Page 176 of 183 FirstFirst ... 76126166174175176177178 ... LastLast
Results 5,251 to 5,280 of 5466

Thread: SpaceX

  1. #5251
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    17,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Some of today' headlines are hilarious/depressing: "Virgin beats SpaceX to space". How hard is it to inform yourself a bit so you know what is and is not going on.
    Not even wrong!
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  2. 2021-Jul-12, 05:06 PM

  3. #5252
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,681
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Elon Musk will ride Branson's SpaceshipTwo...

    https://twitter.com/RogerLewisHolt/s...505252355?s=19
    I get it but rather hope he doesn't, or at least lets a few other multi-millionaires go before him. Still a wee bit risky...

  4. #5253
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Some of today' headlines are hilarious/depressing: "Virgin beats SpaceX to space". How hard is it to inform yourself a bit so you know what is and is not going on.
    Newspapers and now the internet where the producers make splash headlines to grab attention nothing new in "reporting".

  5. #5254
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    Just the beginning of the LC-39A Vertical Integration Facility work......

    https://twitter.com/HarryStrangerPG/...20238474567681

    Concept
    IMG_20210712_203601.jpg

  6. #5255
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    17,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Some of today' headlines are hilarious/depressing: "Virgin beats SpaceX to space". How hard is it to inform yourself a bit so you know what is and is not going on.
    Ok, now that I think of it, Virgin won the Ansari X-Prize in 2004. Falcon 1 didn't launch (and fail, initially) until 2006. So Virgin did beat SpaceX.
    The 17 years since, however...
    Wow. Branson has spent 17 years on this dead-end technology and SpaceX is thinking Mars.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  7. #5256
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    Booster 3 cryo test complete, static fire next up.

    https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/...32210792538117

  8. #5257
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    ..., however...
    Wow. Branson has spent 17 years on this dead-end technology and SpaceX is thinking Mars.
    Hi Trebuchet,

    I'm not so sure it's dead end. Maybe one day space tethers will make this technology viable.

    Cheers,

  9. #5258
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    I'm not so sure it's dead end. Maybe one day space tethers will make this technology viable.
    To me, "maybe one day" means it's a dead end right now. We may never have sling-type tethers.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  10. #5259
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    Not even wrong!
    In 1962 the X-15 reached 59.6 miles, beating Virgin by 58 years. But hey, nobody wants to hear that. Also, it was just one pilot.

    Now a whole busload of super rich people can do what was possible, in 1962

  11. #5260
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    17,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigabyte View Post
    In 1962 the X-15 reached 59.6 miles, beating Virgin by 58 years. But hey, nobody wants to hear that. Also, it was just one pilot.

    Now a whole busload of super rich people can do what was possible, in 1962
    Yup. And in 2004 SS1 got as high with two pilots. And in the meantime, SS2 managed to kill four people and fly as high with two pilots before the latest over-hyped exercise.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  12. #5261
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    Yup. And in 2004 SS1 got as high with two pilots. And in the meantime, SS2 managed to kill four people and fly as high with two pilots before the latest over-hyped exercise.
    Four? I remember the accident with the one pilot somehow accidentally moving the feathering lever... didn't one die and the other survive? Who are the other 3? Am I really that old or jaded that I have forgotten? Now I am sad.

    CJSF
    "I like the stories
    About angels, unicorns and elves
    Now I like those stories
    As much as anybody else
    But when I'm seeking knowledge
    Either simple or abstract
    The facts are with science"

    -They Might Be Giants, "Science Is Real"


    lonelybirder.org

  13. #5262
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,681
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    Four? I remember the accident with the one pilot somehow accidentally moving the feathering lever... didn't one die and the other survive? Who are the other 3? Am I really that old or jaded that I have forgotten? Now I am sad.

    CJSF
    One on a test flight, three on the ground. From Wikipedia:

    On 26 July 2007, an explosion occurred during an oxidizer flow test at the Mojave Air and Space Port, where early-stage tests were being conducted on SpaceShipTwo's systems. The oxidizer test included filling the oxidizer tank with 4,500 kg (9,900 lb) of nitrous oxide, followed by a 15-second cold-flow injector test. Although the tests did not ignite the gas, three employees were killed and three injured by flying shrapnel.

