Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
https://twitter.com/tskelso/status/1577762122846519296

Quote
CelesTrak has GP data for 1 object from the launch (2022-124) of CREW DRAGON 5 atop a Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral on Oct 5 at 1600 UTC: spaceflightnow.com/2022/10/05/spaÖ.
92
Webcast link for approach and docking in about 19.5 hours

93
Polls Section / Re: Who will flight first, Beta, Terran-R or Neutron?
« Last post by trimeta on 10/05/2022 08:45 pm »
I suppose one point of comparison between Firefly/Northrop Grumman and Blue Origin/ULA is whether the latter deal was a factor in Blue Origin transitioning into an Old Space company (or just "behaving exactly like an Old Space company," if you subscribe to the belief that any space company founded in the 21st century is by definition a New Space company and always retains that label). Because if Firefly does work more closely with Northrop Grumman (up to and including acquisition), will they retain their nimbleness?

Perhaps a bit off-topic for this thread, but I'm sure Northrop Grumman has looked closely at the ULA deal and how to not recapitulate it, if they want to get Antares 330 (and subsequently MLV) launching on time.
94
https://twitter.com/intelsat/status/1577754008206381076

Quote
T-minus 1 day until launch! Galaxy 34 will replace Galaxy 12 at 129 degrees west onc2 in service in late 2022. @northropgrumman manufactured G-33 and 34 are launching on a @SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from @SLDelta45 in Cape Canaveral Florida. Learn More: intl.st/3SyJ1DU
96
SpaceX General Section / Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 3
« Last post by freddo411 on 10/05/2022 08:34 pm »
I've heard that starlinks are getting brighter again (instead of dimmer).
They no longer have visors, because they might interfere with laser links. As a result, all the newer birds will be brighter.

Source?
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/newest-starlink-satellites-have-gotten-brighter-again/
0.6 magnitude brighter than visorsats, but still dimmer than original Starlinks.
So starlinks are getting brighter again. They will also start getting even brighter with the larger sized ones.

This "dimmer than original" covers up the elephant in the room that is always ignored. They are only at the smaller magnitude when they reach final orbit. However, there are always hundreds of satellites on their way up to orbit (which takes several months. Starship is gonna change this to possibly thousands). In a couple years, there will also start to be many hundreds (or thousands) constantly on their way DOWN from orbit to be removed as they hit their 5yr lifespan or whatever and are replaced. So while some starlink satellites are at their minimum magnitude, there will always be a large number of satellites that are much brighter. The constellation will never be finished, there will always be many hundreds on their way up or down.

Good points.   Agreed, starlink sats are visible in the night sky when they are illuminated

However, the world has gained an important new global utility that is significantly changing everyday communication in remote locations.   High speed internet available on any continent, at sea, and in the air.   Remote (anywhere!) emergency messaging from regular phones (coming soon).

Significantly, this business is enabling cheaper access to space for everyone, including those that do astronomy from orbit.   It's worth pointing out that a Hubble servicing mission is possible due to this.
97
The Firefly Alpha Flight 2 payloads are definitely not in their desired orbit (which was targeted for 300km circular orbit). Since they'll reenter very soon, maybe we should not consider this as a mission success...

If the goal was the put these satellites into an orbit where they would be useful, then this would be a failure. But the goal was only to get as close to orbit as possible, and not only did they get there, but they performed a stage relight and deployed payload. They went above and beyond the mission objectives, so it's a success.

Presumably none of us know what the contract with their customers says. Even if it said best effort orbit I would surprised if the customers consider it a success to be deployed into a non-useful orbit. At the end of the day rockets are just delivery vehicles. A delivery to the wrong location is not considered a success. If you donít want to have that as a criteria on your demo flight donít put customer spacecraft on it.
98
Now, what might Lucie be looking at with those big eyes?
99
A selection of NASA photos

https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1577758588961017856

Quote
See images from our remote cameras of today's @SpaceX #Crew5 launch to @Space_Station from @NASAKennedy. 📷➡️flic.kr/s/aHBqjA9qzM
100
If the second stage was VTVL, it would be flying by now, and we wouldn't have this heatshield thread.

If the second stage was [conventional] VTVL [as described on the past few pages], it would be flying [regularly, more than once] by now, and we wouldn't have this heatshield thread.
So how would this craft scrub off velocity? A capsule? Which earlier in the thread was shown to have to be huge and cause other problems. Otherwise you're back to this whole heat shield issue. Also you're assuming that the reason starship isn't flying right now is the heat shield (it could be gse, ffa approval, raptor 2 problems or anything else). There are thousands of pages on this part of the website talking about design tradeoffs. People argue about one part and ignore everything else that has to work in sync to make the whole system work.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1