Skylon

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized this, while re-watching the Orbcomm-2 launch:
gthow5O.jpg

...Looks a little bit like KSP on the background monitor.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5u8uu9psjm921.jpg

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh, the person who painted this is such a great artist, hmmmm, i wonder who made it... :wink:

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

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

Unless... that is what happened to BulgariaSat, and why we’ll never see it. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there goes my idea for if I get furloughed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costs is important, i think elon may be outdoing himself.

meanwhile at NASA

"Steve, get ready to transfer all plans of Falcon 9 once spaceX goes bankrupt."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now