Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)  (Read 713158 times)

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #540 on: 03/09/2016 10:41 pm »
Would you even take 2:1 odds against it flying in 2016? I think it has at least a 50:50 chance of flying this year, so I would definitely take the other side of that bet.
Currently it is slated to november 2016, according to SpaceX. It is their codeword for "middle of 2017".
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #541 on: 03/09/2016 11:08 pm »

Currently it is slated to november 2016, according to SpaceX. It is their codeword for "middle of 2017".

No it isn't, Mader. You don't work there, you don't know. Again, nobody has any incentive to lie in PR.

If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen due to evolving circumstances. Until then, what they tell their customers is the most valid info we have on the subject. Anything beyond that is conspiracy mongering.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #542 on: 03/09/2016 11:54 pm »
Every thing is a "no earlier than" date. Assuming you have a distribution of possible launch dates, and the NET date provides one of the bounds to that distribution, then it seems pretty obvious to me that MOST launches will occur /after/ the given NET date, and there's nothing dishonest about that.

To be clear: That would be the case with or without SpaceX's usually optimistic projections.

I will admit that a November date causes me to do some Bayesian updating.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline stoker5432

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #543 on: 03/10/2016 12:28 am »
And the electronics have sufficient redundancy to work in the somewhat higher (but, let's be clear, NOT drastically higher) radiation environment of deep space
Do you know that? Source? Or is this speculation?
It will also have to actually work independently for much longer than in LEO and in a colder environment.

NASA and SpaceX figured out Dragon had "Sufficient lifetime & resources for Mars transfer trajectory" back in 2011.

http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/RedDragon/karcz-red_dragon-nac-2011-10-29-1.pdf
« Last Edit: 03/10/2016 12:36 am by stoker5432 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #544 on: 03/10/2016 12:40 am »

NASA and SpaceX figured out Dragon had "Sufficient lifetime & resources for Mars transfer trajectory" back in 2011.

http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/RedDragon/karcz-red_dragon-nac-2011-10-29-1.pdf

Dragon had only flown one mission at the time.  So not a really a given or valid source.  And the "NASA" people in the study are not the agency experts nor even the agency regulars for spacecraft development.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2016 12:43 am by Jim »

Offline stoker5432

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #545 on: 03/10/2016 12:42 am »
Your welcome. I know Wikipedia is seen as an unreliable source, but there is entire page on Red Dragon with lots of NASA links.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #546 on: 03/10/2016 12:44 am »

NASA and SpaceX figured out Dragon had "Sufficient lifetime & resources for Mars transfer trajectory" back in 2011.

http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/RedDragon/karcz-red_dragon-nac-2011-10-29-1.pdf

Dragon had only flown one mission at the time.  So not a really a given or valid source.

NASA is figuring out that Orion and SLS have sufficient capabilities for future missions and they haven't flown once.
Why is it that requires a number of flights before potential mission analysis?
What is a given or valid source?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #547 on: 03/10/2016 12:56 am »
Dragon had only flown one mission at the time.  So not a really a given or valid source.  And the "NASA" people in the study are not the agency experts nor even the agency regulars for spacecraft development.
And yet, this might be sufficient for SpaceX to think they could try it, whether it works or not.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #548 on: 03/10/2016 12:59 am »

NASA is figuring out that Orion and SLS have sufficient capabilities for future missions and they haven't flown once.


It is basic engineering.  One is designed for deep space missions and the other as in that paper was only designed for LEO missions.  They show no data in the paper to support their claims.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #549 on: 03/10/2016 01:00 am »
Right. The original thing I was contending was the idea that Dragon would be equivalent to a bag of stones (i.e. 100% probability of not working). While 5 sigma may or may not be guaranteed, it's certainly not guaranteed to fail, and there's good reason to believe Dragon has the resources to make a trip to Mars (other than some additions like deep space communications).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #550 on: 03/10/2016 01:00 am »

What is a given or valid source?

a NASA group that has designed and flown many spacecraft.  ARC is not that.

