cubinator Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Scotius said: Wow, new net is enormous I hope it doesn't compromise ship's stability too much, though. Those arms are pretty long, and Ol' Steve isn't the biggest boat ever. I think most of the mass is pretty low, so it should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 (edited) Spoiler That super-net inspires... Are they going to reproduce other Spiderman features? Meanwhile... Falcon 1st stage is 40 m long. Say, we place a 40 m long pipe along its vertical axis. Then put, say, 20 m long piston inside this pump. Keeping other 20 m filled with inert gas or so. Say, safe acceleration = 4 g = 40 m/s2. Safe landing speed = sqrt(2 * 20 * 40) = 40 m/s. Falcon Pogo. Edited July 6, 2018 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Good No more throwing away perfectly good stages just because they have to start from a different site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 2 hours ago, Scotius said: Good No more throwing away perfectly good stages just because they have to start from a different site. Well, so far they’ve been doing ASDS recoveries out of Vandy. Which is probably what they’ll do for this month’s upcoming Iridum launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 12 hours ago, Bill Phil said: Success of BFR is economic. It's a rocket that a Launch Service Provider wants to use to provide launch services. Success requires money to be made. Not so for SLS. There's no competition between the two. SLS will only launch NASA payloads, and BFR will launch commercial payloads and some NASA payloads, if either of them get off the ground. SLS flying and not breaking is success. BFR has to actually make money to be a success. That's one definition of "success". The ones mandating NASA build SLS and continue to pay for it appear to care primarily about jobs, pork, and kickbacks. Note that unlike Curiosity, SLS doesn't have jobs that necessarily continue after launch, so breaking up in flight is hardly going to change anything. SLS doesn't even have to launch, it will be wildly successful if the contract lasts long enough to build 3 rockets (which I think the current contract states, although it is wildly open [I've heard them called "indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity" in military contracting]). BFR needs to get paying customers willing to pay to get things in space. No matter how cheap the launch costs might be, Spacex can't afford to colonize Mars on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 (edited) (highlights are mine) 10 hours ago, wumpus said: BFR needs to get paying customers willing to pay to get things in space. No matter how cheap the launch costs might be, Spacex can't afford to colonize Mars on their own. Yet. Give the guy some more time. Musk took only 10 years (more or less) in order to build something that it's making half the competition's hardware be decommissioned. God knows what this dude will manage to do in the next 20 - he's a engineer before a salesman or manager, he takes this decisions with logic and expertise (and are not afraid to take some back as soon as he realized it was a mistake). Edited July 7, 2018 by Lisias Damned autocorrector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 5 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Well, so far they’ve been doing ASDS recoveries out of Vandy. Which is probably what they’ll do for this month’s upcoming Iridum launch. They probably lack landing sites, no painting an X and an circle on the parking lot outside the factory will give problems with FFA and others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 The landing pad at VAFB is already there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 21 hours ago, wumpus said: BFR needs to get paying customers willing to pay to get things in space. No matter how cheap the launch costs might be, Spacex can't afford to colonize Mars on their own. I don't think they will colonize Mars. Not in the near future at least. However, once the rocket is operational and the first one lands on the surface of the planet there's simply no going back (unless something really horrible happens). I believe we will see regular and affordable space flight and there will be people living and working in space after that. Heck, it probably doesn't even need to land on Mars for that to happen. The Moon and NEOs are good destinations too. Besides, there's not only wealth in asteroids but Musk's primary plan is to set up a constellation of internet satellites. Once in orbit and working it will be a golden tap pouring endless money. AFAIK that's their primary plan to fund all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 On 7/5/2018 at 11:37 PM, Bill Phil said: [...] Success of BFR is economic. It's a rocket that a Launch Service Provider wants to use to provide launch services. Success requires money to be made. Not so for SLS. There's no competition between the two. SLS will only launch NASA payloads, and BFR will launch commercial payloads and some NASA payloads, if either of them get off the