First post nothing but cutting down the US with a comment about the "pen project," and note your exact comments about SpaceX. If you wanted to say something about its complexity, particularly being an aeronautical engineer, you might have made a post that didn't seem to be saying its name showed it was probably too complex.
You were right about the shuttle, but that's not exactly unknown. You are also right about Soyuz, as far as it goes.
Amargo said:
It would be too embarrassing for the US Americans if this is true. I am sure they would be spending more millions than they pumped into the 'pen project' just to discredit the story.
Anyways, there is another pen vs pencil story which is indeed true. Look at the venerable Soyuz: simple, robust, reliable. Cannot say the same of the shuttle. And probably not of the SpaceX dragon (already the name is too complicated!)
Why instead of reinventig the wheel the NASA collaborates with the Russians too make the incredible Soyuz better? Too much ego, I guess.
EASA has done it and so far is working perfectly.
Second post, at least you say it's too complicated
not because of its name, but you don't spell out why.
Amargo said:
Why do you attack me now? And don't twist my words. I did not say it won't be any good, I believe SpaceX Dragon -which is, indeed, a very weird name - will be too complicated/too expensive to compete against Soyuz, unless the US govt. pays way too much for its services in order to keep it alive.
If meaningful means to you to share your opinion - well, keep waiting. I am an aeronautical engineer with 10+ years of experience in the Ariane programm plus the rest of my working life working for several airplane manufacturers/airlines. And also was in touch with the engineers who started the collaboration EASA/Soyuz.
Wonder if that one is enough to produce a meaningful contribution?
My comment didn't have anything to do with you agreeing or not with me. You may have seen in many places where I can have a good conversation back and forth with someone who doesn't agree with me - when they spell out their reasons. You, however, seem to come in with very short, strong statements to the contrary of something, particularly if it has to do with the US.
You still don't say what about SpaceX that makes it more complicated and expensive. And you say "probably not" for Dragon in your first post, giving no reasons. Fair enough, perhaps you don't want to "get your hands dirty" trying to explain things to us ignorant plebes who are not rocket scientists?
And you don't like its name, you think it's weird? Dragons are mythical creatures, known for their intelligence and their fierceness. The also spit flame. Why is it so strange to think someone might name a craft that lifts on a column of flame "Dragon?"
You also don't make any comments related to the fact that it is a private enterprise, not government (and even say NASA shouldn't be reinventing the wheel, when it's not at this point), that SpaceX is moving forward with a commercial enterprise, which was the point of this thread. It may be that the SpaceX Dragon is too complex and expensive, but a meaningful post would be "why" it is so. Also, perhaps, how Soyuz can compete over time with what are sure to be advances in the private sector, all over the world, with space access systems.
Private enterprise tends to make things more efficient over time. Let's see where Soyuz is in ten or twenty years when private systems begin competing for space enterprises with completely reusable systems and the Russians are still using technology developed during the Cold War...surely you don't think Soyuz is the best humans can come up with to access space, being an aeronautical engineer yourself?
And another thing about "reinventing the wheel" - does the wheel alone do everything we need it to do? Seems like there has been a lot of reinventing over the last some tens of thousands of years related specifically to reinventing that very thing. I wonder if the first caveman said "there, fire to warm our bodies, wheel to move things easier - we're done, no more reinventing." Probably, but he had no vision, if so.
So my point was, a lot of negativity and even sarcasm but no real useful points. Seemed quite bitter and not useful to me. Sorry.
