Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

I never find April fools very funny tbh, especially not half a month late. Didn't take me very long to find no evidence of the above, but have to filter out enough fake news without also having to contend with it from trusted sources.

SN15 is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 4/15/2021 at 6:06 PM, sevenperforce said:

RIP SN15!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOO

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Expand  

100.webp?cid=ecf05e471v133m4cxywhyq0ufec

 

Edited by GuessingEveryDay
Seriously, though. You got me for a second.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 4/15/2021 at 6:15 PM, RCgothic said:

I never find April fools very funny tbh, especially not half a month late. Didn't take me very long to find no evidence of the above, but have to filter out enough fake news without also having to contend with it from trusted sources.

Expand  

Sorry. :(

If I am a trustworthy source 99.9% of the time then it does make that 1-in-1000 prank all the more believable, I suppose.

  Reveal hidden contents
  Reveal hidden contents

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 4/16/2021 at 12:57 AM, sevenperforce said:

Reducing the propellant load can't possibly hurt things 

Expand  

Of course it can. Changing *anything* can hurt things.

For example, it says they *may* have been loading too much oxygen. That means they *may* *not* have been loading too much oxygen, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back of an envelope calc suggests that's between 130kg and 1000kg extra LOX depending on whether it's extra inches in the cylindrical part of the tank or right at the top of the dome.

On the second stage that would be a 1 to 1 payload increase. Even an extra 200kg is significant.

On the first stage that's interesting but not really a huge deal.

If the same procedure is used on both tanks it could be an error for both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by RCgothic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 4/16/2021 at 12:31 AM, Flavio hc16 said:

BRUH....

I wouldn't change that, especially not during an human flight, not after it worked 100+ times

Expand  

If you find a risk and just keep rolling the dice because you didn't lose 100 times, you're just asking for something to go wrong.

Off the top of my head, I can think of ALL the NASA crew losses as an example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...