tater Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 On 4/26/2024 at 2:47 PM, tater said: The “chopstick catch” was proposed by the same guy who proposed the stage separation technique of flinging out the second stage. More evidence than ever SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer. Robert Clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuky Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Exoscientist said: The “chopstick catch” was proposed by the same guy who proposed the stage separation technique of flinging out the second stage. More evidence than ever SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer. Robert Clark Yes, and unlike some other companies and agencies that take decades to design stuff before they are reasonably sure that it will work Spacex will try it and if it works they'll keep it and perfect the design and procedures and if it doesn't then they'll do something else. Same with F9 landings. Everyone laughed at them, told the media that it wasn't possible. Then SpaceX got close, made some modifications. Again got close and did some changes to the design. And after the few attempts they made it. Then they had few mishaps, but with experience they perfected it to the point that booster recovery is now almost a given. Also "SpaceX needa a true chief engineer"... I guess they lucked to success without one then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 5 hours ago, Exoscientist said: The “chopstick catch” was proposed by the same guy who proposed the stage separation technique of flinging out the second stage. More evidence than ever SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer. Would you feel happier if they built a Starhopper and practiced chopstick-catching? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 8 hours ago, Exoscientist said: The “chopstick catch” was proposed by the same guy who proposed the stage separation technique of flinging out the second stage. More evidence than ever SpaceX needs a true Chief Engineer. SpaceX have tried *lots* of things that haven't worked, from various landing legs, to landing burn sequences, to repurposing offshore oil rigs, to carbon fiber for Starship/Superheavy. And yet....somehow, they're still succeeding. If/when an idea doesn't work, they learn what they can, and move to another solution. Besides, are you *sure* that the flip-to-separate was Musk's personal idea? Or that chopsticks were his? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 (edited) 10 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said: SpaceX have tried *lots* of things that haven't worked, from various landing legs, to landing burn sequences, to repurposing offshore oil rigs, to carbon fiber for Starship/Superheavy. And yet....somehow, they're still succeeding. If/when an idea doesn't work, they learn what they can, and move to another solution. Besides, are you *sure* that the flip-to-separate was Musk's personal idea? Or that chopsticks were his? Cookie cutter jeerleaders template: When SpaceX succeeds it is because of people who are not Musk at SpaceX. When SpaceX fails it is because of Musk at SpaceX. All good ideas at SpaceX are not Musk's and all failed ideas are Musk's. Musk Derangement Syndrome Edited May 1 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 musk is just one of those people who others channel their disdain for the world into, all for the crime of being more successful than they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFUN Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 please stop baiting to this get thread locked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 Oh boy here we go again, he's in charge of SpaceX only because he's got the money and not because he has any good ideas. Other then that he has no bearing on the operations of SpaceX, the only time I think he's ever influenced a design is when he insisted Starships nose "needed to be pointy", and do you really think that would have gone ahead if it was actually a big deal? Can we please stop finding ways to rope an argument about Elon Musk into this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 Yawn. WenOrbit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Please leave off discussing the personality of its boss and stick to the relevant subject of the company's activities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying dutchman Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Can anyone reccommed a good source of starship updates? I just don't want to scroll trough all the other stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 22 hours ago, Cuky said: Same with F9 landings. Everyone laughed at them, told the media that it wasn't possible. DC-X made a 2500m liftoff and landing back in 1995. Every Apollo mission to the moon made a propulsive landing. Etc. Nobody who actually knew anything thought it was impossible to land a rocket. The questions were about whether the technology had reached a point where it could be done reliably enough to justify the cost of it. Turns it it has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 4 hours ago, mikegarrison said: DC-X made a 2500m liftoff and landing back in 1995. Every Apollo mission to the moon made a propulsive landing. Etc. Nobody who actually knew anything thought it was impossible to land a rocket. The questions were about whether the technology had reached a