[asg70]

You must believe it will be cheaper to retrieve a 1st-stage booster hundreds of miles offshore . . . than to simply let it drop into the ocean? NASA and John Glenn also had access to gyroscopes, accelerators, and GPS . . . and they beg to differ.

Gee, you really should apply to be SpaceX's accountant if you think they haven't done the math right on this. Sheesh.

[asg70]

Cog's core argument is that NASA is hamstrung by its very nature, that government is unable to compete with private enterprise.

He's right. The entity that brought us your proverbial $10,000 toilet seats does not represent the future of space travel.

It's funny how, no matter what issue it is, you jump on board the wrong side. Each and every time.

[Tanada]

You must believe it will be cheaper to retrieve a 1st-stage booster hundreds of miles offshore . . . than to simply let it drop into the ocean? NASA and John Glenn also had access to gyroscopes, accelerators, and GPS . . . and they beg to differ.

Actually in 1968 NASA had two competing system designs, one to return and reuse the first stage and one to build a glider capsule for the crew to ride in and reuse that capsule. After two years the Nixon Administration told them they had to pick one system because they would not get funding for both, and that they should try and get the USAF involved to pay part of the development costs. For those reasons NASA picked the reusable crew vehicle concept and then they had to more than quadruple its size to fit the USAF launch requirements from Vandenberg, California for polar spy satellite launch with landing after one orbit back at Edwards USAF base in California. The resulting Frankenstein creation became what we know as the STS aka Space Shuttle aka Space transport System that was never good for any of its stated roles and was never even launched from Vandenberg after USAF got permission to withdraw support post Challenger Disaster of January 1986.

If NASA had gone with the reusable first stage booster concept instead you would probably be arguing we had wasted the last 40 years because we didn't build the Space Shuttle instead. The physics are pretty simple, returning a first stage to the launch site as a 'fly back booster' is at least one order of magnitude easier than retrieving the capsule, which is the last stage and the portion that takes the greatest stress to return to Earth in reusable form.

It is also a blatant lie for anyone at NASA to say any part of the STS system was 'Reusable'. Not one part of that system was able to be put back into launch rotation without massive maintenance being done first. The SSME rockets were not even left on the orbiter for another flight, they were detached and completely disassembled and rebuilt while a different already refurbished set were installed on the vehicle they were detached from. In the same way every single one of the tens thousand tiles had to be individually inspected and any with the slightest flaw were painstakingly removed and replaced with a brand new custom made replacement tile. The manuvering engines had to be removed and refurbished as well as the attitude control rockets because they used highly corrosive fuels and oxidizers requiring not only a purge but a complete strip down and refurbishing after every flight.

In comparison SpaceX has designed a system with a flyback booster first stage, though in their case it is pure computer piloted instead of a human astronaut. They also chose the vertical take off and landing which is trickier than the vertical take off horizontal landing system, but pogo landing gear are much lighter and easier to deploy than wheeled landing gear so once DC-X proved it could be done in 1994 it is not a real surprise they adopted it for themselves in 2014. After all 20 years of improved computer power and material understanding makes the 'leap' to vertical pogo landing of a stage more of a small step than a great leap. SpaceX deliberately designed the engines for their launcher to use an ablative liner, meaning for any flight less than a max performance effort the rockets can simply get a fresh coat of liner material and in theory at least, be ready for the next flight. This is a far cry from the NASA SSME that had to be completely disassembled and rebuilt to exceedingly fine tolerances to work properly on a subsequent flight, and they didn't always do so even after a complete rebuilding. On more than one occasion an SSME failed to light causing a pad launch abort to take place.

[Cog]

Do you really know about anything that doesn't involve spiking trees and vandalizing logging equipment pstarr?

[asg70]

That high-tech zero-G $10,000 toilet seats allowed John Glenn to poo with safety and great pleasure.

Again, that was 50+ years ago. This is 2017. The world has changed. Your viewpoints, apparently, haven't.

You really are quite the backseat driver. The only bigger perma-crank is StarvingLion, which is why you like him, I'm sure.

[Cog]

Oh the noes, SpaceX is launching another rocket 17 November 2017 and returning the first stage to Cape Canaveral. Posted for pstarr.


"A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the Zuma payload. Northrop Grumman arranged to launch the Zuma payload with SpaceX on behalf of the U.S. government, but no other details about the mission have been disclosed. The Falcon 9 rocket’s first stage will return to landing at Landing Zone-1 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station."

This will be the 17th SpaceX launch this year.
Launch window: 800 - 1000 PM EDT (0100 - 0300 GMT on 17 Nov)


https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

[asg70]

SpaceX reflies another rocket and lands on dry-land.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPHbqY9LHCs

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled FUD.

[AdamB]

SpaceX reflies another rocket and lands on dry-land.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPHbqY9LHCs

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled FUD.

I never said that the Space X booster can not be shot into space and landed again. (of course the example above is not that)

Oh boy, here we go again.

"HOW DARE SOMEONE NOTICE THAT I HAVE BEEN TELLING LIES SO LONG THAT I CAN'T REMEMBER THEM ALL! IT ISN'T FAIR!!

