[Q&A+] Why Won't NASA Just Buy Falcon 9 from SpaceX?
BONUS QUESTION STARTS AT 14:14
Watch the video here (with no ads) or on YouTube: https://youtu.be/bmthiCOpbMQ
If SpaceX no longer want Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon, why won't NASA just buy them for themselves? What would a perfect space station look like? What is being done to improve the deep space network? And in Q&A+, finally, a Lagrange Point question.
00:00 Intro
00:27 [@kairon156] What would a perfect space station look like?
08:13 [@endigo2007] Can NASA buy the remaining Falcon 9's and operate them to send Dragon to ISS?
10:57 [@musicover5] Is there work being done to increase the bandwidth of the deep space network?
14:14 [@jamessobek196] Does the Moon jiggle L2 Lagrange points?
18:04 Final thoughts
Comments (21)
Space X and The Falcon are owned by associations.As long as Elon Musk and Nasa are in partnership they will work together.NASA is on a budget now.NASA budget is by the governmental funding.Elon Musk is not by governmental resources.Elon Musk helps NASA he the mastermind behind building rockets and statistic formats.Elon Musk owns his own organization that he built in the desert.I believe that is the reason.
Cancelling crew Dragan is 101 all on board star ship or fail move :P Solid business move
Solar sails in low Earth orbit especially at the ISS altitude pose probably insurmountable problems. The Planetary Society Light Sail 2 space craft started just above 700 km, which would have a lot less atmosphere than the ISS's 370 to 460 km. When being in a close to equatorial orbit, you can get a push to raise the orbit when moving away from the sun. On the other side of the orbit the best that can be done is set the sail to edge on to avoid lowering the orbit. Raising only one side of the orbit still means requiring fuel for the other side, which is why while Light Sail 2 demonstrated raising apogee, atmospheric drag works all the way around the planet and the perigee continued to lower until it deorbited. The heavier the object the bigger the required sail area and that much more drag. A number of deep space craft have used their solar panels as sails to help salvage missions (Hayabusa, Kepler Space Telescope for attitude control), or fine tune orbits (Messenger, and Mariner 10). They will be more useful when orbiting the sun than a planet with an atmosphere.
The Russians haven't officially given up on ISS yet so the way things are movement but relationships we Washington and Moscow it to the relation Hunter relationship just waiting see what happens in future..
I just love your nick here 😍
Space station just 100 miles up rather than 200 miles up would be closer to a earth gravitybecause the ISS that she has about some gravity it does have some gravity started completely weightless
Really re have centrifugal force that's not real artificial gravity it's never been charged properly in space then these be some experiments first
Well the best most efficient thing to do as with the INSS is to quite frankly “shelve it ASAP! eh?). Yep Abandon a waste of “future not realized gains in science” and melt it on reentry yep. Give a lost cause up don’t spend dollars to pick up dimes. Wait for “technology to catch up and surpass” don’t invest in a sunk cost. Regards ❤️🙏😳
-especially the Bigalow plans not gonna happen!
I think is a long-tem esaaim is to ave their own space station anyway make sense don't keep their module up even if NASA to want to bring the station down let's wait and see thinking it's more realistic than bigger loads of space station Hotel if you want to Western space station otherwise yes it is going to be the Chinese station is viable all the plans so far just seems to be hotter especially the big season supervised that's just an inflatable module on the EIS under ISS and then I come down to what I hear.
Yeah NASA supply the power modules and the solar panels but I'm sure can sort that too.
Maybe ESA will keep their modules up?! They don't need the NASA modules.
They do need power (solar panels), heat rejection (radiators), orientation control, station keeping, docking adapters (or the Canada arm to support berthing), among other details. Not that ESA has any human spacecraft to launch anyone to dock to the modules.
I think I’d rather see the Russians take astronauts to the space station than have them go on Starliner! I thought Boeing had given up on it anyway?
Given the stated lack of Dragon's future, NASA has contracted for additional Starliner flights and funding to launch on a different rocket. The last NASA press conference on Starliner covered a number of thruster heat mitigation changes, along with valve changes, and procedure changes to keep the valves clean.
Thanx to you !!
What would be useful for a station examining the effects of lower gravity (and potentially Coriolis problems) would be a long bar with fixed or moveable modules along it to simulate everything from zero (at the center, where you would likely dock) to .16 to .38 and even 1.0) (more for the Coriolis issues with faster RPMs). You could even use fuel or reaction wheels (that didn’t suck) to test different scenarios with gravity and spin rate. I doubt a solar sail would provide more adjustment than drag at LEO, but it would be great for an L1/2/3 station to get in in balance. As for the Falcon 9… it’s clear that SpaceX is betting everything on Starship. Dragon will probably fly for the next four years – they have to use an F9 to launch the deorbit spacecraft if nothing else. Maybe after Starship Flight 100, they’ll start flying crew on it. But with competitors (the Chinese at least) catching up to Falcon 9, at some point you have to stop making the Model T and move to a more modern car…
There's a payload document out there basically claiming Starship will have the same adapters as Falcon 9, which should mean both Dragon and the deorbit spacecraft. It would basically mean the Dragon launch escape system won't be available, which isn't a problem for the deorbit spacecraft, which I wouldn't expect to have one. This would also require a large crocodile payload bay opening instead of the narrow Pez dispenser opening. I don't see crew on it without a launch abort system or a less risky landing than a tower catch, or some kind of landing escape system.
i keep hearing about rotating structures for 'gravity', but isn't there research on the Coriolis Effect and how it messes with humans orientation? is it really a solution to consider?
There's been fairly extensive work on using a spinning space station to simulate gravity on the inside. The Coriolis Effect does affect some people more than others, and you have to take it into account if you are throwing a ball or anything like that inside the spinning space station. Still, it is better than having your bones weaken over time.
YuckTube: Where algorithmic slop comes from. Great definition!