Ultimate Steve Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Landing Zone 4? What happened to 3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Just now, Ultimate Steve said: Landing Zone 4? What happened to 3? I thought another bunch of landing sites were on the East coast? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Xd the great said: I thought another bunch of landing sites were on the East coast? Yeah, 1 and 2 are, we saw the FH boosters land on them, I didn't think there was an LZ-3 there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Just now, Ultimate Steve said: Yeah, 1 and 2 are, we saw the FH boosters land on them, I didn't think there was an LZ-3 there. This is west coat, bruh. Cali/Vandenberg. Tho it’s also the first LZ there, got the name from the launch site it replaces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 minute ago, CatastrophicFailure said: This is west coat, bruh. Cali/Vandenberg. I knew that, but it was poorly worded. 1 minute ago, CatastrophicFailure said: got the name from the launch site it replaces. Ah, okay, so it was built on pad 4 then. Still, it's a bit odd that we have 1, 2, and 4... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 8 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: I knew that, but it was poorly worded. Ah, okay, so it was built on pad 4 then. Still, it's a bit odd that we have 1, 2, and 4... Maybe the next one will be LZ-8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 minute ago, zolotiyeruki said: Maybe the next one will be LZ-8? LZ 3.14... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 37 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: LZ 3.14... "Man, landing those rockets must be a piece of cake." "No you fool! It's like a piece of pie." "That doesn't make any sense." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 4 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: And boom... er... bing... boom bad... You had me having flashbacks for a second before that tweet loaded. 43 minutes ago, Spaceception said: "Man, landing those rockets must be a piece of cake." "No you fool! It's like a piece of pie." "That doesn't make any sense." "The pad is circular, it makes perfect sense." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 Maybe they plan on adding a third at the Cape for a possible FH core RTLS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVaughan Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 30 minutes ago, tater said: Maybe they plan on adding a third at the Cape for a possible FH core RTLS? I think most FH core recoveries will be drone ship recoveries. I doubt that RTLS recovery of the core would be possible often enough to justify the cost of building and maintaining a third LZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, AVaughan said: I think most FH core recoveries will be drone ship recoveries. I doubt that RTLS recovery of the core would be possible often enough to justify the cost of building and maintaining a third LZ. This. Given how much the F9 performance has increased, there's already a pretty negligible need for the FH, I can't see any scenario where they'd RTLS the core. If they could, it would probably be within the realm of a droneship F9 launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 Not to mention ship recoveries are in fact easier on the boosters apparently. I'm just trying to figure out where LZ-3 is, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 18 minutes ago, tater said: Not to mention ship recoveries are in fact easier on the boosters apparently. I'm just trying to figure out where LZ-3 is, lol. It's a figment of our sequential imaginations. Since if there's a 2 and a 4, logic dictates there must be a 3! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 Boca Chica seems odd, unless they started it at some point already (maybe just planning it out). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncongruousGoat Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 U.S. pad numbering already made no sense. SpaceX is just following the fine American tradition of strange pad numbers. Just look at the pad numbers used at the Cape and at Vandenberg. The Cape's scheme has several gaps and inconsistencies, and I don't even know what Vandenberg is using. Plus, it's not like SpaceX were ever committed to consistent naming in the first place. I mean, seriously - 1.0 to 1.1 to Full Thrust to Block 5. Like with the Falcon 9 naming scheme, there's probably a rationale somewhere in there; it's just not immediately apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 On 10/1/2018 at 8:32 PM, insert_name said: What's the planned t-0? Quote Liftoff is scheduled for 7:21 p.m. PDT Saturday (10:21 p.m. EDT; 0221 GMT Sunday) from Space Launch Complex 4-West at Vandenberg with Argentina’s SAOCOM 1A radar Earth-imaging satellite, according to a statement from the Air Force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaelommiss Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 10 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said: U.S. pad numbering already made no sense. SpaceX is just following the fine American tradition of strange pad numbers. Just look at the pad numbers used at the Cape and at Vandenberg. The Cape's scheme has several gaps and inconsistencies, and I don't even know what Vandenberg is using. Plus, it's not like SpaceX were ever committed to consistent naming in the first place. I mean, seriously - 1.0 to 1.1 to Full Thrust to Block 5. Like with the Falcon 9 naming scheme, there's probably a rationale somewhere in there; it's just not immediately apparent. Most likely landing pads one through four were planned before the decision was made to cancel landing pad three. Renaming pad four after cancelling pad three would be a waste of time and manpower, plus a possible source of confusion and inefficiency given that landing pad three meant something entirely different in the recent past. It's easier to build landing pad four to completion and then rename it than it would be while it is still an active project, but even then it would serve little purpose. If they were sequential, such as train stations along a single line, then it would make more sense to rename them, but that's not the case. All three pads are independent and the number is just a title for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 Hans Koenigsmann posted this image in his talk: It's actually not accurate, as they flew over 6500kg to GTO and also landed the booster. BTW, in the same video, Koenigsmann said that he has no idea what happened to landing zone 3 (cause he talks about 1-2, and 4, then says he has no idea about 3). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 Some answers to questions, etc at the end: Most important thing SpaceX has done was to get people interested again. Block 5 performing well, and still iterating on minor issues to improve ability to turn around. Regarding complexity of engine interactions of BFR... they'll build it, test, then tweak. That's what they do. Early BFS heatshield will be overkill thick, and they'll shave it down as they get data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 Let's figure this LZ-4 problem out with a map. LZ-4 is at Vandenberg AFB (MAP). SpaceX operates out of Space Launch Complex 4 (SLC-4). SLC-4 consisted of 2 pads, 4E and 4W. 4E is the active launch site for West Coast launches, 4W has been redesignated LZ-4. SLC-3, right next door, is the home of the Atlas V. If the RTLS pad was called LZ-3 then the descending stage might accidentally land at SLC-3. Its just like when your lands over the neighbors fence, except the neighbor is ULA and the frisbee weighs 22 tonnes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 1 hour ago, tater said: Early BFS heatshield will be overkill thick, and they'll shave it down as they get data. Good to know. I don't want to burn on arrival at Mars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 1 hour ago, tater said: It's actually not accurate, as they flew over 6500kg to GTO and also landed the booster. Wasn't it sub-GTO? Elliptical but not all the way to GTO? Not much in terms of Delta-V, but enough to make a difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Wasn't it sub-GTO? Elliptical but not all the way to GTO? Not much in terms of Delta-V, but enough to make a difference? Yeah, GTO, but lower apogee. 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.