Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

It was probably a subtle sequence of winks and nods, since we all knew it was coming. Like about 2:45 into this. :wink:

I predict we’ll see a static fire before the end of the year, but flight will be January. 

Maybe we should start a pool on this...:sticktongue:

I figured it was coming as well but I was wondering when the official word came down. I seem to remember some discussion of it back around OTV-5 because I thought OTV-5 was going to be the last launch from 39A. 

I would be in on a pool. I'll say Late Jan 2018.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mighty1 said:

Si, they have recover the fairings. What is the method of recovery. Just fish them out of the ocean or is it spectacular mid air helicopter fishing?

 

The plan is to add parachutes and just fish them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

The plan is to add parachutes and just fish them out.

And land them on giant bouncy castles eventually.

Also the reddit AMA is going to be this weekend, except I'm going to be away this weekend. If any of you are online at the time of the AMA, could you ask Elon if SpaceX has talked to NASA about recovering the ISS using the BFR for study and use as a museum piece?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

And land them on giant bouncy castles eventually.

Also the reddit AMA is going to be this weekend, except I'm going to be away this weekend. If any of you are online at the time of the AMA, could you ask Elon if SpaceX has talked to NASA about recovering the ISS using the BFR for study and use as a museum piece?

Interesting, if unlikely, idea. 

And they’d better go after the Hubble first. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

The plan is to add parachutes and just fish them out.

So disappointing. They should be equipped with minijets and landing gears and land as a plane.

P.S.
Btw, aren't they going to collect  the exhaust gases of Falcon into a special bag behind the rocket to refurbish them as a fuel?

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

And land them on giant bouncy castles eventually.

Also the reddit AMA is going to be this weekend, except I'm going to be away this weekend. If any of you are online at the time of the AMA, could you ask Elon if SpaceX has talked to NASA about recovering the ISS using the BFR for study and use as a museum piece?

Do you know what time? I might be able to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know when they will go back to the titanium grid fins? I know they wanted to use up their stockpile of aluminum ones before they made the switch, but the one landing they did with them was crystal clear, which makes me think that it was burning paint flaking off onto the camera instead of engine soot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ultimate Steve, I don't have a reddit account but would you consider asking if SpaceX considers BFS a viable vehicle for cleaning up space debris? ULA is considering the implications of a 1 up 1 down policy for future vehicles and it seems like BFS would be perfect for such capability. It's gotta pay the bills after all, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Btw, aren't they going to collect  the exhaust gases of Falcon into a special bag behind the rocket to refurbish them as a fuel?

You joke, but Elon mentioned using the Sabitier reaction on earth to fuel the BFR with carbon neutral methane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Getting energy by burning the natural methane or spending the natural methane while making (and then utilizing) solar panels?

probably solar, though theres a lot of wind energy in the texas grid...

also, it's creating methane, not burning it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see... H2 burning in O2 gives ~140 MJ/kg of H2.
Water = H2O = 9 times heavier than the contained hydrogen.
So, looks like the water dissociation takes ~140*9 = 1260 MJ/kg of water. (If don't take into account wastes.)
1260 MJ = 1260 / 50 = 25 kg of methane.

So, looks electrolysis of 1 kg of water requires as much energy as at least 25 kg of methane can give. (Including wastes, several times more)
Global warming likes this.

Solar panels don't appear itself, they need pure silicon which, afaik is made of silane (SiH4).
To get silane you should solve metal silicides with an acid. To produce silicides hydrogen is required and spent. Acids also must be created, which requires energy.
When the solar panel is depleted, you have to utilize it, and this also requires energy and so on, so solar energetics is still a percent-like part of total energetics.

Using natural methane looks more harmless for the atmosphere.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Let me see... H2 burning in O2 gives ~140 MJ/kg of H2.
Water = H2O = 9 times heavier than the contained hydrogen.
So, looks like the water dissociation takes ~140*9 = 1260 MJ/kg of water. (If don't take into account wastes.)
1260 MJ = 1260 / 50 = 25 kg of methane.

So, looks electrolysis of 1 kg of water requires as much energy as at least 25 kg of methane can give. (Including wastes, several times more)
Global warming likes this.

Solar panels don't appear itself, they need pure silicon which, afaik is made of silane (SiH4).
To get silane you should solve metal silicides with an acid. To produce silicides hydrogen is required and spent. Acids also must be created, which requires energy.
When the solar panel is depleted, you have to utilize it, and this also requires energy and so on, so solar energetics is still a percent-like part of total energetics.

Why are you burning methane to electrolize water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just calculate how much methane would be required to power the electrolizer of water.

Btw this is exactly why hydrogen is produced in industrial amounts not by electrolysis, but by natural methane pyrolysis, burning natural methane to heat the reactor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kerbiloid said:

I just calculate how much methane would be required to power the electrolizer of water.

Btw this is exactly why hydrogen is produced in industrial amounts not by electrolysis, but by natural methane pyrolysis, burning natural methane to heat the reactor.

What does "How much methane would be required to power the electrolisys of water" have to do with using grid power to turn water+Co2 into methane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

to turn water+Co2 into methane?

Afaik, Sabatier turns not water, but hydrogen + CO2 into methane. Water is mentioned just because it exists on Mars (and somewhere on Earth).

Before you can sabatier, you have to get pure hydrogen somewhere.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kerbiloid said:

Afaik, Sabatier turns not water, but hydrogen + CO2 into methane.

Before you can sabatier, you have to get pure hydrogen somewhere.

Which is what the grid power is for. It's not about being as cheap or efficient as fossil fuels, it's about being carbon neutral (as much as the grid is, anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...