deciding when it's actual abuse or not. If courts decided that on case by case instances, *without* automatic statutory rape principles which currently do not take a nuanced approach, I have no issue with it. However, many laws are currently written that *automatically* makes it an offence, the moment "minor" and "sex" comes together. This becomes very problematic, since minors are not sexual inactive until, at the very moment they turn 18, they suddenly and magically become sexually active. That's silly. That's not reality you're describing.
It has long been established that minors, even young kids, engage in some sexual behaviour, and that is just part of a natural behaviour while growing up. Our society has demonised this, and made laws that are so draconian, one gets situations as described by other posters, where a 15 year old takes a nude picture of herself, and gets convicted as a sex-offender who has created child-porn, and has to be registered as such for the next 25 years. That is crazy, period. Idem with youths who voluntarily have sexual acts with eachother; when caught, they often get crushed by society - especially in prude USA - and got labelled sex-offenders for the rest of their life, with all the dire consequences for their future life. And for what? For engaging in behaviour which is NOT abnormal, but is just part of growing up. And which, btw, the vast majority is doing to some degree long before they turn 18. It's just antithetic to how people actually live and behave, thus. And in most of these cases, there is no victim, in the sense as we normally understand it (and not as statutory rape defines it).
Luckily, at least in Europe, people begin to realise this, and the prudish USA-type of hysteria gets some counter. In many countries in the EU now, one starts to make exemptions in the law for minors that voluntarily engage in sexual acts with other minors (from around the same age). That's because one finally has realised that going the USA way is ridiculous, since the main goal is to protect kids against things they do not want (aka, actual abuse), not 'protect' kids by putting them in jail themselves for things that shouldn't have been criminalised in the first place.
I'm all for a more nuanced approach to it, like in the EU, for the simple reason USA laws are getting to a point where they are defeating their own purpose, and create massive damage to children itself.
Well, we agree on the 'there should be research done on it", at least.;-)
First of all, there is much confusion going on, because 'thorium plants' are a general term, but the one is not the same as the other. Some thorium-plants proposed (or actual) are not that much different or better than regular 3gen uranium reactors. But I'm speaking of the LFTR-version.
Granted, we have not much de facto experience with that. Not 'nothing' (the US had one in the 60'ies), but limited, true. So the relative novelty of it needs testing and what not. However, already back then, it had much going for it, except delivering weapon-grade uranium or plutonium. There were no major issues encountered back then neither. There is a lot of hogwash of how the pipes corroded, but that was already dealt with in that time. One complains about the beryllium, and - while true it's toxic - there are many factories and companies that deal with beryllium just fine. In the electro/chemo sector, many substances are highly toxic, it doesn't stop us from using it anyhow. It's far from being a show-stopper, thus. And, in fact, if they could come up with a solution back then, no-one is going to tell me we can't do it as well or better, with an additional 50 years of experience in material-development.
Quite possible it won't be as good as the most positive raving newspapers make it out, but it sure as hell won't be so negative as the ant-camp would want to make us believe. The only thing we can say now is, especially in the LFTR system, it seems very, very promising. This goes for the theoretical aspect as well as the limited practical experience we have with it. It even has the potential to starkly reduce the *current* nuclear waste, so one would expect the greens to be enthusiastic about it, but of course, they aren't. Since it has the word 'nuclear' in it. I guess they prefer having the waste sitting there for another 25000 years.
No, we should definitely start researching it. I agree with you we shouldn't suddenly mass-produce it out of the blue, but there is no reason not to research such promising technology.
But alas, the West just can't be bothered anymore. We've seem to slowly but surely loose our initiative. It's like we're socially decaying, or something. but of course, there ARE some countries who actually do some research on it and are building LFTR's. And it will be no surprise it's China. And that's with a lot of things the case. I'm thinking, while we're dawdling our thumbs and can't make any decisions, in another 50 years China will have surpassed us on literary every front.
The West, and especially Europe, doesn't have it's vigour, nor a long-term vision, anymore. It's lethargic as hell. It makes me sad and mad at the same time.
But well, that only means china will get the advantage on LFTR's as well.
Stereotypes usually DO have some truth to it. These stereotypes can be negative or positive, but there is always a cause for it, and mostly that cause is a trait or behaviour of a certain populace which is - while not done by *everyone* - done by enough people of that group to link the behaviour to that group.
It's a generalisation (especially if one wants to convey the idea that every last individual of a certain group or populace is exhibiting that behaviour), but one that is not without some element of truth in it, in most cases.
Well, anyhow, I don't know why some people react like being stung by a bee for pointing out there could be better (in the economical sense) ways of doing things than the current system SpaceX used. Is this fanboism? I mean, *I* am a fan of Musk and spaceX too, but not to the point of being blind to other things.
It is as you say: who knows where SpaceX will be next decade. The major issue now, is the way they recuperate it (by using their engines and thus burning loads of fuel). It's quite possible they'll develop a winged variant in the future, which doesn't have those disadvantages anymore. In the long term, I think Musk is right in wanting to recuperate everything, if you ever want it to become 'like airplanes'. That said, ultimately, I think systems like Skylon will take the spotlight, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not even sure the parent poster is correct. As far as I have been able to research it, they say they needed to make the engine throttable, just because at full power it was too powerful. But they *did* make it throttable. No-where did I see that SpaceX still had the same problem with their engine being throttled to the lowest power.
Well, agreed, but only if you take the goal to be an orbital flight. If - as it is with Blue Origin - the goal is to get rich tourists go up into space at a reasonable price, then clearly *they* are much closer.
For that goal, they just have to demonstrate 1)they can go into space (which is defined at reaching a height of 100km, NOT reaching low earth orbit), and 2)have a reusable rocket, so they can drastically lower the price. They have now shown to have reached those sub-goals, so they can now reach their (that specific) goal, and do sooner than anyone else.
However, I largely agree with you, if one takes the long term goal, which is getting payloads into LEO, which, no doubt, Blue Origin will try too, sooner or later.
Anyway, the problem I have with many comments, is that they tend to be derisive of one or the other. It's pretty silly, and reminiscent of the 'Xbox vs playstation' flamewars. It's silly and immature. As some journalists have pointed out, it's NOT about 'blue orgin vs spaceX', but about the new ideas versus the old. And Blue Origin and SpaceX are both in the camp of the novel and visionary ideas, which can potentially be a disruptive technology. Can't happen soon enough, imho.
Well, it's a point of contestation I suppose, but certainly we seem to agree that they *are* both cars, then.
Also... if one looks at the reusable part(s), the difference is mainly in weight-carrying capacity. More akin to an analogy where spaceX is a SUV which is carrying another small car, while the other is a normal city car. Now, the combination of the SUV + small car will far outweigh the city car and be able to go much further, but if one only compares the SUV with the city car, the discrepancy won't be *that* big. Sure, the SUV might still go a bit faster and a bit further, but not drastically so, at least not to the point where one would say they can't be compared with eachother anymore, or that it's like a 'bicycle versus a car', as some have put it. It doesn't mean the SUV isn't more powerful and can't carry more weight, because it certainly is and can, but it's perfectly fine to acknowledge both have improved the miles/gallon considerably.
And if the city car was first to show it's possible to do 100miles a gallon, it deserves as much recognition as the SUV showing the same thing later on, even if it's about a SUV with more power and load-capacity, then.
And when one can hold ones' balance and don't need the training wheels, it wouldn't matter, even if the extra wheels were still on it. It would still mean you could ride a bicycle.
What you and your ilk are claiming, would be more akin to this: because one person carries another with him on his bicycle, that is considered 'riding a bicycle' (since he takes another person (aka payload), and even goes faster and further... while the other does not, because he doesn't carry a passenger and doesn't go as fast and as far.
Clearly, such an arbitrary defining measurement is nonsensical.
Riding a bicycle, thus, is not defined by the *existence* of the training wheels on itself, nor by carrying a person, or going faster or further. Similarly, a "reusable space-rocket" does not need to put something into orbit. It only has to demonstrate it 1) can reach space (which it did), and that it is 2) reusable (which it did).
? ;-)
Even when taking your example: one would be hard pressed, even when saying " the one feels far better and can get a woman pregnant while the other can't" to say one or the other *does not* involve ejaculation.
But anyhow, a rather incorrect remark. I didn't refuse to acknowledge anything of the sort. Blue Origin had a payload, just like SpaceX. SpaceX had a far bigger payload, and put it far further, thanks to a second, non-recoverable stage.
So?
What I'm contesting here, is the fact that people act as if the two systems (the reusable part) are totally different concepts, and act as if the two can't be compared. They use arguments like 'it was a sounding rocket', and 'it was suborbital' to substantiate their claims. But the fact is, BOTH systems which are compared (aka, the returnable/reusable part, as THAT is what the fuzz is about), were suborbital and 'like a sounding rocket'. There isn't an inherent difference in it, thus, as far as the return-part is concerned. They both use the same basics, the same systems, and the same mode of operandi.
This does not mean one doesn't acknowledge that SpaceX had to put more work into it and created a more powerful version - which was a strawman-fallacy of your part, since I certainly didn't say anything of the sort.
ermm... errata: speed of sound. But I think you got that ;-)
I respectfully disagree, at least to some extent. The reason why we compare both things (the first stage of spaceX, and Blue Origin Shepard, is because they are similar. In both cases, the same principles apply, and the same mode of operandi is used. So the analogy would be rather be two cars. One could say one is a Polo Volkswagen (Blue Origin), and the other a Porche (SpaceX first stage), but no-one would claim they aren't both cars. EVEN when then saying "Ah, but the Porche is much faster, goes a longer way, has more comfort, is safer, etc. That may all be, but it's still an evolutionary, not a revolutionary difference. there is no way you would take one to be a bicycle, and the other a car - since those would be completely DIFFERENT systems, with completely different modes of operandi.
Which why one does not compare that with , say, a winged vehicle. Because that IS a completely different kind of machine. Think about this yourself. If you really would want to put all these vehicles in groups, similar to species or families in biology, would one *really* place those two together? I don't think so. Idem with rockets, and any other vehicles for that matter. I can't imagine people saying a polo isn't a car because a porche is faster and can do more. Such an arbitrary distinction makes no sense. (Which doesn't mean the Porche isn't faster, btw, just like SpaceX first stage is, indeed, more powerful and ha to do more work. )
Thus, similarly, it's obvious that, if you want to compare Orbitals' Pegasus, you'd compare it to virgins galactic White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo. And I think almost everyone can see why: they're similar concepts. This would be true EVEN if spaceship two would be able to go in a low Earth orbit. Nothing *inherently* changes to the concept and method, after all. It's just more and better of the same. Yes, it reaches a new milestone, but that doesn't change the basic concept of it.
Look at it this way: an airplane doesn't stop being an airplane because it can't break the sound barrier neither. Would one, thus, following the same (your) reasoning, claim it's like comparing 'a kite to an airplane', if it doesn't reach the sound of speech? Argue that an airplane that can't breach that barrier shouldn't be considered an airplane anymore, because it is *intrinsically different*?
That sort of analogy doesn't make sense, if you look at it objectively.
Sigh. No, it's not.
I don't know why so few people grasp this.
It's NOT about the cost of the fuel itself; that's only a minor part. What IS of importance, is, that any additional fuel for landing means additional weight, which cuts back on the maximum amount of payload you can get up in a given orbit.
The spaceshuttle was extremely complex and needed far more maintenance than expected, and THAT was the reason it wasn't economically viable. If your refurbishing costs are about as much as building a new one, than obviously, you don't make a good economic case.
