Adeline - Airbus(es) alternative to SpaceXs Falcon 9 Reusable

_Tombstone_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV29pEvZvZw

SpaceX and Airbus have very different methods of return, too. Falcon 9 keeps some fuel in reserve, which is used to slow the first stage's descent. Adeline detaches from the fuel tank, continues on a ballistic path, and then eventually uses winglets and propellers to land horizontally on a runway, a bit like a UAV. The main benefit of this method, at least as Airbus tells it, is that it requires much less fuel than SpaceX's method.

10 years behind, oh they need to get a wriggle on. 1 Man is beating a whole lazy continent.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2015/06/airbus-unveils-adeline-its-clever-answer-to-spacexs-reusable-rockets/

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

10 years behind, oh they need to get a wriggle on. 1 Man is beating a whole lazy continent.

crazy stuff, straight from the ULA play book

someone needs to tell them that by 2025 spaceX will be on their way to Mars

idiots :mad:

namloc1980

nokia69 wrote: »

crazy stuff, straight from the ULA play book

someone needs to tell them that by 2025 spaceX will be on their way to Mars

idiots :mad:

Why is it crazy and why are they idiots? Spacex haven't made their reusable rocket work yet.

And what does Mars have to do with this?

nokia69

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why is it crazy and why are they idiots? Spacex haven't made their reusable rocket work yet.

the rocket industry have spent the last 10 years laughing at spaceX, thinking that they would fail every step of the way, but right now spaceX have the lowest launch costs in the world, and thats without a reuseabe falcon 9

the last two attempts at landing and recovering a falcon 9 first stage would have worked if they were allowed to make the landing back at the launch site, spaceX will try another landing this month, they might fail again but its clear from the videos that its only a matter of time before they recover a first stage

spaceX said a while back that the long term price of a falcon 9 launch was 9million if that happens they will own the commercial launch market until someone else can match them on price, a 30% cut in costs 10 years from now is a joke

so it looks to me that ULA and airbus don't really care, they hope that they can survive on government contracts because they know that national governments will pay high prices

I hope the Russians and the Chinese come up with better plans than ULA and Airbus

namloc1980 wrote: »

And what does Mars have to do with this?

Mars is why spaceX exist, you should think of the falcon 9 as a small model of what they really want to build, they have started work on their next engine which will power the rockets that will send people to Mars, it should be ready by 2025, by that time airbus and ULA might have cut their costs by 30%, pathetic

_Tombstone_

Europe settles on design for Ariane 6 rocket

At a cost of €2.4Billion this yoke when it comes along in 4 years will cost €90million to make/launch with reusability maybe coming in 2030! (= never)

"It costs that because European Space Agency member states were happy to pay it, their is an unwritten rule not to use foreign Rockets, due to their only needing to be one engine on the bigger variant versus SpaceXs 9 it is obviously better.

The ability to launch two SATS at the same time which may be much better than re-usability shows they're better both in solid and cryogenic propulsion."

SpaceX have already sent up two at same time and have EUTELSAT 117W B & ABS-2A due to go up next month aswell.

http://spacenews.com/airbus-safran-launchers-1st-ariane-6-batch-contract-bid-by-end-year/



Europe getting a great deal here.

Wibbs

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Europe getting a great deal here.

Big shock. This is the usual by committee type thinking. Too many interests involved. Where SpaceX works is less about better tech or people, it's because one guy is focusing it. The best space stuff has always worked this way and will continue that way regardless of whether it's private or public enterprise. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo was all about Von Braun. There were thousands of serious brainiacs behind him, but he was the driver of it all. In the USSR it was Korolev at the top of the pyramid and look how their programme tailed off in the wake of his death. The Space shuttle was another "by committee" white elephant.

Junkyard Tom

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

1 Man is beating a whole lazy continent.

'Tech's enduring Great-Man myth'.

Musk’s success would not have been possible without, among other things, government funding for basic research and subsidies for electric cars and solar panels. Above all, he has benefited from a long series of innovations in batteries, solar cells, and space travel. He no more produced the technological landscape in which he operates than the Russians created the harsh winter that allowed them to vanquish Napoleon.

technologyreview.com

Needs to be said.

Wibbs

True JT, but like Steve Jobs before him* though he didn't invent directly he collected stuff and people in one place and got things done.





*and the cultish following is similar though I would argue Jobs actually changed way more of the world and brought more innovation to market.

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

Mercury, Gemini, Apollo was all about Von Braun. There were thousands of serious brainiacs behind him, but he was the driver of it all.

That's an ideological point that focuses on individuals as drivers of innovation without wrapping it in a multi-layered context. Apollo's principle driver was a clash of ideologies between east and west known as the Space Race. It simply would not have happened without the US government pumping vast sums of public money into funding the program and funding the research that made it. It very well could have happened without Von Braun.

