• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

NPR temporarily stopped it's twitter accounts in a "state-media" beef with Elon Musk

cc333 said:
The US has fallen that far behind?

It wasn't too many years ago that the US seemed to basically be the number one designer and manufacturer of rockets in the world, and was at the leading edge of new developments. Perhaps this was never actually true, but was actually an artifact of an apparently successful Cold War-era propaganda campaign designed to fool the USSR into believing we were more advanced than we are? I don't think so, but who knows?
Click to expand...
Going WAY off topic, but to clarify: The SpaceX Raptor I and Raptor II engines use a fuel combustion method called: Full-Flow Stage Combustion. Prior to the Raptor series of engines, the only successful engines designed with this method were originally built during the Soviet Union between 1960-1970. The full-flow staged combustion Russian engine was called the RD-270. Word in the rocket community is the Raptor built by SpaceX to power their new rocket, Starship, is based on the RD-270.
cc333 said:
I mean, this was probably part of a partnership established years ago when Russia-US relations were somewhat better, but still....

Oh, well.
Click to expand...
Word is that several years ago, Musk purchased a couple surplus RD-270's to back-engineer. That was before the whole Ukraine thing, so there would have been no prohibition on buying surplus hardware from Russia.
 
Why am I not surprised?

I've always though that Musk's recklessness would get him in trouble sooner or later....

c
 
I don't understand why there would be a big deal made about whether SpaceX uses Russian rockets. NASA sent astronauts to the space station on Russian rockets for years, including years when there were tensions between the two countries, and it was considered an indicator of cooperation between adversaries when it comes to space exploration, as well as the separation of science and international politics.
 
awsherrill said:
Nope, still happening. There is a Soyuz launch scheduled for September, with a NASA astronaut on board.
Click to expand...

There was some news about this an hour ago. Apparently NASA wants the co-op to continue:


But prior to this, the Russians were talking about pulling out of any future co-operation.

www.cnn.com

Russia says it will quit the International Space Station after 2024 | CNN

Russia says it is planning to pull out of the International Space Station and end its decades-long partnership with NASA at the orbiting outpost, according to the newly appointed head of Russia's space agency.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Kelly A said:
They don't use Russian rockets. They utilize an engine design from back in the Cold War era developed by Russia.
Click to expand...
Understood, but in the past, they literally went to Russia and were sent up on Russian rockets, though. This was during the 2010s, and after the Space Shuttle program was ended.
 
boombox4 said:
Understood, but in the past, they literally went to Russia and were sent up on Russian rockets, though. This was during the 2010s, and after the Space Shuttle program was ended.
Click to expand...
You claimed that the question was whether SpaceX used Russian rockets. My response was; they don't. SpaceX manufacturers their own engines, rocket bodies, fuel tanks, and electronics. Their latest rocket engine design, Raptor, is based off of a Russian design from the 60's and 70's.
 
Nathan Obral said:
Looks like SpaceX is on thin ice as they grossly underestimated the damage from the rocket. FAA’s pulled the plug on their authority for the time being and nearby residents are angry, go figure.
www.cnbc.com

SpaceX Starship explosion spread particulate matter for miles

SpaceX Starship explosion leaves researchers looking for answers about health and environmental impacts from debris and particulate emissions.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...
Y'know...

They (SpaceX) better hope like heck that the launch site demolition due to launch *didn't* induce any sort of an issue with that rocket.

Really screwed the pooch on that one.
 
kwthom said:
Y'know...

They (SpaceX) better hope like heck that the launch site demolition due to launch *didn't* induce any sort of an issue with that rocket.

Really screwed the pooch on that one.
Click to expand...
Why, wouldn't that be a data point? At least it didn't blow up on the pad.
 
Kelly A said:
Why, wouldn't that be a data point? At least it didn't blow up on the pad.
Click to expand...
If *primary* root cause of failure was induced in any way by launch facility conditions (crude as they were...), there will be millions that go "Told ya so!" to Elon for using that facility to launch something of that size.


...but, hey, let's continue with the NPR vs. Twitter discussion.
 
kwthom said:
If *primary* root cause of failure was induced in any way by launch facility conditions (crude as they were...), there will be millions that go "Told ya so!" to Elon for using that facility to launch something of that size.
Click to expand...
Heard some reporter talking about this on the radio this morning. 'SpaceX screwed up, blah, blah...' There's always been a debate as to whether SpaceX should have designed into the launch pad either a flame trench under the pad, or some sort of water deluge/steel flame diverter to direct the shock from 33 engine exhaust away from the booster. Apparently there were plans to incorporate some sort of steel base covered with water from a deluge system, but it wouldn't have been ready for this particular launch. They hoped the special Fondag concrete under the pad would have better survived 33 engines running at 90%. Where the engineers were wrong, was how much damage flying concrete caused to some of the engines, and in particular, the Hydraulic Power Unit located at the base of the rocket, which controls thrust vectoring (steering) and should have actuated the hold-down clamps between the first and second stage.
The problem that precluded a traditional flame trench, is the inability to dig down far enough because of environmental concerns and high water table near the Gulf of Mexico.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom