Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

Here's my question:  why don't SpaceX put a second craft out there with a camera to catch the landings?  Or a quadcopter, or *anything*?  I don't think I've ever seen a droneship landing where the video feed *didn't* cut out.

They did have a drone on some of the early landings, but basically it’s expensive, a potential risk, and not entirely necessary for “science” sake now that the landing campaign has matured. 

I think we will see much better landing footage once StarLink starts coming online, and they’re no longer reliant on a wobbly satellite dish on the drone ship for the feed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

 

 

 

I can hear the pre-launch checks now.

"Propulsion?"
"Propulsion is Go."
"GNC?"
"We're Go."
"Retro?"
"And proud of it too!"

 

Edited by KSK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

They did have a drone on some of the early landings, but basically it’s expensive, a potential risk, and not entirely necessary for “science” sake now that the landing campaign has matured. 

I think we will see much better landing footage once StarLink starts coming online, and they’re no longer reliant on a wobbly satellite dish on the drone ship for the feed. 

If the first stage hits the drone on the way down, it's missing the landing barge anyway, :) so what's the risk?

I don't know anything about StarLink--does it somehow not require directional antennas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

If the first stage hits the drone on the way down, it's missing the landing barge anyway, :) so what's the risk?

I don't know anything about StarLink--does it somehow not require directional antennas?

It doesn’t, that’s the point. It’s like GPS, but for internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

 

Honestly this film is AMAZING in the fact that it gets a lot of stuff right about space travel, even implying a nuclear engine, showing an EVA with some sort of (not very realistic) thruster movement while on EVA, weightlessness while in space, and a few other cool things. So what, you ask? This was 1950. 3 years after the first pictures from space, 7 years before the first satellite. 19 years before the first moon landing. While it doesn't get everything right, and some of the other aspects could use some work, it's definitely worth a watch. We have it on DVD, actually!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Honestly this film is AMAZING in the fact that it gets a lot of stuff right about space travel, even implying a nuclear engine, showing an EVA with some sort of (not very realistic) thruster movement while on EVA, weightlessness while in space, and a few other cool things. So what, you ask? This was 1950. 3 years after the first pictures from space, 7 years before the first satellite. 19 years before the first moon landing. While it doesn't get everything right, and some of the other aspects could use some work, it's definitely worth a watch. We have it on DVD, actually!

I have seen a few people make fun of this movie, because it ''looked stupid''. I geuss the future of mankind will 'look stupid' i geuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Starship question.   The render of BFR a few months ago showed this ship with 7 engines.  But if it only needs 3 to land, and as second stages typically only have 1 or 2 engines, why does BFR/Starship have 7 rather than 3 engines?   I wouldn't have imagined it would need 7 for lunar lift off, but could be wrong of course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Honestly this film is AMAZING in the fact that it gets a lot of stuff right about space travel, even implying a nuclear engine, showing an EVA with some sort of (not very realistic) thruster movement while on EVA, weightlessness while in space, and a few other cool things. So what, you ask? This was 1950. 3 years after the first pictures from space, 7 years before the first satellite. 19 years before the first moon landing. While it doesn't get everything right, and some of the other aspects could use some work, it's definitely worth a watch. We have it on DVD, actually!

If you're looking for realistic old sci-fi movies, you can't beat Frau im Mond by Fritz Lang, from 1929. Hermann Oberth was a technical advisor, and it was accurate enough that it was banned in Germany due to similarities to the V-2 project.

It missed some critical things, like the fact that there isn't air on the moon, but the overall design of the rocket is pretty believable, and it invented the countdown before liftoff. My current profile photo is from it.

Fair warning: The longest restored version is 200 minutes long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rus-Evo said:

I have a Starship question.   The render of BFR a few months ago showed this ship with 7 engines.  But if it only needs 3 to land, and as second stages typically only have 1 or 2 engines, why does BFR/Starship have 7 rather than 3 engines?   I wouldn't have imagined it would need 7 for lunar lift off, but could be wrong of course!

Mostly for backup / maybe higher TWR because they can. Seriously, they need to have engine out capability here.

Edited by ThatGuyWithALongUsername
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said:

If the first stage hits the drone on the way down, it's missing the landing barge anyway, :) so what's the risk?

I don't know anything about StarLink--does it somehow not require directional antennas?

I think it’s more a risk of the drone wandering into the  active landing area. It may be a small risk, but it’s also one with very little reward— SpaceX already knows what a landing booster looks like, not much technical knowledge to be gained there anymore. 

And yes, like @sh1pman said, StarLink will use an “omnidirectional” phased array antenna, so it should be much more vibration resistant. 

18 minutes ago, Rus-Evo said:

I have a Starship question.   The render of BFR a few months ago showed this ship with 7 engines.  But if it only needs 3 to land, and as second stages typically only have 1 or 2 engines, why does BFR/Starship have 7 rather than 3 engines?   I wouldn't have imagined it would need 7 for lunar lift off, but could be wrong of course!

At landing, the Starship will be nearly empty— don’t need a lot of thrust there. 

The hopper needs enough thrust to lift itself plus all the fuel it needs to reach altitude and become nearly empty, all with no real payload. 

The “real” Starship, at booster sep, will be mostly fuel, and a lot of it, plus dozens of tonnes of payload, hence the need for a lot more engines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I think it’s more a risk of the drone wandering into the  active landing area.

And getting melted. 

n8RV1DxqqJ8.jpg

Wouldn’t it look absolutely awesome? “What’s it like, having an orbital booster land on you?” broadcasted live.

Edited by sh1pman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Rus-Evo said:

I have a Starship question.   The render of BFR a few months ago showed this ship with 7 engines.  But if it only needs 3 to land, and as second stages typically only have 1 or 2 engines, why does BFR/Starship have 7 rather than 3 engines?   I wouldn't have imagined it would need 7 for lunar lift off, but could be wrong of course!

Super Heavy (the booster) will accelerate Starship to about the same velocity as the F9 booster does the F9 stage 2, something like 2.1-2.5 km/s. So Starship, like F9 S2, will in fact be supplying most of the delta v to the stack to reach orbit. The 7 engines are primarily to get the thing to orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Well... that’s disheartening... :(

Well, looks like the remaining employees will have to get used to work as much as their boss does at Tesla. Something like 120 hours a week, if I remember correctly :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their business model for the near future has them doing less work for the same number of launches because of reuse. Most launches will be reflights.

Even with Starship, it’s a different set of people (engineers) vs production staff. I have to imagine most who are leaving would be production staff working on F9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this cutting now non-essential (Or not as essential as before) employees due to the increasingly proven F9 rocket? And I also suppose this means it'll be a more selective company when hiring new employees. Or at least, most new employees from here on out will be sent towards Starlink or BFR/Starship, right?

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...