Page 30 of 87 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... LastLast
Results 871 to 900 of 2589

Thread: SpaceX

  1. #871
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,204
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    He was referring to the June 2015 flight and not this one.
    Exactly, now is there a video link of the capsule leaving the explosion debris?

  2. #872
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,544
    A page discussing the capsule visible can be read on an obscure blog called Bad Astronomy: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...r_takeoff.html

  3. #873
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    A page discussing the capsule visible can be read on an obscure blog called Bad Astronomy: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...r_takeoff.html
    Obscure(?), Yes that was what I was looking for.

  4. #874
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,544
    (looking at your join date, I'll fill you in:Cosmoquest used to be BAUT forum. BAUT forum used to be BABB, the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. In other words, the forum belonging to the Bad Astronomy site/blog. My "obscure" remark was tongue in cheek.)

  5. #875
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    (looking at your join date, I'll fill you in:Cosmoquest used to be BAUT forum. BAUT forum used to be BABB, the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. In other words, the forum belonging to the Bad Astronomy site/blog. My "obscure" remark was tongue in cheek.)

    ok, I didn't get the tongue in cheek.

  6. #876
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    (looking at your join date, I'll fill you in:Cosmoquest used to be BAUT forum. BAUT forum used to be BABB, the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. In other words, the forum belonging to the Bad Astronomy site/blog. My "obscure" remark was tongue in cheek.)
    I just made this account but I've been a reader for years. Finally decided to participate.

    Does anyone know about the life support system for dragon 2, don't they have a contract for their first manned mission this year?
    Is it capable of supporting people long enough, on its own, to go to the moon (probably)? Mars (probably not)? Can dragon capsules leave earths orbit completely and go to mars or venus on unmanned missions now (technical ability)? Are spacex's only stated plans to provide launch capability to mars the BFG?MCT idea?
    Last edited by JoshuaDavid; 2016-Apr-12 at 05:13 AM.

  7. #877
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,575
    If all goes well, SpaceX is planning to reuse the recovered rocket in May or June. way to go SpaceX.
    Last edited by selvaarchi; 2016-Apr-12 at 09:43 AM.

  8. #878
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,204
    I wonder if some of the "cleaning" will involve removing burned fuel from the engines? Seems reasonable to me.

  9. #879
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    4,879
    My nephew starts his internship at SpaceX next month. Maybe they'll give him a toothbrush and send him in the nozzle.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  10. #880
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    My nephew starts his internship at SpaceX next month. Maybe they'll give him a toothbrush and send him in the nozzle.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Heh.

  11. #881
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,105
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshuaDavid View Post
    I just made this account but I've been a reader for years. Finally decided to participate.

    Does anyone know about the life support system for dragon 2, don't they have a contract for their first manned mission this year?
    Is it capable of supporting people long enough, on its own, to go to the moon (probably)? Mars (probably not)? Can dragon capsules leave earths orbit completely and go to mars or venus on unmanned missions now (technical ability)? Are spacex's only stated plans to provide launch capability to mars the BFG?MCT idea?
    I think the plan for a human mission to Mars is to attach a habitation module under the capsule. I don't know what life support systems they have in mind.

    As of right now, there is no provision for a Dragon leaving Earth orbit. SpaceX has not given a timeline for the MCT.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  12. #882
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    My nephew starts his internship at SpaceX next month. Maybe they'll give him a toothbrush and send him in the nozzle.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My brother had a holiday job at the nuclear powerplant. They gave him a grinder to clean the coolant water pump impellers. So if you make the toothbrush a wire brush, I wouldn't be surprised if that indeed is his job.

  13. #883
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,575
    The drone ship carrying SpaceX's rocket booster has entered port but has not yet unloaded its cargo

  14. #884
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    389
    It has now been unloaded.

    Here is a video of the unload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeDyoDkBnaE

    Elon on what happens now, about 18:30 into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNyg...&nohtml5=False

    /Peter
    Last edited by baskerbosse; 2016-Apr-13 at 04:44 AM.

  15. #885
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,594
    Competition for BFR?

    Blue Origin/Bezos said they want to build LV's bigger than anything that has ever been built before. So a BE-5 could be a >F-1 thrust LOx/LCH4 engine possibly FFSC to keep the no. of 1st stage engines on their future BFR to a reasonable value. I don't think that Blue Origin wants to dev. an N-1 style vehicle and Bezos says that turbopumps and thrust chambers scale well to large sizes.
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...723#msg1518723


    If ULA wants to survive--they need to nix their own Vulcan concept. Musk/Bezos have the path to re-usablility well plowed.

    I would urge them to go large and forget re-usability--but reduce part count instead.

    They need to get with Dynetics and Bezos--and see if they can build Pyrios: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1

    ULA would get the prestige of having F-1. The booster could compete with SRBs. With more power--a single core could launch Orion to LEO (solid augmentation) Shelby would support this.
    Lastly, A Pyrios derivative might allow for a hammerhead shroud larger than what Falcon Heavy allows.

    Space X did make one mistake early on:

    "Unfortunately, the new company believed the oft-repeated assertion that there was a large unmet demand for small payloads and the launch services associated with them. Thus, the Falcon 1’s Merlin engine was the lowest thrust first stage engine used by a US space booster since the puny propulsion system employed by Vanguard in the 1950’s."

    "When the truth came out that the real market was for medium and heavy launch vehicles, the Falcon 1 was abandoned and the Falcon 9 first stage needed a remarkable 9 engines to meet the mission requirements The Falcon Heavy first stage will need an incredible 27 engines. The Merlin engine used by these boosters has been upgraded to over twice its original thrust level, but at 150,000 pounds-thrust (667,000 newtons) at sea level, it still is only producing thrust equivalent to the earliest engines used by the Thor and Atlas boosters some 58 years ago."

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2799/1

    Now--to his credit--a lot of engines allows fine throttling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Seeing the grid fins in action is nice. Part of me still can't believe they actually work.
    I can't help but wonder if the somewhat windy conditions HELPED this most recent landing on the barge.

    A good stream of wind gives surfaces something to grip--something to fight.

    With calm winds--the LV may feel every little off balance fluctuation.

    I wonder if winds are needed to give the LV something to bite into--rather how the rudder of Titanic actually did worse when full reverse caused cavitation. Better to have had a bigger rudder, and kept speed. Larger ships actually handle better at speed for this reason.

    Perhaps rockets are no different.
    Last edited by publiusr; 2016-Apr-15 at 10:25 PM.

  16. #886
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    2
    Does anyone know where I might be able to find the full, unedited footage of the Dragon 8 approach and capture as streamed on NASAtv?

  17. #887
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    511
    I don't think it's an accident that the Falcon 9 has nine engines. It's correct that they found the Falcon 1 didn't have the demand they thought it would, but to my understanding even then the development path was to go Falcon 1 -> Falcon 5 -> Falcon 9. Later the five-engine Falcon 5 was cut in favor of going directly for the F9. The F1, I believe, was supposed to remain in service alongside it until they decided it wasn't worth it.

    This number of engines also allows them engine-out capability and propulsive landing without an excessive thrust-to-weight ratio. The former was probably planned, as they advertised it quite early, but the latter is probably a fortunate coincidence since originally they were going to land stages by parachute. At least one of the early launches had first stage chutes packed inside the interstage, but all that got them was a debris field in the ocean.

  18. #888
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Elukka View Post
    I don't think it's an accident that the Falcon 9 has nine engines. It's correct that they found the Falcon 1 didn't have the demand they thought it would, but to my understanding even then the development path was to go Falcon 1 -> Falcon 5 -> Falcon 9. Later the five-engine Falcon 5 was cut in favor of going directly for the F9. The F1, I believe, was supposed to remain in service alongside it until they decided it wasn't worth it.

    This number of engines also allows them engine-out capability and propulsive landing without an excessive thrust-to-weight ratio. The former was probably planned, as they advertised it quite early, but the latter is probably a fortunate coincidence since originally they were going to land stages by parachute. At least one of the early launches had first stage chutes packed inside the interstage, but all that got them was a debris field in the ocean.
    They also intended to gain in mass production, and to avoid having to develop a significantly different engine for the upper stage. The Merlin's only undersized if it's too small for the upper stage, and it seems their limitations are structural resulting from the overall height to width ratio, not inadequate thrust. If there's something to regret, it's probably not being more ambitious with the core diameter, but flexibility in transporting Falcon 9 stages has probably been a worthwhile tradeoff during the company's establishment and stage recovery experiments.

    And note that their experience with the Falcon 9 is leading them to optimize their future Raptor vehicle for large numbers of relatively small engines:

    Quote Originally Posted by Elon Musk
    Thrust to weight is optimizing for a surprisingly low thrust level, even when accounting for the added mass of plumbing and structure for many engines. Looks like a little over 230 metric tons (~500 klbf) of thrust per engine, but we will have a lot of them

  19. #889
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,594
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I wonder if some of the "cleaning" will involve removing burned fuel from the engines? Seems reasonable to me.
    "Specifications for RP-1 where first issued in the United States in 1957 when the need for a clean burning petroleum rocket fuel was recognized. Prior experimentation with jet fuels produced tarry residue in the engine cooling passages and excessive soot, coke polymirization and other deposits in the gas generator. Even with the new specifications, kerosene-burning engines still produce enough residues that their operational lifetimes are limited."

    http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm

    Methane does not coke (polymerize) at the operating temperatures of a rocket
    http://space.stackexchange.com/quest...ine-the-raptor

    Quote Originally Posted by Elukka View Post
    I don't think it's an accident that the Falcon 9 has nine engines. It's correct that they found the Falcon 1 didn't have the demand they thought it would, but to my understanding even then the development path was to go Falcon 1 -> Falcon 5 -> Falcon 9.
    About that: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...50#post2350150

    Still, having lots of engines give you engine out capability--which we saw need not lead to fratricide. It allows a finer touch

    And the more things you make--the cheaper they can get.

    Something interesting: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/04/...ian-invention/
    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/0...g-on-dron.html
    Last edited by publiusr; 2016-Apr-16 at 08:35 PM.

  20. #890
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,208
    Time to get ready again
    spaceflightnow.com

    SpaceX technicians are attaching a Japanese communications satellite to the top of a Falcon 9 rocket ahead of a planned launch Thursday morning from Cape Canaveral.

    The JCSAT 14 communications satellite, made in California by Space Systems/Loral, is fueled and encapsulated inside the Falcon 9 rocket’s payload fairing. Workers were expected to connect the satellite with the launcher’s second stage inside the Falcon 9 hangar as soon as Monday.

    The rocket passed a key preflight test Sunday evening, when SpaceX’s launch team fueled the Falcon 9 with super-chilled kerosene and liquid oxygen and fired its nine Merlin 1D first stage engines for several seconds at Cape Canaveral’s Complex 40 launch pad.

    ...

    “Following stage separation, the first stage of Falcon 9 will attempt an experimental landing on the ‘Of Course I Still Love You’ droneship,” SpaceX said in a post on the company’s website. “Given this mission’s GTO destination, the first-stage will be subject to extreme velocities and re-entry heating, making a successful landing unlikely.”
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #891
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,469
    Oh, a night launch, too! If the stage isn't too far downrange, I might be able to see part of it's orientation and landing burns. It might be worth taking a drive to the beach and north a bit...

    CJSF
    "Flipping this one final switch I'm effectively ensuring that I will be
    Overcoming all resistance long after my remains have been
    Vaporized with extreme prejudice and shot into outer space.

    I'll be haunting you."

    -They Might Be Giants, "I'll Be Haunting You"


    lonelybirder.org

  22. #892
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,204
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    "Specifications for RP-1 where first issued in the United States in 1957 when the need for a clean burning petroleum rocket fuel was recognized. Prior experimentation with jet fuels produced tarry residue in the engine cooling passages and excessive soot, coke polymirization and other deposits in the gas generator. Even with the new specifications, kerosene-burning engines still produce enough residues that their operational lifetimes are limited."

    http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm

    Methane does not coke (polymerize) at the operating temperatures of a rocket
    http://space.stackexchange.com/quest...ine-the-raptor



    About that: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...50#post2350150

    Still, having lots of engines give you engine out capability--which we saw need not lead to fratricide. It allows a finer touch

    And the more things you make--the cheaper they can get.

    Something interesting: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/04/...ian-invention/
    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/0...g-on-dron.html
    From Bob's wonderful page that you linked
    Specifications for RP-1 where first issued in the United States in 1957 when the need for a clean burning petroleum rocket fuel was recognized. Prior experimentation with jet fuels produced tarry residue in the engine cooling passages and excessive soot, coke and other deposits in the gas generator. Even with the new specifications, kerosene-burning engines still produce enough residues that their operational lifetimes are limited.
    So again I ask if cleaning any residuals would be in the cleaning procedure.

  23. #893
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,575
    SpaceX’s new price chart illustrates performance cost of reusability.

    http://spacenews.com/spacexs-new-pri...f-reusability/

    Launch-service provider SpaceX’s new price chart shows the performance cost incurred when making the Falcon 9 Full Thrust and Falcon Heavy rockets partially reusable.

    The corresponding cost and price benefit, which SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell has said could give customers around a 30 percent discount over expendable versions, is not yet listed in the price chart. Prices are shown as $62 million for the Falcon 9 Full Thrust and $90 million for the Falcon Heavy.

    SpaceX has said it needs to thoroughly examine several Falcon 9 first stages on their return to the drone ships or ground landing pads before settling on a pricing structure. Final prices will also depend on SpaceX’s ability to ramp up its launch rhythm.

    For now, the listed prices for the reusable and expendable versions remain the same.

  24. #894
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,204
    From tweets new launch date 01:21 6 May 16

  25. #895
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    14,640
    Launched and Landed!
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  26. #896
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    Launched and Landed!
    That looked like an excellent landing!

    Now I'd like to see one of these fly again!

    And of course a triple fly back of a Falcon Heavy is going to be awesome!

  27. #897
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,105
    I notice that before most recent launches they have hedged their bets by saying "Oh, it probably won't work" or "confidence is low". That way if it fails no one is too disappointed, and if it succeeds, bonus points. Sort of like Scotty in the Star Trek TNG episode Relics, claiming that he always exaggerating his time estimates for repairs so that he seemed like a "miracle worker" when he finished them in minutes.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #898
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,204
    Missed this one, eyes were closed at launch, but congratulations to them.

  29. #899
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,208
    Spaceflightnow.com has some images, but no video yet
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  30. #900
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    14,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Spaceflightnow.com has some images, but no video yet
    SpaceX appears to have it on their site.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

Posting Permissions

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