Nightside Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 19 minutes ago, tater said: ? https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ Not a cyclone, just a storm with 35 mph winds: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at1.shtml?cone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Industries Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Nightside said: Not a cyclone, just a storm with 35 mph winds: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at1.shtml?cone That graphic seems to be from last month, if I'm reading it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peabody Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) Bitterest rivalry in all of sports: Bitterest rivalry in all of spaceflight: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/18/spacex-is-suing-government-once-again-reason-is-secret/?utm_term=.41080e1e3253 Edited June 21, 2019 by The Dunatian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Raven Industries said: That graphic seems to be from last month, if I'm reading it right. Ha so it is! I only heard about it from an icon on Google Earth. Not sure why they would leave month-old weather laying around... So my worries are assuaged ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 This is quite insane https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-surprise-falcon-heavy-booster-landing-distance-record/ Spacex moved the landing of the centre core for the stp-2 mission fro 40 to 1260kms ( braking the last record of 975 kms by a gigantic margin). I think that the people at the defense department are getting bit paranoid with the margin, or maybe it will allow for a 2nd stage deorbit instead of passivation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said: This is quite insane https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-surprise-falcon-heavy-booster-landing-distance-record/ Spacex moved the landing of the centre core for the stp-2 mission fro 40 to 1260kms ( braking the last record of 975 kms by a gigantic margin). I think that the people at the defense department are getting bit paranoid with the margin, or maybe it will allow for a 2nd stage deorbit instead of passivation At that rate they’ll soon replace OCISLY with Spain. Maybe Musk really should buy the Stratolauncher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) @DDE A legit use for the stratolauncher! Edited June 21, 2019 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said: @DDE A legit use for the stratolauncher! I think it has enough clearance for two empty Superheavies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 9 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said: This is quite insane https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-surprise-falcon-heavy-booster-landing-distance-record/ Spacex moved the landing of the centre core for the stp-2 mission fro 40 to 1260kms ( braking the last record of 975 kms by a gigantic margin). I think that the people at the defense department are getting bit paranoid with the margin, or maybe it will allow for a 2nd stage deorbit instead of passivation People at the DoD: What the hell we agreed to 40km? Not 1260km? Musk: !. my rocket can do it. 2. This is my company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 41 minutes ago, Xd the great said: People at the DoD: What the hell we agreed to 40km? Not 1260km? Musk: !. my rocket can do it. 2. This is my company. I'm pretty sure most of that was customer driven (government customers like to pile on requirements at the last minute. Contractors rarely want last minute changes). That said, if KSP is any indication, long sideways coasting is ideal for reducing velocity and making such landings easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 5 hours ago, DDE said: At that rate they’ll soon replace OCISLY with Spain. Maybe Musk really should buy the Stratolauncher. They should, so they can test their Earth to Earth transport capabilities early . I'd be happy to volunteer as their first passenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Xd the great said: People at the DoD: What the hell we agreed to 40km? Not 1260km? Musk: !. my rocket can do it. 2. This is my company. Think 40 km was the previous launch there they could not use the ground landing pads because the dragon blew up. And yes more down range equal more dV to the upper stage, it will come in very hot however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, wumpus said: I'm pretty sure most of that was customer driven (government customers like to pile on requirements at the last minute. Contractors rarely want last minute changes). That said, if KSP is any indication, long sideways coasting is ideal for reducing velocity and making such landings easier. I find if I do a long shallow aerobrake through the atmosphere I build up more heat than a short, quicker deceleration. Might just be a Kerbal thing o_o, though if that’s true for real life too then that rocket might get a little toastier than usual! Edited June 21, 2019 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 I wouldn't be surprised if it was a test run, to see how toasty rocket can get, how it will affect the structure and how engines\steering will deal with hot reentry. Remember - at this point Falcon 9 is slowly becoming a mere stepping stone for the Starship. Also - by now SpaceX gathered enough used stages to not be at a risk if one of them RUD's during reentry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, Scotius said: I wouldn't be surprised if it was a test run, to see how toasty rocket can get, how it will affect the structure and how engines\steering will deal with hot reentry. Remember - at this point Falcon 9 is slowly becoming a mere stepping stone for the Starship. Also - by now SpaceX gathered enough used stages to not be at a risk if one of them RUD's during reentry. Keep in mind, tho, this is a Falcon Heavy core. It’s significantly different than an F9 booster, and right now they don’t have any spare Heavy cores, since they’ve seemed bound and determined to go visit Davey Jones upon landing. Or shortly thereafter. 2 hours ago, Dale Christopher said: Might just be a Kerbal thing o_o, though if that’s true for real life too then that rocket might get a little toastier than usual! AFIAK this is true in real life. Quick, aggressive decelerations result in less heating at the cost of much greater structural loads. Makes sense, since you lose speed much faster and minimize that time in compression heating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 5 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Keep in mind, tho, this is a Falcon Heavy core. It’s significantly different than an F9 booster, and right now they don’t have any spare Heavy cores, since they’ve seemed bound and determined to go visit Davey Jones upon landing. Or shortly thereafter. AFIAK this is true in real life. Quick, aggressive decelerations result in less heating at the cost of much greater structural loads. Makes sense, since you lose speed much faster and minimize that time in compression heating. I was thinking more suborbital hops where you can't jettison the capsule (such as the first launch in career). I'm not sure that a booster will get a "quick aggressive deceleration" without firing the engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 3 hours ago, wumpus said: I was thinking more suborbital hops where you can't jettison the capsule (such as the first launch in career). I'm not sure that a booster will get a "quick aggressive deceleration" without firing the engine. It will get a "quick aggressive deceleration" when it hits the ground. Jokes aside, how does the core even manage that much heat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) The whole thing is crazy lol, before SpaceX I wouldn’t have thought you could maintain a stable flight flying engine bell first but it doesn’t seem to matter @_@! I wonder how much drag that contributes overall... it’s not very aerodynamic! P.S. It would explain why they have no windows and also means they don’t go to waste as something that is only used for testing. At the same time the tankers will probably only ever experience LEO re-entry stress so the construction techniques don’t need to be super perfect as for something needing to aerobrake from interplanetary velocities! Edited June 22, 2019 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 4 hours ago, wumpus said: I was thinking more suborbital hops where you can't jettison the capsule (such as the first launch in career). I'm not sure that a booster will get a "quick aggressive deceleration" without firing the engine. Depends on mass and aerodynamics. Alan Shepard hit nearly 12g on his suborbital flight. Dunno if an F9 could take that, but I’d think the aero forces would damage it first, hence the entry burn. That negates both the worst of the compression heating and aero deceleration. 1 hour ago, Xd the great said: Jokes aside, how does the core even manage that much heat? Entry burn. They use the engines to slow down just enough before hitting the “denser parts of the atmosphere” that it’s all manageable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 Maybe it’s just seeing it from a distance but it looks like the build quality of these things is going up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted June 22, 2019 Share Posted June 22, 2019 It kind of looks like Starship East has a simulair weird shape as Starship West from that angle. Maybe it is actually a design choice rather than sloppy manufacturing, or im just seeing things that aren't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 11 hours ago, NSEP said: It kind of looks like Starship East has a simulair weird shape as Starship West from that angle. Maybe it is actually a design choice rather than sloppy manufacturing, or im just seeing things that aren't there. Who weird shape? Only i noticed in the BC one is the top hole for the rcs block looks a bit dented. And yes finish on west looks better. Note that this might be because of lighting or angle as irregularities stands out very well on an mirror surface. 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.