CatastrophicFailure Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 14 minutes ago, Motokid600 said: I wonder if they found a problem? Given that it’s a scrub for the whole day, and not just a delay till later in the window, it’s a significant enough isssue that they think it needs 24 hours or more. Hopefully we’ll have some official details later. That is a lot of fuel to be pumping into a thing for the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Jeb left a sandwich on his go-cart, and a pigeon was snacking on the crumbs and accidentally pecked through a LOX loading line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 18 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Jeb left a sandwich on his go-cart, and a pigeon was snacking on the crumbs and accidentally pecked through a LOX loading line. Could well be. Sillier things have happened before to very expensive bits of machinery. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/nov/06/cern-big-bang-goes-phut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Interesting stuff I was not aware of, and possibly even relevant to this thread, via an unexpected Wiki page: Scaled Composites was purchased by Northrop Grumman back in 2007... Let that percolate, re: Zumba... Also, it seems Richard Branson is also interested in the point-to-point rocket market... sounds familiar... 52 minutes ago, KSK said: Could well be. Sillier things have happened before to very expensive bits of machinery. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/nov/06/cern-big-bang-goes-phut Phut. I think that’s my new favorite word. Phut. Heheh... uh... heheheh heheh. Phut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 1 hour ago, KSK said: Could well be. Sillier things have happened before to very expensive bits of machinery. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/nov/06/cern-big-bang-goes-phut That incident is what made me think of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 This is great: And SpaceX said it was a successful launch. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Jaff said: Whilst I understand prop loading is a big milestone, surely the whole point of the Heavy is it’s easy because you just get what works for the F9 and add 2 more exactly the same. Should almost be mundane by now surely? Except that they need to simultaneously feed 3 times more propellant into 3 rockets simultaneously, while monitoring 3 different boiloff rates and using at least 2 new propellant feed systems and all new procedures. There is nothing mundane about it. Edited January 11, 2018 by Nibb31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Just now, Nibb31 said: Except that to simultaneously feed 3 times more propellant into 3 rockets simultaneously, while monitoring 3 different boiloff rates and using at least 2 new propellant feed systems and all new procedures. There is nothing mundane about it. Not to mention Stage 2, so FOUR different tank sets. It's insanely complex. This is a test mission, there is no time limit, and failure due to rushing would be nothing short of stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 45 minutes ago, tater said: And SpaceX said it was a successful launch. End of story. Nothing to see here folks, everything is great, absolutely nothing bad happened. Off you go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaff Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 I’m not saying they should rush, although excitement is through the roof for me atm, just commenting on the fact that heavy should be just as easy as 9 only take 3 times longer based on the “simplicity” or this rocket (I.e just strap 3 9’s together) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Quote it’s a beast of a vehicle. Understatement of the year, right here... ...tho it’s been a short year... 4 minutes ago, Jaff said: heavy should be just as easy as 9 only take 3 times longer based on the “simplicity” or this rocket SpaceX has stated, in so many words, that the biggest lesson they’ve taken away from FH development is that no, it isn’t simple at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaff Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Understatement of the year, right here... ...tho it’s been a short year... SpaceX has stated, in so many words, that the biggest lesson they’ve taken away from FH development is that no, it isn’t simple at all. Indeed we have found that out! rocket science is simple right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jaff said: Indeed we have found that out! rocket science is simple right? The “science” part is simple. It’s the “not exploding” part that’s tricky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Jaff said: I’m not saying they should rush, although excitement is through the roof for me atm, just commenting on the fact that heavy should be just as easy as 9 only take 3 times longer based on the “simplicity” or this rocket (I.e just strap 3 9’s together) They would be fueling all three cores simultaneously, not sequentially. They don't want to wait around when they're using super-chilled propellants. Uh, they are using super-chilled propellants on FH, right? It's Standard Operating Procedure, no? Edited January 11, 2018 by StrandedonEarth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 8 hours ago, tater said: Indian launc 31 satelites at once, in that one. 6 hours ago, tater said: Related Another crew delay? Remember, this was supposed to be up and running in 2013. Its five years behind schedule. And the dragon has been around for 2 years now. Why does nasa keep delaying? Isn't it to their advantage not to rely on Russia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 I do hope they get to launch humans to LEO, even if it is just to nothing, before the moon flyby, for safety reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh IN SPACE Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Fire up that sucker, let her rip! Just kidding, I want things to go smoothly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaff Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 23 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: They would be fueling all three cores simultaneously, not sequentially. They don't want to wait around when they're using super-chilled propellants. Uh, they are using super-chilled propellants on FH, right? It's Standard Operating Procedure, no? None of them are linked, fuel wise - fill them all separately simultaneously or sequentially it shouldn’t make a difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jaff said: None of them are linked, fuel wise - fill them all separately simultaneously or sequentially it shouldn’t make a difference Except you don't want one stage's fuel to boil away while it waits for the other two to be filled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 21 minutes ago, DAL59 said: Another crew delay? Remember, this was supposed to be up and running in 2013. Its five years behind schedule. And the dragon has been around for 2 years now. Why does nasa keep delaying? Isn't it to their advantage not to rely on Russia? If Congress had allowed NASA to put more funding towards Commercial Crew, then one of them would probably be operational already. So the WDR didn’t go perfectly. No surprise there. The big surprise would have been if it did go perfectly, all things considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 55 minutes ago, Jaff said: None of them are linked, fuel wise - fill them all separately simultaneously or sequentially it shouldn’t make a difference Subcooled propellants are time-sensitive. Falcon 9s fuel load sequence is based on handling subcooled prop with specific timing; if the propellant warms or boils off, validation is out the window. In order to launch three Falcon 9s simultaneously, SpaceX has to fuel them simultaneously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaff Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Think my point may have been missed but I understand the issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Jaff said: I’m not saying they should rush, although excitement is through the roof for me atm, just commenting on the fact that heavy should be just as easy as 9 only take 3 times longer based on the “simplicity” or this rocket (I.e just strap 3 9’s together) No, it doesn't take 3 times longer. It has to take the same time, but with 3 times more volume, 3 times the boiloff, 3 times the topping off, 3 times the operations, 3 times the propellant production and storage, and 3 times the risk of it blowing up. You don't fill up a rocket with cryogenic propellants like you fill up a car from a gas station. There is nothing "simple" about the Falcon Heavy. In fact, it's much more complex than if it was a single rocket 3 times bigger. Edited January 12, 2018 by Nibb31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 "There is nothing "simple" about the Falcon Heavy. In fact, it's much more complex than if it was a single rocket 3 times bigger." Thus, ITV. And BFR in the future. And New Glenn. 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.