Tomorrow’s test of the escape system (that will likely destroy the booster) has been rescheduled for Wednesday, due to weather.
Hanging out a bit longer in the Texas desert til weather behaves https://t.co/bkIWerr79X
— Ariane Cornell (@arianecornell) October 3, 2016
I don’t think that vertical takeoff, horizontal landing is the best way to go. Anyway, I’ll believe it when I see it.
[Update a while later]
Bad link is fixed now, sorry.
What looks to be an interesting paper from Martin Elvis, an astrophysicist who groks private spaceflight.
This won’t be the first take on it, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. He worries too much about Martian winds, though.
[Noon update]
Is Elon Musk this generation’s von Braun?
I have no difficulty whatsoever believing this:
Most troubling of all, the internal assumption at MSFC is that the first SLS flight will have a built-in risk of failure of around 8%. This risk is being “baked in” to the design of SLS in part due to decisions being made at MSFC about software and avionics – decisions that are being made so as to not surface troublesome issues that no one wants to deal with. One can imagine that safety folks at MSFC are nervous.
This is no way to build a rocket folks.
Once you understand that (unlike at SpaceX) the goal is not to build a rocket, it all makes sense.
A preview:
[Update a while later]
Here’s Nadia Drake’s story on the announcement. The Q and A ended up being sort of a goat rodeo.
[Update early evening, PDT]
Here’s the full presentation.
[Wednesday-morning update]
Here’s Eric Berger’s take, and Jeff Foust’s. And one from Casey Dreier at the Planetary Society.
[Update a couple minutes later]
And Chris Davenport’s.
[Update a couple more minutes later]
And Loren Grush says there’s still a lot to figure out. No kidding.
[Update another couple minutes later]
And Wayne McCandless is skeptical (with a plug of my book).
[Update a few minutes later]
Thoughts from Bob Zubrin.
[Update a while later]
Joel Achenbach says don’t pack your bags for Mars yet. And Ken Chang says Elon just needs to figure out how to pay for it. Well, I think there are other issues as well. Meanwhile, the National Space Society is gung ho (as they should be, it’s much more in line with the group’s stated objective than anything NASA is doing).
[Update a couple minutes later]
Miri Kramer’s five takeaways.
[Update late morning]
McCandless link was missing, but I fixed it.
In response to Dreier:
SpaceX's slate isn't as blank as he thinks. SpaceX has more recent experience developing operational rockets than NASA does. https://t.co/2tzy9tv8S1
— Deplorable-In-Chief (@Rand_Simberg) September 28, 2016
[Update early afternoon]
Here’s Alan Boyle’s take.
And Elon answered yesterday’s question about how they get down to the surface:
@BArtusio Three cable elevator on a crane. Wind force on Mars is low, so don't need to worry about being blown around.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 28, 2016
[Update a while later]
Bill Nye doesn’t buy it. But the Planetary Society doesn’t want “filthy meatbag bodies” on Mars, anyway.
Speaking of which, I’m pretty sure that this announcement will re-energize the SJWs.
[Update a while later]
An amusing take over at Wait But Why. And one of the first, but certainly not last takes on planetary protection and the Outer Space Treaty.
What we know about the plans, and what we don’t.
Presumably, we’ll know more tomorrow.
This is an interesting announcement, in the context of Elon’s Mars speech next week in Guadalajara:
At this stage of the investigation, preliminary review of the data and debris suggests that a large breach in the cryogenic helium system of the second stage liquid oxygen tank took place. All plausible causes are being tracked in an extensive fault tree and carefully investigated. Through the fault tree and data review process, we have exonerated any connection with last year’s CRS-7 mishap.
Makes sense, but still doesn’t sound like they’ve gotten to the root cause.
What we need to know before we send people there. And they don’t even discuss the gravity issue.
[Update a few minutes later]
Eric Berger says that Elon is between a rocket and a hard place. I don’t think that taxpayer money should to go build giant rockets, whether by SpaceX or Boeing.
…through formal software verification. This seems like sort of a big deal. Particularly in the era of the Internet of Things and self-driving cars. Of course, the weakest link in security will remain the flawed unit between the seat and the keyboard.