Barzon Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 Posting this here because I'm proud of it, and dunno where else to post it. If this is the wrong place please feel free to remove it, moderators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 16 minutes ago, Barzon said: Posting this here because I'm proud of it, and dunno where else to post it. You did that? Nice! 16 minutes ago, Barzon said: Posting this here because I'm proud of it, and dunno where else to post it. If this is the wrong place please feel free to remove it, moderators. Added the full quote since it got bumped to the next page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 3 hours ago, RCgothic said: Like but not-like! External plumbing and control failure seems plausible. They no longer have the control or instrumentation to confirm the vehicle is safe and depressurised, so nobody can approach it to start repairs until they're certain the system is de-energised (no remaining pressure). It's a waiting game until the propellant boils off. Fortunately the fact nothing has burst yet as uncontrolled tanks of cryogenic liquid tend to do suggests the tanks are venting properly. Sounds plausible but a bit weird, say the star ship computer crashed and stayed down. As long as you are on the ground that is not an serious issue. And I expect the software to be as much clunked together as the rest here, assume its an modified falcon flight computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 Meanwhile SN4 is still stuck out there feeling awkward... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 ...after a minor incident with a helicopter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 1 minute ago, CatastrophicFailure said: ...after a minor incident with a helicopter... What happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 On 5/17/2020 at 11:04 PM, mikegarrison said: @tater raised this question before, but if this were the ISS crew launch, and the only weather obstacle was that they couldn't recover the booster, would they be launching? I wonder what the schedule v. booster recovery priority is for that? It's not specifically addressed here: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/falcon9_crewdragon_launch_weather_criteria_fact_sheet.pdf but it does say for downrange: Quote Do not launch if downrange weather indicates violation of limits at splashdown in case of Dragon launch escape. Do not launch if downrange weather shows high probability of violating limits at splashdown in case of Dragon launch escape. Downrange weather is monitored at more than 50 locations along the ascent track along the North American eastern seaboard and across the North Atlantic.Probability of violation is calculated for each location including limit conditions for wind, waves, lightning, and precipitation. It's worded only WRT the capsule, but if the weather restrictions for the capsule were not dissimilar from the booster... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 56 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: What happened? Watch the winglet on the right... Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 So he parked close, and they had to move the rotor tie down slightly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 11 minutes ago, tater said: So he parked close, and they had to move the rotor tie down slightly? Can’t quite tell if he stopped or actually hit it first, but they had to move it so he could finish his turn and pull up to all the reporters and the flarping head of NASA all dignified-like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 Looked like no big deal to me. Wingwalker was right there judging everything. Seems like the pilot stabbed the brakes hard at one point, which is what made the nose dip, but I've certainly done the same trying to back up a car into a tight spot or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 "View image" via right click to embiggen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 (edited) @jadebenn, this should be posted in a few threads, great image. I was actually looking at the above F9/Crew Dragon image, and thinking about the relative size compared to Titan II GLV and came across this image (and noticed your name on it). The only edit I might suggest is to do Shuttle more like F9—cargo, and cargo plus the Orbiter in gray (the spacecraft are considered as part of the payload mass for the others). Looks like the heaviest Shuttle as launched (full) was 122,683 kg (Atlantis, STS-117). Would put the true capability of Shuttle in better context (else the others should have the crew vehicle excluded as well). EDIT: Coffee in me and I just posted something that @sevenperforce posted as well, right after I did—Shuttle engine mass probably not counted as payload for fair comparison, so that makes Shuttle closer to 112t (pretty close to SLS). Edited May 21, 2020 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 7 hours ago, tater said: It's not specifically addressed here: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/falcon9_crewdragon_launch_weather_criteria_fact_sheet.pdf but it does say for downrange: It's worded only WRT the capsule, but if the weather restrictions for the capsule were not dissimilar from the booster... Assume they are pretty similar, might be a bit more strict for the booster but that is only one spot not the trajectory. Think spacX has in contract that they can hold if they can not recover, its not that they can just come up with reasons to hold anyway. Most missions who are not interplanetary are not tied to long term launch windows and long timelines anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 11 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Assume they are pretty similar, might be a bit more strict for the booster but that is only one spot not the trajectory. Think spacX has in contract that they can hold if they can not recover, its not that they can just come up with reasons to hold anyway. Most missions who are not interplanetary are not tied to long term launch windows and long timelines anyway. Scheduling ISS is non-trivial, and the windows are instantaneous (assuming they are like previous Dragon missions). I think they'd want to go on schedule as much as possible. The booster limitation would be shear at high alt, but the capsule on abort has to pass through that as well, though it's only an issue at an alt with chutes deployed I'd bet. Sea state might be closer for both. They want not too rough for landing the booster, but they also want not too rough for recovering the capsule/crew. I'd guess the sea states would be closer to the same limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolkekov Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 3 hours ago, tater said: @jadebenn, this should be posted in a few threads, great image. I was actually looking at the above F9/Crew Dragon image, and thinking about the relative size compared to Titan II GLV and came across this image (and noticed your name on it). The only edit I might suggest is to do Shuttle more like F9—cargo, and cargo plus the Orbiter in gray (the spacecraft are considered as part of the payload mass for the others). Looks like the heaviest Shuttle as launched (full) was 122,683 kg (Atlantis, STS-117). Would put the true capability of Shuttle in better context (else the others should have the crew vehicle excluded as well). Interesting picture ! Is there a comparison of spaceships but other countries (Russia, China etc.) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 7 hours ago, tater said: Would put the true capability of Shuttle in better context (else the others should have the crew vehicle excluded as well). 122t is almost as much as Saturn V could put into LEO. How is it possible that SLS that, compared to Shuttle, has stretched tanks, bigger SRBs and an upper stage, can put less mass into LEO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.50calBMG Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 Because it seems the only thing it can do well is burn money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 15 minutes ago, .50calBMG said: Because it seems the only thing it can do well is burn money They might as well use dollar bills as propellant at this point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 45 minutes ago, sh1pman said: 122t is almost as much as Saturn V could put into LEO. How is it possible that SLS that, compared to Shuttle, has stretched tanks, bigger SRBs and an upper stage, can put less mass into LEO? That is an extremely good question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, sh1pman said: 122t is almost as much as Saturn V could put into LEO. How is it possible that SLS that, compared to Shuttle, has stretched tanks, bigger SRBs and an upper stage, can put less mass into LEO? I think the SLS numbers on that chart might be a little low, but not more than 5-10 t. (coffee in me now) I guess if stage disposal was not an issue, the core would effectively be in orbit, and you could count that. That or count the orbiter, but not the engines as mass? Edited May 21, 2020 by tater 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.