Skylon

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Camacha said:

Is the car modified? There seems to be a support structure in the wheel well and the regular parts are missing. Is it a shell on a frame?

Probably removed moveable suspension parts. You don't want mass shifting around under acceleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Camacha said:

They expected at least partial failure, so things went according to plan.

I'm not sure why you're so insistent to bash Musk and SpaceX, but they're going to be successfully launching rockets, whether you're sulking about it or not.

I'm not bashing Musk or SpaceX. I'm calling it as I see it. If they lost one of the booster this launch did not meet all of its objectives. That's a partial failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like in early KSP.
Starjeb will orbit around the Sun for many years without supplies and nobody gets bothered with his returning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kerbal7 said:

I'm not bashing Musk or SpaceX. I'm calling it as I see it. If they lost one of the booster this launch did not meet all of its objectives. That's a partial failure. 

SpaceX announced ahead of the mission that it was likely that something would go wrong. Everything went according to the expectations they had before the flight. More importantly, a pile of data was returned, which is the point of a test flight.

You seem to be consistently hunting for negatives and proudly holding them up for us to see. Nobody cares that Kerbal7 on the internet feels it's a partial failure. Many engineers will go to sleep very drunk tonight and we're celebrating with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Elon Musk confirmed SSTO capability on reddit.  Maybe they'll add in the Vacuum engines at launch?

We don't know if this is real or just theoretical data based on dV
Problem is that you would hardly get above one g with 3 engines, even less with two who was the first design. 

Now you could replace two of the vacuum engines with atmospheric ones , you only need four vacuum then you have full tanks after seperation, you could even add extra engines if needed even if this would be plenty of work. 
Variable nozzles is another way. 
An second stage as SSTO could make sense for all the smaller launches so it might be something they develop. 
The passenger version of this would not be able to reach orbit  however it should not be far from it so it should work for suborbital jumps and is the only way I see the earth to earth missions makes sense.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Camacha said:

SpaceX announced ahead of the mission that it was likely that something would go wrong. Everything went according to the expectations they had before the flight. More importantly, a pile of data was returned, which is the point of a test flight.

You seem to be consistently hunting for negatives and proudly holding them up for us to see. Nobody cares that Kerbal7 on the internet feels it's a partial failure. Many engineers will go to sleep very drunk tonight and we're celebrating with them.

Losing a booster is a big deal when you are trying to bring down the cost of rocket flight to a somewhat reasonable level. It's a very big deal. You seem to have some slavish devotion to see the positive in Musk and SpaceX and spout it. Musk has been saying we are going to have people on Mars in a few years for a very long time now for PR purposes and you worshipers keep buying. The fact is Mr. Musk is nowhere close to having the capability to put people on Mars. Not-even-close.   

The engineers whose booster slammed into the sea at 300mph today will not be celebrating tonight. Far from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

As I have said several times, that FH was not planned for reusability.  They then decided on reusability, so they had to develop the 9's reusability first.  The FH propsed in 2011 was different than the one that just launched.


They announced a date - and missed it by five years.  (And that's not mentioning all the interim slips during those intervening five years.)  An intentional slip is still a slip.

Falcon Heavy, like practically every other major SpaceX milestone, was late.  Period.  No amount of hand waving, smokescreens, or mirrors will change that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Reactordrone said:

Probably removed moveable suspension parts. You don't want mass shifting around under acceleration.

That's what I'd think, but I can't find any confirmation either way. A lot of people seem to think you could just drive the car if you somehow got it down, and SpaceX seems to be carefully wording its communications. They never say it could or couldn't, as far as I can tell, but say things like they're just regular Tesla seats. That suggests it's an actual full blown Roadster, but they don't actually say that. They just hint it.

To be honest, if I were to put a car into space as a PR stunt, I wouldn't want to clearly state it's not actually a full car either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

Losing a booster is a big deal when you are trying to bring down the cost of rocket flight to a somewhat reasonable level. It's a very big deal. You seem to have some slavish devotion to see the positive in Musk and SpaceX and spout it. Musk has been saying we are going to have people on Mars in a few years for a very long time now for PR purposes and you worshipers keep buying. The fact is Mr. Musk is nowhere close to having the capability to put people on Mars. Not-even-close.   

The engineers whose booster slammed into the sea at 300mph today will not be celebrating tonight. Far from it.

Betcha they are celebrating anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Camacha said:

Many engineers will go to sleep very drunk tonight and we're celebrating with them.

No doubt some will do so.  Many others won't sleep at all tonight - because they'll be trying to track down a flight anomaly.  A particularly nasty one, because it threatens reusability, the bedrock foundation of SpaceX's plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, guys? We're going to get into a fight about whether a launch was 100% successful or 80% successful, or whatever? Can't we all just be happy that something is happening in space? I mean, as players of a space game, we can all agree this is at least cool and interesting, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has played himself real KSP RSS hasn't he ?

