Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
so its 500 tons LEO how many people will be needed to work on a project designing something that huge?
Are they hiring new people? becuaase i for one would love to work there even though im just 18 and havent started college yet lol!  :)

Why would you assume it's a huge thing you need? The proposed 9 Raptor launch vehicle can do it fully reusable, not even needing the heavy. It just takes 5 flights of the single stick. Not expensive because of reusability.
so wait? SpaceX is, or is not making the BFR/MCT?
im confused

A single stick with 9 Raptor alredy does qualify as BFR, I believe. My statement also included that MCT can be launched with it. It would take ~5 launches though.

That does not preclude building something bigger. Especially when they start launching many flights per launch window. In that case it would be operationally preferable and probably cheaper to have something big enough that they need only two launches for one MCT going to Mars.
2
Heck, it would be nice if they could just find a big lake to land in the middle of, on the next flight. At least that way, the recovery wouldn't be as difficult as landing in the ocean. It would also be a progressive step towards a fully dry landing on land.

Before they would try to target something as a lake - or even get near the coast - they are going to have to target a specific spot on the ocean and show that they can get near it. Landing is one thing, but they are going to have to demonstrate that they can reliably aim a stage to a specific point. The final braking burn is not going to allow a lot of sideways or divert motion.
3
Destroyed by the Borg
4
Just a reminder what condition the Gemini V first stage was in when it was recovered:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10741.msg212501#msg212501

(and I have yet to figure which SD card has the picture I took of it at the museum in Huntsville before it was put in storage.)
5
Might be a hazmat issue with a lake,  plus overlying inhabited areas on the way to it. It's an experimental unmanned drone vertical thrust aircraft to the FAA,  unless they're carving a loophole for it.
6
Yes. But it could also be placed above or below (in the picture above) - but above the flame duct would mean the least interference with the T/E.
7
No, sighill, you just aren't listening/understanding what Jim is saying. The FST could be built on the other side (above the flame duct) - either as a fixed structure with long arms, or movable on rails.
>

This?
8
Someone mentioned in the update thread (?) that the cubsats are not attached on top of the upper stage, but instead they hang under it, next to the MVac. If so, Are there diagrams somewhere that illustrate their location?
I would also like to know the answer to Lars_J's question.
Edit: and to know if any nanosats (other than KickSat) have been heard from.
CUSGC is being particularly quiet.  One would think they could post the word "Launched!"
I do have a call in to see what's up.
9
Does SpaceX have the option of supporting vertical integration at a FH pad on just one of the ranges? (i.e. either VAFB or CCAFS, but not both) Do the payloads that really require vertical integration launch mainly from one range or the other?
10
Speaking of SLC-4E, this is what it looked like for the last flight before a Falcon 9 flew out of it.

Note the the MST rolls back to the side just as described. Both have the launch mounts and vehicle aligned the same.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next