KSK Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 3 hours ago, Wingman703 said: I feel like that would cause undue heating of the LOX, unless it was for night only launches. Yeah but... Ninja Rockets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 But we could not see the spaceX logo, lol. I say just leave it, looks sexy in its charred, beat up wild child way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, PB666 said: But we could not see the spaceX logo, lol. I say just leave it, looks sexy in its charred, beat up wild child way. Elon did say they're NOT going to be repaiting the boosters. I like it. That used patina... it says... "ive seen some stuff. Ive done some things. Lets do it again." Edited May 30, 2016 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 8 hours ago, Motokid600 said: Elon did say they're NOT going to be repaiting the boosters. I like it. That used patina... it says... "ive seen some stuff. Ive done some things. Lets do it again." I think that they're at least painting over it with those colors for aerodynamic purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Could someone point me to a site with payload prices? Some people on polish forums diss SpaceX, insisting that Russians can send stuff to space cheaper. I would like to slap them with a direct link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 11 minutes ago, Scotius said: Could someone point me to a site with payload prices? Some people on polish forums diss SpaceX, insisting that Russians can send stuff to space cheaper. I would like to slap them with a direct link Pic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_prices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Pricing_and_development_funding There you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Thank you Seriously, there is nothing more annoying than people with little knowledge about the subiect, but with stubborness and resistance to arguments that would put a mule to shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Just don't go telling them that SpaceX will charge you 90 million to lift 54 metric tons to LEO. Because that's not what that page says at all... And also, be prepared to be surprised by how cheap a Proton rocket is these days. The recent reliability issues and the collapsing ruble really brought the price down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 26 minutes ago, Streetwind said: Just don't go telling them that SpaceX will charge you 90 million to lift 54 metric tons to LEO. Because that's not what that page says at all... And also, be prepared to be surprised by how cheap a Proton rocket is these days. The recent reliability issues and the collapsing ruble really brought the price down. Yes, and the rise of their competitors did not help either. And also the fact that there are perspective problems 'i.e 'don't feed the bears'. And what in the heck did happen to Russian space last 24 months anyway? Is the fall in QC written up yet? Sounds like a risk to me. I don't think this is going to change Space Xs pricing, as soon as contract space opens up they are filling it with orders. Theres one thing about spaceX being on terra firma they have to play by the rules. There is a privacy risk associated with sending packages over seas. You have to look at everything,mtransport costs, risks, intangibles. When we look at the non-concrete cost stuff SpaceX is a way better choice. And its alot of positive PR you wont see with a Russian rocket, although space X does grapple the limelight. How much would we really care about beam if it were not for the spaceX launch it rode up on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt_flyer Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 mmh - looking again at the graphic, there's also the launch angle to take into consideration. any other launch angles than the one stated in the images will allow less maximum payload (as they'll have to spend delta-V for changing the inclination of the orbit during the launch). that also could make a customer going with one launch provider or another Kourou / baikonour / vostochny / the cape / vandenberg have an easier access to some orbits than flights from boca chica (as spaceX will have to avoid the landmasses from boca chica, or they'll need to use the cape or vandenberg with all the red tape it implies for other orbits) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackDugan Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I wonder why OCISLY is just sitting out there. Maybe they are securing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 1 hour ago, JackDugan said: I wonder why OCISLY is just sitting out there. Maybe they are securing? No room in the hanger. /not serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 ^Cool story bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Thought it was a good summary and also relevant to the discussion we had recently, about whether or not the JCSAT core would fly again. Back then we didn't have any official word on it, but SpaceX has confirmed it in the meantime that it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellItExplodedAgain Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 On 5/25/2016 at 10:07 AM, Streetwind said: Ummm... you're aware you just quoted something that's almost 1.5 years old, yes...? Oops! Sorry I did not realize. On 5/27/2016 at 8:52 PM, Motokid600 said: How is it a 6:02 we can see what looks like land ( Florida? ) in the grid fin view? The one on the left. That makes no sense to me shoudnt this view be facing east out to sea? Omg, wait could that be Bermuda?! Retro Burn to slow down and come back to the barge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdivine Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 On 5/28/2016 at 8:52 AM, Motokid600 said: How is it a 6:02 we can see what looks like land ( Florida? ) in the grid fin view? The one on the left. That makes no sense to me shoudnt this view be facing east out to sea? Omg, wait could that be Bermuda?! i don't think it was bermuda, it looks way too big to be a small island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptRichardson Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Rdivine said: i don't think it was bermuda, it looks way too big to be a small island. Maybe Africa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 (edited) You're all way off. Stage 1 comes down about 500-600 km off the coast of the continental US. To the north of the carribean, east of the Florida peninsula. The closest islands to the launch trajectory were some of the Bahamas, but well to the south, not in front of the rocket. So it can neither be Bermuda nor Africa nor one of the carribean islands. Also, the stage is traveling away from Florida at the time, not towards it, so it can't be Florida either. My money's on optical illusion. Edited June 2, 2016 by Streetwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basto Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 35 minutes ago, Streetwind said: You're all way off. Stage 1 comes down about 500-600 km off the coast of the continental US. To the north of the carribean, east of the Florida peninsula. The closest islands to the launch trajectory were some of the Bahamas, but well to the south, not in front of the rocket. So it can neither be Bermuda nor Africa nor one of the carribean islands. Also, the stage is traveling away from Florida at the time, not towards it, so it can't be Florida either. My money's on optical illusion. It looked like clouds to me. But I am just looking at the video on my small phone screen at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Just now, Basto said: It looked like clouds to me. But I am just looking at the video on my small phone screen at the moment. Its interference between clouds and light reflecting off the ocean, along with a bit of coal/smoke particulates that interfere at high altitudes. Has anyone ever been right close to a thunderstorm and everything suddenly turns a greyish green, weird effects of light can be produced under the right circumstances. Its just waves and atmospheric interference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuky Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 She's coming home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Did they move the stage? I thought it landed close to the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VirtualCLD Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 16 minutes ago, Motokid600 said: Did they move the stage? I thought it landed close to the middle. You are correct. Current speculation is that is "walked" over to the edge during its trip back to port due to the lean angle from the crush core leg. If that is indeed the case, that sounds like a scary scenario, which might explain why it took a little longer to get back to port. So far it seems like they did not secure the rocket until they got near shore, possibly due to the risk of it tipping or "walking" off the edge, but that is all speculation. This has been discussed on the SpaceX sub-Reddit section (where of course everything must be true)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Cuky said: She's coming home Wow. That thing came back extra crispy, all right. 22 minutes ago, VirtualCLD said: You are correct. Current speculation is that is "walked" over to the edge during its trip back to port due to the lean angle from the crush core leg. If that is indeed the case, that sounds like a scary scenario, which might explain why it took a little longer to get back to port. So far it seems like they did not secure the rocket until they got near shore, possibly due to the risk of it tipping or "walking" off the edge, but that is all speculation. This has been discussed on the SpaceX sub-Reddit section (where of course everything must be true)! It looks like there's a pretty substantial lip around the landing surface. Maybe they figured the risk of it "walking" off the edge was pretty minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts