CatastrophicFailure
-
Posts
7,163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by CatastrophicFailure
-
-
1 hour ago, tater said:
Some hate on them, dunno, just because. i suppose there is the sense that given Bezo's resources, they should be moving faster than SpaceX, which is by comparison poor.
“Make haste slowly.”
-
2 minutes ago, regex said:
Who said it wouldn't make it off the pad? Seriously. I fully expect a successful launch and at least two successful landings from Space-X, they've certainly proven themselves in this arena and we're not talking about Cold-War era rush programs using untested technologies.
Musk himself has been pretty frank about the risk involved. I think everyone really expects a successful launch, but this is the maiden flight of what is essentially a brand new launcher (massive core redesigns). There are simply things they can't simulate on the ground with any real accuracy (transsonic flow around 27 engines for one, IIRC). It's going to be a significantly riskier flight that most SpaceX flights, and most rocket launches in general because of the unknowns. So no, I don't think now is really the time to push the FH's lifting limits to the extreme. I think it's wise to stick to a low-mass, low-stress payload to verify the thing actually works once, then go pushing the limits. RocketLab's first launch attempt had no payload at all, as I recall. Just instruments.
-
20 minutes ago, regex said:
I agree, it's pretty silly on the face of it, kind of like "LETS MAEK THIS AS 3PIC AS POSSIBRU BOIS". I'd be much more impressed if they showed off a full-blown mass simulator to LEO, really show us the lifting power of Falcon Heavy. A sub-two-ton launch to Mars isn't very impressive.
Given the ambivalence about the thing even making it off the pad, now does not seem to be the time to push the envelope any further.
4 minutes ago, sh1pman said:Silliest thing imaginable.
$10 says they tried, but Bezos told them to go pound sand.
-
20 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:
I don't get the obsession with the idea of it playing music that literally cannot be heard. Anyway, I would think powered speakers would fail quickly in space. They would build up a lot of heat with very little way to radiate it.
The whole thing is the "silliest thing imaginable"
There's a significant chance the entire discussion is moot anyway cuz the car won't get high enough for any of it to matter.
-
3 minutes ago, PB666 said:
What about the longevity of the speakers in space (all the energy is deposited in the suspension) although I guess according to the laws of conservation, the energy no absorbed by the suspension should return back to the amplifyer as electricity.
Speakers have big magnets in them. With no power coming thru the lines to produce motion (speakers are really linear electric motors), that magnet will damp out any vibrations almost instantaneously (cuz a speaker would sound like crap if it didn't stop speaking when the current stopped).
-
1 minute ago, NSEP said:
But what about the temperatures and heat exposures of the sun in space? Could that melt or jam whatever is playing Space Oddity?
Not could, will. Even the radio won't be able to keep cool very long. Any electronics on the car won't last more than a few minutes, I'd wager. The rest of the car won't stay pristine very long, either. But by that point, it won't matter. They won't be able to keep contact with it for more than a few hours, anyway.
-
1 hour ago, WildLynx said:
SpaceX announced static burn date?
First we’re going to see fit checks and tanking tests, I think. Wouldn’t be surprised to finally see the beast make its way to the pad this week.
-
4 minutes ago, Scotius said:
What do you guys think - is it even remotely possible?
And if it misses, you suddenly have a significant quantity of aerosolized kerosene in possibily the worst place for a fire on earth, and lots of sparks.
The big challenge is keeping the fragile engine bell pointed the right way, a heat shield on the “nose” of the stage would be extremely unstable with the heavy engine at the back.
-
9 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
Cold-gas RCS puffs from the nitrogen thrusters on the first stage.
That close to the front of the second stage plume, tho?
-
Actual question:
in all those videos of the launch, what were those little puffs that could be seen in the plume, that would then spread out? Like here:
that little puff that kinda looks like an eye...
-
4 hours ago, PB666 said:
What about a satellite made of 1" thick titanium designed to survive an explosion and reentry that documents UDE it could have little tiny force wires attached to the payload fairing documenting the forces of take-off, the event, temperature sensors that document the heat, three dimensional accelerometer, a small gyroscope that allows it to orient itself during a fall. Of course it would have to have a very durable battery and a transponder to tell everyone where it landed.
It’s a good bet they’ll be measuring most/all those things anyway, if in slightly more mundane ways.
3 hours ago, Just Jim said:Orson Wells would have been so proud...
This remains his greatest UFO ever... and would have been far more terrifying in the sky.
-
Oy. Y’all are like, “Eagles...” “Hamilton...” “Arrangement for Lute...”
...and here I am with this unholy union of the Devil Went Down to Georgia and an accordion jammed in my brain.
Then imagine my
sufferingsurprise when I googled and found out it actually exists!
like... a lot!
Won’t post the vid here because Language!, but search “the devil went down to Texas” on YouTube. Or better yet, don’t. Save yourself.
hmmm... I wonder...
Fire on the mountain, run boys run,
Kraken’s in the house of the rising sun...
On 12/21/2017 at 7:28 PM, Just Jim said:Wait... I can't post this one, it's a little too violent I think...
<snipped>
sorry...
Dangit. Now I’m curious.
GWAR medley, maybe?
-
That video is incredible! Is the big puff there stage separation or is that the break in the contrail?
Yup, that’s gonna freak so many people out.
-
Missed the whole thing, and out of likes already.
Fart on a Pringle.
dat @Ultimate Steve setup doe...
-
2 hours ago, DAL59 said:
For anyone wondering:
I had not seen that before!
I am totally stealing that... for... stuff....
-
Surprising... they kept the windshield...
Look out, space bugs!
-
9 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
Going to be epic when we get to later FH missions and we have simultaneous footage of the ground cam, each of the side boosters headed back toward the launch site, the core booster plummeting toward the ASDS, the ASDS deck feed, the second stage powering up to orbit, cams from both fairings, AND fairing catch cams.
“you’re gonna need a bigger
boatscreen.”they’ve already got the boat, so...
-
18 minutes ago, tater said:
Yeah, a cone with a bar poking vertically. Would still have closer aerodynamics than the tall interstage.
Maybe the nosecone itself isn't necessary for the data, maybe just the effective "shortening" of the booster is enough to learn what they need to.
But if this is the case, it's adding in an unusual (and untested) separation event. From what I know of the F9 design (little), separating the interstage after booster separation is a non-trivial thing...
-
Hmm. Would a composite interstate survive a soft water landing and inevitable tip over, even if the rest of the stage doesn’t? Perhaps they plan to recover just that one bit?
-
3 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:
I think I see a camera mount on the front there...
Stupid mobile.
All night I thought y'all were talking about that engine photo posted a page or two back. I was like, "why would they put a camera on an engine...?"
3 hours ago, tater said:
...taken with one huge grain of salt...
-
1 hour ago, tater said:
Musk said a few months ago that F9 was already landing wittin 1.4 m of aim point, and that 2m was the requirement for clamp landing.
Two meters?! That’s impossible, even for a—
er, wait a sec...
Seems to me that kinda terminal accuracy has been around for a couple of decades, just with slightly more intentional explosions. There’s a reason SpaceX cozied up to the Air Force, after all. What’s a little data and technology sharing between
friendsbusiness partners, after all?No but really, of all the challenges with a clamp landing, I think the accuracy is the least of them at this point.
18 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:Also, no clamp slots.
What about that big silly roomba thing? Is there one on the west coast? Does anyone know where JRTI even is, in the first place?
Or perhaps... SpaceX is scrapping plans for the BFR and going bigger... like Sea Dragon bigger... and this booster will be scouting locations for a secret aquatic base to support it...
-
2 hours ago, NSEP said:
Not a song, but there is a noise in my ear from loud music.
It sounds rather cool actually.
It’s your sense of hearing running away.
-
8 minutes ago, magnemoe said:
Why is they not landing? Irdium is pretty lightweight and even if used twice they should at least get good data and probably some parts from it.
And yes the world is changing
The going theory is that they’re simply out of space for used boosters, and being a Block 3 there’s not much utility in recovering it anyway.
#1stworldproblems
-
In other news, Space.com would like to thank @KSK for single handedly doubling their web traffic today and, hence, ad revenues.
GWAR medley, maybe?
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Always figured Musk for more of a Mac guy myself...