totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, Confused Scientist said:

Last night, the video of the launch on SpaceX's YouTube channel was the number one video on trending! Right now it's number two.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16981730/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-youtube-live-stream-record  

 

1 hour ago, Nightfury said:

W-WHAAT , whyy

it was "just" a big piece of metall ( i know there some other stuff) with useful data !

Because ITAR. The US is pretty adamant about that.

[tater]

39 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I think he's suggesting that IF satellites exist, he should be able to see them from any video in space.

Or he could, you know, look up after sunset for a couple hours. Anyone who lives anywhere with actual night can see many sats every night.

[Flavio hc16]

18 minutes ago, Aegolius13 said:

Does anyone happen to know what the TWR of the Falcon Heavy was at launch?  Going by the mass and ASL thrust numbers on wikipedia, I get 1.63.  It did go up quickly, but that sounds pretty high.  I assume wiki's mass figure omits the payload, but then again, I doubt the Tesla was heavy enough to change the number significantly.  

the centre core was trottle way down ( like 50% or so) because they couldn't do crossfeed from the side boosters

[softweir]

10 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

Because ITAR. The US is pretty adamant about that.

Mainly because the COPVs (helium vessels) are still under pressure. Normally they would be vented under remote control, but the electronics aren't waterproof. So the thing is a timebomb - all it takes is for helium to dribble out through a not-closed valve into the O2 or RP1 tanks, they will reach excess pressure and then go seriously kaboom.

Assuming any of this story is true; nobody has officially confirmed it.

[sevenperforce]

19 minutes ago, tater said:

No, it won't.

Falcon 9 is required to fly with everything except Crew Dragon (with crew) 7 times before crew. Fixed dev on S1 (block 5), fixed dev on S2.

CST-100 will have one flight with a fixed stack before crew, as the Centaur they are using has only flown once before, and never on Atlas V.

Orion will fly the very first time as a final stack on EM-2, as EM-1 uses a different upper stage, AND it will be the very first all-up Orion, as well.

Just lovely.

[tater]

 

Just now, sevenperforce said:

Just lovely.

Right? 3 Standards. One for NASA's pork project, a standard close to that for the good ole boys... and then one for SpaceX.

[Aegolius13]

17 minutes ago, Flavio hc16 said:

the centre core was trottle way down ( like 50% or so) because they couldn't do crossfeed from the side boosters

I thought they had it at full for liftoff. And then throttled down shortly after. 

[sevenperforce]

20 minutes ago, Flavio hc16 said:

the centre core was trottle way down ( like 50% or so) because they couldn't do crossfeed from the side boosters

If they'd done crossfeed, I wonder if the center core would have had lower loading.

2 minutes ago, Aegolius13 said:

I thought they had it at full for liftoff. And then throttled down shortly after. 

Side engines ignited at 92% at T-5, core engines ignited at 92% at T-2, clamp release at T-0, core downthrottle (estimated to 60% or so) as the stack cleared the towers.

22 minutes ago, tater said:

Or he could, you know, look up after sunset for a couple hours. Anyone who lives anywhere with actual night can see many sats every night.

But how high are they, really? And what are they really made of? How do we know they aren't, like, balloons?

 

[ElWanderer]

26 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

But how high are they, really? And what are they really made of? How do we know they aren't, like, balloons?

 

I clicked on that tweet hoping there would be a sassy reply from Elon... sadly no one at all seems to have responded.

Edited February 8, 2018 by ElWanderer

[Scotius]

Literally the same question popped in polish forum reporting on Falcon Heavy flight. "Supposedly there are thousands of satellites and debris pieces circling the Earth. Why didn't we see anything in this video? FAAAKKEEEEE!!!" I didn't know what to do - laugh, bang my head on the table or break down crying. Brothers and sisters in nerddom - we failed. We failed horribly at spreading the good word of Science, Truth and Reason.

[Ultimate Steve]

If we could power spaceships using stupidity we would have colonized the solar system already.

[HebaruSan]

If the 15 million recreational boats in the US are real, why can't I see any of them right now??

[Spaceception]

6 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

If we could power spaceships using stupidity we would have colonized the solar system already.

Forget the solar system, we could've colonized the galaxy, it would be the most potent fuel source in the universe.

[CatastrophicFailure]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Right? 3 Standards. One for NASA's pork project, a standard close to that for the good ole boys... and then one for SpaceX.

Isn’t EM-1 without the Centaur going go fly unmanned though?

 

13 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Literally the same question popped in polish forum reporting on Falcon Heavy flight. "Supposedly there are thousands of satellites and debris pieces circling the Earth. Why didn't we see anything in this video? FAAAKKEEEEE!!!" I didn't know what to do - laugh, bang my head on the table or break down crying. Brothers and sisters in nerddom - we failed. We failed horribly at spreading the good word of Science, Truth and Reason.

Keep in mind, these fools are VERY low in number in the grand scheme. I’m convinced that somewhere there’s a guy in a shabby room with his head in his hands mumbling, “guys... it was a joke! The whole thing was a joke!”

 Most people, well... simply don’t care at all. FH got zero news coverage here, and we even have a SpaceX facility in the area. 

[GoSlash27]

I don't mean to come off as whiny, but I am completely burned out on "flat- earthers". I've followed 2 launch attempts this past week (Mad Mike and Falcon Heavy) and this subject seems to infest every conversation. 

 I'm sick of hearing their theories and questions. I'm sick of watching the arguments. I'm even sick of people complaining about them. 

 I don't mean to be poopy about it, but I think it would be nice to spend some time far away from that subject.

Sorry, carry on

-Slashy

[sevenperforce]

7 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Isn’t EM-1 without the Centaur going go fly unmanned though?

As @tater corrected me earlier, EM-1 will fly using the Block 1 ICPS upper stage, while the the first full-up crewed Orion flight will fly using the Block 1B EUS. Much more of a difference than, say, the upgrades between Falcon 9 Block 4 and Falcon 9 Block 5.

In fact, there is more difference between SLS Block 1 and Block 1B than there is between Falcon 9v1.1 and Falcon 9FT. One could even argue that Falcon 9v1.0 was closer to the current iteration than SLS Block 1 is to Block 1B.

[tater]

3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

As @tater corrected me earlier, EM-1 will fly using the Block 1 ICPS upper stage, while the the first full-up crewed Orion flight will fly using the Block 1B EUS. Much more of a difference than, say, the upgrades between Falcon 9 Block 4 and Falcon 9 Block 5.

In fact, there is more difference between SLS Block 1 and Block 1B than there is between Falcon 9v1.1 and Falcon 9FT. One could even argue that Falcon 9v1.0 was closer to the current iteration than SLS Block 1 is to Block 1B.

Exactly. Their argument would be that the sub components are all long used, with a lot of data on failure modes, and failure incidence, which is fine, but rockets are not legos, and just because the individual parts are reliable, doesn't mean that a novel use of them is.

In addition, their commercial crew sibling, Boeing, is allowed to fly on Atlas V in a novel configuration with no penalty, basically for the same reason as SLS. I am in fact OK with requiring a few "all up" launches of the stacks, but then it should apply equally to all LVs seeking man-rating.

In addition, and something that @DerekL1963 has pointed out numerous times, we have no such engineering data on Soyuz, yet we have used it for crew missions for years now. As a result, we are dragging our feet on commercial crew to meet a safety standard that is double the demonstrated record of Soyuz. So in reality for crew safety right now all that matters is the answer to the question, "Is it safer than Soyuz?"

[NSEP]

Apparently Elon is going to focus on the BFR after Falcon Heavy's maiden flight (so right now).

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/06/elon-musk-says-spacex-to-focus-on-bfr-following-falcon-heavy-launch/

Im very looking forward to the development of the BFR this year. Even if development is going be as slow as the SLS or something like that, i would definitely pay a visit to a full-scale mock up of the thing.

