StarStreak2109 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Shes very photogenic this time around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 SES 10 is in Florida, getting ready to ride an experienced booster NET Feb 22 http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/01/17/ses-10-telecom-satellite-in-florida-for-launch-on-reused-spacex-rocket/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Wow, this sat is really huge compared to a human next to it. That launch will be another heart-stopper for all the fans Hopefully everything will go well. Go SpaceX! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfds Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Why do people call it an "experienced booster"? This sounds more like an expression for "Marketing & Propaganda" than "Science & Spaceflight"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannu2 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I think it is SpaceX's marketing propaganda. It sounds better than used, old or second hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Not sure I've ever seen SpaceX use "experienced". They tend to say "flight-proven" instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, cfds said: Why do people call it an "experienced booster"? Because it sounds much greater than "second hand". Oops, kinda ninja'd. P.S. If Mother Nature had wanted the rockets to re-fly, ULA would already have twenty. Edited January 19, 2017 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannu2 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 hours ago, kerbiloid said: If Mother Nature had wanted the rockets to re-fly, ULA would already have twenty. Why? They are not straight competitors to SpaceX. ULA sells extreme reliability for billion dollar probes and satellites and SpaceX sells cheap launches for companies with more kerbal attitude (and lack of money). Reusability benefits far more SpaceX than ULA at relatively near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, Hannu2 said: Why? They are not straight competitors to SpaceX Far 1990s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Far 1990s Who was an test platform just like spacex grasshopper. Making it an ssto also made it impractical, I thought of the idea of returning the first stage then I read about the dc-x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Far 1990s The problem with this is they decided to make it SSTO, for some odd reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 45 minutes ago, Veeltch said: The problem with this is they decided to make it SSTO, for some odd reason. Yes, also the wikipedia site contains some weird stuff. You can do an bottom first return with an first stage, you can also do significant cross range burns this way as Spacex has shown with its first stages. However for orbital reentry I don't think the engines will like this, note that the mars colonial transporter upper stage is planned to do an sideways reentry space shuttle style before reorienting to an bottom first mode for landing. And again you do not want to do an rocket SSTO on Earth. The idea is stupid don't try. More advanced engines like Skylon might work but not rockets. Yes it works in KSP however orbital speed in KSP is 2.2 km/s, This is close to the speed the falcon 9 first stage reach, so yes an falcon 9 could put its second stage and a payload in orbit in KSP, then do an deorbit burn and land back on pad, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 hours ago, magnemoe said: Who was an test platform just like spacex grasshopper. Yes, as Grasshopper was a pre-Falcon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 10 hours ago, cfds said: Why do people call it an "experienced booster"? This sounds more like an expression for "Marketing & Propaganda" than "Science & Spaceflight"... "Experienced" booster is my choice of words, not SpaceX'. Kind of like the "experienced"golf balls you can buy at the golf course. Except these have already scored a hole-in-one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 21 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: "Experienced" booster is my choice of words, not SpaceX'. Kind of like the "experienced"golf balls you can buy at the golf course. Except these have already scored a hole-in-one. Back before golf balls got the dimples golfers found that old beaten up balls performed better as they had groves and pits in the surface who improved aerodynamic. With modern balls I don't think this is an issue any longer and used balls would perform worse. However complex mechanical stuff like hard drives, cars or rockets tend to have an bath tube graph of failures. In the start you get plenty of fails, this drops off fast and you enter the reliable mid life of product until it ages and number of fails start to increase again. An first stage who has worked once is more likely to work the next time than one who is new. This is also the reasons why you do static tests of engines and stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 23 minutes ago, magnemoe said: With modern balls I don't think this is an issue any longer and used balls would perform worse. Actually, they sell used balls to the hackers as a cheaper alternative to losing brand new balls. I think I've bought my own ball back a time or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 17 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Actually, they sell used balls to the hackers as a cheaper alternative to losing brand new balls. I think I've bought my own ball back a time or two. Yes this is the other part, players looses balls, many are recovered during maintenance and these balls get sold. However the experienced ball name probably dates back to before golf balls had dimples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 And just when you though this thread had already reached the absolute nadir of off-topic-ness, it's now devolved into discussing each other's balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 14 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: And just when you though this thread had already reached the absolute nadir of off-topic-ness, it's now devolved into discussing each other's balls. Erm...Yeah. If you want to talk golf you're more than welcome to open a golf thread in the lounge. Lets get back to spaceballsx please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Any more guesses regarding the short launch window? IIRC, CRS-7 (the one that blew up while carrying the docking adaptor to the ISS) also had instantaneous launch window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Frybert said: Lets get back to spaceballsx please. You just had to go there, didn't you? 45 minutes ago, Shpaget said: Any more guesses regarding the short launch window? IIRC, CRS-7 (the one that blew up while carrying the docking adaptor to the ISS) also had instantaneous launch window. I think it's the nature of the very specific (and low) orbits they launched to. Getting a Comsat to its final GSO orbit typically takes weeks, so there's a lot more fudge room there with the initial, and very temporary, launch orbit. The bigger question: are they gonna clean and paint the, ahem, veteran booster for SES? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Shpaget said: Any more guesses regarding the short launch window? Well, if my guess of lining up with the barge was incorrect, my second guess would be the oxidizer loading. Not sure when they started but I don't recall the short windows prior to the FT'S, and I do recall a delay (involving a boat) after loading started to have caused an issue just after ignition. If it's not either of those reasons, then I'll have to say I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 18 minutes ago, Frybert said: I do recall a delay (involving a boat) after loading started to have caused an issue just after ignition. If it's not either of those reasons, then I'll have to say I have no idea. I'm pretty sure that was the SES-9 mission back in March. If I recall correctly, the launch was initially delayed because of a boat in the danger zone, but by the time it exited the zone, the LOX had warmed up too much for the F9 to launch, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts