Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/audio/1672800.mp3

PAO: This is Apollo Control at 167 hours, 28 minutes. Apollo 11 is 124,520 nautical miles [230,611 km] from the Earth; approaching at a velocity of 5,055 feet per second [1,541 m/s]. All still going well aboard Apollo 11. Maintaining a stable Passive Thermal Control mode, nose pointed toward the Earth, rotating 3 revolutions per hour. This is Mission Control, Houston.

[ IF MC sticks to their hourly, we're caught up ]
2
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/audio/1662800.mp3

PAO: This is Apollo Control at 166 hours, 28 minutes. Apollo 11 is 127,431 nautical miles [236,002 km] from the Earth. Velocity; 4,975 feet per second [1,516 m/s]. Crew still sleeping. All systems still normal. The weather bureau's space flight meteorology group reported today that weather conditions for the landing of Apollo 11 tomorrow are expected to be acceptable. Some showers have been reported near the landing area, but these are expected to move westward, leaving the recovery area with partly cloudy skies, east-north-easterly winds, 10 to 15 knots, and 4-foot seas. Although tropical storms will not affect weather in the landing area, the Apollo 11 crew should get a good view of the tropical storm Viola, located in the western North Pacific, and also the remains of the tropical storm Claudia, located southeast of Hawaii. This is Mission Control, Houston.
3
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/audio/1652800.mp3

PAO: This is Apollo Control at 165 hours, 28 minutes. Apollo 11 is 130,306 nautical miles [241,327 km] from the Earth. Velocity; 4,900 feet per second [1,494 m/s]. Crew is still asleep and all systems are still performing well. This is Mission Control, Houston.
4
Remember that the gas generators exhaust into the space between the central nozzle and the outer ring of nozzles. Those put out a considerable amount of flame all on their own, so seeing flames between the nozzles should be completely normal.
That is also what I would expect, but since the Congressional inquiry says that a fire happened on this mission I am open to the possibility.  If it happened during the actual flight, rather than during the launch abort, it wasn't noted by the ascent data guy, who reported "nominal" propulsion throughout the burn.

 - Ed Kyle
5
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/audio/1642800.mp3

PAO: This is Apollo Control at 164 hours, 28 minutes. Apollo 11 is 133,131 nautical miles [246,559 km] from Earth; approaching at a velocity of 4,827 feet per second [1,471 m/s]. Crew is asleep. Performance of all systems continues to be normal. We're 30 hours, 34 minutes, 37 seconds away from entry of Apollo 11 into the Earth's atmosphere. This is Mission Control, Houston.
6
If it's stability you're after (and this application clearly demands it), the obvious solution would be a SWATH ship"

Quote
A Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull, better known by the acronym SWATH, is a twin-hull ship design that minimizes hull cross section area at the sea's surface. Minimizing the ship's volume near the surface area of the sea, where wave energy is located, maximizes a vessel's stability, even in high seas and at high speeds. The bulk of the displacement necessary to keep the ship afloat is located beneath the waves, where it is less affected by wave action. Wave excitation drops exponentially as depth increases (Deeply submerged submarines are normally not affected by wave action at all). Placing the majority of a ship's displacement under the waves is similar in concept to creating a ship that rides atop twin submarines.



However, I could not find an existing SWATH ship with a flat deck suitable for Falcon first stage landings, they are all passenger, military, or research vessels. A custom-built SWATH floating landing pad would be very stable, but much too expensive for the few times it would be used by SpaceX.
7
post deleted -- wrong thread.
8

2. I'm on record as to Mr. McCain's sudden conversion to socialism, so that aspect of the profit motive has merit.  Still, in 1995, when ULA starts the chronology, the $70B cost tag that would accrue to the USAF was not revealed.


That isn't a ULA number and has nothing to do with ULA.  It was the USAF extending the program and adding more missions.
9
Tell me, pls, Why would you collect information about all of launches?
10
Here are two issues wrt pmf. The first is to have realistic pmf, the second is the relationship between S1 and S2. A methalox stage should be worse than RP-1/LOX but better than an H2/LOX. Methalox is, after al, some 30% more volumetric than RP-1/LOX combo, and the CH4 tanks require more insulation than the RP-1 ones. When I mentioned Centaur, you said that I shouldn't compare to hydrolox. And then it became very difficult to find actual propelland and dry masses for non hydrolox upper stage. Sure, many sites have estimation. But actual data from the rocket's user guides, is not so simple. Thus, that was the best, relatively modern sample that I could get. Soyuz-2 and Proton-M have been modernized and shaved some upper stage mass during the 2000s. But the fact is that the proposed upper stage was to have two engines with nozzle extensions. That's gonna have to weight. Yet, after looking at the Saturn V numbers (which I did but didn't posted because it was an hydrolox) I was convinced that 92.5% was relatively easy and thus should be the base assumption. I even conceded that on those sizes 94% could be feasible, but probably with a single engine.
Regarding the S1/S2 pmf, first stages are always more mass efficient than the upper stages (at least when both expendables). First stages are usually not height limited, have bigger scale, have shorter mission times, don't have to transfer more stresses than they generate and many other things. Thus, if you assume a pmf of 92% or 93%, then S1 should be in the 95% to 96%. When expendable.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next