The company line on that even seems pretty clearly to invoke the example of SpaceX. Iterative improvement is the way forward and if things blow up sometimes, we learn and press on.
We'll see how the learning goes, and whether the funds hold out and customers sign up and pay.
Well yes. This is indeed the way of rocket science. I've been looking at some SpaceX launches from recent weeks and was astounded at the current overall statistics for SpaceX :
total launches : 376
total landings : 341
total re-flights : 310
... recalling that the many landing failures early on would show up here within the difference b/w launches and landings. Also one booster in particular has done over 20 flights. So with regard to an original stated intention of SpaceX - to develop reusable launch vehicles - has been proven in spades. Another figure of merit is over 1000 individual ridesharing payloads have been delivered to space.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
SpaceX proved quite quickly that the European approach to lighter payloads is not competitive. They wanted to use the decades-old Russian Soyuz design, for which a launch pad was specially built in Kourou (French Guiana). It is cheap because it is decades old and well-developed rocket design... mass production at Russian wage levels in Russia... Reusable SpaceX rockets are cheaper than this. Remarkable. Europe now has a problem and has lost at least a decade because in the beginning they did not perceive the SpaceX approach as an equal competitor.
Moment Chinese rocket crashes
)
Moment Chinese rocket crashes after unexpected launch
A more detailed
)
A more detailed analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-Kw9u37I0
Richard
Kavanagh wrote: A more
)
Nice. thank for posting that.
In the bad old days government rocket test sites in China were far inland to protect them from prying eyes.
Looks like the habit of not protecting nearby residents very well has carried forward into the modern private launch era there.
Possible explanation for
)
Possible explanation for Falcon 9 second stage failure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St-yEc6fyLg
Richard
Moment rocket engine explodes
)
Moment rocket engine explodes in Shetland
Full story BBC - Rocket engine explodes during test at Shetland spaceport
The company line on that even
)
The company line on that even seems pretty clearly to invoke the example of SpaceX. Iterative improvement is the way forward and if things blow up sometimes, we learn and press on.
We'll see how the learning goes, and whether the funds hold out and customers sign up and pay.
Well yes. This is indeed the
)
Well yes. This is indeed the way of rocket science. I've been looking at some SpaceX launches from recent weeks and was astounded at the current overall statistics for SpaceX :
total launches : 376
total landings : 341
total re-flights : 310
... recalling that the many landing failures early on would show up here within the difference b/w launches and landings. Also one booster in particular has done over 20 flights. So with regard to an original stated intention of SpaceX - to develop reusable launch vehicles - has been proven in spades. Another figure of merit is over 1000 individual ridesharing payloads have been delivered to space.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
SpaceX proved quite quickly
)
SpaceX proved quite quickly that the European approach to lighter payloads is not competitive. They wanted to use the decades-old Russian Soyuz design, for which a launch pad was specially built in Kourou (French Guiana). It is cheap because it is decades old and well-developed rocket design... mass production at Russian wage levels in Russia... Reusable SpaceX rockets are cheaper than this. Remarkable. Europe now has a problem and has lost at least a decade because in the beginning they did not perceive the SpaceX approach as an equal competitor.