Quote from: Comga on 12/23/2009 05:06 amI don't find that a convincing conjecture. It was definitely labeled Dragonlab in the text below the figure, but they mix illustrations for Dragon and Dragonlab. One would think it easier to just replace the grapple fixture for a dedicated mission, which could provide more capacity without an added mechanism. Any other ideas?Of course. It's part of their nefarious plan to steal the boom rendezvous concept from me. ;-)~Jon
I don't find that a convincing conjecture. It was definitely labeled Dragonlab in the text below the figure, but they mix illustrations for Dragon and Dragonlab. One would think it easier to just replace the grapple fixture for a dedicated mission, which could provide more capacity without an added mechanism. Any other ideas?
Quote from: jongoff on 12/23/2009 07:01 amQuote from: Comga on 12/23/2009 05:06 amI don't find that a convincing conjecture. It was definitely labeled Dragonlab in the text below the figure, but they mix illustrations for Dragon and Dragonlab. One would think it easier to just replace the grapple fixture for a dedicated mission, which could provide more capacity without an added mechanism. Any other ideas?Of course. It's part of their nefarious plan to steal the boom rendezvous concept from me. ;-)~JonDid Gaetano hack Jon's account?
Some info here, not sure if its new...:Space x says the curent target date for Falcon 9 maden flight is Febuary 2nd. Any thought on whether they will make this date or not?
Sensor Bay (unpressurized, recoverable)Approx 0.1 m3 (4cuft) volumeHatch opens after orbit insertion; closes prior to reentryElectrical pass-throughs into pressure vessel
They had some problems during earlier testing of their ground system, a
In the DragonLab PDF that same detail, absent the extensible boom and instrument, is shown in the title image. In the drawings that opening is labeled as a "Sensor Bay Volume", the lid a "Sensor Bay Hatch", and it too is located just below the side hatch. IMO the only difference is that the sensor is deployed in the latter and not in for former.
Quote from: jabe on 12/22/2009 02:53 amnewbie question..and slightly a side question there is J2 heritage so, here is my ignorance showing through... why such a long development if they are making a J-2x? is there that much a difference or what makes a H2O2 engine so hard to make/design? or is making a "raptor" engine from scratch a better move?jbThe main shared component between the J-2 and J-2X is the name. I also am led to believe that the turbopump is similar in design as well.
newbie question..and slightly a side question there is J2 heritage so, here is my ignorance showing through... why such a long development if they are making a J-2x? is there that much a difference or what makes a H2O2 engine so hard to make/design? or is making a "raptor" engine from scratch a better move?jb
What deployable device would make that worthwhile?
IF (and I know this is a big if) SpaceX wanted to build a lunar lander - would they have to develop new engines? Or could they use (or adapt) one or two from their existing portfolio?
Quote from: Nascent Ascent on 12/24/2009 04:25 pmIF (and I know this is a big if) SpaceX wanted to build a lunar lander - would they have to develop new engines? Or could they use (or adapt) one or two from their existing portfolio?They would likely scale the Kestrel pintle injection engine up to 30k-40k lbs thrust with an ability to throttle down to 10k lbs or less. This would put it on a par with the Apollo LM Descent engine.
Has there ever been a rocket engine operating in the vicinity of the Moon that used other than hypergolic propellants?
Quote from: sdsds on 12/25/2009 09:59 pmHas there ever been a rocket engine operating in the vicinity of the Moon that used other than hypergolic propellants?Yes: SMART-1's ion engine, for example.
Quote from: eeergo on 12/25/2009 10:19 pmQuote from: sdsds on 12/25/2009 09:59 pmHas there ever been a rocket engine operating in the vicinity of the Moon that used other than hypergolic propellants?Yes: SMART-1's ion engine, for example.When I was in the air force, and we handled LOX, there was very strict rules about venting LOX when greases or waxes or fuels were around. THe claim was that wearing combat boots that had been polished was a no-no because a drop of LOX falling on a polished boot would explode like a grenade, never mind contacting any fuel spills on the uniform or boots. If any of this information was even partially accurate, it seemed to me that LOX should be hypergolic with kerosene. If it isn't why isn't it?
Quote from: eeergo on 12/25/2009 10:19 pmQuote from: sdsds on 12/25/2009 09:59 pmHas there ever been a rocket engine operating in the vicinity of the Moon that used other than hypergolic propellants?Yes: SMART-1's ion engine, for example.Good point! That's another type of engine that can turn on in deep space. Is there a SpaceX propulsion design that could be adapted to do that?
When I was in the air force, and we handled LOX, there was very strict rules about venting LOX when greases or waxes or fuels were around. THe claim was that wearing combat boots that had been polished was a no-no because a drop of LOX falling on a polished boot would explode like a grenade, never mind contacting any fuel spills on the uniform or boots. If any of this information was even partially accurate, it seemed to me that LOX should be hypergolic with kerosene. If it isn't why isn't it?