TheEpicSquared

Damn, this thread has exploded. 11.11% (pages 97-108 at the time of writing) has been posted during and after Musk's presentation

About the point-to-point idea, is it, in a purely technical aspect, possible for the ship to glide down using its wings to a runway landing? I’m pretty sure that even if it’s possible, it won’t be used because you would need landing gear sticking out of the heatshield, and we know that that’s a no-go for SpaceX. Maybe glide it onto a giant bouncy castle?

I was wondering the same. For SpaceX, I guess it's a good test of the mission architecture close to home (propulsive landing and all that), but that's about it. Tourism as well, maybe. However, SpaceX could haul cargo to the moon for other moon-interested companies/countries (NASA, JAXA, Russia even) and make some money with that (essentially a lunar delivery service). Other than a quick moneymaker and testing bed for SpaceX, the moon seems to be a dead end. Their real goal is and always will be Mars, and IMO they're using the moon as a stepping-stone. EDIT: Also, it seems to be a direct competitor to New Glenn, so maybe Blue Origin is an incentive for a moon base. EDIT 2: Just noticed that most of what I said was already mentioned by @tater

Or a Big Fictional Rocket. Hopefully it becomes a Brilliantly Fantastic Rocket instead.

Doesn’t quite roll off the tongue though. SpaceX should have a naming competition. Winner gets a free tour of the HQ or something.

They need a rocket that can serve high-mass payloads until BFR comes online, I would assume.

You beat me to it.

For me it's at 6:30am. Looks like I'll be getting up early. Oh well, I have to get up for school by 7am anyway, so half an hour isn't too much I guess.

HYPE

Alright. I'll keep my eyes peeled. I just realized that a fully fueled Falcon 1 could be lifted to orbit by a Falcon Heavy with ease... which gave me two questions. 1. How much of a payload to LEO increase, if any, could be gained by strapping a Falcon 1 to the top of a Falcon Heavy and making that a new rocket? (Ignoring the obvious issues of aerodynamics, cost, etc. I'm just interested in payload to LEO) 2. How much of a payload to LEO increase could be gained by updating the Falcon 1 to use a Merlin 1D+ while leaving the Kestrel unchanched? (Again, ignoring feasibility and economics completely).

Do you know a specific time or at least which day? Would be incredibly useful, I have some questions to ask... *cough cough* BulgariaSat landing *cough* Isn't that what everyone thinks every Monday?

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16152292/google-lunar-x-prize-competition-private-moon-landing-prizes

IRIDIUM AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES - AIRCRAFT DIVISION PRESENTS: Its second-generation Small Regional Jet: The IS2J-32B! Presenting the second generation Iridium Small Regional Jet - the ISRJ-32B! The ISRJ-32B is the second Small Regional Jet made by Iridium Aerospace Technologies. It is heavily based on the original ISRJ-32, retaining the same cockpit, engine, fuel load, tail and wings. The most noticeable change, of course, is the placement of the fuel tanks. The central fuel tank of the ISRJ-32 has been split in two and positioned at the front and rear of the plane, allowing the cabin to be joined together. The wing-mounted fuel tanks of the original plane have been moved to the top of the fuselage for better stability. The wings remain unchanged from the previous model, as does the tail. The front canards, however, have been replaced with cheaper ones. This, along with other cost-cutting measures, have reduced the price down to a very affordable 19,415,000 kerbucks. Another main criticism was the engine noise in the cabin during flight. This issue has been solved by using the rear fuel tank as a sound absorber, vastly reducing engine noise and vibrations. The air intake has also been moved rear of the cabin and to the bottom of the plane to further reduce noise and increase passenger comfort. The tail and intake remain protected from a potential tailstrike with the trusty I-beam from the previous version. Pilots should have no trouble learning how to fly this plane, as almost everything is virtually identical to the first version of the plane. Maintenance also remains a breeze as there are only 39 parts to the plane. The four large airbrakes and the thrust reverser have been kept from the previous plane. Overall, the ISRJ-32B provides even better comfort for passengers, while at the same time being absolutely excellent with range and fuel comsumption, as the numbers below show. Numerical data: Price: 19,415,000 kerbucks Recommended cruising altitude: 8-9km Recommended cruising speed: The ISRJ-32B doesn't have a particular speed to maintain. Just get her up to the cruising altitude and open up the taps. Top speed should be around 220-260m/s, depending on what altitude the plane is being flown at. The plane might be able to sustain 270m/s after a shallow dive, but this is not certain. Range: 600 / 0.08 * 220 / 1000 = 1650 km Action groups: 1 - Toggle thrust reverser 2 - Toggle engine on/off 3 - Toggle airbrakes Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/TheEpicSquared/ISRJ-32B Enjoy!

When is the AMA? I might be able to. (No promises, though)

Yeah, a launch site somewhere in Tasmania or Kangaroo Island (near Adelaide) would be very handy for polar launches. Although I’m pretty sure a launch site would have to be on the south coast of the country, as heading north would fly over Indonesia, The Philippines, Papua, Papua New Guinea... I’m pretty sure that none of those countries would appreciate having a spent rocket dropped on their cities.

I read somewhere recently that the deadline was extended to March 2018. I’ll try to find a link. EDIT: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16152292/google-lunar-x-prize-competition-private-moon-landing-prizes Seems like there’s only a completion deadline now, not a launch deadline.

Noted. Expect an improved version soon (probably tomorrow).

Good call.

I’d be surprised if a 3310 gets destroyed during reentry

Will I follow this? Oh hell yes.

Probably because there’s no way a 0.3mm (I think) thick nozzle would survive reentry and a restart facing downwards... Also, speaking of which, a Merlin would still produce thrust without a nozzle extension, right? It wouldn’t be efficient at all, but it would work, more or less. So theoretically, they could detach the nozzle extension or let it break apart and then fire the bare engine to land...? Its a bit far-fetched though, I do realize.

I just realized that the Falcon 9 is taller than probably 90% of the buildings in the city that I live in.

More

I'm pretty sure that ksp ≠ real life lol

Modmoderator