ground. SLS flying and not breaking is success. BFR has to actually make money to be a success. In that case I agree that SLS will fly before BFR is a success, but I'm still not sure which will fly first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 Even if SLS flies first, it'll likely be cancelled after a couple of missions. BFR will get a lot further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpens Solidus Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 54 minutes ago, Serpens Solidus said: Makes me wonder, what makes it so that the Russians can launch during blizzards but everyone else can't? Is it the speed of gimbal? The fuel tanks? The avionics? The TWR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 1 hour ago, NSEP said: Makes me wonder, what makes it so that the Russians can launch during blizzards but everyone else can't? Is it the speed of gimbal? The fuel tanks? The avionics? The TWR? Pretty sure blizzards aren't a thing in coastal, southern CA, FL, or French Guiana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 1 hour ago, NSEP said: Makes me wonder, what makes it so that the Russians can launch during blizzards but everyone else can't? Is it the speed of gimbal? The fuel tanks? The avionics? The TWR? You see, Ivan, when launch in blizzard is less cost to keep temp of LOX in check! Its Russia. They do everything in a blizzard. Winter is pretty much a National Hero... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 20 minutes ago, tater said: Pretty sure blizzards aren't a thing in coastal, southern CA, FL, or French Guiana. High speed winds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 15 minutes ago, NSEP said: High speed winds? Blizzards have sustained 30 knot winds, which is exactly the surface wind cutoff as falcon 9. Does Soyuz actually launch in sustained 30 knot surface winds? According to a NSF post, Soyuz won’t lunch if surface winds exceed 15m/s, which is ~29 knots. So they will launch in snow, but not blizzard conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, tater said: Blizzards have sustained 30 knot winds, which is exactly the surface wind cutoff as falcon 9. Does Soyuz actually launch in sustained 30 knot surface winds? Im not sure if it was with 30 'knot' winds, but they did launch in a full on blizzard wich i assume has a wind speed of 30 knot winds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-22#Launch Its not just the wind thats the problem, there is also temperature, rain, etc that plays a role in this. Soyuz can launch at -5C and can apperently go down from -40C and up to 50C. Im not sure if any other rocket can do that. Also, keep in mind that BFR won't or at least isn't intended to launch/land from the US sites only. BFR is intended to go everywhere, from Shanghai to Mars. Not saying it will do that, not anytime soon at least. Edited July 7, 2018 by NSEP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 Soyuz certainly launches in a wide regime of weather, no question. My only point is that “blizzard” has a very specific meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 21 hours ago, NSEP said: Im not sure if it was with 30 'knot' winds, but they did launch in a full on blizzard wich i assume has a wind speed of 30 knot winds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-22#Launch Its not just the wind thats the problem, there is also temperature, rain, etc that plays a role in this. Soyuz can launch at -5C and can apperently go down from -40C and up to 50C. Im not sure if any other rocket can do that. Also, keep in mind that BFR won't or at least isn't intended to launch/land from the US sites only. BFR is intended to go everywhere, from Shanghai to Mars. Not saying it will do that, not anytime soon at least. Yes, Russia want an rocket who can launch while its cold else it can not launch during winter, you can also except snow or at least drifting snow. US rockets launch from Florida and California there -10 degree centigrade is rare so no reason to include this in the specifications even if I'm pretty sure an Falcon 9 can handle very low temperatures as upper stage has to as its in space and upper and lower stage share lots of components. The pad on the other hand is not designed for it so the water curtains and other water sources are not insulated for one. BFR upper stage has to be able to handle deep space and even mars so it has to handle cold very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 BFR can land in Antarctica...hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 BFR maybe, but BFS likely. But landing on the flame will likely melt the landing zone. Hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: BFR maybe, but BFS likely. But landing on the flame will likely melt the landing zone. Hmmm So you land in one of the bone-dry, Mars-like valleys, hmmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: So you land in one of the bone-dry, Mars-like valleys, hmmmmm... And then you can have your crew get out and train there! Sounds like a great deal to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts