Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Time to dig bunkers in backyards! Or at the very least foxholes :D

Spoiler

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQuDdC-l-iU2BS5DfsKiUimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnS-EvEEGK_wvdnDz_7scimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcREaFUET_NFIkgUFHfUWqEimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcQk7aS3FZjLWT_kzkXyEoa

 

main-qimg-5ec1415e326ecac6498bd4f7204847

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

maxresdefault.jpg

P.S.
How to recognize the Long Island villagers these days?
They are walking with opened mouths to protect ears from sudden barotrauma.

 

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RealKerbal3x said:

 

How do they know who part is to who version, yes some parts are named but guess not all. 
Like SN13 being just an header tank and 14+15 would make almost an rocket if combined. 

On the other hand they probably has an pipeline. They probably will add 3 more engines. This so they can do higher jumps and they need piping for this. 
Surface engines there the vacuum engines will be placed so they need some extensions to not burn the skirt. 

Now for orbital burns how will Starship land? Landing back at launch site require overflying the US. 
On the other hand the shuttle did and starliner does to.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

"At a minimum, you must exit your home or structure and be outside of any building..."

... laying on ground with face down and feet to the flash.

Put your head between your knees so you’re ready in case you need to kiss your S goodbye. 

Jokes aside, it’s a delight to see the  astounding production pace at Boca Chica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK guys, being critical of a space agency is one thing, but openly mocking them is going a bit too far because it is a matter of national pride for a lot of our international community, so let's please not take it any further than that (apart from the fact that CNSA is off topic for this thread).

 

(Not saying anyone in particular was openly mocking, but it looked like it was heading that way)

Edited by Deddly
Small clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

How do they know who part is to who version, yes some parts are named but guess not all. 
Like SN13 being just an header tank and 14+15 would make almost an rocket if combined. 

On the other hand they probably has an pipeline. They probably will add 3 more engines. This so they can do higher jumps and they need piping for this. 
Surface engines there the vacuum engines will be placed so they need some extensions to not burn the skirt. 

Now for orbital burns how will Starship land? Landing back at launch site require overflying the US. 
On the other hand the shuttle did and starliner does to.
 

Imho they are building sn13-14 as backup for the 11-12 for the hypersonic flight. It is highly speculative, but Elon wants imho sn15 to be the first orbital one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Scotius said:

That was quite short. Is it a good sign, or a bad sign? At least there were no flying bits :)

I think that may be why it was so short, longer burns have tended to run a little, well, pad-rich.:wacko: Everything about SN9 has been quite short, seems like only yesterday they brought it to the pad, no extended cryo-test campaign, could maybe fly as soon as Friday. That speaks to just how confident and comfortable they’re becoming with both the design and flight procedures. I expect SN10 is already on the pad, but the photons involved were caught off guard and are still milling about the build site, feeling very confused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know. Could be they wanted a short one, or could be an early abort. We won't really know until they press on to flight.

In other news:

SN6 has had its mass simulator removed, paving the way for it to be mated to the lunar mockup.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

There might be another test tank coming soon:

 

OK so most parts are clearly marked. 
Now naming tanks designed for destructive testing the same as the test rockets sounds a bit silly to me so no SN 7. 
And yes  SN 7.2 sounds down right stupid. Kind of how many standards naming spiral out of control as in USB 3.2 Gen 2x2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

OK so most parts are clearly marked. 
Now naming tanks designed for destructive testing the same as the test rockets sounds a bit silly to me so no SN 7. 
And yes  SN 7.2 sounds down right stupid. Kind of how many standards naming spiral out of control as in USB 3.2 Gen 2x2

Falcon 9 v1.2 Full Thrust Block 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Falcon 9 v1.2 Full Thrust Block 5

Think its just Falcon 9 block 5, version numbers and full trust was older names before they went to Block who is common for stuff like military planes. 
However think Blocks tend to be upgrade options to existing planes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Transporter 1 ride-share mission is in trouble. In addition to the sats that don't yet have a license leading to Starlinks potentially being added to make up the payload at a very late stage, 2 DARPA sats have been inadvertently ejected from their dispensers.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

The Transporter 1 ride-share mission is in trouble. In addition to the sats that don't yet have a license leading to Starlinks potentially being added to make up the payload at a very late stage, 2 DARPA sats have been inadvertently ejected from their dispensers.

 

 

 

Payload separation confirmed! :P

It’s a shame, though, was looking forward to an SSO launch from CCAFS and SHERPA’s flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch. Someone pulled wrong lever too early?

Technically, satellites are built strong enough to withstand minutes of sustained acceleration and shaking. But on the other hand, they tend to have fragile bits outside - solar panels, antennas, cameras etc.

I bet there were many red ears after the incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Ouch. Someone pulled wrong lever too early?

Technically, satellites are built strong enough to withstand minutes of sustained acceleration and shaking. But on the other hand, they tend to have fragile bits outside - solar panels, antennas, cameras etc.

I bet there were many red ears after the incident.

It's not immediately clear where the fault lies. Yes, it was during payload integration at a SpaceX facility. But it could be a faulty customer adaptor, like Zuma. Or maybe SpaceX did do something wrong this time.

Impacts can easily have dozens of hundreds of Gs of acceleration. Hope some of the peripherals acted as crumple zones!

Edited by RCgothic
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...