- Mar 13, 2008
- Upper midwest in a house
That problem will be self-correcting after the professional pilots have left.Saw that 3" of prop clearance and thought .... sure hope that's a really smooth runway you're taking off and landing from, because the sidewall flex in the tires alone will bury those prop tips into the pavement. Ugh. ... but hey "I'm ok with that"
I would definitely agree with that and there are many things already that could be used and re-used and improved over time. The TDI Dieasel conversion itself is a huge . All the bits and pieces of this project is an outstanding material and can be presented as academic case study. From variety of subjects - but even this projects as is still in a good shape - out of 25 mistakes (believe it or not even 100500 more) this elephant could be and should be eaten one bite at a timeFrom personal experience, his biggest problem now is to dispose his dream.
How about if we compare SpaceX with Soyuz today - same story - twenty years ago it was ridiculous, two years ago it could not be possible - today is a reality and exactly the same unproven design : airframe engine etc etcNo guarantee pumping in more money will result in the project being completed. Still have unproven airframe, engine, re-drive, performance claims, etc.
And yes - money makes our world goes around - remember? will see later what the money can buyNo guarantee pumping in more money
I agree especially it is still very fresh in memory the Commuter Craft disasterI don’t like horror movies and I don’t like sad endings.
I’ll just make a wild guess that SpaceX staffing includes experienced engineers, scientists, QC specialists, manufacturing experts, financial experts, etc.How about if we compare SpaceX with Soyuz today - same story - twenty years ago it was ridiculous, two years ago it could not be possible - today is a reality and exactly the same unproven design : airframe engine etc etc
The problems are clear indications of a naive designer who doesn’t know where his expertise begins and ends. Add to that a reluctance to ask for or accept critical input, and you end up with a project like Raptor.The problems I'm seeing are worth being frustrated over but these don't seem like dealbreakers.
Not really : Mostly fresh from the school studentsI’ll just make a wild guess that SpaceX staffing includes experienced engineers, scientists, QC specialists, manufacturing experts, financial experts, etc.
Thank you Andrey, but bear in mind I only was I evolved in tooling development and producing the Composite airframe per my good friend Mark Bettosini's laminate schedules. I did however,through the test model exercise, take a design that would not fly( initially not at all) well and corrected many aero problems to enable it to fly pretty well. But again, I say, I was only able to put 3-4 flights on the model. The main point I am trying to put out here is that I had nothing to do with systems design or implementation and thus bear no responsibility in either their success or failure. As can be seen they,primarily, have been the Achilles Heel in this quest to take the prototype into the air. I was pleased when Mark Z,Elliot,and Justin commented very positively on the overall Composite execution of the airframe, some consolation for the implication on this forum by some throwing me under the bus and suggesting I am partly responsable for the issues herein. I am ,like many of you,hoping for a successful outcome at some level for my own personal reasons and satisfaction. Would hate to think my involvement was a total waste of precious lifetime and talent. Many of these issues could have been prevented but hopefully can be overcome through application of solid experience and sound practice. And, as Marc Z points out, carried out with total understanding and appreciation of the necessity to insure at the highest level the safety of the test pilot,whoever that may be. I,as well, want to see it fly and feel with significant remedial effort the program can be made far more successful.Do you really want to get this entertainment finished? - I really doubt - Lots of materials already useful for many people around the world And Great job By Jeff Kerlo has to be awarded and demonstrated
Dear canardlover - wanted or not this project is your baby as well. And I understand your position like no-one else and feel really sorry for that aggravation in the air. This is your baby and it has some of your hear soul and body . Without any doubt - My real point is that you and canardlover Junior deserve lots of complements and more attention to your outstanding work and your valuable input but we don't hear it much from youI was pleased when Mark Z,Elliot,and Justin commented very positively on the overall Composite execution of the airframe,
Not arguing at all, but I would caution people not to confuse age or longevity with experience.Take a hard look at the crowd/hoards of SpaceX employees often shown witnessing the launches. The rowdy 'young guys' are 'forward'... the old gray-haired guys... laid-off, retired or otherwise with deep NASA and space industry experience... hover in the background... been-there, done-that. THEY brought foundational launch and spaceflight knowledge forward, with the wisdom of experience, to get SpaceX on the fast-track. Credit to the young guys for not letting experience get in the way of new ideas/ways!
He could take a page from the Synergy book.... make big claims, discount other’s suggestions and criticisms, drop out of sight, keep a low profile, don’t publish or publicize, and stop updating the website. Synergy may be dead or may be alive and thriving, but does anyone really know? (That is a rhetorical question, not meant to start a Synergy discussion. If we want to discuss Synergy, it should be done in the old Synergy thread or in a new thread, not here.)his biggest problem now is to dispose his dream