Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Either it will seem normal, or it will seem like a seemingly crazy idea that turned out to be just an actually crazy idea.

I have my fingers crossed for normal—but all the "land on the launch mount" ideas since the very first BFR announcements have seemed insane to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tater said:

I have my fingers crossed for normal—but all the "land on the launch mount" ideas since the very first BFR announcements have seemed insane to me.

Well, consider the CATOBAR system for aircraft carriers. I mean, when you say it like this -- We will fling the airplanes off the carrier with high-speed catapults; and then when they land they will drag a hook behind them that grabs onto the ship -- doesn't that sound kind of crazy? And yet ... well, OK, it actually is kind of crazy. That being said, it works. Most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Well, consider the CATOBAR system for aircraft carriers. I mean, when you say it like this -- We will fling the airplanes off the carrier with high-speed catapults; and then when they land they will drag a hook behind them that grabs onto the ship -- doesn't that sound kind of crazy? And yet ... well, OK, it actually is kind of crazy. That being said, it works. Most of the time.

Agreed. I think it's a function of the sheer size of the thing that makes it seem so crazy—but that should not actually matter as long as things are built right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

That being said, it works. Most of the time.

The "most of the time" is part of what worries me.  Even an occasional failure could mean extensive repair and downtime to the launch tower/catch arms.

I hope they have enough control authority to handle gusting wind swirling around that launch tower while the booster is in a very constrained descent between the catch arms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

The "most of the time" is part of what worries me.  Even an occasional failure could mean extensive repair and downtime to the launch tower/catch arms.

I hope they have enough control authority to handle gusting wind swirling around that launch tower while the booster is in a very constrained descent between the catch arms. 

To be honest failures would have to be very late for damage to happen, since they will probably target a point that is far from the tower before relighting the engines like they do with F9. The catch arms are probably not fast enough to fully open in case Superheavy has a big problem while going for the capture, but hopefully at that point they will have figured whether it's able to land or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beccab said:

To be honest failures would have to be very late for damage to happen, since they will probably target a point that is far from the tower before relighting the engines like they do with F9. The catch arms are probably not fast enough to fully open in case Superheavy has a big problem while going for the capture, but hopefully at that point they will have figured whether it's able to land or not

Swirling wind gusts shouldn't be a problem until very late, ie when the booster is approaching the tower.  If they don't have enough control authority at that time, then there is chance of clipping the tower or catch arms.  That doesn't require an actual failure from the booster, just not enough margin built in at design time.  (And if an engine did fail at that time, well that would reduce their margins even further).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Well, consider the CATOBAR system for aircraft carriers. I mean, when you say it like this -- We will fling the airplanes off the carrier with high-speed catapults; and then when they land they will drag a hook behind them that grabs onto the ship -- doesn't that sound kind of crazy? And yet ... well, OK, it actually is kind of crazy. That being said, it works. Most of the time.

Yes, but that kind of evolved, they started using catapults to launch seaplanes off cruisers and battleships as this is easier on engine than taking off from the water and this was pretty small recon plane. Carries used the cables and hook to catch the landing plane, in the start this was probably to make landing safer. 
Don't think WW 2 carriers used catapults but jet fighters needed them and thing evolved to the insane level we see today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Don't think WW 2 carriers used catapults but jet fighters needed them and thing evolved to the insane level we see today. 

World War II carriers all used catapults. Most were hydraulic but some used gunpowder charges or even solid-fueled rockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starlink launch feed is live!

Let's go with getting more Starlink satellites up there so I can get Starlink Internet!

T minus 10 minutes.

4th launch for this booster... it practically still has that new rocket smell.

Fairing halves are being reused for 5th and 4th times. 

Edited by Brotoro
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...