  14. #5263
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    Four? I remember the accident with the one pilot somehow accidentally moving the feathering lever... didn't one die and the other survive? Who are the other 3? Am I really that old or jaded that I have forgotten? Now I am sad.

    CJSF
    You are correct. VSS Enterprise broke up midair. The co-pilot, who unlocked the airbrake too early which led to the accident, died. The pilot lived. As far as I know that is the only death Virgin Galactic has had.

    I would guess that the VSS Enterprise accident was a factor in why it has taken Virgin Galactic so long to get to commercial flight. When the accident occurred there were rumors of disagreement between Branson and engineers about the pace of progress, with the implication that some thought Branson had been pushing too hard. I don't no the details though.

  15. #5264
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    578
    Of course. Can't believe I forgot about that earlier explosion accident.

  16. #5265
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    Super Heavy Booster 3 static fire next week

    Windows in schedule are US Central Time. Add 1 hour for Eastern.

    SH Booster 3 static fire closures.jpg

    Everyday Astronaut @Erdayastronaut
    Get your bookmarks ready as we're keeping track of @SpaceX's Booster 3 and its progress towards a static fire NET next week!!! Read up on what happened so far and bookmark this article to stay updated!
    When will Booster 3 Static Fire? | Live Updates
    ||
    LIVE UPDATES for the testing of the first Super Heavy booster, Booster 3. Follow to constant updates on what's next in testing.
    everydayastronaut.com
    |
    Elon Musk ✓ @elonmusk
    Probably Monday

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1415877794391752704

  17. #5266
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    ASoG entering Port Canaveral

    https://youtu.be/9gcl0VYmraM

  18. #5267
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    Super Heavy engine layout: 20-10-3 (33)

    Thrust: 7,590 t-f (16,733,086 lb-f)

    Orbital vehicles Booster 4 and Ship 20 are being stacked, and Ship 20 has conformal heat shield tiles on the fins.

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1416168229924397056

    Image: Erc X
    Musk: "Very accurate!"
    IMG_20210717_024429.jpg

    IMG_20210717_031158.jpg

    IMG_20210717_031341.jpg

    https://twitter.com/StarshipGazer/st...015116806?s=19
    Last edited by docmordrid; 2021-Jul-17 at 07:37 AM.

  19. #5268
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,578
    From CNBC:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/14/faa-...ite-tower.html

    The FAA warned SpaceX two months ago that they were building the giant launch tower at their own risk, because it would be part of an environmental impact report and potentially they might be told to bring it down again. That would be interesting, I would expect a protracted legal and PR battle if they tried to enforce that.

    "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

  20. #5269
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    From CNBC:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/14/faa-...ite-tower.html

    The FAA warned SpaceX two months ago that they were building the giant launch tower at their own risk, because it would be part of an environmental impact report and potentially they might be told to bring it down again. That would be interesting, I would expect a protracted legal and PR battle if they tried to enforce that.
    It seems to me SpacedX's petulant behaviour will or should come back to bite them. Elong's tweets hardly help either. FAA is the one that brought us the incredibly safe air transportation industry. To whine that they are too slow or even broken seems incredibly ignorant of that reality and indefensible. Everybody should want FAA to be deliberate and independent.

  21. #5270
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    17,525
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Super Heavy engine layout: 20-10-3 (33)

    Thrust: 7,590 t-f (16,733,086 lb-f)

    Orbital vehicles Booster 4 and Ship 20 are being stacked, and Ship 20 has conformal heat shield tiles on the fins.



    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1416168229924397056

    Image: Erc X
    Musk: "Very accurate!"
    IMG_20210717_024429.jpg

    IMG_20210717_031158.jpg

    IMG_20210717_031341.jpg

    https://twitter.com/StarshipGazer/st...015116806?s=19
    That engine arrangement in the first picture doesn't match the thrust pucks we've seen, which have one central engine and eight in a ring around them. Perhaps those are an interim configuration.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  22. #5271
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    That engine arrangement in the first picture doesn't match the thrust pucks we've seen, which have one central engine and eight in a ring around them. Perhaps those are an interim configuration.
    The 9 engine puck was interim. Musk tweeted the 33 engine decision was made last week, and 3-10-20 is now confirmed as of the latest tweet.

    Other trades are still being made, so after them we may get another full update.

  23. #5272
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    It seems to me SpacedX's petulant behaviour will or should come back to bite them. Elong's tweets hardly help either. FAA is the one that brought us the incredibly safe air transportation industry. To whine that they are too slow or even broken seems incredibly ignorant of that reality and indefensible. Everybody should want FAA to be deliberate and independent.
    FAA approved the tower in March; location, height, etc. and certified it as not a hazard to navigation.

    Also, SpaceX is writing the EA not FAA though the latter needs to approve it. The risk is that if any changes to their plan need to be made SpaceX has to deal with the schedule changes and pay for them.

  24. #5273
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,578
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    FAA approved the tower in March; location, height, etc. and certified it as not a hazard to navigation.

    Also, SpaceX is writing the EA not FAA though the latter needs to approve it. The risk is that if any changes to their plan need to be made SpaceX has to deal with the schedule changes and pay for them.
    According to the article, the FAA said differently this week:

    “The company is building the tower at its own risk,” an FAA spokesperson told CNBC on Wednesday, noting that the environmental review could recommend taking down the launch tower.

    (Emphasis added) The article was published on Wednesday, July 14, 2021. Link again:

    FAA warns SpaceX that massive Starship launch tower in Texas is unapproved

    "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

  25. #5274
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,886
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    FAA approved the tower in March; location, height, etc. and certified it as not a hazard to navigation.

    Also, SpaceX is writing the EA not FAA though the latter needs to approve it. The risk is that if any changes to their plan need to be made SpaceX has to deal with the schedule changes and pay for them.
    Yes I remember the page you linked earlier, but this is about an environmental study that would include the tower.
    However, the company needs the FAA to complete the environmental review and issue a license to take the next step in the rocket’s testing.
    And I believe that was what the interviewee (on CNBC) was suggesting, although I didn't hear it live.

  26. #5275
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    Super Heavy Booster 3 static fire attempt Monday, July 19 between 1300-2300 Eastern. Only a couple engines, likely testing ground support equipment and the internal systems & plumbing.

    https://twitter.com/bocachicagal/sta...27089936867340

  27. #5276
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396

  28. #5277
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    There's a 9th section, shorter in height, being built. Perhaps the roof/lightning tower mount.

    Chris Bergin - NSF @NASASpaceflight
    The Tower. It Rises!

    Oh and there's going to be two of these!
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=KyLEqv
    |
    Keith Mansfield @KeithMansfield
    Replying to @NASASpaceflight
    Two together? I always thought there's a a much better chance of catching #SuperHeavy between two launch towers than simply with arms extended from one. Between two should be a far more stable configuration. Is that what's now planned?
    |
    Philip Whitehouse @philipwhiuk
    No - the plan is two orbital launch pads with a tower for each

    https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/...85394759315456
    https://twitter.com/philipwhiuk/stat...87335165972480

  29. #5278
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396
    Inspiration4 @inspiration4x
    Generosity, Prosperity, Leadership, and Hope.

    All smiles for our #Inspiration4 crew during Dragon simulations at @SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California.

    @ChrisSembroski, @DrSianProctor, @rookisaacman, @ArceneauxHayley

    20210719_141154.jpg
    https://twitter.com/inspiration4x/st...78274623594496

  30. #5279
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,886
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Super Heavy Booster 3 static fire attempt Monday, July 19 between 1300-2300 Eastern. Only a couple engines, likely testing ground support equipment and the internal systems & plumbing.

    https://twitter.com/bocachicagal/sta...27089936867340
    Not much going on today, that I am able to see. Maybe later or tomorrow.

  31. #5280
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,396

Posting Permissions

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