CatastrophicFailure Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 According to SpaceFlightNow, Zuma is back on the menu for Jan. 4. Maybe that interstellar oompa-loompa is slowing down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/12/05/spacex-crs-13-launch-preps/ (will have live stream of test) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said: So Zuma's been moved to LC-40. That's good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 Because FH will be using 39A. Woot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 CRS-13, Zuma and FH, all within a month! Nice! It'll be a really busy month for SpaceX. Hopefully no more delays for FH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 And the VAFB launch later this month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchz95 Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 If FH blows up and destroys pad 39A, I swear to god... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 On 12/5/2017 at 1:39 PM, tater said: I'm so glad I left my coffee on the counter when I went to wake up the kids, else there'd be snot-mixed coffee on my keyboard right now. Then my work here is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 13 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said: If FH blows up and destroys pad 39A, I swear to god... I wonder if they will do a preliminary static fire with partially filled tanks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 SpaceX posted about how the booster and capsule are "flight proven" doesn't show a pic of the sooty first stage. REEEEEEEEE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Kerbal01 said: SpaceX posted about how the booster and capsule are "flight proven" doesn't show a pic of the sooty first stage. They posted it beside the BulgariaSat landing video that was a joke Edited December 6, 2017 by StrandedonEarth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 16 minutes ago, Kerbal01 said: SpaceX posted about how the booster and capsule are "flight proven" doesn't show a pic of the sooty first stage. REEEEEEEEE That's because the picture was taken on the way up. The "pinstripes" on the lower half of the reused first stage are weld inspections. You have to scrub off the soot before you can do an electromagnetic inspection of the underlying Al-Li weld. But they only scrubbed off what they needed to. Estimates say about 2.5 kg of total soot on the first stage, which is only a ~250 gram reduction in payload to LEO, so the mass isn't an issue. Are we sure the FH core is coming down on OCISLY? The Roadster is pretty low-mass; even for a trans-martian injection burn, the center core may have enough dV to boostback. I wonder what the odds are that the upper stage jettisons the Roadster, does a nitrogen-thruster flip, and burns backward to come back for an entry attempt. Just enough of a burn to bring it into an aerobraking trajectory, with PICA-X panels covering the PAF and fairing-style steerable chutes tucked around the Merlin Vac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 Is there a third landing zone at the Cape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncongruousGoat Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Are we sure the FH core is coming down on OCISLY? The Roadster is pretty low-mass; even for a trans-martian injection burn, the center core may have enough dV to boostback. I would assume so, just to demonstrate the capability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: I wonder what the odds are that the upper stage jettisons the Roadster, does a nitrogen-thruster flip, and burns backward to come back for an entry attempt. Just enough of a burn to bring it into an aerobraking trajectory, with PICA-X panels covering the PAF and fairing-style steerable chutes tucked around the Merlin Vac. It’ll be an 11km/s reentry, way hotter than Dragon LEO reentry. Also, drained upper stage is probably aerodynamically unstable and will flip engine-first. I also doubt that it is strong enough to withstand the g-load from TMI aerobraking. Edited December 7, 2017 by sh1pman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 28 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: They posted it beside the BulgariaSat landing video that was a joke Beat me to it. Just wait, the flight will go up with a big black “CENSORED” box over the booster. Wouldn’t do to go showing their dirty rockets to the public, now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, IncongruousGoat said: I would assume so, just to demonstrate the capability. ....but why not demonstrate the capability to RTLS? 15 minutes ago, tater said: Is there a third landing zone at the Cape? 90% sure there is. 3 minutes ago, sh1pman said: It’ll be an 11km/s reentry, way hotter than Dragon LEO reentry. Also, drained upper stage is probably aerodynamically unstable and will flip engine-first. I also doubt that it is strong enough to withstand the g-load from TMI aerobraking. The US will probably have enough spare prop to brake by at least 2 or 3 km/s before entry. And the engine bell may act as a shuttlecock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 15 minutes ago, tater said: Is there a third landing zone at the Cape? Only two, and the second one is just getting finished or will be “soon™.” 22 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Are we sure the FH core is coming down on OCISLY? The Roadster is pretty low-mass; even for a trans-martian injection burn, the center core may have enough dV to boostback. I really doubt it’s gonna be just the roadster, this is a capability test too after all. I expect lots of instrumentation and still some common ballast. 5 minutes ago, sh1pman said: It’ll be an 11km/s reentry, way hotter than Dragon LEO reentry. Also, drained upper stage is probably aerodynamically unstable and will flip engine-first. I doubt that it is strong enough to withstand the g-load from TMI aerobraking. This. Recovering the upper stage sounded iffy enough to begin with just from LEO velocity. Since we’ve heard nothing else, I expect that plan’s scrapped, unless they sourced some kind of transfer stage for the Tesla. 5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: The US will probably have enough spare prop to brake by at least 2 or 3 km/s before entry. And the engine bell may act as a shuttlecock. The engine bell would get torn apart in very short order. That thing is incredibly fragile when it’s not firing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, sevenperforce said: And the engine bell may act as a shuttlecock. Don’t think so. My KSP experience tells me there won’t be enough atmo pressure to keep it stable, and since the engine is heavier than the fuel tank, it will flip towards the plasma stream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncongruousGoat Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: ....but why not demonstrate the capability to RTLS? Because the barge landing is much more impressive, and because FH isn't going to be launching any payloads so light that the core can RTLS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 It was my understanding that OCSILY was the plan, but <shrug> that's just what I read ages ago. I'm unsure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Is FH upper stage any different from F9 upper stage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Is FH upper stage any different from F9 upper stage? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, tater said: No. They probably could make it bigger, since FH has higher TWR at liftoff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.