But for any given rocket (returning stage) vs spaceplane (or system like Adeline) where the refurbishing costs are similar, the spaceplane/adeline system will ALWAYS be economically more advantageous. Simply for the fact it doesn't need the fuel to land (nor the 9.23 as much fuel to lift that fuel up), and thus, for the same type of rocket/power, you can get MORE payload into the same orbit.
FOR FUCK SAKE! Do you even read what was written?!
You say now:
"However, the main thing that you're not taking into account is that the fuel costs are a tiny part of the total launch costs (just a few percent) "
While I said in my original post:
"This is not about the cost of the fuel, which is only a minor part of the costs, but, as you correctly point out, a loss of capacity for the maximum payload."
WHAT did you not understand? It's NOT about the cost of the fuel. I've EXPLICITLY said that, and yet you glance over that and STILL use that false counter-argument. In essence, saying the same thing as me, but wrongly asuming it was part of my argumentation.
And thus: no, it doesn't mean the same for systems like Adeline. Did you even bother to read the link? Adeline is estimated to need 2000 kg of fuel, SpaceX needs 35000 kg. The wings only marginally make it more heavy, just as the wings/rods of SpaceX or Shepard. Ego: it still means the first stage is a multitude times more heavy with spaceX. And it's the weight that counts, since the cost is the ratio of useful weight (aka, payload) vs total cost to send it somewhere.
In the long run, whether they want to recuperate the whole stage or not, they'll need another system then the engine/fuel-burning one they have now.
Mayhaps. But after a while, when 10, 20, 100 stages are up there, what would you use it for? I'm not certain there is such a big market for booster parts. Not on themselves. And if you put a payload them, it just gets more expensive and heavy.
Anyway, I don't think you can keep the current method (burning of fuel by engines) and still be economical viable in the long run, compared to alternative systems.
Even if - in fact, especially when- we're talking about the second stage, there is need for such an alternative system. They have to figure out something which makes use of the atmosphere: parachutes that can withstand hyperspeeds, or inflatable heatshields, or wings that can withstand extreme heat, etc. So that the weight/lift ratio gets better.
How impressive it may be, and even if it's an economic advantage compared to one-time-usable rockets, I don't think this system will be economical viable to systems that don't use this kind of engine/fuel related re-entry method.
Yes, but one has to be honest, here. The thing which is comparable, is the part that gets returned (aka, is recuperable). That's what all the fuzz is about. So, taken that it handles bout that part, it means comparing Shepard to the first stage of SpaceX. Not shepard compared to the whole rocket.
In the end, it's not the first stage that puts up the satellite into orbit, but the second and third stage. The first stage, on itself, only manages to get into a suborbital plane too.
Granted, it has to put more effort into it, *because* it need to lift the other stages, but it's not drastically different. IF you compare the comparable parts, that is.
For instance, let's assume SpaceX gets into space-tourism too, and uses only its first stage for it. Well, than you get something which is more powerful, but not something drastically different than Blue Origin. It would still be suborbital, as 'sounding rocket', etc.
I think much of the confusion stems from how one looks at it. If one does it from the point of the totality of the rocket, and see what it can accomplish, or if you just compare the part where the novelty and innovation is, namely in the recuperable part.
But it wasn't payload-less. Let's agree to that, at least. Making the argument into a 'sounding rocket' is another argument.
In that case: the problem is, how you make the comparison. If you only take the part that actually returns - which makes sense, since it's that which all the fuzz is about - then one has to acknowledge the first stage of SpaceX ALSO only reaches a suborbital plane, and thus, is also nothing more than a 'sounding rocket'. The fact that the rocket in its totality wasn't, doesn't mean the stage that returns is any more than the equivalent of a sounding rocket.
I'm not saying it's not harder for SpaceX, but I do find it annoying when people act as if it's something totally different. It ain't. It's difficult for the other stages, but for the first stage, which comes back, it has to do more or less (mostly more) the same as what Blue Origin does. there is no *intrinsic* difference between the two. For instance, you could launch the first stage od SpaceX on its own too, and it would almost be exactly the same as Shepard, then. The fact that it now has a second and third stage that manages to go into orbit, does nothing for the fact that the first stage, which is returnable and similar to that of Blue Origin, has the same basic features as the one of Shepard.
I agree that it's more difficult, because of the fact they, indeed, have to put up the second and third stage too, but it's not like it's totally incomparable, as some seem to imply. The part that returns is what counts, and both were not payload-less, nd both can be considered sounding rockets, if comparing the recuperable parts.
True. That said, most with a grain of of intelligence and being able to read comprehensively, would have gotten that.
It's just exaggerated nonsense and hyperbole. I'm getting a bit fed up with all this fanboism on both sides.
Yes, SpaceX has it harder, but not THAT much harder. The main systems and mode of operandi is largely the same for both rockets. There is nothing drastically and qualitative different between it, only quantitative. Blue Origin also has to compensate for winds, also has to make sure the avionics work perfectly, also has to see that the propulsion negates the downwards (falling) speed, etc. SpaceX has it *more*, but it's not like it's another beast altogether. No, it's the same kind of beast, only more ferocious. That's the gist of it.
People who pretend it's *drastically* different just are spouting nonsense. It's like, otherwise, it would somehow diminish the accomplishment of Elon Musk and SpaceX. Which it doesn't. Both make great contributions in novel rocketry. I don't see the need of dishing someone to let another shine more. We're not in kindergarten anymore, I would have presumed.
Ermm... Everyone makes mistakes, but if you're going to base your whole reasoning and conclusion on an argument, you'd better be sure it's true.
Alas, it ain't. It was not payload-less, and thus, following your own reasoning; it did do actual work. Ergo, it *IS* a lot different than your shooting-off model. Hence, it *IS* accomplishing a goal other than shooting-off rockets.
The whole thing you said broke down, thus.
Let's give this a rest. It sounds as immature as the "playstation vs. Xbox" flamefest-conundrums.
As far as *the 1st stage* goes, both are sub-orbital. Yes, SpaceX' one gets further and faster and has a bigger one than Blue Origin. Fine, they win the d*ck-contest.
The real point however, is that both are working on reusable vehicles, where none did before. (No, I'm not counting the spaceshuttle). There is nothing wrong with some good competitive tong(s)-in-cheek(s). I don't get why fanboys of either side are getting so riled up about. As far as I remember, Blue Origin has been working for the last 3 years on a much larger, orbital rocket based on the New Shepard, which probably we'll get some news of this year. So no doubt some are going to complain about who has the biggest rocket that does the hardest job then too, but in reverse... until SpaceX makes the second stage reusable. Rince, repeat.
The whole "how dare they say they play in the same courtyard as us?!" is really absurd. They are both doing an admirable job.
My response, which is also relevant to what you say: http://science.slashdot.org/co...
Mostly true, but every kg that is needed to land, needs about many times as much for it to get lifted off in the first place. This is why it gets increasingly difficult to do the same for the second and third stage. (And a 'completely reusable rocket' is what Musk said he wants).
This is not about the cost of the fuel, which is only a minor part of the costs, but, as you correctly point out, a loss of capacity for the maximum payload. To propel 1 pound of mass would require 9.39 pounds of propellant. This means, that if you need 35000 kg extra to land the thing (which is what SpaceX needs), you'll need 9 TIMES as much to get it up. That's why, if one didn't realise this, that SpaceX never lands the first stage when it has to deliver a heavy geostationary satellite in orbit: it's because they need all the fuel to get their payload up there. Ergo, the fuel they spend on it, needs more fuel to lift it, and that inveriably reduces the amount of weight of the payload they can send up. There is no way around this.
