Kryten Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: You can also look at it in terms of payload. On escape, the Aerojet Rocketdyne CCE-SRM develops 70,000 lbs of thrust, accelerating the BO crew capsule at a peak of 7 gees. Thus, the crew capsule masses around 10,000 lbs or 4.5 tonnes. So the New Shepard propulsion module delivers 1.3 km/s to a 4.5 tonne payload. In contrast, the Falcon 9 first stage on GTO missions delivers nearly twice that velocity to a 120+ tonne payload. But that's still more than enough energy to be 'orbital class'. Heck, NS is in the same size class as, and likely has more total impulse than Falcon 1. If SX had recovered one of them, would you be here saying that didn't count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 We all realize that F9 is a whole lot bigger, but the level of complexity of electronics and software for navigation/guidance, attitude, control and ultimately powered landing is basically the same no matter the size - and that is the most important aspect of powered landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Shpaget said: We all realize that F9 is a whole lot bigger, but the level of complexity of electronics and software for navigation/guidance, attitude, control and ultimately powered landing is basically the same no matter the size - and that is the most important aspect of powered landing. But, but, but, ... it's not SpaceX! It's not Elon! They don't have the cool hipster dudes doing webcasts. It's just not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Shpaget said: We all realize that F9 is a whole lot bigger, but the level of complexity of electronics and software for navigation/guidance, attitude, control and ultimately powered landing is basically the same no matter the size - and that is the most important aspect of powered landing. Yes, and Grasshopper involves those aspects as well. I mean, Grasshopper and the F9dev didn't reach suborbital spaceflight, and ordinarily I wouldn't consider them to be part of the conversation, but if we can't see F9 as a different class than NS, then we can't really consider NS to be in a different class from Grasshopper and F9dev. Edited March 20, 2017 by sevenperforce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 So when I'm in here in three years or so saying F9 barely counts as reusable because it's not in the same class as NG, you'll be fine with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Yes, and Grasshopper involves those aspects as well. I mean, Grasshopper and the F9dev didn't reach suborbital spaceflight, and ordinarily I wouldn't consider them to be part of the conversation, but if we can't see F9 as a different class than NS, then we can't really consider NS to be in a different class from Grasshopper and F9dev. Fine by me. They all fall in the group of suborbital vertical landing systems and none of these mentioned were the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Kryten said: So when I'm in here in three years or so saying F9 barely counts as reusable because it's not in the same class as NG, you'll be fine with it? Hey, no one is saying that New Shepard is "barely reusable". I was just responding after Corel noted that some caution must be taken in comparing the achievements of SpaceX with the achievements of Blue Origin. Is the distinction between "suborbital sounding-rocket class" and "orbital-class first stage" meaningful? I mean, I suppose you could call New Shepard orbital class. It's notionally possible to launch a payload to LEO from a starting velocity of 1.3 km/s and a stage+payload mass of 4.5 tonnes, but you're cutting it pretty close. Falcon 1 staged a similarly-sized payload at twice the velocity of New Shepard. Edited March 20, 2017 by sevenperforce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tullius Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: So, this is not the Lunar XPrize team? Are they still on the manifest for "this year" then? They were a Lunar XPrize team until a few days ago, when they finally gave up, since they would only be able to launch their mission in 2018, and the deadline for the XPrize is end of 2017. Source: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/mond-mission-part-time-scientists-gewinnen-vodafone-als-partner-a-1139371.html (in German) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yobobhi Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: My friend, SpaceX's plans to go to Mars are entirely dependent upon reusability, specifically with their BFR. Each begets the other. Do you seriously expect a company with no experience beyond LEO to develop something such as the ITS in a short time? NASA will get there first for sure, and do it much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 1 hour ago, sevenperforce said: Is the distinction between "suborbital sounding-rocket class" and "orbital-class first stage" meaningful? I mean, I suppose you could call New Shepard orbital class. It's notionally possible to launch a payload to LEO from a starting velocity of 1.3 km/s and a stage+payload mass of 4.5 tonnes, but you're cutting it pretty close. Falcon 1 staged a similarly-sized payload at twice the velocity of New Shepard. There are entire orbital rockets that are less than 4.5 tonnes; it's not ultimately that hard in terms of total energy or impulse. You only have a hard distinction between 'orbital class' and 'suborbital class' if you're talking small rockets, up to maybe two tons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 ASDS ROOOMBA: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/60k0qw/i_took_a_helicopter_ride_over_ocisly_today_and/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kunok Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, Yobobhi said: Do you seriously expect a company with no experience beyond LEO to develop something such as the ITS in a short time? NASA will get there first for sure, and do it much better. Pss, is more like beyond GEO And yes, basically is what fans expect, to develop a bigger than Apollo program in record time with less resources and forgetting every middle step in the way. BTW I talked the other day with an ablative materials engineer (you will be surprised if you don't know that cork based ablatives are pretty good) and PICAX is an ablative material, is not really a reusable material, nor is proven that could withstand multiples reentries, is this kind of things that make people in industry to have very big doubts in SpaceX claims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yobobhi Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, kunok said: Pss, is more like beyond GEO And yes, basically is what fans expect, to develop a bigger than Apollo program in record time with less resources and forgetting every middle step in the way. BTW I talked the other day with an ablative materials engineer (you will be surprised if you don't know that cork based ablatives are pretty good) and PICAX is an ablative material, is not really a reusable material, nor is proven that could withstand multiples reentries, is this kind of things that make people in industry to have very big doubts in SpaceX claims As a self-proclaimed NASA fanboy, I understand how outlandish SpaceX's claims are. Maybe they could do a one-off in that time. Or maybe not, as they have ZERO manned experience. But a full-reusable colony ship? Get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 One week until a possible booster re-flight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, Spaceception said: One week until a possible booster re-flight! Not one week anymore, nine days. But close enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Yobobhi said: Do you seriously expect a company with no experience beyond LEO to develop something such as the ITS in a short time? NASA will get there first for sure, and do it much better. I doubt that any SpaceX timelines will stay where they are now, but they will have experience beyond LEO when they fly the ITS for the first time. They will have flown the lunar tourists, and multiple Red Dragon missions. Edited March 21, 2017 by Mad Rocket Scientist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Yobobhi said: Do you seriously expect a company with no experience beyond LEO to develop something such as the ITS in a short time? NASA will get there first for sure, and do it much better. I didn't say anything about timeframe. But yes, SpaceX will beat NASA to Mars. Just like they'll beat NASA getting people into space. Just like they'll beat NASA going around the moon. So will BO, for that matter. SpaceX entire focus from the very beginning has been getting people to Mars, and it remains so. The whole commsat/cargo business is merely a means to that end. NASA, on the other hand, is mired in politics. Its focus is scattered, as it should be, but it completely changes every 4-8 years (hey, remember the ARM?). I'll be very surprised if SLS ever flies. Maybe as a one-off. 1 hour ago, Spaceception said: One week until a possible booster re-flight! Yay! I found a valid excuse to take the day off to watch it, too! 1 hour ago, Firemetal said: Not one week anymore, nine days. Well... poop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said: I didn't say anything about timeframe. But yes, SpaceX will beat NASA to Mars. Just like they'll beat NASA getting people into space. Just like they'll beat NASA going around the moon. So will BO, for that matter. Um, I guess you meant to say that they will beat NASA in going around the moon AGAIN, because of course NASA sent people around the moon almost 50 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 25 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Um, I guess you meant to say that they will beat NASA in going around the moon AGAIN, because of course NASA sent people around the moon almost 50 years ago. Repeating that feat at this point has them starting from virtually the same point as SpaceX (or anyone else), so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) Is it known, what and how much has the Dragon capsule returned from the ISS? (Except common blah-blah like "results of researches and other stuff"). Stupid me still can't realize, whether a several tonnes heavy re-entry capsule is really required for an uncrewed cargo flight. With a one-way tin can they could deliver several tonnes of water instead, and allow them to have a bath. Edited March 21, 2017 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Is it known, what and how much has the Dragon capsule returned from the ISS? (Except common blah-blah like "results of researches and other stuff"). Stupid me still can't realize, whether a several tonnes heavy re-entry capsule is really required for an uncrewed cargo flight. With a one-way tin can they could deliver several tonnes of water instead, and allow them to have a bath. Quote SpaceX’s Dragon cargo craft ended a four-week mission Sunday with a parachute-assisted splashdown in the Pacific Ocean, returning from the International Space Station with more than 3,600 pounds of cargo, blood and urine samples, and specimens from a rodent research experiment aimed at helping patients with catastrophic bone injuries and osteoporosis. https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/03/19/spacexs-dragon-supply-carrier-wraps-up-10th-mission-to-space-station/ IIRC it's commonly used to return some very heavy equipment for analysis. The only other option is a tiny little reentry pod that goes in a Progress. And starting in another flight or two, that several tonnes heavy capsule will start getting reused. (Also, kinda pointless having enough water for a bath if there are no real bathing facilities aboard. Skylab had an actual space shower, but it was also a much bigger module.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: more than 3,600 pounds of cargo, blood and urine samples Still can't imagine a barrel of urine, three canisters of blood and a centner-heavy herd of mice. Especially after 50 years since first medical experiments on orbit, after tens of Shuttle flights to ISS.. 46 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: that several tonnes heavy capsule will start getting reused. Yes, every time instead of several tonnes of cargo. 46 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: (Also, kinda pointless having enough water for a bath if there are no real bathing facilities aboard. Skylab had an actual space shower, but it was also a much bigger module.) Mir Spoiler Salyut-6, Salyut-7 Spoiler Edited March 21, 2017 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 @kerbiloid the point of linking the article was for you to actually, y'know, the article. It went on to give a pretty through rundown of what Dragon brought back, among which: Quote The items included 2,034.9 pounds (923 kilograms) of science equipment, 825.2 pounds (374.3 kilograms) of vehicle hardware, 279.5 pounds (126.8 kilograms) of crew supplies, 228.6 pounds (103.7 kilograms) of miscellaneous spacewalking gear, and 9 pounds (4.1 kilograms) of computer resources. And seeing how a Dragon has never returned empty, NASA obviously has a need for significant downmass since the end of the shuttle era. (Also, that first pic is Skylab, not Mir, and my point was that the ISS does not have a shower...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: that first pic is Skylab Oops... The first pic googled out with the Mir query. But anyway, Salyut-6, -7 and Mir were equipped with a portable bath cabin, of 2 generations: from a pumped plastic pipe to a full-featured mini-sauna. 16 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: The items included 2,034.9 pounds (923 kilograms) of science equipment, 825.2 pounds (374.3 kilograms) of vehicle hardware, 279.5 pounds (126.8 kilograms) of crew supplies, 228.6 pounds (103.7 kilograms) of miscellaneous spacewalking gear, and 9 pounds (4.1 kilograms) of computer resources. Yes, that's so. But the returning of "vehicle hardware, crew supplies btw what's that? they return unused towels? spacewalking gear" sounds like "what else can we put into the capsule to leave no empty space, rather than throw it from aboard". Looks like the listed things usually just get packed into a single-use cargo ship and burn in air, but "as there is no expendable ship, let's send it back to the Earth." For example, spent regenerative cartridges: afaik usually they send them down by a Progress or so. What's when Dragon instead of Progress? Edited March 21, 2017 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Industries Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, kerbiloid said: ...For example, spent regenerative cartridges: afaik usually they send them down by a Progress or so. What's when Dragon instead of Progress? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Edited March 21, 2017 by KerbalSaver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts