Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, tater said:

This was posted at NSF, interesting video:

 

It might look like some of that sort of equipment is already at the site...

Looks pretty perfect for starship except that you need to move the entire structure and weld on the complex bottom bulkhead, but you need an bottom on an tank to.  
One issue might be that starship will probably use thinner steel higher up as most of the load is fuel an oxidizer. 

They are not using this in Florida but the new segments are one continuous plate welded in an circle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

They are not using this in Florida but the new segments are one continuous plate welded in an circle. 

There's talk that the existing rings are being scrapped and the new ones are taller. The taller the rings, the fewer welds. Dunno, we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not supposed to directly link to NSF images, so here's the thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48895.780

They are building a new bulkhead, presumably for Mk3.

They are building a new tent, presumably for more construction capability or something.

Mk1 is still on its pad but they have started working on it, presumably to move it and scrap it.

And perhaps most exciting of all, there is a new ring there, waaaaay smoother than the others so far!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Not supposed to directly link to NSF images

I understand being polite. So do what you think is best.

But legally, they have no ground to stand on there. If their webserver serves up an image, then it's fair game to link to it. That's the whole point of the web, in fact.

I also just checked, and there is no KSP forum rule that forbids "deep linking" to other sites from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I understand being polite. So do what you think is best.

I think their primary concern is paying for bandwidth, but I agree, it's against the spirit of HTML (least the way we always thought of it in the old days).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

The most recent launch was the fourth for that particular booster, if memory serves.

 

10 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

How do you tell?

It was the forth launch of the booster for that launch. This core (for CRS-19) is new I think.

Here we go:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tater said:

Interestingly it looks like the CRS-19 booster will do an ASDS landing, not RTLS.

I believe CRS-19 will comanifest the privately-built Bishop Airlock Module in Dragon's trunk for permanent installation on the ISS. Gunther puts it at 325 kg which doesn't seem like much, but maybe it's enough that they need extra performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

I believe CRS-19 will comanifest the privately-built Bishop Airlock Module in Dragon's trunk for permanent installation on the ISS. Gunther puts it at 325 kg which doesn't seem like much, but maybe it's enough that they need extra performance.

Yeah, doesn't seem like that should matter. Maybe they'll get asked at the presser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

But legally, they have no ground to stand on there. If their webserver serves up an image, then it's fair game to link to it.

Depending on your jurisdiction (obviously), hotlinking images hosted on other sites may be considered "publishing", or "use" of that content.

Posting a link to the page where the image is hosted is always ok.

Probably not anything to worry about as long as context is not in some way commercial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

I believe CRS-19 will comanifest the privately-built Bishop Airlock Module in Dragon's trunk for permanent installation on the ISS. Gunther puts it at 325 kg which doesn't seem like much, but maybe it's enough that they need extra performance.

Maybe landing site is doing some Crew Dragon hotfire test, and having a Falcon 9 booster crash landing on top of it isn't a bright idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, tater said:

Interestingly it looks like the CRS-19 booster will do an ASDS landing, not RTLS.

i was thinking about this, and my idea is: they are trying the profile of the Dragon 2 on this launch, as we know that the Dragon 2 will require an ASDS landing due NOT to the weight but because the normal profile is too steep for astronaut in case of an abort.

Ofc on the DEMO 2 mission the safety of the crew comes first, but as Spacex will have the cameras of the entire world on them, they probably want the booster landing to be picture perfect, as it is one of the trademarks of Spacex launches.

So they are testing it now so they know every step in real life instead of simulating it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Flavio hc16 said:

 

i was thinking about this, and my idea is: they are trying the profile of the Dragon 2 on this launch, as we know that the Dragon 2 will require an ASDS landing due NOT to the weight but because the normal profile is too steep for astronaut in case of an abort.

Ofc on the DEMO 2 mission the safety of the crew comes first, but as Spacex will have the cameras of the entire world on them, they probably want the booster landing to be picture perfect, as it is one of the trademarks of Spacex launches.

So they are testing it now so they know every step in real life instead of simulating it

Makes sense, for RTLS require you to launch steep so you don't have to do an long boostback. 
This makes the ballistic trajectory after an fail steep to and you take too many g hitting the atmosphere. 

Same reason as Boeing uses two engines on the centaur upper stage for their capsule, however here you launch steep to give the centaur more time to accelerate to orbital velocity. 
With two engines the second stage burn is half as long and they don't need to launch as steep. 

19 hours ago, kurja said:

Depending on your jurisdiction (obviously), hotlinking images hosted on other sites may be considered "publishing", or "use" of that content.

Posting a link to the page where the image is hosted is always ok.

Probably not anything to worry about as long as context is not in some way commercial.

Sites using adds dont like direct linking of images as they loose out the add revenue. 
It can be blocked but think this require some program checking who doing the request so few bother. 

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...