Space first stage recovery.

In sci.space.policy message
web.com, Sun, 10 Jan 2016 21:32:10, JF Mezei jfmezei.spamnot@vaxinatio
n.ca posted:

Usenet wasn't killed by web forums. It was killed by a few arrogant know
it alls who insult those who want to learn.

The problem is due to those who are incapable of learning.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Merlyn Web Site - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

On 1/8/2016 6:33 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Not if NASA restricts Dragon such that it is against the rules to use
that capability.


This is why SpaceX needs to have a reason to fly crew on its own not
just part of CCDev. If SpaceX could launch a Bigelow module for their
own purpose, such as renting lab time to various Industry & University
consortium or even under NSF program grants of a few million to
partially fund it, then trips up and down are under the purview of the
FAA not NASA. SpaceX can land as they see fit, for I believe commercial
spaceflight is still operating under FAA rules which IIRC had their
October 2015 moratorium extended, basically to allow companies such as
SpaceX to establish them!

If NASA insists on their flying ISS missions under their own antiquated
and inconsistent "man-ratings"* they are free to do so. They are only
going to end up looking pretty stupid in the end dropping their
astronauts in the drink when everybody else uses a staircase.

Maybe to satisfy NASA "man-rating" reqs. they could just drop them in
the Banana River instead? :-P

Dave

*-Safe Is Not An Option - Rand Simberg pg. 33 also see Chapters 3, 6 &
8. ISBN-978-0-9891355-1-1





Once such a landing would be tested, then they could go the next step
and do parachute descent, and powered legged landing (ditching
parachute) and then do the full re-entry without parachute.

The point being that since NASA accepts Soyuz landings, it should accept
similar landing by Dragon (even if these represent only a portion of it
capabilities).

"Soyuz landings" are not the same at all, which you *still* don't seem
to get.

Jeff

On 1/8/2016 4:41 AM, Snidely wrote:
On Thursday, JF Mezei pointed out that ...
On 2016-01-07 23:15, Jeff Findley wrote:

free on most space news websites? You do know this newsgroup is
nearly dead, don't you?


Insulting people telling them to stop using the newsgroup to learn from
people who know doesn't help keep the newsgroup alive. You have the
choice to keep the knowledge to yourself and stay silent.

It would be an appropriate use of the newsgroup to ask for pointers to
articles and references.

What used to be a strength of the group was the number of references
that were discussed. That involves someone /looking outside the group/
for information, and /bringing it back/ to discuss with the rest of us.

/dps


Admittedly coming to this debate late, but I agree...

Dave

On Jan/24/2016 9:31 PM, David Spain wrote :
On 1/8/2016 6:33 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Not if NASA restricts Dragon such that it is against the rules to use
that capability.


This is why SpaceX needs to have a reason to fly crew on its own not
just part of CCDev. If SpaceX could launch a Bigelow module for their
own purpose, such as renting lab time to various Industry & University
consortium or even under NSF program grants of a few million to
partially fund it, then trips up and down are under the purview of the
FAA not NASA. SpaceX can land as they see fit, for I believe commercial
spaceflight is still operating under FAA rules which IIRC had their
October 2015 moratorium extended, basically to allow companies such as
SpaceX to establish them!

If NASA insists on their flying ISS missions under their own antiquated
and inconsistent "man-ratings"* they are free to do so. They are only
going to end up looking pretty stupid in the end dropping their
astronauts in the drink when everybody else uses a staircase.

Maybe to satisfy NASA "man-rating" reqs. they could just drop them in
the Banana River instead? :-P

By dropping them in the Banana River, do you mean to have a an
amphibious vehicle pick them up at the landing site and go drop them off
in the river? :-)


Alain Fournier

On 1/10/2016 5:16 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Luckily, I think many papers are back online at this point. I'm pretty
sure the following is the right link to use:

NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) Program
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/

The search bar on that page is for NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS),
which is the name I remember.

Jeff


Last I checked, the wonderful paper from 1967 about an "eye-balls out"
manned fly-by mission of Venus using Apollo hardware was still
unavailable after the iron curtain fell. I may still have a copy
somewhere, which I downloaded before all that bs kabuki theater happened.

Dave

On 1/24/2016 9:41 PM, Alain Fournier wrote:
Maybe to satisfy NASA "man-rating" reqs. they could just drop them in
the Banana River instead? :-P

By dropping them in the Banana River, do you mean to have a an
amphibious vehicle pick them up at the landing site and go drop them off
in the river? :-)


Alain Fournier


Only if that amphib bears the NASA meatball of course!
Surely there's a NASA rule there... ;-)

Dave

On 1/8/2016 12:15 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-01-07 23:15, Jeff Findley wrote:

free on most space news websites? You do know this newsgroup is nearly
dead, don't you?


