It's not rocket science, well actually it is. But netherless spacex is applying basic economics and engineering to rocketry. Nasa should be research and exploration. It has no role in "manufacturing". It should continue to what it does best. Instead of sucking away the dreams of an entire planet, in the name of socialized industry.
0:52 seconds Ken says that they experienced a roll at liftoff that is evident from the video. I noticed this when I first watched the launch. I thought it was a tower avoidance maneuver, but there was no tower to avoid. Maybe it was a "lock-arm collision" maneuver meant to intentionally strike the lockdown arms?
I think it's great that Falcon 9 had a successful first launch. Realize that NASA had contracted for 12 cargo flights to ISS before the Obama administration came to office. The complaint about the 'New Direction in Space' is two fold. First, the US has given up govt. contracted manned access to LEO based on anticipated commercial developments. Maybe that's ok. Second, there is no commercial interest in going beyond LEO, and the US has now given that up too with no replacement in sight: BOO!
Miles - how about giving NASA and it Prime Contractor equal air time?
tu8ca - Space X isn't working to the same set of requirements the Big Contractors. Nor are they working to Mil Standards, factors of safety and redudancy required for human spaceflight. Where is there testing for an abort system, parachute testing, landing and recovery. 9 engines is NOT redudancy for an engine out if the engine fails catostraphocally like it did on Dragon 1's first flight. Roll control ongoing problem
@cbrooker72 "Nor are they working to Mil Standards, factors of safety and redudancy required for human spaceflight."
Where is your source for this claim? I call FUD.
"if the engine fails catostraphocally (sic) like it did on Dragon (sic) 1's first flight."
That Merlin did NOT fail catastrophically, it just shut down in flight. The vehicle then fell back to the reef. Anyone actually paying any attention to the launch would know this by now.
@cbrooker72- you are right, SpaceX has fewer shackles than NASA and their prime contractors. They can field a launcher based on established technology far less expensively - that's the point.
NASA needs to take a hard look at what they are good at. Creating ground breaking technology that private industry can't pay for - yes. Creating cost effective launchers - no. Although that might be a good problem to throw their way, since they are supposed to be smart problem solvers.
"more heat than light"... debates get this way out of frustration. For years the main stream media has ignored the elephant in the room; prime contractors grasp on NASA via monopolies and fiefdoms. Ground breaking technology is very expensive - Constellation had the latter but not the former, not like the Shuttle or Apollo. Add in the obnoxious politicians doing what's right for their corporate sponsors at the expense of the country and people get mad. The current shake-up is a great thing.
Ken B., greatest man alive!
McChuugy 10 months ago
It's not rocket science, well actually it is. But netherless spacex is applying basic economics and engineering to rocketry. Nasa should be research and exploration. It has no role in "manufacturing". It should continue to what it does best. Instead of sucking away the dreams of an entire planet, in the name of socialized industry.
MikDonsen 1 year ago
0:52 seconds Ken says that they experienced a roll at liftoff that is evident from the video. I noticed this when I first watched the launch. I thought it was a tower avoidance maneuver, but there was no tower to avoid. Maybe it was a "lock-arm collision" maneuver meant to intentionally strike the lockdown arms?
RyeOnHam 1 year ago
cbrooker72 - the Falcons 9 is being designed to NASA's published man rated specs
tu8ca 1 year ago
I think it's great that Falcon 9 had a successful first launch. Realize that NASA had contracted for 12 cargo flights to ISS before the Obama administration came to office. The complaint about the 'New Direction in Space' is two fold. First, the US has given up govt. contracted manned access to LEO based on anticipated commercial developments. Maybe that's ok. Second, there is no commercial interest in going beyond LEO, and the US has now given that up too with no replacement in sight: BOO!
PoqVaUSA 1 year ago
Great interview. Thanks for all your hard work Miles:).
gopher652003 1 year ago
Fantastic interview Miles, thanks so much for posting it in its entirety.
mjkobb 1 year ago
Miles - how about giving NASA and it Prime Contractor equal air time?
tu8ca - Space X isn't working to the same set of requirements the Big Contractors. Nor are they working to Mil Standards, factors of safety and redudancy required for human spaceflight. Where is there testing for an abort system, parachute testing, landing and recovery. 9 engines is NOT redudancy for an engine out if the engine fails catostraphocally like it did on Dragon 1's first flight. Roll control ongoing problem
cbrooker72 1 year ago
@cbrooker72 "Nor are they working to Mil Standards, factors of safety and redudancy required for human spaceflight."
Where is your source for this claim? I call FUD.
"if the engine fails catostraphocally (sic) like it did on Dragon (sic) 1's first flight."
That Merlin did NOT fail catastrophically, it just shut down in flight. The vehicle then fell back to the reef. Anyone actually paying any attention to the launch would know this by now.
ugowar 1 year ago
@cbrooker72- you are right, SpaceX has fewer shackles than NASA and their prime contractors. They can field a launcher based on established technology far less expensively - that's the point.
NASA needs to take a hard look at what they are good at. Creating ground breaking technology that private industry can't pay for - yes. Creating cost effective launchers - no. Although that might be a good problem to throw their way, since they are supposed to be smart problem solvers.
tu8ca 1 year ago
"more heat than light"... debates get this way out of frustration. For years the main stream media has ignored the elephant in the room; prime contractors grasp on NASA via monopolies and fiefdoms. Ground breaking technology is very expensive - Constellation had the latter but not the former, not like the Shuttle or Apollo. Add in the obnoxious politicians doing what's right for their corporate sponsors at the expense of the country and people get mad. The current shake-up is a great thing.
tu8ca 1 year ago 8
WOW!!!
highlander2107 1 year ago