Wjolcz Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scotius said: Boooo! I overslept Still, watching the replay, i thought of something cool. I remember early discussions about how much landing legs, fins etc. would cut into Falcon's payload fraction. Their weight is not insignificant after all. And yet the rocket proved to be more capable than we all thought Block 5 can lift heaviest telecom sat ever launched to GTO and still land safely. No matter what you think of SpaceX - their engineers are on the ball. I'm also surprised. Compared to previous Falcon versions Block 5 seems like a real beast. Edited August 7, 2018 by Wjolcz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 So now they'll take this booster apart again, to show that they didn't have to take it apart again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Confused Scientist said: Interesting that "NASA will be there" is a necessary detail, as if they've been so degraded that they might not have been invited. SLS is a money-suck but the probes are doing great, and NASA is undoubtedly the world's leading expert in duration spaceflight, landing on Mars, and the environment on Mars' surface, so I'd really like to see what input they have for the BFS life support, interior design, etc. and how their thoughts differ from SpaceX's. Of course, "NASA will be there" could just be emphasis on how important this conference will be. The article touched on this obliquely. Currently, there's potential competition between NASA's Mars plans and SpaceX's. Something of a paper competition admittedly since, with the odd exception, that's mostly where any Mars hardware is right now. However, as we've seen with the F9 human-rating process, there's a bit of a culture gap between SpaceX and NASA, and that's with certifying comparatively tried and tested hardware to a known and understood destination. Flying BFR to Mars is most definitely not tried or tested, on either count. If a Mars trip does start to look like a reality, you can bet that there's going to be an almighty lot of political, governmental and organisational wrangling about oversight, certification and authority. On that note, I find it encouraging that NASA is being invited to these sort of meetings still. @CatastrophicFailure - yes they have the technical experience but I would say that getting them on board politically is even more important. Edited August 7, 2018 by KSK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said: So now they'll take this booster apart again, to show that they didn't have to take it apart again Better than not taking it apart and having some block 5s blow up. Will they invest in some sort of ultrasonic tunnel for checking the booster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 20 minutes ago, Xd the great said: Better than not taking it apart and having some block 5s blow up. Will they invest in some sort of ultrasonic tunnel for checking the booster? Easier to just test as they fly. Entry is always more stressful than ascent, so if there is a problem, it will be more likely to go kablooey after successfully delivering the upper stage. I noticed that they deployed the grid fins almost immediately this time, instead of waiting until just before the entry burn. Neat tracking on the droneship cam! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarStreak2109 Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 1 hour ago, KSK said: The article touched on this obliquely. Currently, there's potential competition between NASA's Mars plans and SpaceX's. Something of a paper competition admittedly since, with the odd exception, that's mostly where any Mars hardware is right now. However, as we've seen with the F9 human-rating process, there's a bit of a culture gap between SpaceX and NASA, and that's with certifying comparatively tried and tested hardware to a known and understood destination. Flying BFR to Mars is most definitely not tried or tested, on either count. If a Mars trip does start to look like a reality, you can bet that there's going to be an almighty lot of political, governmental and organisational wrangling about oversight, certification and authority. On that note, I find it encouraging that NASA is being invited to these sort of meetings still. @CatastrophicFailure - yes they have the technical experience but I would say that getting them on board politically is even more important. Why don't NASA and SpaceX join forces on this... Oh and ditch SLS btw... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 14 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said: Why don't NASA and SpaceX join forces on this... Oh and ditch SLS btw... NASA does not have 100 astronauts to go to mars. Ditching SLS, GOOD IDEA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarStreak2109 Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 22 minutes ago, Xd the great said: NASA does not have 100 astronauts to go to mars. Ditching SLS, GOOD IDEA. No, but they could come up with the scientific / research envelope for such a mission. Also I agree with others that 100 astronauts in one shot will not happen for a very long time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncongruousGoat Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 33 