Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch webcast right now
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:56 pm
You gotta spend money to make money!
I've seen them land a Fiesta sized rover on mars though, even though we saw 2 rockets land n all there was meant to be a 3rd.Don Carlos wrote:I see where you are coming from but I have never seen the soviets or NASA bring back two rockets and have them land within a second of each other on a launch pad before.seremtan wrote:it's easy to forget with all this hype that SpaceX's only real selling point is low cost. the Soviets put an actual human being into space and then brought him back 57 years ago. NASA put some guys on the moon 49 years ago
SpaceX are about where the Soviets were with Sputnik (61 years ago) in terms of achievement (though their tech is in many ways more advanced)
i mean, i wish them all the best and hope they succeed in whatever crazy shit Elon Musk wants to do next, but until they put humans on Mars before NASA or ESA they're trailing behind
Scientifically speaking I'd say it hasn't much more longevity, the goal for America might've been to 1 up the soviets but NASA used the stage for research. Gotta remember what NASA achieved during this time n all, the Apollo program didn't just launch a few rockets (one of them being the S5 series, still 3x more powerful than the falcon heavy) and call it a day, they pretty much laid the groundwork for humans in space (space suites, habitat, modules, health effects, anomalies etc etc). That groundwork has allowed companies like SpaceX get off to a head start, a start that would've cost a country.Eraser wrote:Thing is, SpaceX is a commercial company that earns money by what they're doing. NASA in the 60's was operating under a government that was willing to throw billions of dollars at it just so they could say "we landed on the moon", and very little more than that. So it feels to me like there's much more longevity in what SpaceX is doing than what NASA is (was) doing. Besides, let's not get started about that monolithic SLS project.
I think it'd be fair to say that a good portion of Space X's exploration funding will be coming from government grants, mainly from NASA. Beyond putting sats in space for profit I can see Space X struggling, it needs to be a viable business to succeed and they ain't getting anywhere near Mars without NASAs help, they're already running a loss at LEO. Like, where SpaceX has all its resources focused on rocket tech (with some on Dragon), NASA are following the same principles that got them to the moon, testing life support, comms, developing the Orion module, health affects n shit with access to the ISS and planned tests for lunar orbit, without getting into the rover programs like Curiosity that has sent back invaluable data. For a trip to Mars to happen someone still needs to be willing to throw billions of dollars at a program.
The SLS program is a monster n all. I don't know why it's getting so much hate, they've left LEO to the private firms and steamed ahead with their deep space program, it was never meant to compete with F-Heavy and have designed a rocket for their purposes and integration. The F-Heavy was meant to be launched back in 2013 and was postponed each year due to commercial interests, Elon hasn't given us much of a hint on where his funding will come from for the BFR and absolutely nothing on how he plans to keep astronauts alive. You can see why NASA wanted to go their own road when they're making plans for Mars and not wanting to rely on the private sector for something that may not develop. Both rockets (if they ever see the light of day) will be absolute monsters, the biggest rockets since the S5.
Last thing n all, quite a few SpaceX flights have been hit with technical difficulties, this is gonna be a real test for manned missions. Back in the 60s NASA didn't give a toss but now it's something they always have in their mind.
