sojourner
-
Posts
923 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by sojourner
-
-
Looks like they cleaned the soot off the top half at least.
-
Ah, the thread is just old enough to be on that threshold. Mystery solved.
-
2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:
No, that case is true for the "quality", this mean trying to save cost using cheap materials and low experience employees.
But that is not the spacex case.This example is also true but for simple designs.. not for complex designs
You've obviously never heard of the cars where you have to drop the engine to change the spark plugs. Complex designs with high repair costs is MORE likely.
-
Is there something wrongwith the forums? all of the posts here show the tags for the encoding to urls and images and quotes instead of the actual embeds.
-
It really depends on your definition of "refurbishment". If you mean inspection for wear and tear and replacement of some parts without a total disassemble, Then yes, the word works. If you mean total disassemble of the engine after each reuse, then SpaceX has utterly failed at one of the chief design criteria of the Merlin.
Merlin was designed with minimal maintenance in mind. Refurbishment after each flight would make it pretty expensive to reuse. They may look at total refurbishment after a certain number of flights if they deem it worth it, or they may just retire the engine.
-
The Merlin engine has been designed for re-use and has been put through many test cycles for reliability at McGregor. One of the main criteria of the design was reuse with minimal maintenance. With all of the testing they've done on it, it's probably the smallest variable in unknown cost/maintenance items on the entire stage. The real variables have been the parts they couldn't test repeatedly through flight like conditions. Like the tankage, landing gear and plumbing. Now that they have recovered a stage they'll get their first look at what worked and what didn't.
-
Static fire complete.
-
Bad weather at the cape right now as a cold front moves through. Static fire may be off for today.
-
1 hour ago, Findthepin1 said:
By the way, there are 4444 topics in the forums right now.
Um, Yay?
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38148.0
Hmmm, actually, looking back through that thread, SpaceX never actually posted a launch date. Still, everything points to the 19th from launch aapprovals and readiness of assets.
-
-
Don't give up hope yet. They can still do the static test on thursday and make the launch on the 19th.
-
Don't count the money until it's approved.
-
Personally, I think having 100 people in a small confined space like that for +6 months is a recipe for conflict. MCT sounds fine for take off/landing, but the actually trip needs more habitable volume for that number of people.
-
If the rocket were staying in CCAFS airspace the entire time, you might have a point. The FAA does have a say.
-
1 hour ago, Motokid600 said:
Where's all the launch hype from SpaceX/NASA? Awful quiet for a rtf launch in nine days.
It's not a NASA launch. So no hype from them. SpaceX is busy making sure the flight is a success, hype will come after.
-
3 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:
SpaceX can only offer prices competitive with disposable launchers by taking a significant loss each time and then being sustained by government subsidies and/or Musk dipping into his own piggy bank.
Gonna ask for a citation on this, because for years everything I've read is that even in expendable mode SpaceX makes a profit off of each successful launch of the F9. That has always been the beauty of their approach to re-usability. Even if it doesn't workout for the F9 they still have a profitable product.
-
It's not official until the FAA approves it. Which hasn't happened yet. as stated in the Florida Today article.
-
What makes you think they'd "make the decision during the flight to go back to land or not"????
-
SpaceX had a smaller multi-stage design. The Falcon 1. It went out of production due to lack of market.
-
My guess is they are waiting to get data back from operational flights of F9 1.1 Full Thrust to finalize the numbers.
-
"unheard of" is relative.
-
[quote name='WestAir']this were from Boeing or Airbus with lots of media coverage and millions and advertisement already spent I might believe it - but not from an unheard from brand founded in 2002.[/QUOTE]
SpaceX - founded in 2002. -
A "one size fits all" type of standardization isn't really practical when weight is such a premium in design consideration for unmanned probes. One day, when the bottleneck to getting to orbit and beyond stops being weight limited, we'll be able to crank out designs that save money based on mass production.
Blue Origin Thread (merged)
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
The "F" is just picking up glare from the lights in the left image.