Comments by "ricardo kowalski" (@ricardokowalski1579) on "" video.

ESA should just buy a participation in SpaceX and be done with it.
1
@RFC-3514 because if they use spaceX hardware they can dedicate more money to payload and "science". ESA mission is not to make better rockets, or better shuttles, or better capsules... is to make science.
1
@RFC-3514 1- ESA is a multinational enterprise, all companies are foreign. 2- If it wants to remain neutral, why is it developing a competitor to it's suppliers? To piss them off? "neutraly"? 3-You are misinformed, the cost per launch is lower with spaceX. What is the point of paying more for the same service?
1
@RFC-3514 1- the infighting for contracts and work division makes all "foreign" 2- So how much control does ESA have over NASA or Roscosmos? 2.1- The video is about the Hermes capsule, not about the "launch capability" 3- ad hominem "fanboy" is not an argument. The reason JWST went in an Arianne 5 is that the JWST is so delayed that when it was contrated to launch SpaceX was just prototyping. At least you do not dispute the price difference. As for SpaceX is not capable: The Falcon Heavy, on the other hand, has Delta-V to burn. Projected mass to GTO is over 22,000kg. Twice the capability of the Ariane 5 ECA. The Falcon Heavy could launch the JWST along with an additional stage to get it to L2 faster and allow it more braking or manuevering capability when it got there. But neither the Falcon 9 FT nor the Heavy (hasn’t flown yet) existed when the JWST was designed. The Ariane 5 was the heaviest Western option available at the time. The Delta IV, another contender, didn’t fly its Heavy variant until 2004. The Delta IV Heavy would also be capable of flying the JWST if needed. The Atlas V 551 configuration is in the same league as the Falcon 9 FT to GTO and might be able to fly the JWST as well. All of these rockets support a 5.4m fairing so any of them could, in theory, be capable of flying the JWST.
1
@zounds010 you do understand that spaceX is not the US government? And that if the european countries wanted they could make him move the company?
1
@RFC-3514 you meant fanboy as an insult and a disqualification. You have not touched my argument : cheaper booster means more money for payload and science. If manned launches are small fry... then halt the hermes, halt the man-rated boosters, and take cheap rides on crew dragon. SpaceX also provides private recovery services. He would make a fleet of european flag ships if the business is enough.
1
@zounds010 There is no weapon sale... the boost is a service. Heck, they can even show the rocket to prove it was a service. On what grounds can a ESA payload be considered "military"?
1
@RFC-3514 no, they don't have to follow MY advice. They have to follow Elon's advice. Very different thing. How far behind is ESA in reusable boosters? A decade?
1
Related... "Tory Bruno, CEO of the United Launch Alliance (ULA), revealed on February 15th that SpaceX’s chief competitor won’t even attempt to compete for the contract to launch NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope"
1
@zounds010 so if the founding principle of ESA is "independent access to space" and they have paying for rides in Soyuz for decades... have they already compromised their "principles" ? Asking for a friend, and his tax payers friends. --- Arianne and ESA are decades behind, and either they collaborate (principles be damned) or they will continue flying paper capsules like Hermes. Adapt or die. Again, it is not the "smarty pants" from youtube that says this... go ask Elon.
1
@zounds010 ahh so the "independent" part is flexible... who knew!!! Why are you calling "founding principles" things that change when convenient?
1
@zounds010 ok... so manned space flight is "not important".... then drop all the talk about independence and principles and BUY A PARTICIPATION IN SPACEX and be done with it. So UNmanned spaceflight is "more" important... stop wasting money playing catch up. Put the money in payload and science. Buy yourself into a tehcnology sharing agreement with SPACEX. Use the equatorial launch sites to give a small differentiation. What you are advocating is wasting millions upon millions playing catch up, wasting at least a decade, instead of dedicating that to actual payload and science.
1