kunok Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, KerbalSaver said: I'm not quite sure what you mean. What they do with junk when the only option is the dragon? Return it to earth instead of burning in the atmosphere. The interesting part is: how much of the mass that returns to earth is useful? and how much is just junk? Remember that IIRC there wasn't a call about being able to return cargo in the commercial cargo program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukaszenko Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Shpaget said: F9 first stage does not deliver payload to orbit, it's the second stage that is responsible for almost 80% of the total speed. At the moment of staging, the first stage is traveling at 1660 m/s (in the specific case of CRS-10), which is not a whole lot faster than New Shepard (aprox. 1300 m/s). That's like saying it's not the gun that does the killing, it's the bullet. The point is, they're part of a system designed for a specific goal, and one is useless without the other. Edited March 21, 2017 by Lukaszenko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kunok Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 33 minutes ago, Lukaszenko said: That's like saying it's not the gun that does the killing, it's the bullet. The point is, they're part of a system designed for a specific goal, and one is useless without the other. You could change the suborbital capsule in the NS to a second stage with a payload of the same total mass. It won't be in a Falcon9 class but it would be in a Falcon 1 class, but reusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Maybe after trying it several times, they decided that a "space shower" is more trouble than it is worth? 8 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Skylab had an actual space shower, but it was also a much bigger module. Skylab had 1/3 the pressurized volume of the ISS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Maybe after trying it several times, they decided that a "space shower" is more trouble than it is worth? Skylab had 1/3 the pressurized volume of the ISS. A single module of Skylab was bigger than a single module of ISS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Veeltch said: A single module of Skylab was bigger than a single module of ISS. I don't see how that's important. ISS obviously has enough volume that if a shower was deemed worthwhile they would have one. It's roughly 3x bigger than either Skylab or Mir. Edited March 21, 2017 by mikegarrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I don't see how that's important. ISS obviously has enough volume that if a shower was deemed worthwhile they would have one. It's roughly 3x bigger than either Skylab or Mir. Apparently the shower is too much of a hassle to include it in already cramped ISS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Just now, Veeltch said: Apparently the shower is too much of a hassle to include it in already cramped ISS. Which is what I suggested, right? That after trying it out in previous, even smaller and more cramped stations, they decided it wasn't worth providing space and mass for a shower. Shower was a misnomer anyway. More like just a giant plastic bag to hold water droplets in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 57 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Skylab had 1/3 the pressurized volume of the ISS. I said module, not modules. When you have a single space that large, it's easy to add the optional master bath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukaszenko Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, kunok said: You could change the suborbital capsule in the NS to a second stage with a payload of the same total mass. It won't be in a Falcon9 class but it would be in a Falcon 1 class, but reusable. But they didn't, and that makes all the difference. Even the difference between *almost* to orbit and TO orbit is a world of difference, because one stays up and the other doesn't. And on the same note, you could also just slap 3 Falcon 9s together and have a Falcon Heavy. And yet somehow it's not there, despite being worked on for the better part of a decade. Turns out that in aerospace, seemingly simple things have a way of not being so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 All this shower talk is getting off topic, but maybe they can send up a BEShoMo (Bigelow Expandable Shower Module) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lukaszenko said: But they didn't, and that makes all the difference. Even the difference between *almost* to orbit and TO orbit is a world of difference, because one stays up and the other doesn't. Well the Falcon 9 first stage doesn't even get *almost* to orbit. I still can't quite grasp the logic that says a non-orbital first stage that lands again after releasing an orbital second stage is much more impressive than a non-orbital first stage that lands again without releasing an orbital second stage. Or, for that matter, an actual orbital vehicle that drops a non-reusuable fuel tank along the way. Somehow the fact that a Falcon 9 doesn't reuse an entire stage is no big deal compared to the fact that the shuttle didn't reuse a fuel tank. Some of the things SpaceX have done are immensely cool. Landing on a ship, for instance. Other rockets have launched from a ship, but SpaceX has actually landed rockets on a ship. Multiple times. I can also answer my own question above and point out that their first stage develops significant down-range distance and velocity, and on some of their missions they actually cancel that out and come back to land near where they started. It's that "boostback" that is significantly different than New Shepard, which doesn't need a boostback. All this and SpaceX is busy providing useful commercial launch services, while Blue Origin is just testing. Of course, New Shepard actually did reuse the same stage, multiple times already. SpaceX is still just getting ready to do it the first time. And "just testing" is what you have to do to "man-rate" a launch system. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if New Shepard launches a manned (though suborbital) spacecraft sooner than Falcon 9 does, though it's clear Falcon 9 will launch a manned orbital spacecraft sooner than Blue Origin. (Maybe not sooner than ULA, however.) But they are both doing impressive stuff. Edited March 21, 2017 by mikegarrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 24 minutes ago, Lukaszenko said: Quote You could change the suborbital capsule in the NS to a second stage with a payload of the same total mass. It won't be in a Falcon9 class but it would be in a Falcon 1 class, but reusable. But they didn't, and that makes all the difference. Even the difference between *almost* to orbit and TO orbit is a world of difference, because one stays up and the other doesn't. And on the same note, you could also just slap 3 Falcon 9s together and have a Falcon Heavy. And yet somehow it's not there, despite being worked on for the better part of a decade. Turns out that in aerospace, seemingly simple things have a way of not being so. Yeah, that's basically my thought. If they used the NS to launch an orbital payload, then the NS would be a reusable VTVL orbital booster. They have not done so; thus, it isn't. If they did, it would be. Not saying they can't. But capacity is not the point. SpaceX had the capacity to relaunch its very first recovered VTVL orbital booster all the way back in December 2015. Also, New Shepard might have more trouble with an orbital launch than you'd think. The booster only travels 20 km from the launch site, so horizontal velocity is really negligible. In terms of requisite orbital energy, there's a huge difference between going straight up at 1,300 m/s and heading nearly flat downrange at 1.8-2.6 km/s. New Shepard has not performed a gravity turn and does not re-enter the atmosphere in the same way. Could New Shepard launch something to orbit with its current ascent profile? Sure, probably, though it's suboptimal. It might even be able to do a proper gravity turn; I don't know. But that's the bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Also New Shepard isnt build for performance (the fuel/mass ratio seems to be awefull) and can hower, which makes the landing propably way easier. Thats why i think its way closer to grasshopper from a technological standpoint. The only thing grasshopper wasnt able to do was fly up higher, but afaik that was a range safety issue, not a technical limitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) AFAIK the smallest orbital vehicle ever launched was the Lambda 4S, with a GLOW of 9.4 tonnes. The SS-520-4 was far smaller, at just 2.9 tonnes, but it failed to reach orbit successfully. So even though there has never been a successful orbital launch of this size*, a ~4 tonne expendable launch vehicle with a vacuum-optimized nozzle could most likely put a cubesat in orbit from a 100 km apogee with negligible horizontal velocity. Blue Origin could do it as a demonstration if they wanted to, and if they were willing to work with a COTS upper stage. Then New Shepard would become an orbital booster rather than a suborbital one. *Falcon 1 does not count; the Kestrel-powered stage 2 had a downrange velocity of 2.8 km/s. Random: Did Grasshopper and F9dev restart in-air? Because if not, that's something unique for NS. Edited March 21, 2017 by sevenperforce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Random: Did Grasshopper and F9dev restart in-air? Because if not, that's something unique for NS. Oh, right, i think they never did. It was planned for the next version of the grasshopper, which would have flown ~90km high, but never build since they started testing with their orbital rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ment18 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 New Shepard is going almost strait up, while F9 has significant horizontal velocity, which is much harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncongruousGoat Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 22 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Random: Did Grasshopper and F9dev restart in-air? Because if not, that's something unique for NS. SpaceX did an in-flight restart with the booster for the CASSIOPE launch in September 2013. They ran the Grasshopper and F9dev tests at the same time as they attempted ocean landings with full-on launches. New Shepard didn't fly until 2015, which makes SpaceX the first ones to do an in-flight restart of a first stage engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) SpaceX achieved multiple retropropulsive liquid engine restarts as far back as September 2013 and controlled propulsive touchdown of the F9 first stage as far back as April 2014, but New Shepard was the first liquid rocket to be launched, MECOd, restarted, and recovered intact, a month before ORBCOMM-OG2. EDIT: Sniped by the goat. Edited March 21, 2017 by sevenperforce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Alright folks, it's high time this thread move away from who did what when and get back to Spacex's current missions and future plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Earlier this week: Yes! SpaceX is reusing a booster just two days before my birthday! A day after that: Aww, I won't be able to go watch my teammates at all-state speech! Yesterday: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES! I can go watch all-state speech! And one of the most significant rocketry achievements in history is now scheduled for my birthday! Today: *checks launch window* YES! It isn't during school! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kartoffelkuchen Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Well. OA7 launch postponed *again* due to hydraulics issue with the booster ... "The launch of the ULA Atlas V rocket carrying the OA-7 Cygnus spacecraft for Orbital ATK and NASA has been postponed. While completing testing for a ground support hydraulic condition discovered during prelaunch testing, a different issue with a booster hydraulic line was observed. The team is developing a plan to resolve the issue and a new launch date will be determined. The Atlas V and Cygnus spacecraft remain secure." Maybe SpaceX can actually move the SES-10 launch again, ahead of the OA7 launch if the fix of this issue takes even longer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMagic Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) SpaceFlight Now still has SpaceX listed for March 29, and no date listed for the Atlas V. So maybe they just lost their spot in line. Also: Apparently it's a robot for securing a landed booster. Edited March 23, 2017 by DMagic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, DMagic said: Apparently it's a robot for securing a landed booster. I've heard it's been called the Roomba and Optimus Prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 34 minutes ago, Kartoffelkuchen said: The launch of the ULA Atlas V rocket carrying the OA-7 Cygnus spacecraft for Orbital ATK and NASA has been postponed. Wow, you mean other launch providers also experience irritating equipment-related delays? Who'da thunk it. 11 minutes ago, DMagic said: Apparently it's a robot for securing a landed booster. This is awesome. More awesome: someone's been doing donuts on OCISLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts