kerbiloid Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Bill, Bob, Jeb... (Btw, what was the "B" name of shuttles? A-tlantis, B-?, C-hallenger/C-olumbia, D-iscovery, E-nterprise) Edited February 13, 2017 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 On 2/12/2017 at 3:44 AM, wumpus said: On 1/31/2017 at 11:18 PM, YNM said: I... Just noticed something - Perhaps this is for his Hyperloop. It's a really bad sign if it is (see above). Well, that hole is the size of a TBM... Even an Underground train could fit (?) /off : anyway, is Hyperloop meant not to be powered the whole journey ? They'd need explosive powers to send it then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Bill, Bob, Jeb... (Btw, what was the "B" name of shuttles? A-tlantis, B-?, C-hallenger/C-olumbia, D-iscovery, E-nterprise) The "B" name was the original shuttle prototype, nicknamed the "Bloody Brilliant Idea". Spoiler ^ That's a joke. In case you couldn't tell. Edited February 13, 2017 by TheEpicSquared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max255 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Streetwind said: Well, SpaceX gives their cores a number based on when it was produced. The CRS flight 8 core is the 23rd Falcon 9 first stage that was produced, so it is numbered "0023". Most times. these numbers coincide with the flight number (CRS flight 8 was the 23rd Falcon 9 launch). But in a few cases, cores were swapped between flights when something needed fixing. And, of course - once first stages start getting reused, the flight number will start climbing faster than the production number. CRS-8 core is B1021, flight was designated F9-023. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, TheEpicSquared said: The "B" name was the original shuttle prototype, nicknamed the "Bloody Brilliant Idea". The first "prototype" was OV-101 Enterprise, but there was a mockup for clearance testing (to develop procedures for handling and fitting the orbiters) called Pathfinder, that later received the "OV-98" registration. There was also a scale model called Independence that received the "OV-100" number. There's an OV-95 that was a mockup for crew training, STA-96 and STA-97 that were test articles, and MPTA-98, which was a "main propulsion test assembly" (basically an engine frame), but none of those have any christening names. Edited February 13, 2017 by Nibb31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (I also missed Endeavour). As the barges autonomous drone ships are named "Just Read The Instructions" and "Of Course I Still Love You", they should choose some short and clear names from sci-fi and for rockets. For example, from Niven's Ringworld. Let them be "Halrloprillalar Hotrufan" and "Karawesksenjojak", Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monophonic Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: (I also missed Endeavour). As the barges autonomous drone ships are named "Just Read The Instructions" and "Of Course I Still Love You", they should choose some short and clear names from sci-fi and for rockets. For example, from Niven's Ringworld. Let them be "Halrloprillalar Hotrufan" and "Karawesksenjojak", Something like "A Short and Clear Name" would be more in line with the names from the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks. Btw. I just checked and I think "Cargo Cult" and "So Much For Subtlety" would make excellent names for the first MCT / ITS / what's-it-called-today -s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, kerbiloid said: (I also missed Endeavour). As the barges autonomous drone ships are named "Just Read The Instructions" and "Of Course I Still Love You", they should choose some short and clear names from sci-fi and for rockets. For example, from Niven's Ringworld. Let them be "Halrloprillalar Hotrufan" and "Karawesksenjojak", Lewis and Clark? Galileo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Static fire successful yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Well, I would guess Elon is trying to become the "Ford" of space travel with the "Model T" of boosters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said: Well, I would guess Elon is trying to become the "Ford" of space travel with the "Model T" of boosters That's what the shuttle tried to do, but the analogy was the Douglas DC-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 14 hours ago, Nibb31 said: The first "prototype" was OV-101 Enterprise, but there was a mockup for clearance testing (to develop procedures for handling and fitting the orbiters) called Pathfinder, that later received the "OV-98" registration. There was also a scale model called Independence that received the "OV-100" number. There's an OV-95 that was a mockup for crew training, STA-96 and STA-97 that were test articles, and MPTA-98, which was a "main propulsion test assembly" (basically an engine frame), but none of those have any christening names. OV-95 was the SAIL (Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory), used for software and avionics development and testing, not crew training. (It received an OV number because it was managed under the same configuration control system and standards as the flight vehicles.) Independence is a non flight replica and has no official NASA number. A full list of the official designations can be found here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Getting a little off-topic, but I believe the OV-0 series were never intended for flight, and the OV-1 series were supposed to be the operational vehicles. Except it was more cost effective to rebuild STA-099 (Challenger) into a proper orbiter than OV-101 (Enterprise), which then never flew to orbit and wasn't retroactively renumbered, but Columbia was upgraded to OV-99. Edited February 14, 2017 by RCgothic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 1 hour ago, RCgothic said: Getting a little off-topic "A little"? Well, here's something on topic: Yes, you are seeing correctly: a "No Earlier Than" date was moved... to an earlier date! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliverm001x Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Spacex launch date creeping ever closer @TheEpicSquared SES10 is going to be a vital mission, I have to point out. The reuse of the 1st stage! The excitement is accumulating and has been for a long time to say the least!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 3 minutes ago, Oliverm001x said: Spacex launch date creeping ever closer @TheEpicSquared SES10 is going to be a vital mission, I have to point out. The reuse of the 1st stage! The excitement is accumulating and has been for a long time to say the least!! You pinged me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliverm001x Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 3 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said: You pinged me? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchz95 Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 7 hours ago, Oliverm001x said: Spacex launch date creeping ever closer @TheEpicSquared SES10 is going to be a vital mission, I have to point out. The reuse of the 1st stage! The excitement is accumulating and has been for a long time to say the least!! Wait, this is a re-used first stage!? I may have to take a day off work to watch this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Just now, Mitchz95 said: Wait, this is a re-used first stage!? I may have to take a day off work to watch this one... No, this is CRS-10, and will use a new first stage. SES-10, sometime in march, will reuse the CRS-8 first stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias_the_Goat Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 6 hours ago, Mitchz95 said: I may have to take a day off work to watch this one... Have fun explaining that to your boss! 6 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said: SES-10, sometime in march, will reuse the CRS-8 first stage Glad to hear that they are finally relaunching an F9 1st stage. By the way, is the CRS-8 being used for any technical reason or just for good luck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 6 hours ago, LetsGoToMars! said: Glad to hear that they are finally relaunching an F9 1st stage. By the way, is the CRS-8 being used for any technical reason or just for good luck? I assume that they looked at all their first stages and determined that they wanted to go with this one for reasons that would fill a 320-page report to the FAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 (edited) http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25232/nasa-considers-astronauts-sls-launch/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasa-looking-to-accelerate-first-crewed-orion-launch-to-as-early-as-2019/?comments=1 I see no reason why not. The DCSS and Orion have already flown unmanned together, and the modified Shuttle hardware was proven on 135 flights. Even if there is something wrong during ascent, Orion has a LES. The Shuttle flew manned on its first flight and it had no crew safety measures! Makes me wonder what they'll do for EM-2 though. Maybe an Inspiration Mars-style mission? Edited February 15, 2017 by _Augustus_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle92lightning Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 On 9/10/2014 at 11:38 AM, GreeningGalaxy said: This thing can go to Mars?? Not a landing there, obviously, but if it can really get to Mars orbit/flyby and back with its crew still alive (which I doubt, but still) that would be impressive. Whenever I see pictures of the SLS, I catch myself trying to identify KSP NASA parts. EDIT: Wikipedia says that the Orion spacecraft is designed to go to Mars, but doesn't elaborate. The NASA website does something similar. ...okay? Anyone got better info? It will carry a lander eventually possible one of my designs (I am very optimistic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 (edited) Or a struggle for funds food gets more keen. Edited February 15, 2017 by Frybert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Wotansen Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 Have they released the relaunch date yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts