Page 184 of 188 FirstFirst ... 84134174182183184185186 ... LastLast
Results 5,491 to 5,520 of 5633

Thread: SpaceX

  1. #5491
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,030
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Ship 20

    Road closed, vapor plume spotted

    https://youtu.be/mhJRzQsLZGg
    Well did they perform a static test or not?

  2. #5492
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,830
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Well did they perform a static test or not?
    I checked in later, I saw comments that it hadn’t so far.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  3. #5493
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,830
    The Ars Technica rocket report has some interesting items on SpaceX, on valuation ($100 billion now), beach access lawsuit and Starship fuel supply issues (it will need a lot of fuel and a big power plant to power everything). The board is really slow and acting up now so I’m just going to link the article. It has a lot of space news, but I think I have it on the right section for SpaceX.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...tal-lawsuit/3/

    and a TechCrunch article on the natural gas (methane) supply issue for Starship:

    https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/08/th.../?guccounter=1

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  4. #5494
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,504
    Starship static fire attempt tonight

    1700 - 0200 Eastern

    https://twitter.com/BocaChicaGal/sta...65373546663939

  5. #5495
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,504
    Short static fire looked good.

    Comments to the FAA environmental panel were 39-18 for SpaceX.

    @a_leinfelder (Houston Chronicle)
    Brownsville Commissioner Jessica Tetreau-Kalifa provided the last comment for the FAA. She said Brownsville went from being labeled as the poorest community in the U.S. to "one of the most sought after zip codes."

    "I don’t just ask you, I beg you to give them that permit.”

    https://twitter.com/a_leinfelder/sta...FTjSifYbrCyFPA

  6. #5496
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,830
    I saw another tweet by Eric Berger mentioning that if they can’t get a permit they probably won’t be able to for another spot in the continental US, so would then need to launch from off coast, which would mean delays for testing.

    I also saw this comment by another poster, ‘A Morgan Stanley note on SpaceX makes the observation that “talking about SpaceX before Starship is like talking about the internet before Google.” Optimistic perhaps, but something to think about as the disruptor seeks to disrupt itself.’

    Well, it should be obvious that if they don’t run into show stoppers, and if they can successfully fly a large, economical, fully reusable rocket it will inevitably change the entire industry and how we think about space. But it must meet the goals, not just be somewhat successful.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #5497
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,504
    It was a pre-burner test...

    https://youtu.be/n6cJXB7OZrQ

  8. #5498
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,030
    From Teslarati https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-sta...e-nasa-update/
    A NASA document discussing a group’s plans to document SpaceX’s first orbital-velocity Starship reentry appears to suggest that the next-generation rocket’s orbital launch debut has slipped several months into 2022.
    So the July 21 orbital test was indeed Elon time. I do hope for the best outcome at whatever the delays are.

  9. #5499
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Posts
    6
    Elon time.
    Why do SpaceX delays get referred to as this?
    When Boeing and BO delays are considered "extreme incompetence'" but SpaceX gets a cutesy name for its delays.

  10. #5500
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    17,835
    Mostly, I think, because nobody, probably including him, takes "Elon Time" seriously. It's an aspirational goal.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  11. #5501
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Edsel View Post
    Why do SpaceX delays get referred to as this?
    When Boeing and BO delays are considered "extreme incompetence'" but SpaceX gets a cutesy name for its delays.
    Because it actually delivers on its promises. Everyone understands delays, but Boeing is bordering on incompetent at this point and BO seems to have abandoned actually delivering orbital hardware in favour of lawsuits.

  12. #5502
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    Mostly, I think, because nobody, probably including him, takes "Elon Time" seriously. It's an aspirational goal.
    I think that's a great way of describing the phrase. I make fun of it but I seriously want SpaceX to succeed. They are the ones pushing the envelop currently.
    These comments are directed to Edsel also.

  13. #5503
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Edsel View Post
    Why do SpaceX delays get referred to as this?
    When Boeing and BO delays are considered "extreme incompetence'" but SpaceX gets a cutesy name for its delays.
    The "aspirational goals" sums Elon Time up quite well. Those timestamps are not the result of planning but the result of enthusiasm while developing new stuff. I consider Elon Time as a measure of how confident he is in making something work, rather than a point in time.

    Also, there is a difference between a) being late as a contractor for a customer, versus b) an internal timeline shifting. There is a difference between x) developing something within the technological status quo and your know-how versus y) cutting-edge or slightly beyond. a+x doesn't make you look good; b+y should not come as a surprise and as such doesn't make you look too bad. Especially if you are still getting results in the latter.

    That said, I would hire Musk for many things, but not as my wedding planner.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  14. #5504
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Edsel View Post
    Why do SpaceX delays get referred to as this?
    When Boeing and BO delays are considered "extreme incompetence'" but SpaceX gets a cutesy name for its delays.
    When there was essentially no hardware aside from engine prototypes, Musk said they would have Starship in orbit in about a year. I said more like five years if they don’t hit any major complications. After all, this was a new large rocket, and not just a new rocket but trying a number of new things. SpaceX is moving forward admirably on the project, they may manage faster than I expected, but they never could have done it as fast as Musk was saying. Musk regularly understates how long these things will take, and that’s now expected, hence “Elon time.” Still, SpaceX does well compared to other companies today. SpaceX is building new hardware in timeframes similar to how companies were doing in the ‘60s during the space race. The others? Well, the SLS faces one delay after another even though it is largely based on established, even old, hardware and technology, and a lot of money has been sunk into it. Boeing’s space capsule effort is taking longer than SpaceX’s, though they asked for and got considerably more money to pay for it.

    Oh, and Blue Origin? They have been talking about their New Glenn orbital rocket for quite some time, but still appear to be in the very early stages of development. Musk may underestimate how long it takes, but they’ve been developing and testing their new rocket for some time now. They are mass producing the new engines, which they have updated more than once. They have test flown Starship prototypes. Blue Origin has done nothing close to that.
    Last edited by Van Rijn; 2021-Oct-19 at 08:06 PM.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  15. #5505
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,504
    Crew 3 update

    KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. (NASA PR) — NASA and SpaceX now are targeting 2:21 a.m. EDT Sunday, Oct. 31, for the agency’s Crew-3 launch to the*International Space Station*to allow additional time for spacecraft processing. The backup launch time and date is 1:10 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 3.
    >

  16. #5506
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,504
    The Russians are coming

    Marcia Smith @SpcPlcyOnline

    Q-Russians on Crew Dragon?

    Lueders-working w/Russians on crew swap strategy.

    Joel Montalbano-I was there last week. Working on docs for Roscosmos to submit to its govt. Target still is Russian on Crew-5 in fall 2022 and American on Soyuz in same time frame.

    https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/st...02948039041030

  17. #5507
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,504
    Booster-catching "Chopsticks" lifted

    https://youtu.be/NjFpNLVZJsM

    How Starship is assembled

    https://youtu.be/neV49JBo024
    Last edited by docmordrid; 2021-Oct-21 at 05:13 AM.

  18. #5508
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    5,856
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Booster-catching "Chopsticks" lifted

    https://youtu.be/NjFpNLVZJsM

    How Starship is assembled

    https://youtu.be/neV49JBo024
    Thanks. The assembly video is a nice high-level overview.
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  19. #5509
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,030
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Booster-catching "Chopsticks" lifted

    https://youtu.be/NjFpNLVZJsM

    How Starship is assembled

    https://youtu.be/neV49JBo024
    Is the chopstick assembly stationary on the launch tower? I saw big roll of wire so I'm guessing that the arms move up and catch the bird and then relax taking some of the momentum

  20. #5510
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    17,835
    Yes, the chopsticks will move up and down. To be hoisted, I think, by the drawworks winch from one of the oil platforms they bought.

    The rapidity of development of this whole project is astounding, "Elon time" not withstanding. Must be quite the economic boom to the Brownsville area.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  21. #5511
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,596
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Is the chopstick assembly stationary on the launch tower? I saw big roll of wire so I'm guessing that the arms move up and catch the bird and then relax taking some of the momentum
    Yes, the idea is that the dampening of the landing forces happens in the tower, so there is as little extra weight sent into space and back as possible.

    Simplified comparison: you can either land on a concrete pad if your craft has complex landing legs with dampers. Or you could land on a trampoline with a craft that only has simple fixed supports. SpaceX chooses to keep the spacecraft as light/simple as possible, by moving functionality to the ground systems where possible.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  22. #5512
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,830
    I’ll be a tad skeptical until I see it work a few times. My concern is that it requires quite a lot of precision for landing, and if there is an explosion or if the rocket crashes into the structure, there would be a lot to repair.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #5513
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    17,835
    SpaceX has shown they don't mind failing a few times before getting it right. I'm reasonably certain the "B2.1" hybrid test tank will have grid fins and some raptors installed and be used to practice catching.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  24. #5514
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    SpaceX has shown they don't mind failing a few times before getting it right. I'm reasonably certain the "B2.1" hybrid test tank will have grid fins and some raptors installed and be used to practice catching.
    That or some other variation would be prudent in the development. I agree with Van Rijn that a missed catching could be disasterous to the launch tower.

  25. #5515
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I’ll be a tad skeptical until I see it work a few times. My concern is that it requires quite a lot of precision for landing, and if there is an explosion or if the rocket crashes into the structure, there would be a lot to repair.
    I share that thought. It obviously is an excellent concept if it all works.

    We've seen that a Falcon 9 landing mishap doesn't have to cause much damage (droneships), but that's quite a bit less mass than a Superheavy crashing into the launch tower. That would require loads of rework before they can reuse the pad. But SpaceX have the data on landing precision for Falcon 9, so there must be some motivation to proceed with the idea.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  26. #5516
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    584
    My guess is that they'll "land" SH a bit differently than how they land the F9 boosters. Rather than a hoverslam I think they will probably bring SH to an actual hover and even have some fuel margin planned for a bit of gentle translation. The chopsticks aren't very big. Rather than plucking SH out of the air I think it will be more analogous to holding SH in place in midair while the arms are moved into place under the grid fins.

    In any case, looks like we'll find out pretty soon. Can't wait. Given the accuracy of F9 landings even though the thrust / weight problem (to high to hover) entails a hoverslam, I expect they'll be able to pull this chopstick landing system off because SH should be capable of actually hovering.

  27. #5517
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,504
    Starship 20 Static fire attempt tonight

  28. #5518
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,504

  29. #5519
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,030
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    This one has nine engines? Mixture of norm and vacs IIRC. What is the calculated thrust on that stage?

  30. #5520
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,504
    2 engines this time ; 1 sea level, 1 RVac. More later

    Static fire 2

    https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/...M5xEioAE0vRDMg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •