tater Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Could be ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Except ice. Hmm. Possible, but icing on B5 is minimal, and that lump of whatever-it-was was huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 17 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Hmm. Possible, but icing on B5 is minimal, and that lump of whatever-it-was was huge. We have no idea how big it was. Also, a squall went past KSC before the launch, it's not impossible that some water ice accumulated someplace. What are other options? A chunk of insulation from inside the fairing? Engine area TPS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB-70A Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 17 hours ago, tater said: That’s awesome! Thank you! I will try to make the next launch (CRS-16) even better if possible: a zoomed view of the 1st stage re-entry. 14 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: That is a great launch video! Are you tracking the launch by hand? Thanks! Not as good as some with their complex telemeter but hopefully better than the awful ones I was getting with my old Panasonic. The tracking is manual, but the camera is on a CH75 tripod. 10 hours ago, Lukaszenko said: Hmmmm....is that a falcon? I wish it was, but that bird was a Cathartes aura (a.k.a the "Turkey vulture"). They are abounding in this coastal area, and I have rarely seen falcon in the park. Spoiler However, ospreys are pretty easy to catch in the area of Port Canaveral: (Terrible lucky shot, it was in last December during CRS-13) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedKraken Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Bob Zubrin is pimping an actual mini-BFS for a mars return duties. It significantly lower ISRU requirements....so 8 football fields of solar down to less than 1 i guess. https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/9xogzb/im_dr_robert_zubrin_of_the_mars_society_here_to/ Anyone else like the idea? I think I'd remove ISRU altogether for the bootstrap missions. No ice mining. No football fields of solar. Big guy lands enough propellant for a little guy to bring you home. Surface rendezvous. "Twins". Apologies to Arnie and Danny DeVito. In more detail : BFS (tanker maybe?) lands 100 tons of methalox on mars surface. Landing tanks would have to be resized to protect the extra propellant against boil-off). So 80t reserve tanks resize to 180 or 200t. sFS lands couple of km away configured as a return vehicle. But no propellant left. Crewed mission lands couple of km away in another BFR (with refueling truck onboard). 2 year mission proceeds. Refueling "truck" (landed separately) transfers propellant from BFS to the sFS at the end of the surface mission. When sFR has a half tank, it can fly home to earth. Size the sFR at 1/8 or 1/10 scale of the BFS. Empty BFS requires half-load propellant (550t) to get home. A sFS configured with 4-5 months supplies and crew should be able to get home on less than 100t of propellant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 (edited) Time for a new desktop background: Re: Zubrin SFS That would be an amazing idea, but I'm inclined to think that the slight delay in getting humans to mars in developing the BFR is worth it. On the other hand, if BFR takes a lot longer than expected it may look better in retrospect. I do I like the idea of using BFR to launch a Mars Direct mission. EDIT: I feel bad about Zubrin being so overshadowed by SpaceX and Elon Musk too. He really was talking about all this stuff way before Musk. Edited November 17, 2018 by Mad Rocket Scientist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Zubrin has made good points regarding Mars architectures for a long time, but he's pretty much irrelevant at this point. NASA is always going to be more risk-averse than he is, and Musk is going to do whatever he wants to do. If Zubrin wants to use SpaceX vehicles for a potential mission to Mars or the Moon, all he has to do is pay for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 1 hour ago, tater said: and Musk is going to do whatever he wants to do. Best. Point. Ever. Apart from cancelling the FH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 12 hours ago, MinimumSky5 said: Someone will complain about SpaceX That I can guaranteed. For example, this seems to have to gone by largely unnoticed. The headline is extremely non-indicative, be sure to read in. https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/08/02/one-possible-job-for-spacexs-bfr-taking-the-air-forces-cargo-in-and-out-of-space/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Hey, if military is willing to pay money for such development and service - awesome. Take their money i say - just make sure advancements trickle down to civilian and scientific sector ASAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Scotius said: Hey, if military is willing to pay money for such development and service - awesome. Take their money i say - just make sure advancements trickle down to civilian and scientific sector ASAP. It will, in the form of a successful BFR. Or in the form of a more reuseable BFR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 15 hours ago, XB-70A said: Thank you! I will try to make the next launch (CRS-16) even better if possible: a zoomed view of the 1st stage re-entry. Thanks! Not as good as some with their complex telemeter but hopefully better than the awful ones I was getting with my old Panasonic. The tracking is manual, but the camera is on a CH75 tripod. I wish it was, but that bird was a Cathartes aura (a.k.a the "Turkey vulture"). They are abounding in this coastal area, and I have rarely seen falcon in the park. Reveal hidden contents However, ospreys are pretty easy to catch in the area of Port Canaveral: (Terrible lucky shot, it was in last December during CRS-13) Remind me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLxz-E8oobCImVern5ljwb5md30MMlPv55&time_continue=1&v=tIxkIQqH_vM an pigeon get shot by an cannon fire blanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Oldish news, but... another redesign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 I wonder, how many more changes are they going to do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: I wonder, how many more changes are they going to do... As many as it takes. I can only assume they are sticking with the same rough size (as they have the tooling, and have actually made a tank). The "upgrade F9 S2" bit implies that the mini-BFR might have been meant as a testbed, but with an eye towards operational reuse, too. Now people can wonder what is "Delightfully counter-intuitive." Let the insane speculation begin! (at least we will be distracted Monday by a launch) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 21 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: I wonder, how many more changes are they going to do... That many changes makes me a bit nervous. Do NOT want this to be "let's replace the Space Shuttle" 2.0. They're already building composite hardware, had tools made up... so whatever they're changing can't be that radical if it's going to work with what they've already done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 So it's radical, but keeps the same tooling. I'm going to assume it's not for the booster as that's been mostly the same since the first announcement, so it will probably be on the BFS... A new landing leg arrangement? A new fin arrangement? Something with gliding? I'd say "NUCLEAR PROPULSION!" really loudly but there's no way SpaceX would be allowed to do that right off the bat with an untested spacecraft with no abort system. ...An abort system, maybe? Wishful thinking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 I'd assume the tank size needs to be the same, they have tooling (and parts fabricated). I'm trying to imagine what would be counterintuitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaff Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 37 minutes ago, tater said: I'd assume the tank size needs to be the same, they have tooling (and parts fabricated). I'm trying to imagine what would be counterintuitive. Coming in backwards...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said: I wonder, how many more changes are they going to do... 2017: 2 fins 2018: 3 fins 2019: BFS radially attached to booster 2020: 2 side boosters added on main booster rocket. pretty rad Edited November 17, 2018 by NSEP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 (edited) Make the front canards (redundant, I suppose) as big as the fins? That would make it easier to flip... E: It’s the usual KSP design iteration: Make or modify the design, figure it will work, run extensive simulations, and finally decide that you need to make (more) changes. Edited November 17, 2018 by StrandedonEarth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 20 minutes ago, Jaff said: Coming in backwards...? They already do that. The current BFS entry profile is also very nose-high (which is practically tail first). No idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedKraken Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Maybe the BFS will land horizontally with new leg arrangement ("front canards as legs" from Stranded) and thrusters. SevenPerforce suggested this a year or so back. Or maybe the rear leg arrangement is reflected forward (about the mid-point) to give the BFS "horns" .... lands upside down...with thrusters. That way the cargo would be closest to the ground. Looking forward to the reddit ama. This years BFR update has been a roller coaster. 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.