Peak Oil News and Message Boards

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

Even if they are painted black?

vtsnowedin wrote:

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

Even if they are painted black?

Occlusion of stars, by the passage of the satellite, would still happen black or not. I'm also surmising the Chinese and Russians have the ability to use radar the same way we do to keep track of objects in orbit. Unless there is some radar defeating stealth to this thing. Not saying this isn't some sort of secret mission, testing some new technology though.

Cog wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:

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

Even if they are painted black?

Occlusion of stars, by the passage of the satellite, would still happen black or not. I'm also surmising the Chinese and Russians have the ability to use radar the same way we do to keep track of objects in orbit. Unless there is some radar defeating stealth to this thing. Not saying this isn't some sort of secret mission, testing some new technology though.

Might be easier to just say it is gathering data for the climate change crowd and have it do it's real mission on the QT embedded in the data stream.

On a related note the top-secret X37B, the unmanned mini-space plane, went back into orbit in September 2017. No one really knows what it does up there for the Air Force.

Now put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.

Cog wrote:Now put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.

No tin foil needed for that to be plausible. Hope they didn't really use a high tech, high cost satellite when any hunk of junk would do.

vtsnowedin wrote:

Cog wrote:Now put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.

No tin foil needed for that to be plausible. Hope they didn't really use a high tech, high cost satellite when any hunk of junk would do.

LOL given you have no more idea what ZUMA was than I do for all we know it was a black plastic 55 gallon barrel filled with tap water! NASA did some pretty neat tests in the early 1960's exploding barrels of water at extreme sub orbital altitudes. The nice thing is they have a lot of mass but other than the container there is nothing left to run into after the explosion because the water turns to vapor.

Besides under your scenario they would target a dead satellite that at least four space agencies track on every orbit, the USAF missile command, the Russian ABM command, the Chinese space command and the European space surveillance authority. If someone did a test on a well established object everyone would know it, if someone shoots down an object that has not made even one complete orbit it is much more mystery than knowledge.

Tanada wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:

Cog wrote:Now put on your tin-foil hats. The Zuma launch was not a failure. The Zuma launch was a target for whatever weapon was put onboard the X37B space plane. The same space plane that was launched by SpaceX September 2017.

No tin foil needed for that to be plausible. Hope they didn't really use a high tech, high cost satellite when any hunk of junk would do.

LOL given you have no more idea what ZUMA was than I do for all we know it was a black plastic 55 gallon barrel filled with tap water! NASA did some pretty neat tests in the early 1960's exploding barrels of water at extreme sub orbital altitudes. The nice thing is they have a lot of mass but other than the container there is nothing left to run into after the explosion because the water turns to vapor.

Besides under your scenario they would target a dead satellite that at least four space agencies track on every orbit, the USAF missile command, the Russian ABM command, the Chinese space command and the European space surveillance authority. If someone did a test on a well established object everyone would know it, if someone shoots down an object that has not made even one complete orbit it is much more mystery than knowledge.

One of the best Movie lines ever.

You didn't really think they spent $5000 on a toilet seat did you?

SpaceX developments are moving too fast to bother posting in this thread, the Falcon Heavy followed by the PAZ launch with the start of their sat-internet endeavor and experimental fairing capture attempt.

Objectively speaking it's hard to classify SpaceX as anything other than a success, given its constant innovation and risk-taking. I read an article suggesting that, financially speaking, they would not be able to sustain more than one or two catastrophic failures, but it seems as though they are rapidly fine-tuning the entire F9 launch and landing regime in a way that is improving the odds.

The fate of Zuma is a nagging mystery, but if their success ratio holds it seems to bolster SpaceX side of the story that the failure was due to non-SpaceX parts.

Unless things turn for the worst suddenly then it sure seems like Falcon 9 and its descendants will go down as one of the most significant rockets of all time.

SpaceX is doing incredibly well and is set to make billions more.

Cog wrote:SpaceX is doing incredibly well and is set to make billions more.

Yeah, those government subsidies are really nice.

They even left Musk jerk his car customers around (cf. Tesla 3).

SpaceX not to blame for Zuma failure. Just in time for PStarr to resume his heckling.

The advantage of solid fueled rockets is a much greater safety and cheaper maintenance. The disadvantage is a significant loss in maneuverability and precision as the thrust cannot be managed actively.

radon1 wrote:The advantage of solid fueled rockets is a much greater safety and cheaper maintenance. The disadvantage is a significant loss in maneuverability and precision as the thrust cannot be managed actively.

Experience with the Shuttle program showed that solid rocket booster reuseability was problematic and not cost effective. SpaceX has essentially changed the game for costs per Kg to orbit and is still making great progress. LOX and methane are cheap, plentiful, and SpaceX fuel costs are ridiculously low compared to other platforms. Turn-around time for their Block 5 Falcon 9 first stage is days to a couple of weeks. Blue Origin and others are following suit but find themselves playing catch up.

Liquid rocket fuels have historically been lethally poisonous and quickly vaporizing, and thus required regular re-fueling with lots of special equipment at the stationary silos. Possibly, this has changed now.

radon1 wrote:Liquid rocket fuels have historically been lethally poisonous and quickly vaporizing, and thus required regular re-fueling with lots of special equipment at the stationary silos. Possibly, this has changed now.

You are implicitly talking about hydrazine. But the point of using this toxic fuel was precisely to not have to refuel ICBMs all the time. This liquid fuel could sit inside the silo ICBM tanks for decades. By contrast cryogenic fuels such as LOX and LH cannot be used until just before the rocket flight. This is especially true of LH since it leaks like there is no tomorrow through nanofractures and even "tight" valves. Other gases do not have this problem.

Ilon Musk is a snake oil salesman and all the focus this showboater gets is unwarranted. I would rather pay attention to Blue Origin.

dissident wrote:

radon1 wrote:Liquid rocket fuels have historically been lethally poisonous and quickly vaporizing, and thus required regular re-fueling with lots of special equipment at the stationary silos. Possibly, this has changed now.

You are implicitly talking about hydrazine. But the point of using this toxic fuel was precisely to not have to refuel ICBMs all the time. This liquid fuel could sit inside the silo ICBM tanks for decades. By contrast cryogenic fuels such as LOX and LH cannot be used until just before the rocket flight. This is especially true of LH since it leaks like there is no tomorrow through nanofractures and even "tight" valves. Other gases do not have this problem.

Ilon Musk is a snake oil salesman and all the focus this showboater gets is unwarranted. I would rather pay attention to Blue Origin.

Wow! You are WAY behind on that one. I just watched (about 15 minutes ago) the SpaceX Star Hopper do what NASA and just about every other space agency/company has only dreamed of for decades: Launch a rocket in controlled flight, hover, move to a landing pad, and set down gently as pretty as you please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYb3bfA6_sQ
(Watch the last 3 minutes for the money shot)

Who else is launching rockets to orbit while bringing back first stages to perfect landings at the Cape so they can be easily reused. Who has by far the lowest cost to do so?



Who also has the most powerful operational rocket on the planet?



Who????? SpaceX has successfully launched for governments and private customers. Its latest ISS resupply "Dragon" just departed the space station today, and Spacex is set to put the US back into the business of flying people to space after years of relying on the Russians. Maybe you should take some time to look at their accomplishments before you make yourself look utterly uninformed and/or biased.
When it comes to space flight, SpaceX is kicking just about everybody else's butts. That's not my biased opinion. It's reality.
Who else is also being so open about their failures; not just their accomplishments. It's all here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtI0Ho ... b67FeUjDeA
Watch every one of these videos and tell me again how "all the focus this showboater gets is unwarranted".

List of past, current and future customers (that's a LOT of "snakeoil" eh?):
https://www.spacex.com/missions

Following.

Musk fanbois are tiresome. His crew capsule was an epic fail that SpaceX tried to spin as something minor for a few months and then gave up. Landing on barges is not the high tech it is painted to be. Rockets aren't fireworks and can be designed with extremely precise control capability. That is why they can be used to shoot down satellites. The real issue is the longevity of the engines and the tanks. Due to weight savings, they have been historically designed as disposable. For example, landing the tanks several times subjects them to enough stress to create problems from fractures. The metal used is very thin. The same goes for the engines which are not over-designed to reduce weight. So far SpaceX has talked a big deal, but we know nothing about the economics of their "reusable" rockets.

SpaceX (and other companies) is a government welfare project to bootstrap private orbital rocket industry. The taxpayer is going to have to shell out billions of dollars in subsidies for many more years. And nepotist Musk (who bought Solar City because it was run by his relatives) will be taking advantage of this welfare giving the taxpayers much less bang for the buck than is possible.