Shape Ship Two crashed

[Mike_Yates]

Two rocket launch failures within just weeks of each other.

Is this some kind of omen?

 

[Libsam]

Two rocket launch failures within just weeks of each other.

Is this some kind of omen?

IDK but I've heard rumors that you're good at posting conspiracy porn. Bring it on!!

 

[tactful]

They should have stayed with regular, instead of high test.

 

[1sickbastard]

Some video of the Antares rocket failure.

Thise was the unmanned resupply mission to the ISS earlier in the week. Antares boosters are very reliable lift platforms (usually).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx1CeHFeea0

 

[Mike_Yates]

Sounds fishy/ominous, like it could have been sabotaged.

 

[Learnsmith]

Thanks to all you hot fucks who actually have the stamina to knock around the questions I have in my head.

Let me see if I've got this right, in layman's terms.

1) Without investment from the 1% illuminati style big pharm/business/bank/government cohort the rest of the plebs will never be able to make it happen because it's not profitable at the moment.

2) We know the private sector can do it because in the past the government never really built it, they just provided subsidies to the lowest bidding contractors to accomplish our space exploration goals.

Who knows what the answer is? Let India do it on the cheap? Their labor is cheap, they probably don't have as many regulation$ to deal with and in the end they'd be easier to control than China.

I don't think it's a matter of "without," I just think that until we're prepared to afford NASA and other agencies the budgets they deserve, they deserve to spend their grant money on better things than supply runs. Also, I would point out that India already has its own space program, and is celebrating the arrival in-system of its first Mars orbiter. India has three times the population of the US and has one of the world's fastest-growing economies. They don't really need us anymore. Not for long, anyway.

 

[Libsam]

Let them have mars, we're going interstellar!

 

[Mike_Yates]

This virgin rocket crash sounds awfully suspicious, like it could have been sabotage or corporate terrorism.

 

[Libsam]

Got a theory, Yates?

 

[doctor_insanus]

Nah, it was most likely simple corporate negligence.

 

[Libsam]

Nah, it was most likely simple corporate negligence.

Oh damn, I knew that Virgin logo looked familiar...
Virgin Galactic is the Virgin Records guy!

 

[JohnnySavage]

Oh damn, I knew that Virgin logo looked familiar...
Virgin Galactic is the Virgin Records guy!

 

[Ishmael]

Preliminary evidence points to pilot (co-pilot) error but mechanical failure of the 'feathering' locking system hasn't been ruled out. There is no evidence that the propulsion system was involved as first believed by the non-participants making guesses in the press.

Ishmael

 

[KingOrfeo]

These problems will be surmounted eventually. Material sciences are constantly becoming more advanced and there's already a shitload of money being spent on sending payloads into orbit. That what Virgin Galactic & Space X have been trying to do; bring the cost of lifting cargo to LEO, GSO & TLO down to the point that it is economically viable to have a permanent human presence in space.

Even so, there's only so much that can be done with chemical rockets. Even nuclear pulse propulsion is essentially rocketry, a higher-tech form of propelling your boat by heaving rocks over the stern. Space travel won't ever reach the "Let's vacation on Mars this year!" point until some other, fundamentally different mode of propulsion is invented, a Dean drive that really works, or antigravity or repulsor beams or something. Or, at the very least, a space elevator to cut the Earth-to-orbit costs.

 

[Learnsmith]

Let them have mars, we're going interstellar!

I think we're a few years off that yet - recent advances be damned.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Who knows what the answer is? Let India do it on the cheap?

Nah, Mexico does it cheaper.

 

[Learnsmith]

Nah, Mexico does it cheaper.

I thought this was going to be a reference to Kerbal Space Program. I am disappoint.

 

[Balladeer08]

Even so, there's only so much that can be done with chemical rockets. Even nuclear pulse propulsion is essentially rocketry, a higher-tech form of propelling your boat by heaving rocks over the stern. Space travel won't ever reach the "Let's vacation on Mars this year!" point until some other, fundamentally different mode of propulsion is invented, a Dean drive that really works, or antigravity or repulsor beams or something. Or, at the very least, a space elevator to cut the Earth-to-orbit costs.

We should build a space elevator on the far side of the moon first. Many advantages to this: lower gravity, shorter cable, and nobody for stuff to land on if there is an accident, thereby cutting insurance cost tremendously.

And helping us to colonize the moon.

BTW, you won't live ON, the moon, you will live IN it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We should build a space elevator on the far side of the moon first. Many advantages to this: lower gravity, shorter cable, and nobody for stuff to land on if there is an accident, thereby cutting insurance cost tremendously.

And helping us to colonize the moon.

No, that just helps people and cargo get off the Moon. But how did the people get there in the first place? An Earth-to-orbit space elevator has got to be a higher priority -- once you're at the top of it, you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System, and no need to stop at the Moon if it's not your destination. It's getting out of Earth's gravity well that's the toughest, costliest part.

 

[KingOrfeo]

BTW, you won't live ON, the moon, you will live IN it.

Well, yes -- in the sense described in post #16, which is rather a downer.

 

[Libsam]

I think we're a few years off that yet - recent advances be damned.

We have a voyager that recently crossed over, right?
I seem to remember some hype a couple years ago about new, unexpected data returned from the outskirts of the solar envelope.

 

[Balladeer08]

No, that just helps people and cargo get off the Moon. But how did the people get there in the first place? An Earth-to-orbit space elevator has got to be a higher priority -- once you're at the top of it, you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System, and no need to stop at the Moon if it's not your destination. It's getting out of Earth's gravity well that's the toughest, costliest part.

The elevator goes down as well as up.

And the space elevator will be one of the greatest engineering feats of all time.

Some practice with a smaller, cheaper, safer one would go a long way towards making it a success.

Yes, the goal is an Earth-to-space elevator.

But the same way we started with smaller missions before attempting to reach the moon, we should start with a smaller space elevator before attempting to build the one on Earth.