Skylon

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Nightside said:

Also, they can claim that it is not a permanent structure when the county building permit inspectors come around.

Mmmm, that frame looks pretty permanent to me. But I guess the picture doesn't really show how it is attached to the foundation.

Edited by mikegarrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, the whole build the Hoppers in a field thing might be partially intended as a marketing tactic to promote SpaceX as compared to competitors that use a more conventional method of construction: "Our vehicles are so reliable that we can build them in in the open, exposed to dust, dirt, and the elements, and they'll still work perfectly fine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Raven Industries said:

You know, the whole build the Hoppers in a field thing might be partially intended as a marketing tactic to promote SpaceX as compared to competitors that use a more conventional method of construction: "Our vehicles are so reliable that we can build them in in the open, exposed to dust, dirt, and the elements, and they'll still work perfectly fine."

The thing is, these rockets (well not these specific rockets but this design) will hopefully eventually have to spend a year or two out in the open, exposed to the Martian environment, so it's good practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I feel like it has more to do with the construction method and timetable. Trying to assemble them on their side would probably add difficulty complexity to the assembly process. And where else could you get a building with the headroom to fit a rocket upright besides a NASA style VAB. (Are there any available to rent out? XD I have no idea but I bet a crane in a field is a lot cheaper.)

Building them out in the open has proved invaluable though! Imagine if they built hopper in a VAB and when it came to testing the top half broke off in flight under aerodynamic stress @_@! That would have been bad... 

Edited by Dale Christopher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important to realize that the first few vehicles likely end in a very, very kerbal way.

That would be true regardless of how they were built.

Share this post


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

they'll still work perfectly fine.

They still need to prove this of course...

It could also end up like:

"It would have flown great except our bolts rusted through and a ground squirrel nested in the RCS nozzle, I guess next time we will need a better tent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, tater said:

It's important to realize that the first few vehicles likely end in a very, very kerbal way.

That would be true regardless of how they were built.

Boooo! I don't want to believe it. They are too beautiful to die :3

(besides hopper... hopper you can have, it has lost some appeal for me now its gone all stumpy)

Edited by Dale Christopher

Share this post


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

Boooo! I don't want to believe it. They are too beautiful to die :3

(besides hopper... hopper you can have, it has lost some appeal for me now its gone all stumpy)

They won;t try to wreck them, but they like testing hard.

Share this post


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

They still need to prove this of course...

It could also end up like:

"It would have flown great except our bolts rusted through and a ground squirrel nested in the RCS nozzle, I guess next time we will need a better tent."

There’s no accounting for squirrels of course but I think they’ve had the rusty bolts thing figured out since the first Falcon 1 flight.

Share this post


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

They still need to prove this of course...

It could also end up like:

"It would have flown great except our bolts rusted through and a ground squirrel nested in the RCS nozzle, I guess next time we will need a better tent."

Hate to break it to you, but ground squirrels nest in the ground. It's kind of their thing, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Hate to break it to you, but ground squirrels nest in the ground. It's kind of their thing, you know?

But what about the space squirrels?

Share this post


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

I feel like it has more to do with the construction method and timetable. Trying to assemble them on their side would probably add difficulty complexity to the assembly process. And where else could you get a building with the headroom to fit a rocket upright besides a NASA style VAB. (Are there any available to rent out? XD I have no idea but I bet a crane in a field is a lot cheaper.)

Building them out in the open has proved invaluable though! Imagine if they built hopper in a VAB and when it came to testing the top half broke off in flight under aerodynamic stress @_@! That would have been bad... 

Guess they will need an VAB down the line, payload integration is an obvious one. they will also need to jack up to replace engines, at least the vacuum ones.  
Sideway would not be very practical because of the width as you will need scaffolding anyway and now everything is sideways. Much easier to have all critical systems either on bottom or top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

When a rocket is landed, it can be considered as a ground installation. So, the ground squirrels may use it until the launch.

Especially, when it looks like a barn.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor at Boca Chica:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kerwood Floyd said:

You mean Rocket J. Squirrel?

How about miniature giant space hamsters?

Share this post


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

How about miniature giant space hamsters?

Less talk, more flight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*squints* Man, that thing looks like a regular rat’s nest up top. :o Wonder how much is just test instrumentation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Also, found this:

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-fairing-upgrade-foiled-by-ula/

Apparently SpaceX is possibly in the market for that larger fairing it’s always said is needed around here, but may have faced interference from ULA. I can’t help but see this backfiring for ULA, as SpaceX has already demonstrated they’re more than willing to say, “oh yeah?? Well we’ll make our own fairings, with blackjack and—“

Well, you get the idea. 

Edited by CatastrophicFailure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler
49 minutes ago, KSK said:
51 minutes ago, wumpus said:

How about miniature giant space hamsters?

Less talk, more flight!

Flying squirrels?
Badyaev_flyingsquirrel_40.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wumpus said:

How about miniature giant space hamsters?

Is Boo available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

*squints* Man, that thing looks like a regular rat’s nest up top. :o Wonder how much is just test instrumentation?

Lots of it, also you can trade reliability with increasing complexity in lots of fluid systems. 
Its why you see 6 valves many places just 1 would be needed. You have two redundant flow control valves, each lines has two cut of valves who is both manual and remote. if primary fails you close its cut off and open the secondary cut off. You can now pull and replace primary control while running if both cut of works manual or automatic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

You can now pull and replace primary control while running if both cut of works manual or automatic. 

I would be most interested to see anything replaced on a running rocket engine. :blink:

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.