Page 103 of 108 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105 ... LastLast
Results 3,061 to 3,090 of 3214

Thread: SpaceX

  1. #3061
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    From the early SpaceX days I have taken, I think, a cautiously optimistic approach. Mainly, as I believe I said more than once, I appreciated seeing someone trying when government space and industry had been in a rut for decades. For that, I was derisively labeled a "fanboy" more than once. Old space, I was told, knows what it takes to build rockets, and it is and will always be expensive. This upstart, they said, didn't know what they were doing. I didn't much appreciate the fanboy comments, and I find it highly amusing that the people that made the comments either have shut up or dramatically changed their tune. It is now Old space that is, more often than not, looking bad, slow and too expensive. Also amusing, there are now quite a lot of people that are far bigger fans than I have ever been.

    Anyway, SpaceX has managed to do better than I, a so-called "fan" expected. I'd suggest it isn't a great idea to bet against them. Sure, maybe they will fail with Starship, and personally, I think that while their test/break/fix process has merit, maybe it wouldn't hurt to spend a bit more time doing sanity or desk checks. I get the feeling they are pushing a bit too hard right now and are running into avoidable mistakes. I also think it will take longer than they expect, but I think there is a very good chance they will ultimately succeed.
    I think they will succeed with Starship, though as you say it may take more time than expected, but even in the worst case scenario I think they would just revert back to the old Falcon XX concept, an upscaled Falcon/Falcon Heavy based around the Raptor rather than the Merlin.

  2. #3062
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    The thing about Musk is, he's willing to bust prototypes if it means getting closer to his goals, and he can afford to throw money at it. Most space agencies answer to less dedicated powers.

    If we're going to have a Tony Stark, isn't a commercial spaceship a better end product than a suit of armor with only one authorized user?
    He can afford to throw money at it, but also this approach can be cheaper than spending years and years of engineering hours on desk design refinement. Especially if it still doesn't work after all that. And even apart from that aspect, his business runs so much more economically than the pork industry, that the rocket engine he lost in this explosion cost him less than quite literally a bracket would have cost in classic space. The fewer mishaps the better, but all in all this explosion does not drive up the cost of the project all that much.

    @Trebuchet: I can assure you that when I weld something, it is the weld itself that will fail.

    @Garrison I don't think they'd ditch Raptor anytime soon, as apparently it is running problem free up to now (of course it hasn't really really flown yet or worked in vacuum).
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  3. #3063
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Speaking of rockets blowing up, that is how the Atlas was made. And every other great rocket ever.
    I was going to say "except for Saturn V", but then again the F1 engine just kept blowing up again and again and again during development, until they finally got it (very, very) right.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  4. #3064
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    He can afford to throw money at it, but also this approach can be cheaper than spending years and years of engineering hours on desk design refinement. Especially if it still doesn't work after all that. And even apart from that aspect, his business runs so much more economically than the pork industry, that the rocket engine he lost in this explosion cost him less than quite literally a bracket would have cost in classic space. The fewer mishaps the better, but all in all this explosion does not drive up the cost of the project all that much.

    @Trebuchet: I can assure you that when I weld something, it is the weld itself that will fail.

    @Garrison I don't think they'd ditch Raptor anytime soon, as apparently it is running problem free up to now (of course it hasn't really really flown yet or worked in vacuum).
    That's what I was saying, they would revert to the original idea of an upscaled Falcon based around the greater power of the Raptor. I honestly don't think it will come to that though, with SN-5 basically ready and SN-6 well underway I expect to see Starship making hops by the time USCV-1 launches.

  5. #3065
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    That's what I was saying, they would revert to the original idea of an upscaled Falcon based around the greater power of the Raptor. I honestly don't think it will come to that though, with SN-5 basically ready and SN-6 well underway I expect to see Starship making hops by the time USCV-1 launches.
    Super Heavy is the short pole, an upscaled Falcon with more engines and reworked grid fins & landing gear but in stainless steel. That's why they started Starship first.

  6. #3066
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,214
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Super Heavy is the short pole, an upscaled Falcon with more engines and reworked grid fins & landing gear but in stainless steel. That's why they started Starship first.
    Exactly and like I say going back to the older scheme would only be a last resort, one I certainly don't expect them to have to use. The issues with the Starship SN's may look spectacular when they happen but they all seem to come back to relatively small things that are part of the learning curve.

  7. #3067
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,252
    The failure was a quick-release fitting on the stand which leaked methane, creating a fuel-air explosion. A FAE will make a big mess every.single.time.
    Last edited by docmordrid; 2020-Jun-03 at 08:12 AM.

  8. #3068
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,721
    Any estimate on the altitude reached by that mass simulator? It sure was out of view for quite some time before it came back down.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  9. #3069
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Any estimate on the altitude reached by that mass simulator? It sure was out of view for quite some time before it came back down.
    It’s projected to come back, back, back by the Fourth of July... ;-)
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  10. #3070
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,954
    I’ve definitely reached the point where normal Falcon launches are too routine to watch, but on checking a news site I see and am glad they reached the fifth successful launch and booster landing threshold.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  11. #3071
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,252
    Starting with Crew-2 (Post-Certification Mission 2) SpaceX will be able to fly both Flight Proven™ Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon vehicles.

    https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/...16718750814209

  12. #3072
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,721
    With their re-use, launch pace, cost reduction...they're low-key meeting most of a seventies Space Shuttle brief.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  13. #3073
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,252
    Another tidbit; it's no longer necessary for Falcon 9 to use a crane to fold her legs - it can be done using the OctoGrabber 2 debuted on JRtI.

