Wjolcz Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 The sooner Starship flies the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted March 18, 2020 Share Posted March 18, 2020 Ok, so about late June for crew launch in normal calender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 2 hours ago, tater said: this is gonna be a weird launch to track Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 I wonder how much of a payload capacity hit that dogleg manoeuvre will take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said: I wonder how much of a payload capacity hit that dogleg manoeuvre will take. Probably not much. The dV requirement is the dV cost of an orbital plane change times the percentage of orbital velocity at which the dogleg takes place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, tater said: Spoiler Stacking? https://images.app.goo.gl/YtoNg5PnPXYf4VLEA Edited March 19, 2020 by Xd the great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 hour ago, tater said: guys if you enlarge the photo there are a lot of arrows on the rings and even a "forward" on the top tank. It's hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said: guys if you enlarge the photo there are a lot of arrows on the rings and even a "forward" on the top tank. It's hilarious Someone is taking notes from ksp. Edited March 20, 2020 by Xd the great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 (edited) it missed by a crapton, MECO happened 7 kms higher and you can see during reentry how much the booster is late to the fall part of the trajectory Edited March 20, 2020 by Flavio hc16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukaszenko Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 On 3/18/2020 at 10:57 PM, Flying dutchman said: the way i see it the launch was succesfull in completing it's objective. the satelites were injected into the right orbit. the landing was a failure. but this seems to confuse some people. True, but the whole satellite-launching stuff they (as well as others) seem to have down. The interesting point, and the one I presume keeps us glued to the webcasts and this thread, is the progress towards making space accessible. Every recovery is a step forward. It's hard to not see a loss as a step backwards (at least temporarily). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying dutchman Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 13 hours ago, Lukaszenko said: True, but the whole satellite-launching stuff they (as well as others) seem to have down. The interesting point, and the one I presume keeps us glued to the webcasts and this thread, is the progress towards making space accessible. Every recovery is a step forward. It's hard to not see a loss as a step backwards (at least temporarily). Why would it be a step back? It's a good oppertunity to improve the rocket and make it more reliable. It may look like a step back but really it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Yeah, think of it as a free engine-out test for when they start flying astronauts. Its also notable that SpaceX's recent failures all seem to be expanding the envelope of known "safe" landing conditions and energies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 16 hours ago, Meecrob said: Its also notable that SpaceX's recent failures all seem to be expanding the envelope of known "safe" landing conditions and energies. But why? Would Superheavy need a bigger envelop? Or are they planning on doing an RTLS landing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 (edited) I'd think that the Super Heavy booster would only fly RTLS because of how powerful it is and it's probably way too big for a barge landing anyway. Also, there will be almost 40 Raptors on that thing. Those things will be pricey to lose. Edited March 22, 2020 by Wjolcz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 3 hours ago, Wjolcz said: I'd think that the Super Heavy booster would only fly RTLS because of how powerful it is and it's probably way too big for a barge landing anyway. Also, there will be almost 40 Raptors on that thing. Those things will be pricey to lose. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of velocity, down range distance, and altitude of stage separation for various rockets and missions. It seems like Superheavy will probably follow a steeper trajectory, and separate slower and lower than other rockets. This would cause it to suffer more gravity losses and reduce its payload. thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 9 hours ago, Nightside said: It seems like Superheavy will probably follow a steeper trajectory, and separate slower and lower than other rockets. This would cause it to suffer more gravity losses and reduce its payload. thoughts? True, but Falcon 9 also flies a steep trajectory. And Superheavy has a 100 ton payload. All of us knows from KSP that you have the margins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 What is SH's projected TWR at full launch weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said: What is SH's projected TWR at full launch weight? More than 1. Edited March 23, 2020 by Wjolcz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukaszenko Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 On 3/21/2020 at 9:29 AM, Flying dutchman said: Why would it be a step back? It's a good oppertunity to improve the rocket and make it more reliable. It may look like a step back but really it's not. Exactly, it LOOKS like a step back. It makes the statsics looks worse, and it adds a bit of weight to the notion that Elon is trying to accomplish the impossible. Cheap and reliable space access and rocket reusability is still a dream. That being the case, every time there's a failure you can't help but feel a little of that dream slipping away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts