SpaceX And/Or Rocketry In General

The good/impressive part here is that the Crew Dragon still retains the good old pull-the-chutes option following de-orbit which covers a lot of adverse scenarios including inability to vector back down to soft landing. Perhaps one could think of the module as an upgraded design of the older type but with an additional powered-to-ground capability. If not for failure of expectation that would likely have been demonstrated after the second stage foul up in July and was well demonstrated with the pad abort test. As the module hit the ocean after a long descent still functional, but alas not activated, following getting blown out of the debris cloud then that is impressive in my view.

If we take the revealed line that quality control on outsourcing of hardware manufacture ( the internal tank strut failure at a fraction of nominal load ) can be ruthlessly tightened up then it augers well. Well in a way that event may be a huge boon ultimately, because it may potentially round up other "sleeping errors" of that kind. Better to disclose that during testing however financially cruel.

Cheers, FNQ Correspondent

The basic problem with a controlled landing is keeping the thrust under the load, right? Like balancing a pole on your finger. Perhaps this is the reason all the aliens have saucers -- less height and wider thrust area would both make control easier.

This isn't actually about SpaceX.

An astronaut will run a marathon on board the ISS.

Hmmmm. Full commercial payload(s) and the upgraded Merlin too ( a sporty 30% thrust increase ). Should be good. :-0

As for Blue Origin, Virgin etc : they are working on a different paradigm, so no genuine comparison exists IMHO. In particular the total energy budget* for their launches is rather lower than SpaceX. Elon's comments about the margin to get to orbit - from this planet - is quite apt. That is, it is dis-proportionally rather harder to achieve orbit than a mere lob. The results have a thresh-hold aspect not just more-of-the-same.

Cheers, Mike.

* It costs to up and down, one way or another. It's entropic loss all the way, you don't regenerate the cost of going up when going down. The Space Shuttle had the right idea with replaceable ablation components, but in retrospect ( an easy viewpoint ) would have done better with a monolithic shield. Bring on the space elevator ! :-)

( edit ) There's a static test fire at the Cape on the 16th.

( edit ) The payload is interesting in it's own right, see here. Basically a private LEO small satellite fleet for real time asset monitoring. One can buy a satellite modem, develop your own apps etc. It is VHF and thus line of sight but the orbiting network gives redundancy and multi-path communications.

I remember when satellite tracking of logistics first came in. The drivers were suspicious of the monitoring aspect ie. when did the driver stop to go to the toilet etc. However that viewpoint turned over when it was realised that such could be used not to prevent inactivity, but too much activity. Many companies were un-officially abusing the drivers - their health and safety, plus the general community too - by requiring them to cut into legal & proper rest times etc. The younger drivers were rather susceptible. So it is now only the un-monitored companies which retain that dangerous aspect. So for instance it used to be a straight Melbourne to Sydney haul, no breaks but with fanciful log books. Now there is a change-over at Holbrook ( half way ) and far fewer events in that category. The Hume Highway was legend ( 1960 - 1990 ) for producing driver's widows.

Is it still set for the 19th?