tater

Members
  • Content count

    6307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tater

  1. Similar day on the west coast:
  2. They used it...
  3. "Whatcha gonna send to space in that huge rocket?" "Stuff." "What kinda stuff?" "Space stuff."
  4. My 11 YO son put it well. "No camera on it, and they don't land, so not interesting." (then he left the room after seeing the animation for a few seconds).
  5. No idea, my French relatives moved to what is now Canada in 1605.
  6. NSF says 15 past the hour. Count resumes.
  7. Clock green at T-7m
  8. Hold until 10 after the hour.
  9. A pic I took at Amboseli, Kenya with Kilimanjaro in the background. Mzima Springs, in Tsavo:
  10. http://www.arianespace.com/mission/ariane-flight-va238/
  11. Assuming the ASDS never rolls at all.
  12. Wow, complete brain fart on my part. I was thinking it was already July, lol.
  13. The CRS missions are interspersed, so those are spaced into the future. CRS-12 is now mid August, then OATK in mid sept, then Progress very close after that in Sept, then CRS-13 in Nov, and the Japanese in Feb along with Progress, then back to SX CRS-14, etc. If you look at ISS resupplies it's a good reality check for anyone saying that Mars is not hard. 6 people require on the order of 8 resupply flights a year, plus whatever also comes up in the crew ship. On top of that, the majority of astronaut work hours are spent keeping station running. I have read that increasing the number of astronauts to 7 would double the science done (hence 1 astronaut FTE right now is science, the other 5 are maintenance). I roughly added it up for 2016, and it's about 4 tonnes per astronaut per year of cargo.
  14. CRS-12 is set for August 10 as I see it now, though that has slipped from NET 1 Aug.
  15. Yeah, I read that thread on NSF, but I suppose Boca Chica is a possibility.
  16. Regarding satellites, the plan is a constellation of thousands of small sats as I recall (his own company). They have substantial backlog of launches as it is, and the current cadence certainly helps them clear it. Raptor on Falcon is an interesting idea that I had frankly dismissed, but given what Shotwell said the other day I am more open to it being a thing. Seems to me that any such vehicle might be a sort of mini-BFS as a proof of concept, where F9 is the BFR booster.
  17. Also remember that it need not be a catastrophic failure, it could simply end up in the wrong orbit, for example. You could mitigate problems by sending up something like the crew transfer vehicle as a single large part, then schedule such that the transfer stages have one complete ahead of the mission for the next transfer. For example you use 3 propulsion stages that are identical. 1 for TEI, and 2 for TMI (I recall seeing something like this in a DRA, though the TEI might have varied). Make sure you have one built ahead for the next mission and you can deal with a single launch issue. This would be smart, but very atypical.
  18. Well, it's a few to several hundred km down range, and it's not designed for speed .
  19. Those usually appear when the ASDS returns. I think OCISLY is due later in the week.
  20. This is really the primary issue. Building an arbitrary capability, then looking for payloads doesn't make sense. If the goal is a "real" space station, a large torus for example, then several hundred tons to LEO is useful. Propellant depots, etc. The problem is that different possible projects have different sized parts, and volume also matters.
  21. I suppose the question is the chance of failure. If each LV has a standard of 1:200 LOM failure, then the more launches, the more chance of failure.
  22. @Bill Phil, you literally need a spare for everything. If the architecture uses fueling, then you indeed just need a tanker, but that implies stage reuse, otherwise it requires excess tanks. If the spacecraft is 4 modules, then you need at least 2 of all of them, which really tends to mean 3, as NASA likes to keep a flight article around for Apollo 13 moments. Assume that you build the craft well in advance to avoid delay problems, and provide some scheduling room for a LOM event on a component, You still need the spares ready to go, because the lead time on those almost certainly exceeds a launch synod to Mars.
  23. They're all the same part. The previous versions needed cleaning and repainting every time, and were removed for this anyway. It makes no sense not to at the very least pull them off of any expendable vehicle, for example, then reuse them. or when the time comes, decommission a given core, and take the fins if they are still fine. Intelsat 35e launch from 39A is static fire Thursday, and Launch NET July 3 (Monday).
  24. Heh. Still, effectively true with a spare.