|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cygnus delivers
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts
How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cygnus delivers
On Monday, September 30, 2013 5:27:38 PM UTC-7, Hop wrote:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX? Arrgh, linking to a Google+ pic evidently doesn't work well. Hope this link works better: http://www.nasa.gov/content/crew-ope.../#.UkoYchYWajk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cygnus delivers
On 9/30/2013 8:27 PM, Hop wrote:
How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX? Because we celebrate and remember "firsts, but "seconds" and "thirds" quickly become old news. Lindbergh was the first to fly nonstop across the Atlantic. Who was the second person to do that? ...and how much press did that person get compared to Lindy? Given the Cygnus docking and the SpaceX launch, Sunday was a notable day in space history. But only us space geeks noticed. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cygnus delivers
In message
Vaughn wrote: Lindbergh was the first to fly nonstop across the Atlantic. Who was the second person to do that? ...and how much press did that person get compared to Lindy? Actually Lindbergh was a way down the list of people flying the Atlantic which was headed by Alcock and Brown. He was merely the first to fly the route solo. Anthony |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cygnus delivers
"Hop" wrote in message ... https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX? Partly what others have said and I think OSC has tried to maintain a lower profile. SpaceX is big on marketing. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cygnus delivers
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 4:36:08 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX? Say what? I believe I posted a congrats message to these groups. Don't see it in this forum. In general, SpaceX gets a lot of publicity. In this forum and elsewhere. It's easy to compare. If viewing this from Google Groups there's a search field at the top of the window. "SpaceX" or "Falcon" returns a bunch of hits. "Orbital Sciences" or "Cygnus" not so much. Orbital has achieved a significant goal for far less money than "traditional" NASA programs could ever achieve. Just so. And the more vendors, the more competitive the market. What Orbital Sciences did is very noteworthy. But they are aren't as skilled in the art of hype as Musk. One thing that Cygnus *can't* do is return cargo to earth. It will destructively reenter earth's atmosphere just as Progress, ATV, and HTV do. That does make Dragon unique. It is the *only* spacecraft currently flying which can return significant amounts of cargo to earth. This also makes Dragon a candidate for launching and landing astronauts, which is the "next step" for Dragon. Those are good points. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cygnus delivers
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 4:36:08 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX? Say what? I believe I posted a congrats message to these groups. Don't see it in this forum. In general, SpaceX gets a lot of publicity. In this forum and elsewhere. It's easy to compare. If viewing this from Google Groups there's a search field at the top of the window. "SpaceX" or "Falcon" returns a bunch of hits. "Orbital Sciences" or "Cygnus" not so much. Well, they were the first commercial cargo vessel to dock with ISS and they've performed subsequent "operational" cargo delivery missions to ISS. So by this measure, they're clearly ahead of Orbital in terms of time. "Firsts" are always notable in the history books. "Seconds", not so much (depending on who is writing the history). Orbital has achieved a significant goal for far less money than "traditional" NASA programs could ever achieve. Just so. And the more vendors, the more competitive the market. What Orbital Sciences did is very noteworthy. But they are aren't as skilled in the art of hype as Musk. Being the first company to deliver commercial cargo to ISS isn't hype. It's a fact. One thing that Cygnus *can't* do is return cargo to earth. It will destructively reenter earth's atmosphere just as Progress, ATV, and HTV do. That does make Dragon unique. It is the *only* spacecraft currently flying which can return significant amounts of cargo to earth. This also makes Dragon a candidate for launching and landing astronauts, which is the "next step" for Dragon. Those are good points. With the demise of the shuttle, it is a much needed capability. How else are scientists and engineers on earth supposed to get their hands on experiments and equipment from ISS? When you note that this is something *not* provided by Cygnus, Progress, ATV, or HTV, it's literally a singularly unique capability. It's worth noting that one of the most valuable contributions of the shuttle during the shuttle/Mir program was the removal of trash and broken equipment that had been accumulating on Mir for years. Returning failed equipment from Mir to engineers on earth allowed them to confirm why the equipment failed so that improvements could be made to the next generation of equipment being built for ISS. It should come as no surprise that ISS has similar issues with trash. Musk isn't trying to make Dragon and Falcon 9 "just as good" as other existing, and upcoming, launch vehicles and spacecraft. Musk is trying to leapfrog them both in terms of cost and in terms of capabilities. Many people who doubt SpaceX call that hype. The only way to prove the doubters wrong is to "just do it" (like the Nike slogan). I would say that based on empirical data, SpaceX certainly seems to be headed in the right direction to achieve those goals. The best way to learn what works and what doesn't is to test during flight. The nice thing about the failed tests on the recent Falcon 9 flight is that such tests did *not* in any way impact the payloads being flown since they took place *after* the stage separation. So, from the customers' point of view, SpaceX's "failed" attempts at a water "landing" of the first stage and a restart of the second stage engine don't matter to them one bit. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cygnus delivers
On 9/30/2013 8:27 PM, Hop wrote:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX? Sent my congrats over on arocket which actually has an OSC employee of record there. Congrats to the OSC team! (again). A little hoopla for Hop... ;-) Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cygnus delivers
On 10/2/2013 8:14 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
I would say that based on empirical data, SpaceX certainly seems to be headed in the right direction to achieve those goals. The best way to learn what works and what doesn't is to test during flight. The nice thing about the failed tests on the recent Falcon 9 flight is that such tests did *not* in any way impact the payloads being flown since they took place *after* the stage separation. So, from the customers' point of view, SpaceX's "failed" attempts at a water "landing" of the first stage and a restart of the second stage engine don't matter to them one bit. Yes I picked up on this point in a different thread here. There is a second-track development effort being piggybacked on the operational component of each SpaceX flight. Assuming the paying customers are aware of the situation, and as so far it hasn't caused a "launch failure" in terms of failure to deliver payload to orbit for a paying customer, no one has been scared off yet. Dave |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sarah Palin delivers ... again | jughead | Misc | 0 | September 25th 09 05:23 AM |
Panasonic TV delivers impressive picture - CNN | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | August 24th 08 04:42 AM |
patient below residence delivers essentially | A. Y. Mohammed | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 16th 07 11:19 AM |
Sea Launch Delivers Inmarsat-4 Satellite to Orbit | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | November 12th 05 02:43 PM |
Mars Express Delivers | [email protected] | Science | 0 | December 13th 04 10:37 PM |