Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ultimate Steve said:

A few million dollars plus a few years of engineering salaries (for just one of these satellites) is quite the crowdfunding campaign and I'm dubious that anything beyond a cubesat designed and built by unpaid volunteers could be reasonably done for the purpose of amateur astronomy, at least with the kind of money that is likely to be collected.

Indeed, it's beyond crowdfunding, but it makes me wonder what could be done with sticking a satellite body around a typical 8" mirror and launching a bunch of them, it might be something that public observers could select targets kind of like the ground based robotic telescopes.

I'd still be more excited about space-based radio interferometry though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, darthgently said:

Seriously, why not start ongoing crowdfunding of a growing constellation of budget orbital telescopes?  Amateurs could timeshare access to them.  Not JWST grade of course, but even a 6 inch reflector above the atmosphere could make for some great viewing.  Of course, it wouldn't be the same as standing in a field at night swatting mosquitoes waiting for the clouds to move

Don't forget losing the thing you are trying to see by attempting to focus it for your old eyes AFTER the kid says 'that's COOL - what is it?!? "

Uh... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SpaceX and NASA are targeting Thursday, October 12 at 10:16 a.m. ET for Falcon Heavy’s launch of the Psyche mission to an interplanetary transfer orbit from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. If needed, a backup launch opportunity is available on Friday, October 13 at 10:19 a.m. ET.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2023 at 10:05 PM, darthgently said:

As a french citizen, I think what you did was cruel.

Found opened software engineering positions. Green on all the requirements. Only then I looked up that ITAR thing. Just a little, tiny, meany "thing"... :sob:

 

@darthgently Your link is broken btw, the page is blocked when there are query params in the URL.
 

Edited by grawl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-60 seconds, vehicle on internal power, all systems go.

All 27 engines firing -- leaving Terra Firma!

Center core throttling down (visible in fire trail).

Booster burnout. Booster separation successful.

Center booster burnout. Successful stage separation, MVac ignition, and fairing separation.

Side boosters started landing burns. Massive sonic booms.

Successfully landed the boosters! Quite a significant difference in timing between the return of the two boosters...more than I remember from earlier FH flights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Successfully landed the boosters! Quite a significant difference in timing between the return of the two boosters...more than I remember from earlier FH flights.

Yeah... pretty big difference.  Long enough for the panic of "Oh no, they lost one!" to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

Yeah... pretty big difference.  Long enough for the panic of "Oh no, they lost one!" to start.

Yeah, that was honestly going through my head before I saw the 2nd booster touch down. 

Great launch though! Won't be able to watch the rest of the stream though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2023 at 10:40 AM, Geonovast said:
On 10/13/2023 at 10:19 AM, sevenperforce said:

Successfully landed the boosters! Quite a significant difference in timing between the return of the two boosters...more than I remember from earlier FH flights.

Yeah... pretty big difference.  Long enough for the panic of "Oh no, they lost one!" to start.

 

On 10/14/2023 at 1:30 PM, tater said:

 

I really wonder why. Even the guy on the NASA livestream (I refuse to watch this stuff on Xwitter) said it was noticeably different.

There are a few options, I guess:

  1. SpaceX could be transitioning to a longer, staggered booster separation process, either to reduce the odds of a post-separation impact or to increase performance
  2. SpaceX could be experimenting with a new return boostback trajectory to increase performance
  3. One booster could have experienced a randomly greater wind buffeting, engine thrust fluctuation, or other random event which altered its return trajectory

Of these, 3 seems least likely (those things can happen but it's hard to imagine them having THAT big an impact). Both of the others seem reasonably possible. A staggered booster separation could increase performance by allowing one booster to burn out sooner than the other, making it more like three separate parallel stages than two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see them ever staggering separation.  FH was already more complicated than they'd initially thought, that seems.... complicated, at best.  Especially with the massive COT/COM offset after the first booster lets go.  Also remember that doing so would have one booster go further down range with less fuel to get back.  If it can still RTLS, then the first booster brought fuel back home for no reason.  If they ever did do a staggered booster sep, I imagine one would be a boat landing, even if it was relatively close.

I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the trajectory.  Does the first stage turn before separation?  Does it roll?  If it rolls before booster sep, one of them may end up going to a higher altitude than the other, really putting off their timing.  I couldn't see it this time, but one of the previous FH launches I watched had the boostback burns desynced when they absolutely separated at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to see what the attitude of FH is at sep time. They start engine for faster flip, maybe some is to minimize exhaust impingement on other stages (the other booster, or the core/S1 stack). This results in a slightly different trajectory? The landing difference was all of 10 seconds.

Maybe they have also considered FTS issues? What if they need to unzip one of the boosters? Perhaps the goal is to make sure that should 1 side booster have an anomaly requiring FTS, the other can continue normally with a higher probability of success?

Edited by tater
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...