[tater]

8 minutes ago, NSEP said:

Apparently Elon is going to focus on the BFR after Falcon Heavy's maiden flight (so right now).

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/06/elon-musk-says-spacex-to-focus-on-bfr-following-falcon-heavy-launch/

Im very looking forward to the development of the BFR this year. Even if development is going be as slow as the SLS or something like that, i would definitely pay a visit to a full-scale mock up of the thing.

Or, they could be like ULA, and basically just sit on F9 and not work on the next thing for the next few decades, right? Atlas ain't broke, why fix it? Amiright?

[Racescort666]

32 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I don't mean to come off as whiny, but I am completely burned out on "flat- earthers". I've followed 2 launch attempts this past week (Mad Mike and Falcon Heavy) and this subject seems to infest every conversation. 

 I'm sick of hearing their theories and questions. I'm sick of watching the arguments. I'm even sick of people complaining about them. 

 I don't mean to be poopy about it, but I think it would be nice to spend some time far away from that subject.

Sorry, carry on

-Slashy

I was going to say/ask something very similar. The flat-earthers should not be given a single shred of attention so can we please stop talking about them. They have dug their heels in on their position and are simply looking for attention in order to validate themselves. This forum is about science and the best course of action, I feel, is to simply ignore them.

[NSEP]

7 minutes ago, Racescort666 said:

I was going to say/ask something very similar. The flat-earthers should not be given a single shred of attention so can we please stop talking about them. They have dug their heels in on their position and are simply looking for attention in order to validate themselves. This forum is about science and the best course of action, I feel, is to simply ignore them.

That is why i mostly leave the Flat Earth conversation to the Flat Eart society forum itself, where surprisingly most of the people there believe the Earth is round.

[tater]

 

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Falcon 9 is required to fly with everything except Crew Dragon (with crew) 7 times before crew. Fixed dev on S1 (block 5), fixed dev on S2.

CST-100 will have one flight with a fixed stack before crew, as the Centaur they are using has only flown once before, and never on Atlas V.

Orion will fly the very first time as a final stack on EM-2, as EM-1 uses a different upper stage, AND it will be the very first all-up Orion, as well.

http://spacenews.com/41924nasa-commercial-crew-awards-leave-unanswered-questions/

“We basically awarded based on the proposals that we were given,” Kathy Lueders, NASA commercial crew program manager, said in a teleconference with reporters after the announcement. “Both contracts have the same requirements. The companies proposed the value within which they were able to do the work, and the government accepted that.”

------------------

So from that, it sounds like SpaceX proposed all those flights, and the government accepted their proposal.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

http://spacenews.com/41924nasa-commercial-crew-awards-leave-unanswered-questions/

“We basically awarded based on the proposals that we were given,” Kathy Lueders, NASA commercial crew program manager, said in a teleconference with reporters after the announcement. “Both contracts have the same requirements. The companies proposed the value within which they were able to do the work, and the government accepted that.”

------------------

So from that, it sounds like SpaceX proposed all those flights, and the government accepted their proposal.

I don't see any reference specifically to the number of test flights. Whatever the minimum is, it is effectively a minimum of "one" for Boeing/ULA, since the first ever Atlas V with the upper stage in question will be the first unmanned CST-100 flight. If they have the same standard, then Atlas if given credit for it's great success rate in the past, but ignoring the fact that the actual LV with CST-100 on top will be a substantial variant---more different from other Atlas Vs than block 5 is from block 4 of F9.

[Scotius]

Something occured to me after re-watching FH start and reading NSEP's link. I wouldn't be surprised at all if BFR met the same fate as Falcon Heavy. A lot of publicity, long development process during which elder\smaller brother ITV will receive a lot of modifications and upgrades. And then test flight, followed by a gradual fall into obscurity... because said brother ITV turned out to be able to conduct most of the missions planned for BFR, while being cheaper and sufficiently versatile. And there might be already even better and more promising project of a new spaceship, born out of data gathered during ITV testing and usage.