  14. #3074
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    it can be done using the OctoGrabber 2.
    That sounds like something a kid would beg you to buy them at the aquarium gift shop.
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  15. #3075
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I’ve definitely reached the point where normal Falcon launches are too routine to watch, but on checking a news site I see and am glad they reached the fifth successful launch and booster landing threshold.
    A terrible disappointment for those who jumped on the previous landing failure as evidence of an early limit to the number of reuses they'd get (as if such issues would manifest as boosters suddenly being unable to land after the 5th flight).

    Also some hard things to explain for those who insisted the communications disruptions during ASDS landings and from the "twang" at Starlink release were SpaceX trying to hide potential failures. Not that that ever made sense considering the content of their YouTube channel and very public Starship development program, but it's been an oddly persistent claim.

  16. #3076
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    A terrible disappointment for those who jumped on the previous landing failure as evidence of an early limit to the number of reuses they'd get (as if such issues would manifest as boosters suddenly being unable to land after the 5th flight).

    Also some hard things to explain for those who insisted the communications disruptions during ASDS landings and from the "twang" at Starlink release were SpaceX trying to hide potential failures. Not that that ever made sense considering the content of their YouTube channel and very public Starship development program, but it's been an oddly persistent claim.
    As long as YTube monetizes videos, there will individuals running their fingers over the keyboard.

    I'm happy to see them launch and land successfully again. The non loss of signal on the drone ship was good to see also.

  17. #3077
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,833
    If Super Heavy can’t be made to work—maybe a cluster of Falcon 9s can be linked together— looking like a giant Saturn I

  18. #3078
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,252
    High Bay 2 (Super Heavy) coming soon

    This fits with high construction activity at the Super Heavy pad site.

    Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
    Giant high bay coming soon
    |
    Chris B - NSF @NASASpaceflight
    Replying to @elonmusk
    Oh my! And we thought the High Bay currently being used to stack Starship was impressive. Something for Super Heavy stacking I assume? KSC VAB scale? ��
    |
    Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
    Yeah, for Super Heavy stacking

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1269419405856763906

  19. #3079
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,252
    FCC will allow SpaceX to compete for rural broadband subsidies...

    https://business.financialpost.com/p....co/qYhZuBC2Wo

  20. #3080
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,954
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    FCC will allow SpaceX to compete for rural broadband subsidies...

    https://business.financialpost.com/p....co/qYhZuBC2Wo
    About time. They should be allowed to compete as long as they can meet the technical requirements.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #3081
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,252
    StarLink v1.0 Launch 8

    Date: June 12
    Time: 0542 Eastern (0942 UT)
    Weather: 80%

  22. #3082
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    15,550
    A bit too early for me, I'll watch the replay!

    I was just thinking I need to catch up on Boca Chica today.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  23. #3083
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    A bit too early for me, I'll watch the replay!

    I was just thinking I need to catch up on Boca Chica today.
    Heck, I'm a morning person, but that is too early for me also. Replay

  24. #3084
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,162
    I’m hoping for a scrub that lasts at least 24 hours. We plan to be in Florida by Friday night and might be able to see a launch, especially one at night or near dawn.

  25. #3085
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,389
    A night/near dawn launch would be awesome.

  26. #3086
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,252
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    I’m hoping for a scrub that lasts at least 24 hours. We plan to be in Florida by Friday night and might be able to see a launch, especially one at night or near dawn.
    I hear it's slipped into the weekend, right now the 13tg but possibly the 14th (local)

  27. #3087
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,162
    New schedule:

    Rocket Launch: June 13, 2020 5:21 AM ET | SpaceX Falcon 9 Starlink-8 (9th Mission)

    When: Jun 13, 2020 05:21 AM
    Where: Cape Canaveral SLC-40

  28. #3088
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,214
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    I hear it's slipped into the weekend, right now the 13tg but possibly the 14th (local)
    Remember the 'old days' when one launch a month would have been considered busy?

  29. #3089
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    Remember the 'old days' when one launch a month would have been considered busy?
    I’ve been wondering how long it will be until we get to a hundred launches (world wide, not just SpaceX) per month. Probably more than a decade but I wouldn’t bet on two decades.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  30. #3090
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I’ve been wondering how long it will be until we get to a hundred launches (world wide, not just SpaceX) per month. Probably more than a decade but I wouldn’t bet on two decades.
    According to selvaarchi's tracking thread, there were 104 last year and we're at 39 so far this year. So I agree, it won't be in the next few years, but within 10 to 20 sounds reasonable.

    Oh... wikipedia has a graph. Surprising to me is that it was 100 to 150 per year from the mid 1960s to about 1990, then dropped below 100 till the last couple of years.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •