Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
Commercial Crew Vehicles / Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Last post by baldusi on Today at 07:41 PM »
From the CCiCAP selection statement, I remember that DC was considered as having a chance of using no solids. But CST-100 was at least a solid and any performance grows would risk the need for two. So my guess is that both went over their reserves and needed an extra solid. My calculation is that performance to an 51.6deg 300km circular orbit (normal insertion), is around 10.5tonne for 402; 12.5tonnes for 412; and 14.3tonnes for a 422. A Falcon 9 v1.1 is 15.3 tonnes. All numbers according to NLS II site.
Thus, it would seem that at least for this, SpaceX has more mass margin than CST-100 and DC.
2
Successful flight.

However they need to do something about the live streaming.  Both pictures and sound broke up.


That's good to hear (about the flight that is) !!!
3
We're allowed to speculate over here, right? Here's the evidence: it's nothing but good news, Elon would want to tweet it first, Chris and meekgee are over the moon about it, SpaceX has apparently succeeded in doing much more than pushing the boundaries. It has to be an intact stage, right? Photogenically intact or not is an open question I suppose.
CONFIRMED: SpaceX has booked their first around the moon tourist flight.   ;)

I have read a tweet today something about a stage/orbit depot refuelling thing around mars orbit. It could be that. But then again this is not something SpX-3 related...
4
I'm having a hard time imagining what the news could be that it would make "pushing boundaries" the understatement of the year. It seems like the only real possibility on the first stage is that the stage was found intact and recoverable. Even that possibility seems a little mundane with Chris' statement in mind.

Unless it's something to do with the second stage, as some people have mentioned.

Considering this is the party thread... for me "pushing the boundaries" would be if the stage was refueled right there while floating in the sea, then took off and landed somewhere else  ;)
5
The top of the second stage in the Dragon integration snapshot just looked to my eyes like a tank dome with sheet metal around it to fit with the trunk.
And that was the conclusion at the time and back then it made sense to me.
I was just playfully speculating about the possibility of a second stage splash down and one of the things speaking against it, is the lack of a TPS on the second stage. So unless this "sheet metal" was a TPS of sorts (against earlier consensus here), there is little chance it could have survived reentry. Or am I missing something?
6
Welcome to the forum GusTurbo and Interstellar. 
You picked an auspicious day to join the thrump, thrumping.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34006.msg1187559#msg1187559

Thanks!  Been browsing for a while now, doing my small part help those who (like me) are starving for NEWS! ;)
7
Successful flight.

However they need to do something about the live streaming.  Both pictures and sound broke up.
8
But, I do think Jim's on top approach could work well for a Retriever that approached the landed stage, extended and set outriggers, engaged the thrust structure on close and two adjacent sides and then latched the top with a clamshell on a extendable boom. Once secured and lifted to unweight the landing legs, the vehicle could be safed and the legs be retracted/removed (the vertical, full weight would rest on the thrust structure which is obviously strong enough). With legs out of the way, the stage could be lowered onto a transport bed with no interference from the Retriever which is 'behind' the stage relative to the transport vehicle.

Such a "retriever" could also be used to put horizontal stages onto the TEL, if properly engineered.  As a note, the thread I referenced a few posts back where we were talking about GSE had a fair few posts thinking about what it might be like to never take the stage horizontal at all. IIRC, MeekGee had put a fair bit of thought into that.
This seemed like a bad idea to me before the stage grew significantly for v1.1, and now is seems to be a really bad idea.  Horizontal is where the stage wants to be... I'd prefer to get it there in a controlled manner.

It has to do with the facility layout.  If you have an "airport-like" environment - everything flat and large, and you basically want to move the landed stage 500 m from landing to hangar to pad, then I don't see an issue with transport.  Quite on the contrary - a lot less operations if you keep it vertical.

If on the other hand you need to take it along sloping windy roads like in VB, then forgettaboutit.

Also, even for FH, if you're talking one operation per day (so one flight every 3-4 days) then really, take your time.  If you want to fly an FH daily, so are talking about hours worth of turn around, then it gets tight.

EDIT:
As for storage - a queued stage is a non-flying stage.  In a commercial airliner fleet, airplanes are either in service or in MRO - but not idle.

Stage maintenance/refurbishment is best achieved when vertical and you can access all parts of the rocket simultaneously.

EDIT2:
In the preamble to the whole vertical processing thread, I stated that the motivation for it was that you can access all parts of the rocket at the same time (and avoid two rotations).  This assumed that during stage turn-around, the bottleneck is per-engine work, since there are 9 of them.  If the stage is truly gas-n-go, then this bottleneck is resolved, and the same consideration then moves to stage MRO, as described above.

Elon's comment was that the "ultimate goal" is gas-and-go.  On the one hand, it validates that he is planning it for F9 (if I remember the context of the comment correctly).  On the other, by saying "ultimate", it's also a hint that there's at least one more iteration of F9 before they get there, which was expected.
9
Welcome to the forum GusTurbo and Interstellar. 
You picked an auspicious day to join the thrump, thrumping.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34006.msg1187559#msg1187559
10
The top of the second stage in the Dragon integration snapshot just looked to my eyes like a tank dome with sheet metal around it to fit with the trunk.  If other people saw something unexpected, I'd be curious    to know what I missed.

I was trying to come up with a good joke about surprise second-stage recovery... looks like that may have been preempted.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next