Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:No faith in thier own. (Score 1) 155

I was auto companies would follow that logic. Most people recognize that having diversity of experience is beneficial to the company or workplace, but apparently in the auto industry, being a 20-30 year veteran of the same damn company makes you a saint. Most of those people have never held a different job, it was their first after college.

Comment: Re:a few VTOVL predecessors (Score 3, Informative) 71

by ender06 (#44203611) Attached to: SpaceX Grasshopper Launch Filmed From Drone Helicopter
There is a huge advantage to a VTOL rocket. Obviously the goal here is reusability, but imagine being able to land your rocket back at the very same launch pad it launched from. Do a quick inspection, refuel, launch again. Won't be that simple, but that's the idea. They are actively interested in VTOL, that's the goal of Grasshopper.

The reason this is so much more attractive than a lifting body is that you're taking a lot less extra weight with you every time. The space shuttle was extremely heavy empty, a fair chunk of launch thrust was just launching the shuttle itself, not payloads or the people. So, in short, landing legs and some extra control hardware weigh a lot less than aerobodies and control surfaces. You want to be spending your fuel and thrust on the payload, not the weight of the rocket itself.

Comment: Re:Nice work ... (Score 5, Informative) 89

by ender06 (#43063943) Attached to: SpaceX Cargo Capsule Reaches International Space Station
Dragon capsules are reusable, however, NASA has specifically contracted new capsules for every resupply mission. There's nothing stopping SpaceX from reusing the capsules for other missions, however. I know the demo 1 capsule, that performed a few orbits before returning, and demo 2 capsule, the first to berth with ISS, are both hanging outside mission control at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA.

Comment: Re:Falcon 9 development was a NASA contract (Score 1) 147

by ender06 (#41611213) Attached to: ISS Robotic Arm Captures Dragon Capsule
Do you really think that SpaceX developed all of Falcon 9 with just $248M? That also covers Falcon-1. SpaceX spent around $500 million through the first launch of Falcon 9. Rockets are expensive. I'm pretty sure if NASA could have developed a rocket for $250 million they would have done it a long time ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacex#Funding

Comment: Re:We need space exploration by any method possibl (Score 1) 147

by ender06 (#41609869) Attached to: ISS Robotic Arm Captures Dragon Capsule
You do realize that a fair chunk of the development cost was paid by SpaceX. NASA subsidized the development of Falcon 9 and Dragon, but only with set payments when set milestones had been achieved, they didn't just write a blank check and say 'go build us a rocket!'. Read up on the COTS (round 1 and round 2) and CCDev programs before spewing disinformation.

Comment: Moore's Law != Performance (Score 1) 239

by ender06 (#38244306) Attached to: Genome Researchers Have Too Much Data
DNA sequencing is becoming faster and cheaper at a pace far outstripping Moore's law.

Moore's law, or rather Moore's observation, has absolutely nothing to do with performance and everything to do with the number of transistors. For the love of deity of your choice, will they stop using it regarding performance? Simply mentioning something computer related doesn't make the writer look smarter. Yes, an increase in the number of transistors can see an increase in performance but it isn't guranteed. Eg. Bulldozer

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher

Working...