Two halves connected by a huge hinge? 😂
Quote from: Kaputnik on 03/28/2017 06:56 amZero evidence for this, but splitting the fairing into four would simplify things a fair bit.What's your reasoning?It seems to me it would just multiply the complexity: four avionics packages, four parafoils, four joints, four ASDSes, four helicopters, four airbags, etc.In fact, some folks spent a lot of time upthread trying to figure out how to reattach the fairing halves after separation to create *one* flyback item. That also adds a lot of complexity.Seems like two halves is the sweet spot. But I'm interested to hear why you think four is better.
Zero evidence for this, but splitting the fairing into four would simplify things a fair bit.
Quote from: matthewkantar on 03/28/2017 07:24 amQuote from: Kaputnik on 03/28/2017 06:56 amZero evidence for this, but splitting the fairing into four would simplify things a fair bit.The washering, flanging, and hardware for the joint adds a lot of weight. Fair point. I can't t think of any LVs that use anything other than a two part clamshell.
Quote from: Kaputnik on 03/28/2017 06:56 amZero evidence for this, but splitting the fairing into four would simplify things a fair bit.The washering, flanging, and hardware for the joint adds a lot of weight.
Quote from: Toast on 03/24/2017 07:39 pmQuote from: intrepidpursuit on 03/24/2017 07:10 pmReferring to fate seems to indicate something experimental. Relaunch of a first stage is experimental.It's almost like you and iamlucky13 have no idea of who Musk is. When Musk is given an opportunity to double down, he does. No way he's just a referring to reflying a stage.
Quote from: intrepidpursuit on 03/24/2017 07:10 pmReferring to fate seems to indicate something experimental. Relaunch of a first stage is experimental.
Referring to fate seems to indicate something experimental.
Quote from: old_sellsword on 03/28/2017 03:33 pm This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.The hot landing probably explains Elon's "fate" tweet from last week, then. Maybe a three-engine landing burn again, and they've never yet only once been successful with that.EDIT: from the launch log, only 4 attempts at multi-engine burns:SES-9: 3-engine burn, unsuccessful.JCSAT-14: 3-engine burn, successful.Thaicom-8: 1-3-1 burn, successful. (Not a 3-engine *landing* burn AIUI.)Eutelsat 117W: 3-engine burn, unsuccessful.
This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.
My main point has always been that the thing he's referring to in the tweet is not just reuse of the first stage.
TBH I've never really understood need for the very rigid, heavy fairings that LV's use. I've often wondered if you could get by with an inflatable design, soft of like those emergency half circular shelters, but with two edge to edge and both on end.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/29/2017 06:41 amTBH I've never really understood need for the very rigid, heavy fairings that LV's use. I've often wondered if you could get by with an inflatable design, soft of like those emergency half circular shelters, but with two edge to edge and both on end. Seriously? For max Q, we're talking around mach 1 and airliner cruising altitude. That's a pretty tough gig. I don't see too many inflatable supersonic aircraft going about.
A lot of common practice in this industry seems to have evolved during the development of ICBMs.
I could see the need for a rigid fairing if there is a real fear of impact damage to the outside of the payload or if the fairing has inside ties to the payload to keep in place.