Jump to content

Blue Origin Thread (merged)


Aethon
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Looks like the damage must have just been superficial. I still reckon that they will try to modify it so that doesn't happen again.

Told you'll, I hope they publish their findings. I think the damage is largely part of the life expectancy of their rocket engines. What you see may not be as important as what you don't see, those nozzles have probably alot of stress accumulation.

9 hours ago, sojourner said:

What "it" is not going to happen?  Your reply is overly vague.  As for ULA, I doubt they'll just "give up" already signed contracts.  At least, I would think their lawyers might not be too willing to do that.

Yeah but at the least it slows them down which some of their future business is going to move.

Edited by PB666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dino1984 said:

Hey,

Is anybody able to tell me what was Apogee of the first stage during JCSAT-14 compared to previous launch?

higher, Crs-8 was 6600 kmh and the next launch peak velocity was at 8800 kmh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late, but the static fire completed last night with all systems go for launch tomorrow. 

I've seen speculation that in the future, SpaceX may begin doing static fires the same day as launch. The launch ignition is provided by ground sources of TEA/TEB, so all they would have to do is refuel the stage and refill the suppression tanks. 

Kinda makes sense. Any major problems would take more than 40 hours to fix anyway, and this way you save having to set up for launch twice. 

Does anyone know the source of the liquid oxygen that SpaceX is using? Is it provided by chemical industrial process and trucked in, or is it fractionally distilled from the atmosphere offsite and trucked in, or is it fractionally distilled onsite? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, WellItExplodedAgain said:

Yep. It looks like (You guessed it) water because it is liquid hydrogen (I think)!

 

Ummm... you're aware you just quoted something that's almost 1.5 years old, yes...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on the Falcon heavy page on SpaceX's website, and here's what I saw :)

Payload to Pluto

2,900kg, 6,390 lb

Weight of New Horizons;

478 kilograms (1,054 pounds)

 

That means SpaceX could launch 6 New Horizons to Pluto!! A Pluto orbiter someday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that mean "payload to Pluto"? As in, land on Pluto? Send there on a Hohmann? By way of 40 gravity assists? 

Because New Horizons did none of those, and I think when we're talking differences of decades (or even centuries?) they need to be a bit more specific.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lukaszenko said:

What does that mean "payload to Pluto"? As in, land on Pluto? Send there on a Hohmann? By way of 40 gravity assists? 

Because New Horizons did none of those, and I think when we're talking differences of decades (or even centuries?) they need to be a bit more specific.  

That was all it said;

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the payload to Pluto of the Atlas V 551 used to launch New Horizons was well over the weight of the probe too. They intentionally picked the oversized rocket to shoot the thing off on a high energy transfer. New Horizons became the fastest spacecraft ever leaving the Earth that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Streetwind said:

Yeah, the payload to Pluto of the Atlas V 551 used to launch New Horizons was well over the weight of the probe too. They intentionally picked the oversized rocket to shoot the thing off on a high energy transfer. New Horizons became the fastest spacecraft ever leaving the Earth that way.

Thats because they chose not to circularize or come anywhere close, the best place to start the LEO burn to exit is in the atmosphere, just turn toward flat, somewhere around 20 degrees of horizontal the gain from circularization (trading altitude for gravity fughting omega squared r)  is less than the gain from doing all your burn as fast as you can to escape. Eventually the orbital vector passes omega square r anyway and within minutes you are so far from earth that g is no longer a significant factor. You can fire strait up, but you will be fighting full effects of gravity all the way out the SOI. 

To get that 14000 m/s  at pluto they need to burn as quickly as soon as they can after establishing omega sq r / g = 1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DarthVader said:

Used engines may be on the Thaicom 8 S1(F9-025-S1)

I can't think of any other reason why one of the engine bells would be bedazzled with stripes.

Then again, I can't think of any reason why stripes would be used.

Maybe they want a visual indicator? I suppose that in the worst-case scenario if the rocket ripped itself apart near maxQ, you would want to know whether the reused engine was the culprit, and so you would want to be able to identify it visually in the footage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

I can't think of any other reason why one of the engine bells would be bedazzled with stripes.

Then again, I can't think of any reason why stripes would be used.

Maybe they want a visual indicator? I suppose that in the worst-case scenario if the rocket ripped itself apart near maxQ, you would want to know whether the reused engine was the culprit, and so you would want to be able to identify it visually in the footage.

They'd quickly see by telemetry what happened and if it was the engine though. Though let's not talk further about about worst-case scenarios. :P I think it's an engine reuse. No other reason really why they should mark that engine, but yeah, as you said, it still doesn't make sense why they then would add those stripes on the engine, they surely wouldn't forget which engine was the already used one. Maybe we'll hear something about that in the livestream. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kartoffelkuchen said:

They'd quickly see by telemetry what happened and if it was the engine though. Though let's not talk further about about worst-case scenarios. :P I think it's an engine reuse. No other reason really why they should mark that engine, but yeah, as you said, it still doesn't make sense why they then would add those stripes on the engine, they surely wouldn't forget which engine was the already used one. Maybe we'll hear something about that in the livestream. :)

Someone on Reddit pointed out that there are very thin barely-visible red stripes on the landed JCSAT-14 booster, so this may be old news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, recently i've read a news\gossip in Polish press that the contract between NASA and Roscosmos for the transport of astronauts to ISS ends in 2018, and the Russians declared they will not prolong it or sign another. Anyone heard anything about it? Because the source that published it isn't the most professional when it comes to serious science or high-tech stuff. If it's true, it would be big for SpaceX, since they're closest to fielding crew-rated capsule before the current contract deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...