Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

It's light, stiff, and strong. Also looks quite draggy without a capsule in front of it. Not too surprising it could land in the ocean without much visible damage.

Yes, a bit surprised it did not  had some sort of internal  cross bracing for mounting external payload, are they just mounted on the walls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, a bit surprised it did not  had some sort of internal  cross bracing for mounting external payload, are they just mounted on the walls?

Maybe they had such and it was torn away. Or maybe they didn't have it because why build it into a part you intend to just toss into the ocean? I mean, they all get tossed into the ocean eventually, but this one didn't need to carry anything ever.

How do they get stuff out of these "trunks", anyway? Do they need to access it from the rear in an EVA?

(OK, never mind. It seems they usually use the Canadarm to bring the cargo to an airlock.)

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tater said:

 

Looks like they scrubbed it. Next Spaceflight lists it as NET January 2020 now.

I'm actually not too unhappy about that. To watch the launch, I would have had to hurry home after work. Not a great prospect if you're riding a bicycle and there's ice on the streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 

20:15

They didn't show us whole trunk. Or the top part of it is kicked out on splashdown.

There were a couple of pictures of the trunk while it was still on the recovery ship and it was still missing that part, so I think it's the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

There were a couple of pictures of the trunk while it was still on the recovery ship and it was still missing that part, so I think it's the latter.

yes, it looks like its an roof on the trunk who probably came loose on splashdown. Still find it a bit weird its no cross bracing in it as you would need some place to mount cargo in it but this might be something who is designed for each mission depending on cargo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chemp said:

Looks like they scrubbed it. Next Spaceflight lists it as NET January 2020 now.

I'm actually not too unhappy about that. To watch the launch, I would have had to hurry home after work. Not a great prospect if you're riding a bicycle and there's ice on the streets.

Yes!!!  I am going to the Rolex 24 this weekend, leaving tomorrow.  Hopefully it will be launched before Sunday night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

It may indeed be:

 

Now THAT looks like flight hardware.

 

These are some cool photos. Looks like the SuperDracos kept firing for a while.

One of the things that surprised me in the presser was that the computer uses the SuperDracos for differential thrust at a millisecond-response level during abort. I knew the SuperDracos could use differential thrust for pitch, yaw, and roll during landing, but I didn't realize they could respond quickly enough to be useful in an abort. I was expecting a pure "shuttlecock" scenario, with the fins providing guidance during boost.

 

Edited by sevenperforce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question about the raptor engine and starship, then I saw they had the top mounted LOX intake I assumed they would have the LOX tank at the bottom. This would let them run an short pipe from the engine to the rear bulkhead. 
The methane intake is lower down and had to be feed by an manifold from the pipe going down from common bulkhead anyway. 
Yes the three engines in the center must also be able to be feed by the header tanks, but that is just 3 engines who must also gimbal so the piping has to be flexible. 

However all point toward the smaller LOX tank is in front. This might be better because better for balance as the LOX tank is higher up because methane is less dense. 
Piping especially on superheavy will be crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I’m not so sure about the “popped,” they installed it in a fairly finished-looking nosecone and added an outlet too, maybe this is flight hardware off to be proofed (but not to destruction)?

I'd imagine they want to test everything thoroughly. I think it's very likely it's going to pop. They wouldn't be transporting it without that in mind. Besides, it's one of the components that hasn't been tested yet.

Edited by Wjolcz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wjolcz said:

I'd imagine they want to test everything thoroughly. I think it's very likely it's going to pop. They wouldn't be transporting it without that in mind. Besides, it's one of the components that hasn't been tested yet.

Agree, they want to test it to make sure it work. Two things, why have then not cut holes for RCS already? if anything it will add light and air into the nose then mounting the tank.
I assume they will add an methane tank below with an common bulkhead. 
That would be a bit harder to make so its possible they use two tanks for this test version even if an common bulkhead saves space and weight. 

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...