Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/29/2011 3:56:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 3:57:20 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:57:52 PM EDT
Tag for home!
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:00:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:00:33 PM EDT
Where will it make a soft landing? Fresh water lake? Open field?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:00:53 PM EDT


"SpaceX will develop"

They got nothing yet, I'll wait to get excited when it is operational.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:01:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:03:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:04:33 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:03:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:03:41 PM EDT
Too bad the ISS is coming down soon. Correct me if I am wrong.

Glas to see they are developing this kind of stuff.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:03:44 PM EDT
I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it...
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:04:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By _DR:


"SpaceX will develop"

They got nothing yet, I'll wait to get excited when it is operational.


After watching the concept video, I have to admit I have my doubts. Looks cool, but...
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:04:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:05:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:09:31 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:09:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:10:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:16:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:17:28 PM EDT by ED_P]
I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd think a parachute is alot cheaper, lighter and reliable on the way down than carrying enough fuel to slow down for a gentle landing.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:22:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:23:41 PM EDT
I like the concept but that 1st stage is going to be damn unwieldy during it's powered descent. It will need several maneuvering thrusters to keep it stabilized for a vertical landing. A more reasonable solution would be a parachute pack and ocean recovery. Less weight than extra thrusters, landing gear and the extra fuel needed to ensure a soft landing. Same with the 2nd stage and the capsule.

To carry the extra fuel for these powered descents they'll need larger rockets. Larger rockets need more fuel...it's a vicious circle. Parachutes would be a much more cost/weight efficient means to return the stages safely to Earth and they can do a water landing utilizing NASA's existing booster recovery ships.

I'll give 'em credit for thinking outside the box though.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:24:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:28:18 PM EDT by AeroE]
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:25:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Bravo Zulu. Elon Musk has them in brass.


Your guy Musk gives money to the DNC like it's going out of style

Democrats turn around and gut NASA and you're cheering him?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:25:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:26:05 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:26:03 PM EDT
If it is completely reusable how come the solar module did not come down with it? It was there one minute and then gone.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:26:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:27:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:31:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Torqued:
I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it...

I just posted this exact same thing on the tubes video.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:32:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:41:01 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:32:28 PM EDT
This makes me want to play moonlander
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:32:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:34:48 PM EDT by Buliwyf]
Just let the f'n thing burn up. How is it cheaper to use dented, dirty, fallen back to Earth rockets? The 1st stage is nothing but a fuel tank and some sheet metal left over from a Jamaican hut roof or two. If you want to save the engines, assuming they aren't toast, then jettison them off and catch the engines. Allthough solid rockets are nothing more than empty tubes when they're done.

Landing used up rockets over land sounds stupid as well. Will be funny when one F16's into the center of a malls food court somewhere.

NASA allready tried reusable. It wasn't cheaper. Build me one of those Ares V rockets. I'll buy those for a dollar.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:33:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:34:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By itstock:
Where will it make a soft landing? Fresh water lake? Open field?

Exactly.

Multi-planet?!?

Go ahead and pick one. Let me know how it goes.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:35:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:35:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:42:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:44:22 PM EDT by AeroE]
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:45:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Originally Posted By Merrell:
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Bravo Zulu. Elon Musk has them in brass.


Your guy Musk gives money to the DNC like it's going out of style

Democrats turn around and gut NASA and you're cheering him?


Musk gives money to both parties. He also puts his own where his mouth is.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-house-denies-cozzying-special-interests-reality-begs-differ_574700.html

$31K to have chow with zero? Yeah, he's on the up & up
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:52:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:37:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Originally Posted By _DR:


"SpaceX will develop"

They got nothing yet, I'll wait to get excited when it is operational.


So far they have and are delivering everything they have promised. How many private companies have orbited and recovered a capsule with 95% of the development needed to carry humans. Hell, how many countries have done what he has?


I share your enthusiasm for the company and what they have accomplished, but I'm also highly sceptical of what they've shown here. Does it not make better sense to at least use a parachute to retard the decent of each stage and use the rocket motors only for final deceleration, as the Russians do? What kind of weight penalty is there for carrying so much fuel for landing?
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 9:42:48 AM EDT
How much does this lower costs????? Really the only question that needs to be asked.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 9:52:49 AM EDT
Reminds me of the Galaxian Game.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:01:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ED_P:
I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd think a parachute is alot cheaper, lighter and reliable on the way down than carrying enough fuel to slow down for a gentle landing.


This
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:07:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2011 10:11:58 AM EDT by RhinelandArms]
They'd better be cheap vehicles that require very little refurbishment from flight to flight. Three sets of landing gear means less payload and more gas.

Extra gas to return to a vertical landing means waaaay less payload; the energy to return equals the energy to launch, more or less. Less, given the fuel expended to launch, but still very large.

Dragon is another pipe dream so far, a paper rocket. Electrons these days, I suppose. But the artwork is pretty.


