Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

SpaceX

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby Cog » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 05:58:00

When everyone interprets your writing the same way, then maybe you are the one with the problem pstarr. Did you ever consider that possibility? SpaceX is capturing a very large and increasing share of the commercial launch business. They do it at a rate that is less expensive than any of their competitors. I don't understand the hate doomers have for anything that goes against their narrative.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13417
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 08:58:56

Pstarr you insist you did not write what I pointed out you wrote, in effect calling me a liar. Directly below is your message I was responding to complete and unaltered, where you make the very claim you accused me of making up. Simply admit the truth and apologize, it is the adult thing to do.

pstarr wrote:
Cog wrote:
pstarr wrote:SpaceX is another joke. It's selling point is the resuse, but that can only happen over water as per FAA, Dept. of Defense etc. All re-entry of all space vehicles have come down, mostly in the Atlantic/Caribbean. The cost to deploy and site a landing barge to capture each launch vehicle will render the scheme DOA.


You haven't seen stage one recovery occurring on dry land at Cape Canaveral? They have done so several times. Musk has undercut everyone else on launches and has gained a major share of all commercial launches. Musk is a showboater but SpaceX is not an example of that.

Tests, not operational spaceflights.

The technology certainly exists but those damn Obama-era regulations won't let the SpaceX plummet back to earth over Miami. grrrrhh :x Even though Miami is a terrorist entry point from Cuba.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 09:23:35

SpaceX moved closer to its next launch with a successful hold-down engine firing Saturday at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, sailing through a readiness check for a planned liftoff Wednesday with a clandestine U.S. government payload named Zuma.

Throttling up to full power for a few seconds, the Merlin 1D engines ignited at 6 p.m. EST (2300 GMT) Saturday at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The static fire test clears the way for final launch preparations ahead of the deployment of a clandestine U.S. government payload named Zuma in orbit Wednesday.

It will be SpaceX’s 17th launch of the year, and the 45th flight of a Falcon 9 rocket since the commercial booster debuted in 2010.

SpaceX’s launch team loaded super-chilled, densified kerosene and liquid oxygen propellants into the two-stage Falcon 9 rocket Saturday evening, then ignited the booster’s nine main engines for several seconds while hold-down restraints keep the vehicle on the ground.

A plume of engine exhaust erupted from the north side of the launch pad, and SpaceX confirmed a good hold-down firing on Twitter a few minutes later.

The prelaunch static fire test is a customary step in all SpaceX launch campaigns.

The next step to prepare for Wednesday’s launch will be the rollback of the Falcon 9 to SpaceX’s hangar at pad 39A to meet Zuma, a mysterious payload for the U.S. government. Little is known about the mission, including which government agency is in charge of it. Northrop Grumman said last month it arranged for the payload’s launch with SpaceX on behalf of the government.

Liftoff with Zuma is scheduled during a two-hour window Wednesday that opens at 8 p.m. EST (0100 GMT Thursday).

The Falcon 9’s first stage booster will return to Landing Zone-1 at Cape Canaveral less than 10 minutes after liftoff, a maneuver that requires ample leftover fuel in the rocket after sending its payload toward orbit. The plan for a landing at Cape Canaveral, and not on an offshore ship, suggests the Zuma payload is likely heading for a relatively low-altitude orbit.

Saturday’s hotfire test came less than two weeks after SpaceX’s last launch from pad 39A on Oct. 30.

SpaceX plans to launch the following Falcon 9 flight from neighboring pad 40 in December, returning that launch complex to service for the first time since it was damaged in a rocket explosion last year.

Activity at pad 39A will focus on preparing for the first test flight of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, which could occur before the end of the year.


SpaceX
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15968
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 12:27:47

pstarr wrote:Until proven otherwise, common sense...


In other words...you got nothin'.

Image

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby Cog » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 13:08:38

SpaceX is not NASA. SpaceX is innovative and isn't burdened by the NASA waste and rules prevalent in that agency. They have already re-used first stage boosters on operational flights.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13417
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby Cog » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 15:26:45

You really should keep up with current events pstarr. Sad really. But in the interest of letting you embarrass yourself further I will let you go on until I correct your knowledge.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13417
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 15:54:23

Regardless of PStarr's semantics, SpaceX is not standing still.

https://www.universetoday.com/137061/bu ... -blastoff/

Both of the side cores are also recycled boosters that will be launched for the second time each.


Oh, and BTW, there have been very few fully-expendable Falcon 9 launches. There's plenty of payload capacity for your typical satellite.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 16:07:16

pstarr wrote: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.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 16:56:47

pstarr wrote: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.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 17:22:48

pstarr wrote: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.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15968
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: SpaceX

Unread postby Cog » Mon 13 Nov 2017, 17:43:31

Do you really know about anything that doesn't involve spiking trees and vandalizing logging equipment pstarr?
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13417
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests