sevenperforce Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 29 minutes ago, Scotius said: Two hundred thousands of stars. In that one frame. How many planets? How many habitable ones? How many alien civilisations? How many nerds discussing video game rocket science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: How many nerds discussing video game rocket science? How many people on space game forums from a world who just launched an exoplanet survey satellite discussing the exact same things we are now? EDIT: That picture may very well be the cosmic equivalent of taking a picture of someone pointing a camera at you. Edited May 18, 2018 by Ultimate Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 24 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: How many people on space game forums from a world who just launched an exoplanet survey satellite discussing the exact same things we are now? How many hungry aliens waiting in anticipation until their crop is ripe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricktoberfest Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 havent seen this reported here yet, but according to SpaceNews.com NASA is considering allowing spacex crew vehicles to be crewed during fuel load. Saying the risks are higher for the astronaughts but less for ground crew which kinda (I guess) evens the risk assessment out. As someone who fills out numerous hazard assessments per day to me this seems to say that as long as there are controls for the hazards, they are willing to consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 22 minutes ago, Ricktoberfest said: havent seen this reported here yet, but according to SpaceNews.com NASA is considering allowing spacex crew vehicles to be crewed during fuel load. Saying the risks are higher for the astronaughts but less for ground crew which kinda (I guess) evens the risk assessment out. As someone who fills out numerous hazard assessments per day to me this seems to say that as long as there are controls for the hazards, they are willing to consider it. If I am climbing on top of a giant bomb, I would very much like for the bomb to be empty until I have my ejection seat primed and ready to go. If I am helping someone else climb on top of a giant bomb, I would very much like for the bomb to be empty until I am far, far away. There's a simple answer to all this. Let R1 be the probability of pad RUD during fueling Let R2 be the probability of pad RUD while fueled Let R3 be the risk of death or serious injury during a capsule abort Let T1 be fueling duration Let T2 be ingress duration Let nC be the number of crew Let nS be the number of support personnel If R1 * nC * T1 * R3 > R2 * T2 * (nC + nS), then it is safer to load fuel before the crew enters the capsule. Otherwise, it is safer to load fuel after the crew enters the capsule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 https://www.nasa.gov/feature/team-simulates-commercial-crew-flights-to-space-station/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 hour ago, sh1pman said: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/team-simulates-commercial-crew-flights-to-space-station/ Damn, so that's what a spaceship looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) Woah. It's better than any sci-fi spaceship because this one is real. Starliner on the right is cool too. Edited May 19, 2018 by Wjolcz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 2 hours ago, sh1pman said: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/team-simulates-commercial-crew-flights-to-space-station/ Looks like they use the Boeing suits with soft helmets, but that is the lady in front has on her head? Look weird, I could understand an hard hat but it looks weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 3 hours ago, sh1pman said: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/team-simulates-commercial-crew-flights-to-space-station/ Is that person in the Dragon capsule Sunita Williams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, NSEP said: Is that person in the Dragon capsule Sunita Williams? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Damn, so that's what a spaceship looks like. Well, the one on the left, at any rate... The one on the right is what they should have looked like 10 years ago, 1 hour ago, magnemoe said: Looks like they use the Boeing suits with soft helmets, but that is the lady in front has on her head? Look weird, I could understand an hard hat but it looks weird. Space hard hat. or rather... sending people to space hard hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 On 5/18/2018 at 12:17 PM, sevenperforce said: If I am climbing on top of a giant bomb, I would very much like for the bomb to be empty until I have my ejection seat primed and ready to go. If I am helping someone else climb on top of a giant bomb, I would very much like for the bomb to be empty until I am far, far away. There's a simple answer to all this. Let R1 be the probability of pad RUD during fueling Let R2 be the probability of pad RUD while fueled Let R3 be the risk of death or serious injury during a capsule abort Let T1 be fueling duration Let T2 be ingress duration Let nC be the number of crew Let nS be the number of support personnel If R1 * nC * T1 * R3 > R2 * T2 * (nC + nS), then it is safer to load fuel before the crew enters the capsule. Otherwise, it is safer to load fuel after the crew enters the capsule. And if R1 is by far the biggest probability of disaster, which to me seems very likely, then you understand the concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVaughan Posted May 20, 2018 Share Posted May 20, 2018 Well if I understood what Elon said, then they don't need the densified propellants for a ISS mission, so they can fuel, then load passengers, if that is what NASA wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncongruousGoat Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 4 hours ago, AVaughan said: Well if I understood what Elon said, then they don't need the densified propellants for a ISS mission, so they can fuel, then load passengers, if that is what NASA wants. It's entirely possible the engines physically can't run on non-densified propellants anymore. Rocket engines are finicky things when it comes to fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 The arrangement of the RCS thrusters intrigues me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 Can't get a sense of scale on that at all. If it wasn't for the impeccable source, I'd think that was a really weird mockup. Does anyone know why they're shipping it all the way out to Plum Brook? I would have thought that SpaceX have their own testing facilities for the current Dragon capsule that would do the job. Better facilities at Plum Brook, or an excess of customer caution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, KSK said: Can't get a sense of scale on that at all. If it wasn't for the impeccable source, I'd think that was a really weird mockup. Does anyone know why they're shipping it all the way out to Plum Brook? I would have thought that SpaceX have their own testing facilities for the current Dragon capsule that would do the job. Better facilities at Plum Brook, or an excess of customer caution? Maybe it’s for man-rating? I dunno if the old Dragon has to meet the same pressure requirements. Also, Steve-O en route: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Maybe it’s for man-rating? I dunno if the old Dragon has to meet the same pressure requirements. Also, Steve-O en route: Probably. Although cargo Dragon has to be attached, and open to, the Space Station, so I would have thought the pressure requirements for that were pretty stringent. *shrugs* I dunno. I just had no idea where Plum Brook was, so I looked it up. I understand why NASA has facilities scattered every which way but it did bring home the logistical absurdities involved. I mean, c'mon, what next. Ship Crew Dragon to Fairbanks to test the avionics then back to Bob's Body Shop (space capsules our speciality!) in New Jersey to touch up the paintwork? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVaughan Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 10 hours ago, AVaughan said: Well if I understood what Elon said, then they don't need the densified propellants for a ISS mission, so they can fuel, then load passengers, if that is what NASA wants. 6 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said: It's entirely possible the engines physically can't run on non-densified propellants anymore. Rocket engines are finicky things when it comes to fuel. Quote In a conference call with reporters May 10, SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk downplayed any concerns about load-and-go, saying that he felt that SpaceX could fuel the Falcon 9 either before or after loading crew. “I think that issue has been somewhat overblown,” he said. “We certainly could load the propellants and then have the astronauts board Dragon. That is certainly something we could do. But I don’t think it’s going to be necessary, any more than passengers on an aircraft need to wait until the aircraft is full of fuel before boarding.” (From http://spacenews.com/safety-panel-considers-spacex-load-and-go-fueling-approach-viable/ ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinimumSky5 Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 6 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said: It's entirely possible the engines physically can't run on non-densified propellants anymore. Rocket engines are finicky things when it comes to fuel. Orbital had used densified LOX in the Antares 130, but they had to quietly drop it when they switched from the AJ26's to the RD - 181's, presumably because those engines can't run on it. That being said, the Merlin's seem to have all sorts of party tricks these days, so I'd be surprised if using non-densified propellants isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 5 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Mmmmm.... yes.... Looks like its made out of wood by someone with too much time in their hands, Let's hope that is not the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts