u/OccupyDuna

Super cool to see what looks like a hardware rich program at Blue. Hopefully BE-7 can be the first of many!

Shuttle first flew in 1981, SpaceX first flew in 2006. By the time SpaceX had any lobby power it was already decided shuttle needed to be retired.

The software errors I'm talking about is the incorrect mapping of the service section thrusters used to separate the service section and capsule on orbit. This was only found after additional software reviews as a result of the first software issue with the mission timer. I fail to see how astronauts would have been able to prevent the service section from recontacting unexpectedly. If the heat shield was damaged after service section jettison that is highly likely to be loss of crew. From an article covering a joint NASA-Boeing press conference:

"If Boeing hadn't caught that glitch before Starliner came back to Earth, the two modules could have "bumped" into each other after separation, which could have destabilized the crew module during a critical point in its descent.

"The thrusters' uneven firing would cause the service module, which is a piece of a cylinder, to come away from the crew module and recontact, or bump back into it," Jim Chilton, senior vice president for Boeing Space and Launch, said during the teleconference, adding that "bad things" can happen as a result of that eventuality.

"That means you go poke the crew module, and it gets unstable and it has to go stabilize itself," Chilton said. "So, one question is, do you hit it hard enough to where it tumbles or you have a problem? Another thing is, you don't want to damage that heat shield, because you need the heat shield to come back in."

https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-2nd-software-glitch-potential-collision.html

If the service section thruster mapping issue was not found on-orbit, would that not have been fatal? Obviously the pointing mode issue on ascent could have been overridden by Crew, but I fail to see how they would have been able to fix the service section from recontacting after separating.

The fins aren't for drag, they are for generating lift, which is how they control the vehicle by turning. The tradeoff where it makes sense not to stow them on ascent is if the penalty to payload from drag losses is less than the penalty to payload from making the fins able to stow, deploy and lock in flight. Also a possibility that they plan on adding in the ability to fold the fins later, but since these are test missions with no payload, the reduced payload capability doesn't really matter.

Of course linerless composite tanks are possible, they have years of flight heritage on Electron.

Any plans for a Crew Dragon illustration? That would be amazing with this art style!

Rumor has it there are some springs and metal bits involved.

Gotta get that Baja SAE recruiting in

Any plans a Crew Dragon one? This series looks great!

Any plans for a starship version? That would be amazing!

This is a super cool idea for a podcast! I will definitely be listening.

A 2021 launch was a requirement of the NSSL contract they were competing for. So until the contracts were awarded, it was pretty much guaranteed none of the competitors would publicly say that they couldn't make that schedule. To say otherwise would lose potentially billions in contracts.

It was for Atlas V. This report lays out multiple times that the contract allows a secondary LV to be used in the contingency that the bid LV is not ready on time. Of course, being subcontractors for ULA, Blue and NG would have a vested interest in offering the Atlas V as their backup.

One big one I don't see on this list is that for Starship, the evaluator said their schedule would conclude development in 2026. This was not based on any information that SpaceX provided, but instead based on the 11 years it took to NASA to develop the Space Shuttle in 1971! SpaceX points out if they are being evaluated by comparison to past vehicles, ULA should be evaluated to Atlas V and Delta IV development. This would put development at 7 years, much past the 2022 deadline.

How's that parking? It crowded?

Yes it will, that's why you can get stuck to the walls of an amusement park ride as it spins at a constant rate.

Or early enough that they can still incorporate architecture level feedback.

The way that otherwise credible NASA officials sat around and cried "Mars! Asteroids! Bright future!" while never answering the real questions (where's the craft, where's the mission, where's the budget?) was a frightening show of confused priorities.

Has this changed in your opinion? Because this continues to be my biggest concern with NASA's manned space program. It seems as though the messaging has always been "Moon! or Mars!" depending on the administration, with the only real details firmly decided on were the SLS itself (and more recently LOPG). I haven't heard anything about serious development of lunar/martian landers or habitats or many other pieces required for long term surface stays. Is this being worked on seriously in the background, or isn't is really a current focus of NASA?

A

It was certainly inspiring, but its time has past. NASA has its sights set beyond LEO, where the shuttle couldn't go. SLS may be more inspiring considering it may return humans to the moon.

I think NASA should be rebuilt and the shuttle program ramped up again.

Why bring back the shuttle? It was incredibly expensive and inherently dangerous. In addition, it can't launch cargo without crew. NASA realized this and decided they needed a new, safer way to transport crew/cargo. They've been working on a Shuttle replacement since 2005, and it looks like the maiden flight won't be happening until at least 2020. And once its operational, it will be able to launch a maximum of 2 times a year.

NASA should be the primary focus of productive development with tax dollars

I'd argue that's what SLS allows them to do. With SLS they can focus on developing the most capable launch vehicle in existence. The truth is there is no benefit to NASA to take full ownership of routine crew/cargo transport. They wouldn't need to push the boundaries as this would not be a challenge for them.

and less administration of funds to the private sector where IP gobbles up all the good stuff even through the public paid for most of it.

You do realize that most of the money NASA gets to build rockets goes to contractors anyways, right? NASA doesn't actually manufacture anything, that is all contracted out. On the Space Shuttle, Boeing/Rockwell built the orbiters, the external tank was built by Lockheed and the booster were made by Thiokol. The Space Shuttle main engines were made by Pratt and Whitney.

toward one if his priv/gov partnerships because NASA actually gets results where as Elon hypes with little/if any return.

What makes you think this? For launching NASA payloads, SpaceX offers the lowest prices. For launching NASA's crew to the ISS, SpaceX has the lowest prices, cheaper than the shuttle or Soyuz. SpaceX has been launching cargo to the ISS since 2012 for far cheaper than NASA was able to with the shuttle. Specifically, what private/public partnership are you talking about where you think SpaceX has not delivered.

EDIT: Also, what is SpaceX being contracted to do that you think NASA would do better/cheaper?

Elon's gotten enough free money from the government without having to deliver on it while there's still clear benefit.

What are you referring to here? What free money has Musk gotten from NASA? And if its not from NASA, why should they stop contracting him when he is delivering to them?

They are NASA it's their purpose for existing, to work on stuff nobody needs yet. That's not a point in NASA's favor, it's them dropping the ball.

You do know that NASA has no control over their own budget, or what projects they take on right? They do what they are directed to by Congress. I don't like it, but that's how it works.

Why have NASA at all then? That's a rhetorical question.

I really don't understand how you got here from what I said.

If, if, if, if, if.

Do you have an actual reason to think the propulsion system would fail during landing when it's already qualified as an LES?

Parachutes are inherently dangerous in a way you can't build redundancy in. I've seen PJ's get fucked up bad doing nothing wrong.

By that logic, do you have an actual reason to think the parachute system would fail? The parachute system Dragon 2 uses has been tested in simulated landings at least 16 times. In these tests the capsule is dropped and achieves terminal velocity, allowing it to fully simulate a real capsule landing following reentry. And these parachutes have redundancy Dragon can lose a chute and still land safely. Plus they are not the first ones to use a parachute system. Parachutes have been used to land capsules for over half a century with success.

NASA should have pioneered this technology 20 years ago. Not because they need it, but because it's the point of their existence, to do the things that don't need to be done yet, so others can follow more easily, not the other way around.

Blame Congress, not NASA.