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said: Why don't NASA and SpaceX join forces on this... Oh and ditch SLS btw... Because NASA is beholden to Congress for its money, and Congress for the most part only cares about keeping the pork barrel train running. Working with SpaceX on a heavy-lift vehicle doesn't qualify as keeping the pork barrel train running. I mean, SpaceX only has major facilities in 4 states! How is the noble state of Arkansas supposed to profit from this endeavor, I ask you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 In the stream, is it just me, or is there lightning in the clouds below around the 25:00 mark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarStreak2109 Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 1 minute ago, IncongruousGoat said: Because NASA is beholden to Congress for its money, and Congress for the most part only cares about keeping the pork barrel train running. Working with SpaceX on a heavy-lift vehicle doesn't qualify as keeping the pork barrel train running. I mean, SpaceX only has major facilities in 4 states! How is the noble state of Arkansas supposed to profit from this endeavor, I ask you? Well, my answer to this is that a Mars mission, or rather a suite of Mars missions, if we're really talking about a long-termin settlement (not talking about colonization!), is an endeavour not limited to a heavy lift vehicle. We're talking about auxiliary craft, rovers, habs, labs, fabrication facilities, power generation equipment, life support modules, tools and all the other ancillary equipment that will be needed for such a mission. Furthermore, I do not believe that the construction of the BFR will remain limited on the existing four facilities. We're not only talking about a rocket, but a space ship with the whole set of ECLSS, navigation, power production etc. I am sure, with the right amount of government funding, sourcing could be diversified to more states... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncongruousGoat Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 Just now, StarStreak2109 said: Well, my answer to this is that a Mars mission, or rather a suite of Mars missions, if we're really talking about a long-termin settlement (not talking about colonization!), is an endeavour not limited to a heavy lift vehicle. We're talking about auxiliary craft, rovers, habs, labs, fabrication facilities, power generation equipment, life support modules, tools and all the other ancillary equipment that will be needed for such a mission. Furthermore, I do not believe that the construction of the BFR will remain limited on the existing four facilities. We're not only talking about a rocket, but a space ship with the whole set of ECLSS, navigation, power production etc. I am sure, with the right amount of government funding, sourcing could be diversified to more states... Sourcing could be diversified, but SpaceX would never agree to it. Their whole shtick is extreme vertical integration, because it drives costs down. Sourcing large components of the BFS from all over the country would do exactly the opposite. Remember, SpaceX aren't trying to just go to Mars, they're trying to make going to Mars a financial possibility for as many people as possible. They're not going to take any step that would lead to increased manufacturing costs on the BFR without improving the vehicle itself, regardless of what short-term funding they could get for doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 50 minutes ago, IncongruousGoat said: Sourcing could be diversified, but SpaceX would never agree to it. Their whole shtick is extreme vertical integration, because it drives costs down. Sourcing large components of the BFS from all over the country would do exactly the opposite. Remember, SpaceX aren't trying to just go to Mars, they're trying to make going to Mars a financial possibility for as many people as possible. They're not going to take any step that would lead to increased manufacturing costs on the BFR without improving the vehicle itself, regardless of what short-term funding they could get for doing so. True, but they could get funding if they agreed to open a factory in another state for the express purpose of manufacturing aux equipment like ECLSS. Musk could also leverage factories for his other ventures like Tesla and SolarCity(?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, IncongruousGoat said: Sourcing could be diversified, but SpaceX would never agree to it. Their whole shtick is extreme vertical integration, because it drives costs down. Sourcing large components of the BFS from all over the country would do exactly the opposite. Remember, SpaceX aren't trying to just go to Mars, they're trying to make going to Mars a financial possibility for as many people as possible. They're not going to take any step that would lead to increased manufacturing costs on the BFR without improving the vehicle itself, regardless of what short-term funding they could get for doing so. True - but I think @StarStreak2109's point was that there's more to a Mars trip than a spaceship (or even a spaceship + refueling infrastructure). Even for a flags-and-footprints mission, there's a fair amount of equipment that you'd need to pack into that spaceship - ergo, plenty of opportunities to