Since a number of cool things are happening in space exploration these days, we'll widen the scope of this thread a smidge. Conversation about all things space exploration are welcome, whether it be from NASA, SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, or anyone else. Chances are most of the discussion will still be about SpaceX since they love to make things public and fun, but nothing's off limits. I'll eventually get around to modifying the OP to include resources for other companies too, but in the meantime, feel free to post any cool stuff you run across.
Tim Dodd (Everyday Astronaut) - A "random dude" who got really into space (particularly SpaceX). He's a great resource for simple explanations of this stuff, as well as live hosting launches.
USLaunchReport - Lost of videos of the more mundane stuff (e.g., booster recovery operations). Not a ton of commentary.
NASASpaceFlight - Live hosting of most launches including a ton of video of Starlink operations.
Glossary
Spoiler!
Space discussions tend to get a little bogged down in jargon, so here's a list of terms you might encounter. (Others, please let me know of others that should be added.)
ASDS - Autonomous Spaceport Droneship - The "barges" that they sometimes land rockets on.
Dragon - The cone-shaped capsule that sits at the top of the rocket for ISS-bound launches that holds the cargo (or, in the future, humans).
F9 - Falcon 9, the name of the rocket itself.
FH - Falcon Heavy, the three-booster version.
GTO - Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit, a type of orbit that will eventually result in the satellite orbiting the earth as it turns so that it seems to be in the same spot from the ground (such as DirecTV or Dish satellites). These types of launches are particularly challenging because they require a lot of power to get them into the right orbit, leaving very little fuel left for landing.
HIF - Horizontal Integration Facility - the building near the launch pad where they put all of the pieces of the rocket together before rolling it out to the pad.
ISS - The International Space Station
JRTI - Just Read The Instructions, the name of the "barge" that they land on for west-coast launches.
LEO - Low Earth Orbit, a fairly low orbit shared by many satellites and ISS. These launches usually require less power to achieve the proper orbit, so the first stage can often be landed back on land rather than on a drone ship.
LZ1 - Landing Zone 1, basically a big open slab of concrete at Cape Canaveral where the first stage will attempt to land (for some launches).
NET - No Earlier Than, basically the date they're hoping to launch, but rocket launches have a tendency of getting delayed.
OCISLY - Of Course I Still Love You, the name of the "barge" that they land on for east-coast launches.
RTLS - Return to Landing Site, a mission where the first stage comes back and lands at LZ1.
Starship - SpaceX's next-generation rocket (and spacecraft) that will hopefully one day take us to Mars. Starship is the "second stage" that will carry cargo or people, but also refers to the whole system. (It's confusing, but think of it like the Space Shuttle, which was both the shuttle itself and the entire launch system.)
Super Heavy - The giant booster that will carry Starship to space.
Originally Posted by ThrobProng:
Loads of experience didn't prevent Boeing from committing major **** ups while designing and building airplanes, then trying to minimize and cover up their mistakes after the fact.
I wouldn't trust Boeing to design a child's drone at this point.
Did all of Boeing's engineers vanish into the rapture? Are they shuffling in tail pipe installers from SpiritAirlines to do the math for their rocket launches? LOL. The general aviation side of Boeing has as much to do with their rocket programs as the web developers at "X" do with with Elons 13+ billion dollar subsidized rocket company. [Reply]
Originally Posted by seamonster:
Did all of Boeing's engineers vanish into the rapture? Are they shuffling in tail pipe installers from SpiritAirlines to do the math for their rocket launches? LOL. The general aviation side of Boeing has as much to do with their rocket programs as the web developers at "X" do with with Elons 13+ billion dollar subsidized rocket company.
It's great to have to research the inner workings of a company to see if your life is in the hands of competent people, or the type of people who can't install a fucking door correctly. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by seamonster:
What the hell does this have to do with anything? Boeing's been launching vehicles and running a massive space operation since before I was alive on planet earth. They've accumulated hundreds of years of combined engineering knowledge (more than Europe and China). To act like they can't launch a manned rocket into space because of budget over-runs is crazy. BTW, elements of Boeing space were involved with the ****ing Apollo missions. Stop reading headlines.
You're aware that the most recent two-year delay was because their last test launch test had multiple failures, right? [Reply]
Originally Posted by seamonster:
Did all of Boeing's engineers vanish into the rapture?
Figuratively? Yes. They've been losing older engineers to retirement and younger engineers to New Space companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and RocketLab. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
You're aware that the most recent two-year delay was because their last test launch test had multiple failures, right?
From the outside it just looks like they had a reading that wasn't nominal and the engineers scrubbed the mission. That's not a "failure" that's somebody doing their job. And if I'm tasked with flying out on one of these things that's what I'd want to see. Musk may or may not have allowed that. Musk is in love with himself and his public image and if I'm a hard nosed NASA astronaut that scares me more than a buzzing oxygen valve. And you also have to look at the culture that SpaceX comes out of. Tesla is heavily subsidized by the government and they're allowed to ship out an auto-pilot feature that caused 700+ crashes and plenty of death and destruction. Boeing aviation had TWO crashes and ate shit, had public hearings and lost considerable stock value. Which side is going to be more likely to listen to engineers and which would go "agile" and tolerate risk? It's probably going to be the side that gets cute with industry terms like "rapid unplanned disassembly". [Reply]
Originally Posted by seamonster:
From the outside it just looks like they had a reading that wasn't nominal and the engineers scrubbed the mission. That's not a "failure" that's somebody doing their job. And if I'm tasked with flying out on one of these things that's what I'd want to see. Musk may or may not have allowed that. Musk is in love with himself and his public image and if I'm a hard nosed NASA astronaut that scares me more than a buzzing oxygen valve. And you also have to look at the culture that SpaceX comes out of. Tesla is heavily subsidized by the government and they're allowed to ship out an auto-pilot feature that caused 700+ crashes and plenty of death and destruction. Boeing aviation had TWO crashes and ate shit, had public hearings and lost considerable stock value. Which side is going to be more likely to listen to engineers and which would go "agile" and tolerate risk? It's probably going to be the side that gets cute with industry terms like "rapid unplanned disassembly".
Musk doesn't get to personally decide if a mission scrubs or not, and SpaceX has scrubbed plenty of launches. In fact, SpaceX just scrubbed a hotfire yesterday.
Also, Boeing Starliner failed its first launch because the clock in the control program was wrong, causing the engines to fire early and use up their fuel too quickly, meaning that it could not reach its intended orbit. How the control program was allowed to go to launch without being fully tested is beyond me.
If I had to choose a program to put me into space, I'd pick the one with the proven successful program. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
Musk doesn't get to personally decide if a mission scrubs or not, and SpaceX has scrubbed plenty of launches. In fact, SpaceX just scrubbed a hotfire yesterday.
Also, Boeing Starliner failed its first launch because the clock in the control program was wrong, causing the engines to fire early and use up their fuel too quickly, meaning that it could not reach its intended orbit. How the control program was allowed to go to launch without being fully tested is beyond me.
If I had to choose a program to put me into space, I'd pick the one with the proven successful program.
While I give Elon credit for setting ambitious visions for the future, the reality is that a ton of SpaceX's success comes from their operational excellence, and I give most of the credit for that to Gwynne rather than Elon. I largely discredit anyone's opinion about SpaceX if they don't understand her role in all of this. (I'm confident that Tesla would be in much better shape if they had a "Gwynne" of their own.)
More broadly, it's pretty clear that seamonster doesn't actually understand this stuff, so the debate isn't really worth the effort. [Reply]