point where it could be done reliably enough to justify the cost of it. Turns it it has. Nailed it. What Musk brought to the table was the willingness to take risks. If we are careless in our outrage we will stomp this willingness out of humanity, without which we'd still be screeching at each other from the tree tops and occasionally wrestling over bananas To be accurate, some few thought it impossible while many thought it not feasible. Musk saw the same math and threw Starlink into the mix to make the feasibility look better. To justify it financially the market needed more launches. So SpaceX created the market for more launches. Vertical integration squared Edited May 2 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 DC-X lived or died based on government funding, and was competing with another SSTO project at the time (VentureStar). This (gov funding) is always going to be the case with publicly held companies since they have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, so they can't throw billions around with no contract. So we can have NASA-funded innovation, but it'll always be one budget away from disappearing. ObSpaceX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (3 hours 20 min right now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 10 hours ago, mikegarrison said: DC-X made a 2500m liftoff and landing back in 1995. Every Apollo mission to the moon made a propulsive landing. Etc. Nobody who actually knew anything thought it was impossible to land a rocket. The questions were about whether the technology had reached a point where it could be done reliably enough to justify the cost of it. Turns it it has. Landing an first stage propulsive make sense but its sub-optimal, better to have pop out wings and jet engines on it. This make it much more expensive to develop. DC-X was an SSTO who is an very stupid idea with current rocket, no an Also most rockets has walked down an wrong path using SRB makes lots of sense unless you want to reuse the rocket. By an happy accident falcon 9 has 9 engines letting it use one to land. Finally you want to launch an decent amount of rocket for it to make economical sense, it would not if you just launch couple a year. And SSTO works well in KSP as orbital velocity is 2.3 km/s, an falcon 9 first stage could put the second stage and payload into LKO, so Starship level payloads. X-15 would be an orbital plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 5 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Landing an first stage propulsive make sense but its sub-optimal, better to have pop out wings and jet engines on it. That depends on how heavy the wings and separate propulsion system are...If it's heavier than the fuel you'd have needed to land using the rockets, then the rocket is probably better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, cubinator said: That depends on how heavy the wings and separate propulsion system are...If it's heavier than the fuel you'd have needed to land using the rockets, then the rocket is probably better. True, using the rocket has an added benefit that the landing fuel is an reserve if you loose an engine and has to burn longer. But the main issue is that the more complex solution would be expensive to develop. Yes you have fold out wings on bombs but not on plane sized stuff flying supersonic. Note you need to qualify planes to drop stuff from hard points at speeds. SpaceX was able to get landings to work much cheaper as they was just modifying stages who would crash anyway, and the grasshopper test rocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 2 hours ago, tater said: (3 hours 20 min right now) thats a dirty boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 On 4/14/2024 at 10:13 PM, DAL59 said: With all the tile issues SpaceX has been having (and the shuttle before them), should they have stuck to the evaporation cooling idea? Or just making the entry half of the starship out of a high melting point material (though this would reduce payload capacity). Time will tell whether evaporative cooling would have been a better idea. There is no material with a sufficiently high melting point, a sufficiently low thermal conductivity, and a sufficiently high strength to weight ratio to serve as the entry half of the starship and still be able to make orbit. 3 hours ago, tater said: (3 hours 20 min right now) We've got the webcast starting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Liftoff of MAXAR-1! MECO and stage separation. MVac ignition is good and these ground tracking shots are gorgeous. Re-entry burn startup and shutdown look good! Continuing to see the short nozzle on the MVac burning hot. Tracking camera showing re-entry. 20th entry burn by this booster. Landing burn startup! And that's a successful RTLS landing! Seriously, 20 reuses of a single airframe is impressive. Insanely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 40 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: And that's a successful RTLS landing! Seriously, 20 reuses of a single airframe is impressive. Insanely. Never gets old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 I suppose the most amazing part is that these last two twentieth launches were for customer payloads, not starlinks… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 There's a Starlink in 4 hours. 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.