Offline stoker5432

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #551 on: 03/10/2016 01:10 am »

What is a given or valid source?

a NASA group that has designed and flown many spacecraft.  ARC is not that.

JPL thought it was a viable concept in 2012. Haven't seen anything changing their position. Have you?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4216.pdf

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #552 on: 03/10/2016 01:46 am »
I simply want YOU to mark your opinion to market quantitatively.
80:20 for FH not successfully launching in 2016.

Pippin, I was happy to let your concern trolling[1] just roll on by, but then you had to go and use the adjective LEGO in a sentence incorrectly. ("rockets all of a sudden become LEGOs ") Those are fighting words...

I'll take the other side of that bet, PM me with what currency you want to use. Ten dollars of LEGO elements against 40, perhaps? A six pack against a case? Or admit that it's idle talk and you're not willing to put up....

1 - that's how it reads to me anyway...
« Last Edit: 03/10/2016 01:47 am by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline stoker5432

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #553 on: 03/10/2016 04:19 am »

NASA and SpaceX figured out Dragon had "Sufficient lifetime & resources for Mars transfer trajectory" back in 2011.

http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/RedDragon/karcz-red_dragon-nac-2011-10-29-1.pdf

Dragon had only flown one mission at the time.  So not a really a given or valid source.  And the "NASA" people in the study are not the agency experts nor even the agency regulars for spacecraft development.

So we're going on five years and not one valid source that I can find has disputed JPL's, ARC's, or SpaceX's findings. In fact there's been even more research saying it will work. You've been giving the same argument since 2011. Seems like you should be able to give some solid info by now to prove them wrong.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #554 on: 03/10/2016 04:30 am »

So we're going on five years and not one valid source that I can find has disputed JPL's, ARC's, or SpaceX's findings. In fact there's been even more research saying it will work. You've been giving the same argument since 2011. Seems like you should be able to give some solid info by now to prove them wrong.

What "more" research?   You keep referring to the same two papers over and over.  Spacex has been modifying their vehicles between each flight.    The Dragon (and Falcon for that matter too) referred too in those papers doesn't exist anymore.  So how could the concept have worked?  They had no idea of the changes needed?
« Last Edit: 03/10/2016 04:38 am by Jim »

Offline dorkmo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 848
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #555 on: 03/10/2016 04:57 am »
Since i love everybody, i feel like i should step in here and say we're talking about deep space design on the dragon in a falcon heavy discussion, wich should probably be in the spacex mars section. and that while both sides have valid points, we do not have hard evidence either way what the most current dragon is capable of.

Offline stoker5432

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #556 on: 03/10/2016 05:36 am »
SpaceX has already said they plan to send Dragons to Mars with Falcon Heavy. Why would they launch a payload that's not capable of getting to its destination and waste a FH? Sure arguing about the time table seems logical, but doubting the capability of the payload, at least on this thread, doesn't.

Offline dorkmo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 848
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #557 on: 03/10/2016 05:47 am »
SpaceX has already said they plan to send Dragons to Mars with Falcon Heavy. Why would they launch a payload that's not capable of getting to its destination and waste a FH? Sure arguing about the time table seems logical, but doubting the capability of the payload, at least on this thread, doesn't.

I believe whatever design they end up launching to mars has a very good chance of having no problems. but being fair to jim there doesnt appear to have been an exhaustive study or critical design review type process to validate the original dragon for anything beyond LEO.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #558 on: 03/10/2016 06:04 am »
We're talking about a CDR, now?? That's how far the goalposts have moved?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #559 on: 03/10/2016 12:01 pm »
Again, nobody has any incentive to lie in PR.
So what? They stated date of first FH launch multiple times. Each time it was replaced with new date. I do not see any reason to believe they will actually launch in nov 2016. I will believe that we start to get closer when their slips will be less than elapsed time. So far every 6 months it slips by 6 months.

To be clear, "their codeword" phrase was my sarcasm, not accusation of deliberate lie.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0