source that equipment from as far afield as is politically expedient. The problem is that the big-ticket items are still the spaceships (in publicity if not financial terms), and the states that historically make the most noise about this sort of thing, are all old rocket-building states. I've also read that there's a substantial faction within NASA that still sees Shuttle-derived heavy lift (aka SLS), as the way forward anyway (irrespective of any political considerations), so getting NASA to align with SpaceX may not be that straightforward. It's a shame - goodness knows that NASA would be well placed to do the basic R&D and procurement required to develop all the spaceship cargo I mentioned earlier. Doing the never-been-done before, pushing-the-boundaries-of-human-exploration, stuff is what NASA excel at - heck it's what they were set up to do. Turning them loose on the stuff that's needed to survive and thrive on Mars, whilst having SpaceX (or another commercial company if one came forward) build the taxi to get people there, sounds like an ideal match to me - I'm totally in agreement with the spirit of @StarStreak2109's comment, I'm just pessimistic about it happening. Edited August 7, 2018 by KSK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said: In the stream, is it just me, or is there lightning in the clouds below around the 25:00 mark? Yup, there was quite the twitter on Twitter about it last nite. I checked the radar map myself out of curiosity and sure enough, long string of thunderstorms south of the Cape. 32 minutes ago, KSK said: I'm totally in agreement with the spirit of @StarStreak2109's comment, I'm just pessimistic about it happening. This. More than anything, getting in too deep with NASA and it’s congressionally-wielded strings would sap the power from SpaceX and instead shift it to Congress, and that would mean delays and cost overruns. Which is not to say there won’t be such anyway, but they would be far, far worse. It’s the same reason we’ll never see SpaceX as a publicly-traded company, that would shift the power away from Musk and his like-minded team and into the hands of shareholders and a board of directors. Partnering with NASA will no-doubt be beneficial, but so will keeping them at arm’s length while doing so, rather like the current arrangements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) On 8/7/2018 at 12:04 PM, tater said: Live! Dammit, how did I manage to miss our own satellite launch Still, nice mission insignia and fairing logo ! *salutes* Spoiler Edited August 8, 2018 by YNM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 looks like a n00b booster. IIRC TelStar 18 is on tap for the 17th/18th, that would make like a ten day turnaround. Have they done that before? Not such which pad at the Cape they’ll be using, but probably still 40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncongruousGoat Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 12 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: that would make like a ten day turnaround. Have they done that before? Nope. The current record for turnaround is 12 days, 4 hours, done at LC-39A between BulgariaSat-1 and Intelsat 35e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVaughan Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 No point in building a booster capable of 24 hr turn around if the launch pads need 1 week between launches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 Then SpaceX needs... Moar Launchpads! Go builders of Boca Chica spaceport! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 19 minutes ago, AVaughan said: No point in building a booster capable of 24 hr turn around if the launch pads need 1 week between launches. Then the question is, how much turnaround do the launchpads need? Whatver they answer, I’m sure SpaceX is taking notes and will be incorporating them into BC... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 Better yet, just launch the launchpads along with the rocket and then you don't ever have to release the launch clamps in the first place! No turnaround required! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 Next launch seems to have slipped to the 23rd. Then 1 in Sept from VAFB, then a gap until November. They have 9 launches set for Nov/Dec. Odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 3 hours ago, AVaughan said: No point in building a booster capable of 24 hr turn around if the launch pads need 1 week between launches. @tater has covered this point a couple of times I think. The point isn’t so much to re-fly within 24 hours but to have your engineers working on the next job within 24 hours. 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Better yet, just launch the launchpads along with the rocket and then you don't ever have to release the launch clamps in the first place! No turnaround required! Just remember that this will need to be tested on the Moon first. #ItWorksInKSP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 24 minutes ago, tater said: Next launch seems to have slipped to the 23rd. Then 1 in Sept from VAFB, then a gap until November. They have 9 launches set for Nov/Dec. Odd. Just discovered it. Maybe an anomaly (or more) has been detected yesterday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.