Insulting people telling them to stop using the newsgroup to learn from
people who know doesn't help keep the newsgroup alive. You have the
choice to keep the knowledge to yourself and stay silent.


The regulars here are a bit of a cantankerous lot I gotta admit.
Fred gets frustrated. I suppose that might be in part because of the
quality of discussion compared to back in the 1990s. If you want to get
a feel for what some of those 'olden' days were like you should Google
"deja news".

For a more modern treatment, I would suggest the L2 forums over at
nasaspaceflight.com. They are subscription-based (require a fee to use)
but can be highly technical and very informative.

I'll be frank with everyone on this group. You might not like the noob
questions, but the kind of attitude I see on display here would not be
tolerated on the moderated forums. It'd get you banned in a heartbeat.
You're only kidding yourselves if you think hostile attitudes haven't
played a (large) part in the demise of this newsgroup. And don't pull
the seniority bs on me. No aerospace is not my field, I've always
admitted that, but I'm for sure no noob when it comes to newsgroups. If
you don't believe me, go pull Henry's tapes which have been archived
on-line and search for or
and don't cry to me if
you don't know what the '!'s are for....

Hell even the arocket mailing list, which for sure isn't for pikers, and
uses the title of "amateur" largely in name only, displays better
attitude than this place.

Also, I don't see why every inane question or response deserves a
response. If you've answered the question and a response comes back
showing they didn't understand the answer, give them a reference and
tell 'em to look it up and leave it at that. I'm not big into calling
people names. It just adds to the noise.

My two cents late on a Sunday night.

Dave

David Spain wrote:
This is why SpaceX needs to have a reason to fly crew on its own not
just part of CCDev. If SpaceX could launch a Bigelow module for
their own purpose, such as renting lab time to various Industry &
University consortium or even under NSF program grants of a few
million to partially fund it, then trips up and down are under the
purview of the FAA not NASA.

Speaking of such things, what ever happened to DragonLab?

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

"David Spain" wrote in message ...

On 1/8/2016 6:33 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Not if NASA restricts Dragon such that it is against the rules to use
that capability.


This is why SpaceX needs to have a reason to fly crew on its own not just
part of CCDev. If SpaceX could launch a Bigelow module for their own
purpose, such as renting lab time to various Industry & University
consortium or even under NSF program grants of a few million to partially
fund it, then trips up and down are under the purview of the FAA not NASA.
SpaceX can land as they see fit, for I believe commercial spaceflight is
still operating under FAA rules which IIRC had their October 2015
moratorium extended, basically to allow companies such as SpaceX to
establish them!


I suspect Bigelow and SpaceX may fund such a flight just to show it can be
done.

I think we're less than a decade (perhaps less than 1/2 a decade) out from
the first private mission to a private space station.

If NASA insists on their flying ISS missions under their own antiquated and
inconsistent "man-ratings"* they are free to do so. They are only going to
end up looking pretty stupid in the end dropping their astronauts in the
drink when everybody else uses a staircase.

Maybe to satisfy NASA "man-rating" reqs. they could just drop them in the
Banana River instead? :-P

Dave

*-Safe Is Not An Option - Rand Simberg pg. 33 also see Chapters 3, 6 & 8.
ISBN-978-0-9891355-1-1





Once such a landing would be tested, then they could go the next step
and do parachute descent, and powered legged landing (ditching
parachute) and then do the full re-entry without parachute.

The point being that since NASA accepts Soyuz landings, it should accept
similar landing by Dragon (even if these represent only a portion of it
capabilities).

"Soyuz landings" are not the same at all, which you *still* don't seem
to get.

Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 1/25/2016 1:16 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
David Spain wrote:
This is why SpaceX needs to have a reason to fly crew on its own not
just part of CCDev. If SpaceX could launch a Bigelow module for
their own purpose, such as renting lab time to various Industry &
University consortium or even under NSF program grants of a few
million to partially fund it, then trips up and down are under the
purview of the FAA not NASA.

Speaking of such things, what ever happened to DragonLab?

rick jones


Dunno. SpaceX keeps mum about dates on their Launch manifest long range
(3 mos?). But. Unofficially of course, folks over at
nasaspaceflight.com claim that DragonLab 1 has been pushed into later
this year and DragonLab 2 has been pushed back to 2018.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=32503.0

Here's that persons link to a spreadsheet of proposed manifests with
year dates:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...=2&pli=1#gid=0

Your mileage will vary and of course, this was written all before last
year's F9 mishap. So perhaps slipped even further due to the F9 downtime?

Dave