It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — A space weather satellite is poised to blast off Sunday for a destination 1 million miles away, but it's the rocket's ocean landing that is stealing the spotlight. The SpaceX company will take a second stab at landing a booster on a platform floating off the Florida coast; last month's experiment ended in a fireball.
“This is a difficult thing to achieve,” he told an annual U.S. Export-Import Bank conference in Washington April 25. “A lot of people in the aerospace industry think it's not possible, and most in industry have given up on it. But we think it's possible.”
Among the doubters is NASA Deputy Associate Administrator Dan Dumbacher, a former Space Shuttle engineer who leads the agency's exploration systems development. Dumbacher says the agency learned a lot from its experience with the orbiter's reusable Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs).
“We tried to make the engines reusable for 55 flights,” he said in Paris last month. “Look how long and how much money it took for us to do that, and we still weren't successful for all parts.”
.....
The conception of the Space Shuttle was a result of a marriage between NASA, the Air Force, and other partners. Each wanted their own design specifications, which ended up producing a wieldy vehicle with no well-defined purpose, and it became the “catch all” of the space industry. Mainly, it was that the amount of maintenance required after every mission was greatly underestimated by NASA. After each flight, the entire vehicle had to be essentially rebuilt: tiles replaced, engines inspected, boosters refurbished. In particular, the trio of RS-25 main engines had to be taken apart and checked for every possible defect that could cause a failure, and when things broke, there wasn’t a healthy supply-line that could replace them easily, causing the cost of spare parts to skyrocket, and maintaining a workforce ready and able to refurbish the Shuttle quickly became a money-sink that NASA was never able to recover.
......
Fundamentally, we must decouple re-landing, refurbishment, reusability, and financially viable and rapid reuse from each other. It can be a difficult concept to grasp that all four are distinct, and the success of one does not imply the next step is guaranteed. Because of this, question marks still remain over the cost, time, and complexity of the final steps necessary for SpaceX to complete its reusable rocket master plan. For example: re-landing a rocket does not necessarily make refurbishment nonexistent. This is the take home story of the Space Shuttle.
A landing alone doesn’t revolutionize rocketry; rather, we may only realize the revolution of refining rocketry into an airline-like model has occurred well only by looking back in the rear view mirror.
.......
originally posted by: machineintelligence
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — A space weather satellite is poised to blast off Sunday for a destination 1 million miles away, but it's the rocket's ocean landing that is stealing the spotlight. The SpaceX company will take a second stab at landing a booster on a platform floating off the Florida coast; last month's experiment ended in a fireball.
SpaceX To Attempt Rocket Landing For Second Time
I for one will be staying tuned to this second attempt. Crossing my fingers and hoping against hope. If Space X pulls this of on just the second attempt I will be highly impressed. I remember the sci-fi of my childhood where the spaceship landed in a fiery, thunderous but perfect landing. I never thought to see a rocket return like this in my lifetime.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: jonnywhite
NASA can suck it, imagine what could be done with the resources that they squander.
originally posted by: Xeven
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: jonnywhite
NASA can suck it, imagine what could be done with the resources that they squander.
It's not NASA's fault. It is the politicians who mess up NASA priorities and budgets. NASA consists of the same brilliant scientist that work at SpaceX, Boeing etc... If politicians let the scientist control what they do at NASA and fund them appropriately without the political cost involved we would likely have colonies in our solar system by now.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick
No it doesn't. It says the previous attempt was during a launch that delivered supplies to the space station. This launch is a climate observatory to the L1 Lagrange point.
SpaceX is one of the primary launch contractors for the ISS resupply so NASA doesn't have to. Once the Dragon is certified for people they'll launch astronauts to the ISS as well.
originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: jonnywhite
A history of failure for a government organization no matter how well funded they were does not compare to the resolve of a company who's bottom line is directly attached to its ultimate success.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: jonnywhite
NASA can suck it, imagine what could be done with the resources that they squander.