And that is only for the first stage. The second stage - and if they want to be 'like airplanes', you'll need to recuperate all stages - is going to be much, much more difficult to recuperate. But worse, this, in turn, will need, again, extra fuel, to transport the fuel tht will be needed to land it. WORSE STILL: since now the second stage is much heavier, that weight will need to be lifted by the first stage too, so that will need even MORE fuel, which in turn will need 9 times more fuel to lift this up too. Then we come to the third stage. Rince, repeat. It needs extra fuel to land, thus it gains weight, thus the second stage needs ectra fuel, plus it needs extra fuel to lift that extra fuel, plus the third stage who has to lift all the other stages up needs extra fuel to do so, and it needs extra fuel to lift that extra fuel.
Ergo: it gets exponentially more difficult to launch a rocket where all stages are recuperated. Or let me refrase that: it becomes exponentially more difficult for it to be economically viable, compared to a system where you'll only need a fraction of the mass to put the same payload into orbit.
That is why, as I said in another post, there is definitely an economic point to be made to use other systems, like that of Adeline. ( http://www.space.com/29620-air... )
Of course, that doesn't mean that 10 years from now, one already has far better systems to land the whole stages. It just means the current system (using engines/fuel) isn't probably going to cut it in the long run compared to systems that don't use this approach, economically speaking.
I said this before with the SpaceX story not long ago (and got some pretty nasty responses by fanboys), but the question remains whether IN THE SHORT RUN and *only comparing the current whole-1ste-booster stage return versus partial systems* like Adeline ( http://www.space.com/29620-air... ) or that of the ULA don't make more *economic* sense.
Do note the domain where I'm talking about (capital letters/ asterix). I'm NOT comparing a "rocket that is like an airplane" (costwise) with a one-time usable rocket.
Now, I'm looking pretty favourable at newcomers like SpaceX and Blue Origins, and I think it's great what those companies do, and their CEO's are visionaries imho. But still, that doesn't mean one should be blind to other things. One can say it's because the others are 'getting behind' and try to dish a potential threat, but I think it's more than that. I might be they have a point, especially for rockets that have to get into an orbit. It's exponentially difficult to get the second and third stage to be 'recoverable' as well, and, certainly with the current system of using the engines (and thus fuel), it doesn't seem viable in an economic sense, compared to Adeline-esque systems.
NOT because of the cost of the fuel, as so many think I'm arguing (but which is a relative minor cost), but because it reduces the maximum payload. It's all there in the link, so please read *before* giving ignorant replies, thank you.
Ermm...
Yes...well... thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
If that really was in response to my post, that would mean you would put up kids on an island and use it for target practise...
Indeed, but that contradiction is the consequence of laws going awry. In some states, sexual 'offences' - even between minors, and even when voluntary - are deemed so grave, one can convict them as adults.
Which, as other posters already pointed out, begs the question:
If they are legally deemed to be able to be sentenced as an adult, why can't they be legally deemed to be allowed having sex as an adult in the first place?
It makes no sense.
The problem, however, is deciding when it's actual abuse or not. If courts decided that on case by case instances, *without* automatic statutory rape principles which currently do not take a nuanced approach, I have no issue with it. However, many laws are currently written that *automatically* makes it an offence, the moment "minor" and "sex" comes together. This becomes very problematic, since minors are not sexual inactive until, at the very moment they turn 18, they suddenly and magically become sexually active. That's silly. That's not reality you're describing.
It has long been established that minors, even young kids, engage in some sexual behaviour, and that is just part of a natural behaviour while growing up. Our society has demonised this, and made laws that are so draconian, one gets situations as described by other posters, where a 15 year old takes a nude picture of herself, and gets convicted as a sex-offender who has created child-porn, and has to be registered as such for the next 25 years. That is crazy, period. Idem with youths who voluntarily have sexual acts with eachother; when caught, they often get crushed by society - especially in prude USA - and got labelled sex-offenders for the rest of their life, with all the dire consequences for their future life. And for what? For engaging in behaviour which is NOT abnormal, but is just part of growing up. And which, btw, the vast majority is doing to some degree long before they turn 18. It's just antithetic to how people actually live and behave, thus. And in most of these cases, there is no victim, in the sense as we normally understand it (and not as statutory rape defines it).