 

At least Starman have a copy of the Guide with him :wink:

I hope he bought towels !

Edited by YNM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems not. Some posts have been removed. Don't make it personal, please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

No doubt some will do so.  Many others won't sleep at all tonight - because they'll be trying to track down a flight anomaly.  A particularly nasty one, because it threatens reusability, the bedrock foundation of SpaceX's plans.

Agreed. 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to seeing Falcon Heavy send some mars prep missions like comsats, gps, and maybe a surface telemetry array for EDL.

Elon's "How not to land on Mars" video will be exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If something goes wrong on a test flight, it is a failure if you can't figure out why it went wrong.

The audio was poor at the start of the press conference when Musk was talking about the core landing failure, but he said something about the stage running out of triethylborane, so the outer two engines could not be reignited again. I presume they will figure out why it ran out unexpectedly and fix that, or just realize that they need to carry a bit more of it. Like the time one of their boosters ran out of hydrauluc fluid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

I'm calling it as I see it. If they lost one of the booster this launch did not meet all of its objectives. That's a partial failure. 

What if it was meant to be discarded, like the one that magically stays intact on the sea ?

After all, the crossfeed version won't be able to return the core stage - it'll fly too "hot". To return them, SpaceX will experiment with it first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

No doubt some will do so.  Many others won't sleep at all tonight - because they'll be trying to track down a flight anomaly.  A particularly nasty one, because it threatens reusability, the bedrock foundation of SpaceX's plans.

It sounded like they have a pretty good idea of what went wrong. Considering it's also a test flight, I doubt there's a scramble to find out what went wrong. Though the core engineers might indeed sleep a bit less sound than the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The core was still not a block 5 core, and none of the FH boosters from today were every intended to fly again. Musk said that the center booster failed due to running out of igniter for the side 2 M1Ds (they did 3 engine-->1 engine landing burns I think, if you look closely). Sounds like they know what happened. The FH core stage is not identical to the other F9s, perhaps the issue is related to that (lower igniter fuel volume due to increased structure?).

As @Brotoro said, it was a test flight to suss out exactly these sorts of issues. The Apollo 6 flight, for example discovered the pogo problem with Saturn V had not been fixed. Apollo 6 also had igniter problems I think, as well.

Anyway, the FH test was short of perfect, but pretty good for a first flight of a rocket, honestly.

5 minutes ago, Camacha said:

It sounded like they have a pretty good idea of what went wrong. Considering it's also a test flight, I doubt there's a scramble to find out what went wrong. Though the core engineers might indeed sleep a bit less sound than the others.

They also have the benefit of being able to use hardware and simply try things. We'll likely hear more about the landing failure, particularly since I think he said they might do a blooper video of it. As long as they are confident they know what happened, and how to fix it I think it's not a big deal. I'm just glad it didn't wreck 39A, since that pad is needed for crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they lost the central core, seeing those two boosters land side by side at the exact same time was amazing.

I'm just slightly disappointed that the two bottom shots in the stream were from the same booster instead of two streams from two boosters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Even if they lost the central core, seeing those two boosters land side by side at the exact same time was amazing.

I'm just slightly disappointed that the two bottom shots in the stream were from the same booster instead of two streams from two boosters.

They reuploaded and fixed that in parts of it, most notably the landing:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Camacha said:

It sounded like they have a pretty good idea of what went wrong.


No duh.  They know exactly what went wrong - they ran out of starting fluid.  What they don't know (or haven't announced yet), and what's no doubt keeping those engineers up late tonight, is why it went wrong.  You're badly mistaken in confusing the two.
 

43 minutes ago, YNM said:

What if it was meant to be discarded, like the one that magically stays intact on the sea ?


Seriously?  If the booster was meant to be discarded, then the ASDS would have been in port rather than at sea and configured for recovery.  (Just as it was for the Govsat-1 flight.)  They did't plan on reflying it (AUIU), but they certainly planned on recovering it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Seriously?  If the booster was meant to be discarded, then the ASDS would have been in port rather than at sea and configured for recovery.  (Just as it was for the Govsat-1 flight.)  They did't plan on reflying it (AUIU), but they certainly planned on recovering it.

I was meaning to the generality that the original poster mentioned as "when you're all about reusable rockets".

You can't continue to reuse stuff. They need repairs and replacement over time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just watched the full video of the launch with my mother, I had to explain lots of things to her but she seemed excited too. I'm still very surprised at all of this. I mean, this had been postponed for half a decade, I was certain FH wouldn't fly until the next decade at least. Soooo, does this mean SpaceX might launch something at Mars at the next launch window?

Edited by ChrisSpace

Share this post


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.