Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Reducing the propellant load can't possibly hurt things 

Of course it can. Changing *anything* can hurt things.

For example, it says they *may* have been loading too much oxygen. That means they *may* *not* have been loading too much oxygen, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back of an envelope calc suggests that's between 130kg and 1000kg extra LOX depending on whether it's extra inches in the cylindrical part of the tank or right at the top of the dome.

On the second stage that would be a 1 to 1 payload increase. Even an extra 200kg is significant.

On the first stage that's interesting but not really a huge deal.

If the same procedure is used on both tanks it could be an error for both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by RCgothic
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:

BRUH....

I wouldn't change that, especially not during an human flight, not after it worked 100+ times

If you find a risk and just keep rolling the dice because you didn't lose 100 times, you're just asking for something to go wrong.

Off the top of my head, I can think of ALL the NASA crew losses as an example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Spoiler

Eyj9cqSWQAEJljo?format=jpg

Rx6C4FQ.png2CHooyA.pnghotStuff01.jpgpopUpMenus.jpgmaxresdefault.jpg

 

This is also a response on the thread

 

As now the truth is revealed, there are the questions:

Any known new contracts between Space-X and Coca-Cola?
Any unusual Coca-Cola barrels in Boca-Chica?
Any strange guys in face masks, dark sunglasses, and Coca-Cola robes around?

 

P.S.

 

 

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lukaszenko said:

If you find a risk and just keep rolling the dice because you didn't lose 100 times, you're just asking for something to go wrong.

Off the top of my head, I can think of ALL the NASA crew losses as an example. 

I really don't see this causing that..

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said:

I really don't see this causing that..

Me neither, but I'm referring to the flaw in this logic: "I wouldn't change that, especially not during an human flight, not after it worked 100+ times"

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flying dutchman said:

I really don't see this causing that..

Probably it do not. But in any case that kind of problem must be analyzed carefully  to make clear is there any risk in continuing old way or changing procedures. If there are risks in both ways probably they postpone manned flight and send few satellites to make sure that change works properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Of course it can. Changing *anything* can hurt things.

For example, it says they *may* have been loading too much oxygen. That means they *may* *not* have been loading too much oxygen, right?

Administrators are notorious for ----ing stuff up when they notice an 'efficiency' could be achieved by changing something, and then mandating the change solely for the efficiency.

 

IOW - if it ain't broke...

 

 

(Now - having said that; they should not fear changing something if they notice that it can and should be improved, but I also agree with Mike - if you're going to 'play' with the system, do it when you're tossing expensive rocks at the sky... not several people)

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The sheer hilarity of tiny Orion docking with that gloriously massive Starship

not only that, on the NASA event page it seems to imply that only two astronauts will land on the first mission. Can you imagine having an entire Starship to share with just one other person?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cubinator said:

not only that, on the NASA event page it seems to imply that only two astronauts will land on the first mission. Can you imagine having an entire Starship to share with just one other person?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 minutes ago, cubinator said:

not only that, on the NASA event page it seems to imply that only two astronauts will land on the first mission. Can you imagine having an entire Starship to share with just one other person?

Orion holds 4, so it's risk mitigation I guess. Halves the possible lost crew if there was a LOC landing event—I was going to say that it allows Orion to rescue crew in case of some issue, but Orion is so awful, that's not actually possible. They can watch from NRHO, and do nothing at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of speculation that this award is because the SpaceX option was the only one they could afford, and even then they had to talk SpaceX down in price a bit.

There is further speculation that, because Congress probably won't be happy with this choice, that this also serves as a play to say "We'll have two landers, we'll give you what you want, if you properly fund us."

Link to post
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...