How would Mir get hold of US technologies? As noted, the resources used for each are different, but the standard and methods of creating that environment for the crew has remained. The Russians developed their own versions of electrolysis and atmospheric mixing and control. Just as they developed t...
Jump to postThe solid rocket boosters *could have been* new technology that lasted. I could imagine today's rockets using recoverable solid motors for the first stage. Did they ever work out economically? Was it cheaper to recover and refurbish than to build new? Relying solely on SRB's for the first stage red...
Jump to postAnother example of Shuttle technology that has since become standard, is the ECLSS system that provided an Earth-like shirt-sleeve crew environment. Similar systems were used for Mir and ISS, and now for Orion, although the resources available have been different for each, and the technology has be...
Jump to postThe heat tiles is the obvious answer. You could even say the concept of a space plane that can re-enter the atmosphere and land on a runway was proven by the space shuttle. Had this not occurred it would have been much harder to sell the ideal of a space plane like the X-37 or Dream Chaser. Investo...
Jump to postDoes any current non-SLS rocket use space shuttle derived technologies? The SLS does count, but I already knew of that.
The tiles on DreamChaser are exactly what I'm looking for.
I'm not sure that answers my question (but maybe I missed something). These seem to be a list of civilian spin-offs helped by the space shuttle. It's things like "Jewelry Design — Jewelers no longer have to worry about inhaling dangerous asbestos fibers from the blocks they use as soldering bas...
Jump to postThe Space Shuttle budgeted $10B for R&D. It spent $47B on R&D (both 2020 prices). Which parts of the Space Shuttle technology were helpful in pushing current technology to where it is today? I'm NOT asking for a list of ways the Space Shuttle was first at doing some thing. I'm asking for tec...
Jump to post(some stuff) I can only presume you didn't read, or didn't understand, any of my statements. And therefore are repeating your own beliefs in complete oblivion to the facts I presented, which you have not refuted nor offered any evidence to the contrary. Therefore I will consider this a matter of yo...
Jump to postNone of this alters the fact that Shuttle was a step in the progression of increasing access and decreasing cost. Nor does it lend any significance to the comparison of Shuttle to Falcon, programs separated by 30 years and vastly different designs and goals. Of course. What's the 'Of Course'? That ...
Jump to postWhy do you think the Space Shuttle "lowered the cost to access space"? Launches on the Space Shuttle itself were super expensive, Shuttle-C was never built, and the SLS is also super expensive. As compared to previous NASA programs, both access and cost were improved. That has been true o...
Jump to postJust to be clear (and I'm not trying to convince Avatar2go but anyone else reading) those "relatively meaningless statistics" are launch rate (4x slower than target) and cost (9x larger than target). If you think launch rate and cost are "relatively meaningless" then you should ...
Jump to postYet somehow we are being asked to believe all of this was a failure, based on two relatively meaningless statistics Just to be clear (and I'm not trying to convince Avatar2go but anyone else reading) those "relatively meaningless statistics" are launch rate (4x slower than target) and cos...
Jump to postIt was built to enable LEO satellite recovery and repair in space. Which it did many times It recovered & returned 52 satellites from LEO. I don't think this is right? I see 3 "repair" and 4 "recover" on this list. https://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/dev/hillger/Shuttle-related...
Jump to postThe Shuttle was built to make access to space much cheaper and more frequent. That was two super significant goals. And it was 9x to costly and 1/4X to slow. To remain factual, the Shuttle did make access to space much more frequent. Just not to the extent that was initially predicted. And likewise...
Jump to postShuttle had a budget, but you know damn well it was considered part of national security and therefore they would have paid whatever it took. Similar to Apollo until they actually landed on the moon. Artemis is a whole different mess, hence why I said it’s not without criticism, but the point I was...
Jump to postI'd love to talk to the astronauts. But the Shuttle had stated goals, and didn't meet them. Not even close. Missed by a huge amount in both launch rate and economics. Something like 9X the cost and 1/4X the launch rate while killing two crews! Huge misses. When you don't come even close to meeting ...
Jump to postIt’s all very pick and choose the definition. Exaggerated, but that’s what this conversation has turned into. It’s hard to judge older programs like Apollo or STS based on things like budget because they pretty much were designed without that being taken into account. ... Perfect example is Artemis...
Jump to postI'm sorry but that is at best uninformed. "Early during development of the Space Shuttle, NASA had estimated that the program would cost $7.45 billion ($43 billion in 2011 dollars, adjusting for inflation) in development/non-recurring costs, and $9.3M ($54M in 2011 dollars) per flight. ... The...
Jump to postI'm sorry but that is at best uninformed. "Early during development of the Space Shuttle, NASA had estimated that the program would cost $7.45 billion ($43 billion in 2011 dollars, adjusting for inflation) in development/non-recurring costs, and $9.3M ($54M in 2011 dollars) per flight. ... The...
Jump to postI agree if you need a crewed vehicle, and you have $3B per mission, the Shuttle works. But that is a very uncommon use case. BTW the Space Shuttle was almost two generations ago, and was a huge colossal failure when measured against it's own goals. Disagree on this. It achieved the design goal of b...
Jump to postSpaceX does seem like a game changer, after decades of at best incremental improvement. A better representation might be cost per unit capability. Unfortunately there is no graph for that. For example, evaluating the Shuttle on cost per kg ignores it's capabilities. It carried a large mass vehicle ...
Jump to postCompare the changes between a 1975 car and a 2023 car. Huge! Compare the changes between a 1975 plane and a 2023 plane. Huge! Compare the changes between a 1975 ship and a 2023 ship. Huge! Compare the changes between a 1975 rocket and a 2023 rocket. NOT huge. 1975 there was no STS, no Ariane 4 or 5...
Jump to postI’ll note for the record that I have never made that claim. My point is simply that traditional aerospace organizations, including NASA, have been moving at a glacial development pace compared to SpaceX. I'd agree that SpaceX moves faster than NASA or the majority of its competitors. But as discuss...
Jump to postAny war with a China that has equipment that is even half as good as our is (and I find it hard to believe that they aren't at least 90% as effective as our gear is) is going to be staggeringly expensive in life and equipment/money as we will be playing in their front yard the entire time. The logi...
Jump to postAvatar2go … thank you for the updates and insight.
Jump to postThere are surely differences. Spatial reasoning is often better in men. Decision-making probably better in women. And depending on the situation, the average male pilot will perform better than the average female pilot, and vice versa. Agreed .. but disagreed. Maybe spacial reasoning is better in t...
Jump to postI'd like to avoid politics as much as possible. I'm really just looking for data. Does anyone know of any studies or data comparing men and women combat pilots? Here is an older article that says women Ah-64 pilots have a much lower accident rate than men. https://time.com/8404/army-women-helicopte...
Jump to postWoah. People do look at gender performance metrics. Also, there are significant militaries where women are not allowed to be combat pilots (looking at you India). My assumption was that the final results would not be "women sux", but a friend asked why I thought this and I didn't have any ...
Jump to postI'd like to avoid politics as much as possible. I'm really just looking for data. Does anyone know of any studies or data comparing men and women combat pilots? Here is an older article that says women Ah-64 pilots have a much lower accident rate than men. https://time.com/8404/army-women-helicopter...
Jump to postCan you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one? This generation? Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and A400m. There is only four military only aircraft to choose from. Only one was designed with cost as a de...
Jump to postCan you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one?? There’s a wide range of light and medium helicopters to choose from. The H145 and various derivatives, the Lynx/Wildcat, the Puma and various derivative...
Jump to postI believe a KC390 made at Brazilian wage rates, using a commercial engine, might be competative with a C-130. Even when measuring the operating cost using non Brazillian wages it is cost effective. I'm not saying your're wrong, but I'd like a source for this. I'm interested, but I didn't think ther...
