Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

Here are some of the pictures taken today :)

xv53AD9.jpg


 

Spoiler

 

DWGGpN0.png

5XPlll5.png

qt7n0XY.png

QPhIC3A.png

Then, passing the sound barrier!

z0axeMV.png

NaukMM8.png

b2wzSM9.png

bfi9L8J.png

srgjDNO.png

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Nightfury said:

Would love watch this:D

Now I guess I should work harder to get the so called camera :D

If you are interested, here is the link to the video taken today (heat waves are ruining it a bit at the beginning):

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:
Spoiler

9f8x6MF.gif?noredirect

and such a thing would no doubt have had live pilots in the very nose, seeing that rush up at them... :0.0:

 

Out of likes of course, so, snarky commentary.

Contributing something actually useful. :D

 

Oh, it's terrifying in a good way... and Elon would do it if not for the sea in the way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Aaaaaand I missed the whole thing. :mad: Now to weed back thru a hundred new posts...

And what are they using to mount the first stage camera with now, silly putty??:o

It gives it more of a cinematic effect :D

Anyone noticed how the camera views were more bright and vibrant in color? And how the second stage had a wider angle view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, NSEP said:

It gives it more of a cinematic effect :D

Anyone noticed how the camera views were more bright and vibrant in color? And how the second stage had a wider angle view?

Maybe they figured if that have to go thru all that NOAA license rigamarole they might as well make it worthwhile... <_<  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, NSEP said:

Anyone noticed how the camera views were more bright and vibrant in color? And how the second stage had a wider angle view?

Nope, absolutely nothing changed, you must be seeing things.

FGK0lNPg8hM.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, YNM said:

Any technical webcast ? (hate commentaries.)

Probably self answer, but I'm trying the Countdown Net along with the hosted webcast. Still has all the commentaries but at least I'm getting a louder technical comms as well.

Also, very odd now that the more exciting part of a rocket launch isn't the successful launch but the successful return !

1 hour ago, Technical Ben said:

So, Elon has the Romans to blame for the rocket!

http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html

Actually, that is a bit of misnomer - what limits the size of cargo carried by railways aren't the track gauge, but the loading gauge.

So a UK shuttle SRBs is probably smaller than a US shuttle SRBs, despite using the same track gauge.

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Just you. It is always more efficient to burn to a higher apogee and let the payload correct inclination than it would be to try and perform an inclination change at perigee. The payload is performing a bi-elliptic transfer; it will correct inclination, then raise perigee, then circle around and lower apogee to circularize.

Importantly: that's one down, four to go before Falcon 9 is man-rated.

It is always more efficient to use excess capacity in stage two for something than let it burn for nothing in the re-entry. Any bit of payload fuel saved in the plane change and circularization is more fuel available for station keeping. That directly means longer mission life-time - barring any unplanned catastrophic failures of course. So yes, it most likely did some plane changing at the same time as that is only good customer service. Of course it still is up to the payload to finish the job, but it is a slightly easier job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Technical Ben said:

So, Elon has the Romans to blame for the rocket!

http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html

 

From Rome to Mars?

Fun story but not true, for one it has been many standards for railroad gauge even in the US. 
Second the Romans did not use war chariots, they had become obsolete with riding horses. They was however a bit used for fast transport. 
Last horse drawn wagons tend to be a bit wider than the railway track. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, YNM said:

Actually, that is a bit of misnomer - what limits the size of cargo carried by railways aren't the track gauge, but the loading gauge.

So a UK shuttle SRBs is probably smaller than a US shuttle SRBs, despite using the same track gauge.

This, note that the width of all modern main battle tanks is around 3.5 meter or standard loading gauge. 
Exception is Israel who don't have railroads and is small. 
Falcon 9 is transported by road but roads is probably standardized so you can transport 3.5 meter cargo fairly easy. If you go up to 4 meters this will be harder and more expensive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, monophonic said:

It is always more efficient to use excess capacity in stage two for something than let it burn for nothing in the re-entry. Any bit of payload fuel saved in the plane change and circularization is more fuel available for station keeping. That directly means longer mission life-time - barring any unplanned catastrophic failures of course. So yes, it most likely did some plane changing at the same time as that is only good customer service. Of course it still is up to the payload to finish the job, but it is a slightly easier job.

I don't dispute that. But plane changes at perigee are not efficient. Geostationary comsats typically perform a bi-elliptic transfer; the launch vehicle sends them to a supersynchronous transfer orbit (with an apogee higher than their intended destination), then the payload raises its perigee, then lowers its apogee to circularize half an orbit later. This is more efficient than a Hohmann transfer, particularly when you have a plane change to do. So excess propellant capacity on the launch vehicle is always used to raise apogee rather than any sort of perigee plane change maneuver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

but roads is probably standardized

Nah, this is a lot more true. Most street standards have a limit of 2.5 m at it's narrowest, high-speed roads goes from 3.5 m or more. It probably have to do more directly with horse carriages as well ! (or not at all, but who knows :V)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The diameter limit for road travel is overpasses/underpasses. 

Vertical clearance is set at 4.9m, and the truck transporting the cores has height that adds to the 3.7m diameter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tater said:

Crew Access Arm.

Why is the crew acces arm inside a half-cylinder hangar like structure that isn't even covered?

Does Dragon 2 still have leather seats?

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...