Wibbs

Oh sure, but I'd bet if it did happen and within that timeframe it would still have been likely a one man band as far as focus goes, not a committee. Remember Von Braun long before NASA was around and before the Soviets launched anything was heavily promoting space and America needing to get into space and to the moon and beyond through political lobbying and lecture tours in schools, universities and corporations and TV appearances and magazine articles(even got Walt Disney involved). He was very much the visible go to "spaceman" in the US from the late 40's onwards.

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

Steve Jobs before him ... collected stuff and people in one place and got things done.

He did and was very good at it. Interestingly if you take the modern smartphone you can trace the development of much of their components and capabilities directly back to public sector funded advancement.

Having said that when it comes to the end-products, such as a smartphone, the private sector and consumer demand unleashes forces the public sector simply couldn't deal with. Smartphones based mini-sats are being put into low earth orbit due to their compactness and capabilities afaia. Can you imagine a 21st Century Soviet factory trying to produce smartphones (without corporate spying) if the system had endured?

Wibbs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He did and was very good at it. Interestingly if you take the modern smartphone you can trace the development of much of their components and capabilities directly back to public sector funded advancement.

Aye, same for PC's flat LED's the microchip, even quartz watches. A long list indeed.

Actually one small thing that struck me about Apollo were the small tape recorders they brought with them to play music along the way. Walkman's a decade early.

sameoldname

I would imagine the fact that SpaceX can use it's investors cash to operate at a loss while it gains market share doesn't hurt either. Musk did the exact same thing with PayPal and every Tesla built is sold at a substantial loss.
More established players in the industry have shareholders that expect a return now, not in a decade. Not that I think that it's a bad thing.

nokia69

sameoldname wrote: »

I would imagine the fact that SpaceX can use it's investors cash to operate at a loss while it gains market share doesn't hurt either. Musk did the exact same thing with PayPal and every Tesla built is sold at a substantial loss.
More established players in the industry have shareholders that expect a return now, not in a decade. Not that I think that it's a bad thing.

SpaceX make a profit but they reinvest the money in to new R & D

Every Tesla sold makes a substantial profit, one of the best margins in the car industry in fact, however Tesla over all don't make a profit because they are building the worlds largest battery factory and investing in expanding a supercharging network and new showrooms and service centres

sameoldname

nokia69 wrote: »

SpaceX make a profit but they reinvest the money in to new R & D

Every Tesla sold makes a substantial profit, one of the best margins in the car industry in fact, however Tesla over all don't make a profit because they are building the worlds largest battery factory and investing in expanding a supercharging network and new showrooms and service centres

If you exclude R&D then yes, Tesla make a profit on each car sold but seeing as they've lost money every year for the past 5 years (to the tune of $1.173 billion for those 5 years) the point still stands. Established players don't get that sort of flexibility without the stock market hammering them.

My point with SpaceX is that at this stage the company doesn't have to worry about financial returns, just hitting their milestones and acquiring market share. Keeping the stock price up helps too.
Next year SpaceX might post a loss and they'll still get funding unless market outlook changes and investors decide there's no decent financial return in that industry.

nokia69

sameoldname wrote: »

My point with SpaceX is that at this stage the company doesn't have to worry about financial returns, just hitting their milestones and acquiring market share. Keeping the stock price up helps too.
Next year SpaceX might post a loss and they'll still get funding unless market outlook changes and investors decide there's no decent financial return in that industry.

They won't post anything its not a public company

You might be right about last year, they may well have run at a loss, however SpaceX is worth far more today than it was this time last year

Unless they lose an other Falcon 9 I would bet this year will be their most profitable

_Tombstone_

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

'Tech's enduring Great-Man myth'.



Needs to be said.

Yea, I'd edit the post if I could actually, not that it matters.

As Wibbs said , he just bringing the people together. He said something the other day like good engineers work at his companies, the bad ones leave to join apple.

I was wondering why even say bull like that but thinking after, It probably a petty dig at all the ex employees currently sueing him.

http://www.ibtimes.com/spacex-lawsuit-alleges-elon-musks-rocket-company-forced-hourly-employees-work-clock-2151993



I actually thought that he had set up Tesla then I came across this

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-co-founder-sues-elon-musk-2009-6?IR=T

Settled out of court^^


Today he cancelled some dudes Model X pre order cuz the guy wrote a bad review, seemingly 3000 people who have paid 5000 deposit were invited to see the car. They get there and were moved from room to room, no food and then Musk appeared 2 hours late with no explanation and no Car to be seen.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/03/elon-musk-blogger-tesla-motors-model-x


These are the people building the Rockets and buying the Cars and that's how they are treated.