Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave

Looks like none of the confirmed events were in the triangle, but it is a plausible explanation for "supernatural" missing ships.

Let me repeat: there is no evidence that "the triangle" even exists. There are no records of an unusual number or percentage of disappearances, sinkings, or other accidents in the area. In fact, it's surprising how few there are because it's a very heavily trafficked area and it's in the Atlantic hurricane track.

So before anyone can come up with an explanation for "the triangle", they have to first establish that there is even anything to explain. That has never been established.

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

Science actually figured out what was going on in the triangle, you know. The way the coastlines are arranged, wave action would regularly have a nasty resonance, and make a wave three times the size of the regular swell. A ship that can handle a 10'swell doesn't do as great in a 30' swell, especially if they never saw it coming.

And so how would this explain aircraft disappearing?  Not that I believe in the Bermuda Triangle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ricktoberfest said:

And so how would this explain aircraft disappearing?  Not that I believe in the Bermuda Triangle. 

 

1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I heard that it massive gas deposits suddenly releasing, creating lots of tiny bubbles, drastically lowering the density of the water, causing ships to sink.

I read about methane releases from hydrate deposits too. An aircraft flying into a rising methane cloud (which would have had time to mix with air) could easily spark an explosion, knocking the aircraft out of the sky. I believe the phenomenon was also supposed to cause magnetic disturbances of the sort sometimes reported in the mythical triangle. 

But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I read about methane releases from hydrate deposits too. An aircraft flying into a rising methane cloud (which would have had time to mix with air) could easily spark an explosion, knocking the aircraft out of the sky. I believe the phenomenon was also supposed to cause magnetic disturbances of the sort sometimes reported in the mythical triangle. 

But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 

More likely the area is highly trafficked, fairly short routes so you don't take them serious but its over open water. 
The most famous flight accidents was an group of fighter planes back in the 40's. Thight formation following the leader, now play some chicken like waiting to pull out of dives or fly very low. 

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

Any ideas on what that could be?

Hmmm, no I don’t! I thought I already saw pics with the nose on, did they take it off again o_0

something worth mentioning is the lack of window structure so far. All the mock-ups I’ve seen have a large window area in the front but there is no evidence of them in the water tanks. I doubt it would be structurally sound to just cut them out of the skin so that’s interesting.

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

Any ideas on what that could be?

heat tiles? :o 

===================

I wonder what the odds are that that STP-2 gets delayed 4 days and 2 hours, thereabouts...Maybe I could watch from the stratosphere.

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

Hmmm, no I don’t! I thought I already saw pics with the nose on, did they take it off again o_0

something worth mentioning is the lack of window structure so far. All the mock-ups I’ve seen have a large window area in the front but there is no evidence of them in the water tanks. I doubt it would be structurally sound to just cut them out of the skin so that’s interesting.

 

1 minute ago, cubinator said:

heat tiles? :o 

===================

I wonder what the odds are that that STP-2 gets delayed 4 days and 2 hours, thereabouts...Maybe I could watch from the stratosphere.

People on the NSF forum are now saying that it is a thin protective covering, probably akin to that plastic wrap covering new sheets of glass.

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

something worth mentioning is the lack of window structure so far. All the mock-ups I’ve seen have a large window area in the front but there is no evidence of them in the water tanks. I doubt it would be structurally sound to just cut them out of the skin so that’s interesting.

It’ll be a long time yet before we get windows.  :wink: These two are strictly test vehicles, they won’t have cargo bays either. They’re only to test if the whole crazy idea actually works. 

2 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

 

People on the NSF forum are now saying that it is a thin protective covering, probably akin to that plastic wrap covering new sheets of glass.

That was my first thought, too, something they’ll buff off later. Tho it’s interesting they’re only using it now, and randomly in the middle. 

Also interesting:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

D9cQ3wPWkAE6jUs.jpg

Hmmm... sorta reminds me of...

Spoiler

Jc0WO94.png

Maybe an instrument ring / sensor ring/ For gathering telemetry on structural performance?

1 hour ago, Geonovast said:

It's not the first Falcon Heavy with flight proven boosters...

Well, while the first Heavy used previously flown F9 boosters (B3? B4?) modified for use on FH Demo, I believe IIRC these boosters were B5's built for Heavy and first flown on the second FH mission. If they had hung on to the core from that mission, it would be flying this mission too.

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

Well, while the first Heavy used previously flown F9 boosters (B3? B4?) modified for use on FH Demo, I believe IIRC these boosters were B5's built for Heavy and first flown on the second FH mission. If they had hung on to the core from that mission, it would be flying this mission too.

I understand it's the first B5 FH to fly with flight proven, but there's still a few issues -

1. That's not what it said.  If it has said Block 5, I would have ignored it.

2. This is the third flight of a FH.  Saying "It's the first to do X" has very little impact.  It's like when they were all "This is the FIRST time we landed a FH center core!" After Arabsat, while landing the Center Core is something to be excited about, qualifying it with "First" doesn't mean much as it was literally only the second attempt ever.

3. Even if the Arabsat Center core survived, it would not be flying this mission.  They were planning a new core for this one before Arabsat even launched.  I believe it was a combination of the customer insisting, and the fact that they're not going to refly the first recovered center core so quickly, for inspection reasons.  I'll try to dig up the source on that, Google Fu is failing as it's just returning results about it deciding to go for a swim.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/03/falcon-heavy-starlink-headline-spacexs-manifest/

https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/no-booster-for-you-falcon-heavy-core-stage-topples-over-in-rough-seas/

Edited by Geonovast
Sauce
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/station-planning-new-crew-launch-dates/

Quote

DM-2 is now tentatively planned for 15 November 2019.  The flight would see NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley perform a 7-day test flight of the Dragon capsule before returning to Earth on 22 November.

This is from the latest mission planning (visiting vehicle) for ISS.

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...