Luckily, at least in Europe, people begin to realise this, and the prudish USA-type of hysteria gets some counter. In many countries in the EU now, one starts to make exemptions in the law for minors that voluntarily engage in sexual acts with other minors (from around the same age). That's because one finally has realised that going the USA way is ridiculous, since the main goal is to protect kids against things they do not want (aka, actual abuse), not 'protect' kids by putting them in jail themselves for things that shouldn't have been criminalised in the first place.
I'm all for a more nuanced approach to it, like in the EU, for the simple reason USA laws are getting to a point where they are defeating their own purpose, and create massive damage to children itself.
Well, we agree on the 'there should be research done on it", at least. ;-)
First of all, there is much confusion going on, because 'thorium plants' are a general term, but the one is not the same as the other. Some thorium-plants proposed (or actual) are not that much different or better than regular 3gen uranium reactors. But I'm speaking of the LFTR-version.
Granted, we have not much de facto experience with that. Not 'nothing' (the US had one in the 60'ies), but limited, true. So the relative novelty of it needs testing and what not. However, already back then, it had much going for it, except delivering weapon-grade uranium or plutonium. There were no major issues encountered back then neither. There is a lot of hogwash of how the pipes corroded, but that was already dealt with in that time. One complains about the beryllium, and - while true it's toxic - there are many factories and companies that deal with beryllium just fine. In the electro/chemo sector, many substances are highly toxic, it doesn't stop us from using it anyhow. It's far from being a show-stopper, thus. And, in fact, if they could come up with a solution back then, no-one is going to tell me we can't do it as well or better, with an additional 50 years of experience in material-development.
Quite possible it won't be as good as the most positive raving newspapers make it out, but it sure as hell won't be so negative as the ant-camp would want to make us believe. The only thing we can say now is, especially in the LFTR system, it seems very, very promising. This goes for the theoretical aspect as well as the limited practical experience we have with it. It even has the potential to starkly reduce the *current* nuclear waste, so one would expect the greens to be enthusiastic about it, but of course, they aren't. Since it has the word 'nuclear' in it. I guess they prefer having the waste sitting there for another 25000 years.
No, we should definitely start researching it. I agree with you we shouldn't suddenly mass-produce it out of the blue, but there is no reason not to research such promising technology.
But alas, the West just can't be bothered anymore. We've seem to slowly but surely loose our initiative. It's like we're socially decaying, or something. but of course, there ARE some countries who actually do some research on it and are building LFTR's. And it will be no surprise it's China. And that's with a lot of things the case. I'm thinking, while we're dawdling our thumbs and can't make any decisions, in another 50 years China will have surpassed us on literary every front.
The West, and especially Europe, doesn't have it's vigour, nor a long-term vision, anymore. It's lethargic as hell. It makes me sad and mad at the same time.
But well, that only means china will get the advantage on LFTR's as well.
Sometimes, but mostly not.
Stereotypes usually DO have some truth to it. These stereotypes can be negative or positive, but there is always a cause for it, and mostly that cause is a trait or behaviour of a certain populace which is - while not done by *everyone* - done by enough people of that group to link the behaviour to that group.
It's a generalisation (especially if one wants to convey the idea that every last individual of a certain group or populace is exhibiting that behaviour), but one that is not without some element of truth in it, in most cases.
Indeed.
Well, anyhow, I don't know why some people react like being stung by a bee for pointing out there could be better (in the economical sense) ways of doing things than the current system SpaceX used. Is this fanboism? I mean, *I* am a fan of Musk and spaceX too, but not to the point of being blind to other things.
It is as you say: who knows where SpaceX will be next decade. The major issue now, is the way they recuperate it (by using their engines and thus burning loads of fuel). It's quite possible they'll develop a winged variant in the future, which doesn't have those disadvantages anymore. In the long term, I think Musk is right in wanting to recuperate everything, if you ever want it to become 'like airplanes'. That said, ultimately, I think systems like Skylon will take the spotlight, though.