Jump to postI believe a KC390 made at Brazilian wage rates, using a commercial engine, might be competative with a C-130. Even when measuring the operating cost using non Brazillian wages it is cost effective. I could see a market for a C130 replacement. That the C390 is not selling is worrying, but there non-...
Jump to postWith one exception .. no European military aircraft sells 500 copies. I would consider the CN235 and CN295 as one family. We consider the A321 and A319 as the same family. Well over 500 CN235 and CN295 aircraft have been produced. Production lines are still going with no signs of them stopping. I'm...
Jump to postbunumuring wrote:Hey kitplane01,
Are u including helicopters in that?
Take care
Bunumuring
1) The C-130 is currently operated by 67 different nations, which I believe is 2nd most. What's the military aircraft that would rank first on this list? Third?
2) Which European-built military aircraft is currently operated by the most nations?
The A200M with a MTOW around 60t would probably be the size where it could permanently remain in production. The market is much bigger as aircraft get smaller. I could easily see 500 A200M sold. Most C-130 operators would be using the A200M by 2050. Eurofighter Typhoon: 561 NH90: 471 Dassault Rafal...
Jump to posta 7% increase in range and thrust won't make a huge difference for the A model. The C will enjoy the range to be sure, but the B model will be the biggest winner as it's the most restricted in range and performance. That should be a notable performance and capabilities upgrade for users all over th...
Jump to postHard to imagine that the video is going to release any ITAR-relvent deep secrets. China looks at the video and say "Oh my, that's the secret part contained in the rocket that we're going to start building and change our rocket deisgn to incorporate. "The investigation is not complete"...
Jump to postBeyond embarrassment prevention, why quarantine the video? Especially since it's a (mostly) civilian rocket, and the cause of the failure have already been released? The hardware shown in the video is proprietary, and further may have ITAR restrictions. Also the investigation is not yet complete, a...
Jump to postIn fact the video was given by Blue to NASA, who then gave it to ULA, in accordance with protocol. All three agencies have quarantined the video, as a normal part of the investigation. Beyond embarrassment prevention, why quarantine the video? Especially since it's a (mostly) civilian rocket, and t...
Jump to postWhen the USAF says that only 53% of the time the F-35 can conduct even one mission, out of it's menu of missions, I believe them. When you claim the F-35 can 90% of the time do something useful with a JDAM and AMRAM both, I still believe the USAF. I fully believe the USAF when they say only 53% mee...
Jump to postThat low 50% availability rate is simply due to optional maintenance or minor secondary systems not working correctly. ... If China took over the F-35 fleet tomorrow it would be declared 95+% mission capable by their standards. If the F135 engine diagnostic systems showed a minor 1% variant from sp...
Jump to postThat's super false. That's not even close. "The mission capable rate—the percentage of total time when the aircraft can fly and perform at least one mission" -- https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106217 "Mission capable" means it's able to conduct EVEN ONE mission. If the F-35 ...
Jump to postSo why is it still called "Centaur"? I know of the Ship of Theseus, but still give it a new name! Have to ask ULA that question. They seem pretty proud of the Centaur name and heritage. The reality is if they did, then people would claim "that's really just an upgraded Centaur"....
Jump to postIt is interesting they use the words "mission capable" and "full mission capable" and have 53% and 30% respectively. These are arbitrary levels with moving goal posts. They should add a third category that is permanently fixed called "AMRAAM and JDAM capable". That val...
Jump to postSo why is it still called "Centaur"? I know of the Ship of Theseus, but still give it a new name!
Jump to postThe structure of the fixed cost contract, which ensures production economy of scale savings go to the USAF, and not Boeing. I was really sure that in a fixed cost contract, all cost savings go the vendor. That's the point of a fixed cost contract .. to encourage the vendor to perform as economicall...
Jump to post