Your a little behind the times, Dragon has already been tested and the entire testing to ISS phase has been pushed up 6 months. Nasa and Space x are so confident in the design it will make its first trip to ISS in late November, combining a supply trip and test procedure.

Those landing feet look heavy to me, what are they using titanium?

Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:09:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ED_P:
I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd think a parachute is alot cheaper, lighter and reliable on the way down than carrying enough fuel to slow down for a gentle landing.


It seems to me a controlled area descent by traditional reentry then slowing by parachute, and then using just enough retro to enable a soft landing would incorporate both aspects in a more reliable and cheaper package.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:14:12 AM EDT
That video is full of .

They cannot get a rocket up then have enough fuel to do a controlled vertical landing. The capsule landing was laughable. Fuel is not magical...
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:15:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Torqued:
I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it...


This.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:20:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Originally Posted By _DR:


"SpaceX will develop"

They got nothing yet, I'll wait to get excited when it is operational.


So far they have and are delivering everything they have promised. How many private companies have orbited and recovered a capsule with 95% of the development needed to carry humans. Hell, how many countries have done what he has?


Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, United Space Alliance. NASA doesn't build or launch. After working almost 10 years on the Space Shuttle for a private company, launch and landing support for most of the flights during that time I only met a couple NASA technicians and they were at Marshal Space flight center.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:35:22 AM EDT
Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, United Space Alliance. NASA doesn't build or launch. After working almost 10 years on the Space Shuttle for a private company, launch and landing support for most of the flights during that time I only met a couple NASA technicians and they were at Marshal Space flight center.


Last I read Govt/Nasa approved the new rocket design. Are you going to be working on it? It looks like a beast.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:41:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Originally Posted By Torqued:
I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it...


Again, their track record says Musk delivers if a bit late but he eventually delivers what he promises.

I guarentee you he would NOT be releasing that video if he was not confident he could pull it off.

You need to remember that while SpaceX is a young company, they have hired some of the best veteran aerospace talent in the biz.

The extra fuel comes from some recent big performance improvements in their main engine design.


I don't think so. I am not saying they have no talent, but I am curious of how you know they are the best veterans of this biz.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:44:39 AM EDT
The premise of SpaceX to secure govt funding for projects was reuseable rocket boosters.

So far, all of their reusable rocket boosters are laying under several hundred feet of seawater in the Atlantic Ocean somewhere.

SpaceX is another Solyndra.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:45:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2011 10:51:28 AM EDT by Tekka]

Originally Posted By Buliwyf:
Just let the f'n thing burn up. How is it cheaper to use dented, dirty, fallen back to Earth rockets? The 1st stage is nothing but a fuel tank and some sheet metal left over from a Jamaican hut roof or two. If you want to save the engines, assuming they aren't toast, then jettison them off and catch the engines. Allthough solid rockets are nothing more than empty tubes when they're done.

Landing used up rockets over land sounds stupid as well. Will be funny when one F16's into the center of a malls food court somewhere.

NASA allready tried reusable. It wasn't cheaper. Build me one of those Ares V rockets. I'll buy those for a dollar.

http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss290/zerodefect2533/ZZZMaximum_payload.png

We'd be better off building upgraded Saturn Vs. I'm with you on everything else though. It IS cheaper to just build new rockets.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 10:52:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RhinelandArms:
Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, United Space Alliance. NASA doesn't build or launch. After working almost 10 years on the Space Shuttle for a private company, launch and landing support for most of the flights during that time I only met a couple NASA technicians and they were at Marshal Space flight center.


Last I read Govt/Nasa approved the new rocket design. Are you going to be working on it? It looks like a beast.


nope, I have gone back to the airplanes, I can't take the political uncertainty that comes with the programs. I spent too much time listening to how the next program this and next program that, seen all of these demo computer generated videos of how it will be for it to be cancelled or nothing comes of it. I spent about 6 months with the ARES 1X flight test vehicle and thought something would come from it, after launch we all went back to work in our old work areas and that was it, no more Constellation.

Yes it does look like an impressive vehicle, I hope something does happen soon but I aint holding my breath.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 11:25:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Buliwyf:
Just let the f'n thing burn up. How is it cheaper to use dented, dirty, fallen back to Earth rockets? The 1st stage is nothing but a fuel tank and some sheet metal left over from a Jamaican hut roof or two. If you want to save the engines, assuming they aren't toast, then jettison them off and catch the engines. Allthough solid rockets are nothing more than empty tubes when they're done.

Landing used up rockets over land sounds stupid as well. Will be funny when one F16's into the center of a malls food court somewhere.

NASA allready tried reusable. It wasn't cheaper. Build me one of those Ares V rockets. I'll buy those for a dollar.

http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss290/zerodefect2533/ZZZMaximum_payload.png


Excellent.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 2:51:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2011 2:54:37 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top