[asg70]

the example above is not that

How is it "not that"? The booster AND the crew module are both being reused. If you watched the start of the video they are even going so far to say they don't want to have to even wash or repaint it before sending it up again...all to keep addressing FUDsters who will move the goalposts on what constitutes true reuse rather than refurbishment.

said booster must re-enter and be retrieved deep at sea

Must? So this landing didn't happen?

extra cost to retrieve said booster

An extra cost that you can't quantify, hence falling back on FUD.

The sole reason for the SpaceX reusable booster program to con the clueless so-called green investor community.

Musk is concerned about the environment but I see no material that suggests that SpaceX reusability is driven by environmental concerns, only controlling cost.

[GHung]

SpaceX to launch its Zuma mission (secret) tonight between 8-10 pm EST. See it here: http://www.spacex.com/webcast , or whatever part of the 'secret' launch they'll show. The best part for me is always the return/landing of the first stage.

[asg70]

The best part for me is always the return/landing of the first stage.

On a barge hundreds of miles offshore, far far away from civilization and services.
It's a dog and pony show. Like the HyperLoopy

This one was on land, and it landed right smack-dab in the middle of the X. Even the landing legs lined up on the center-axis. Perfect landing down to the inch. So shove your FUD where the sun don't shine.

https://youtu.be/wOo4Uwe1rTE?t=1m32s

[Cog]

Falcon Heavy is supposed to launch at the end of the month. Largest rocket since the Saturn V. Basically three first stage rockets strapped together. Three first stage rockets to land with that launch. If I'm not mistaken two of the first stage rockets to land on land and one on a barge. SpaceX is doing some impressive stuff.

[Cog]

I do not understand your question pstarr. The first stages, return to where they were launched from depending on the orbit the payload is intended for. Sometimes that involves a barge landing since there is insufficient fuel to return to launch point on certain payloads and orbits. Not seeing the problem here. The first stages don't just land on random pieces of ground if you are worried about safety. There are designated landing pads for them at Cape Canaveral.

[asg70]

Why would the Defense Department allow a low earth reentry? The decent is measured in minutes, barely time to track it. Then there is that human problem. Who is to say what/whom happens to be wandering around. Lest we forget, that first stage is massive, a skyscraper. In your backyard?

This is the FEAR portion of FUD.

How many airplanes fly overhead on a given day? Technically there is a non-zero chance an airplane could fall on your head. How can the FAA allow airplanes to fly over your backyard??????? Just, just THINK OF THE CHILDREN! OH, THE HUMANITY! IT MUST BE STOPPED!

[asg70]

Falcon 9 separates its first and second stages at relatively low speed, so its reentry starts off drastically slower than a reentry from orbit -- about 1650 m/s for the return-to-launch-site flight in December 2015, compared to orbital speed of 7700 m/s. Stage separation can be quite a bit faster in their downrange, barge landing flights, but the first stage is still moving much slower than orbital velocity.

https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... n-re-entry
So Elon has this re-entry vehicle plummeting toward earth at 3,375 miles per hour. Straight down. What could wrong? The shoot malfunctions, the AI goes bonkers. A goose in the guy-wires. Who know? But there goes the orange frappuccino all over the road. And those poor retirees? And their condos? yikes

So it's been established that you're just jealous of his dick and you continue to pretend you have valid FUD?

Give it up.

[Tanada]

Why would the Defense Department allow a low earth reentry? The decent is measured in minutes, barely time to track it. Then there is that human problem. Who is to say what/whom happens to be wandering around. Lest we forget, that first stage is massive, a skyscraper. In your backyard?

This is the FEAR portion of FUD.

How many airplanes fly overhead on a given day? Technically there is a non-zero chance an airplane could fall on your head. How can the FAA allow airplanes to fly over your backyard??????? Just, just THINK OF THE CHILDREN! OH, THE HUMANITY! IT MUST BE STOPPED!

That is exactly the thinking that was used to form regulations against supersonic air travel over the continental USA even though an SST at altitude made less noise than a regular jet at 20,000 feet passing overhead. The NIMBY forces do not use nor want to use logic or science, they feel what they feel and that is all that matters to them. Our culture used to laugh at those with 'hurt feelings' and go on about its business but this came to a screeching halt in 1973 when for the first time ever the USA outlawed a new technology simply to placate those kind of hurt feelings, and it has grown progressively worse over the last 45 years as more and more victims show up to talk about their feelings.

[asg70]

...am merely pointing out possible dangers...

Merely throwing shade on Musk out of envy that is.

I deserve an apology.

you deserve this:

[asg70]

Asgy your attack on me (likely a stupid jpg) is misplaced. I am not real; I am Elon's nasty virtual doppelganger lol

Wasn't I in your ignore filter? Why are you reading my posts?

[vtsnowedin]

Report satellite lost ! True or just a ploy to keep the rest of it'd mission classified?
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/01/08/hig ... aunch.html

[Cog]

Not sure if you can truly lose a satellite since they are observable by amateur astronomers.