Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL takes a 40 meter hop

1356719

Comments

  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Will Boeing & ULA be reinventing the wheel or will they continue to buy Russian ?

    :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Everyones a WINNER, yeeeeeea.:p Boeings getting 4.2Bil, SpaceX getting 2.6Bil

    Even Jeff Bezos Blue Origin is in there as a "added capacity" backup.

    don't think everyone was a winner, no money for the dream chaser

    also why did boeing get 4.2 and spaceX only 2.6billion, they must have better lobbyists, if they gave boeing the same as spaceX they could have funded the dream chaser


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Will Boeing & ULA be reinventing the wheel or will they continue to buy Russian ?

    :pac:

    do you mean the rocket engines ?

    this is money for the CST-100

    ULA are in serious trouble space X will own the US launch market in the years ahead


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Rucking_Fetard


    nokia69 wrote: »

    also why did boeing get 4.2 and spaceX only 2.6billion, they must have better lobbyists, if they gave boeing the same as spaceX they could have funded the dream chaser

    They both got exactly what they bid apparently.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    They both got exactly what they bid apparently.


    oh OK,

    would be interesting to know what the bid from SNC cost

    I think boeing were always going to win which is why they could make a high bid

    would have been better with the dream chaser and one of the capsules


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Rucking_Fetard




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Rucking_Fetard




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69



    this looks like too little too late, bezos has spent half a billion and is still waiting to reach LEO

    now he wants to build a methane engine for a reuseable system, I wonder where he got that idea, its going to take him four more years, god knows what spaceX will be doing in four years


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    nokia69 wrote: »
    this looks like too little too late, bezos has spent half a billion and is still waiting to reach LEO

    now he wants to build a methane engine for a reuseable system, I wonder where he got that idea, its going to take him four more years, god knows what spaceX will be doing in four years
    The idea could have come from two places - the old idea of brining hydrogen to mars to generate your own fuel from the carbon dioxide there

    which lead to
    http://www.gizmag.com/spacex-methane-mars/25158/
    Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, says that the missions to Mars by his company will use rockets powered by methane, which can be manufactured on the Red Planet

    or

    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz5.html
    Advantages of methane fuel

    All of these engines are being either developed or proposed by Chemical Automatics Design Bureau, KBKhA, based in the city of Voronezh. They became a fruit of a research dating back to 1995. By that time it was established that the replacement of traditional kerosene with a liquefied natural gas could produce a higher specific impulse -- the key performance characteristic of rocket engines. Moreover, liquid methane was estimated to cost up to 30 percent less than kerosene.

    Cooling capability of methane is also three times higher than that of kerosene making it more effective as a coolant for the combustion chamber. Moreover, the methane would leave no solid residue in the engine's fuel lines, excluding the need for a laborious cleaning before a new test or a delivery of an already tested engine for the installation on the rocket. With an equal performance characteristics to a kerosene engine, methane propulsion system would require lower pressure in the combustion chamber and on the exit lines from its fuel pump.

    Industry veterans also noted that the development of methane propulsion would not require any major new infrastructure or newly qualified personnel

    ...

    In 2011, GKNPTs Khrunichev, the developer of the Proton rocket, officially started the development of the MRKS-1 reusable rocket system relying on methane engines. (655)

    KB Khimmash work

    Along with Voronezh-based KBKhA, KB Khimmash (a.k.a. KBKhM) design bureau in Korolev developed a methane version of the engine designated S5.86 No. 2 with a thrust of 7.5 tons. It was first tested in 1997 at NITs RKTs center north of Moscow. During a test on July 27, 2011, the engine fired for 2,000 seconds, proving the capability for multiple firings and confirming the absence of residue in fuel lines even under the most adverse conditions.

    Work at NPO Energomash

    Around 2013 or 2014, a design of the RD-192 engine intended for methane and oxygen propellant also surfaced.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    The idea could have come from two places - the old idea of brining hydrogen to mars to generate your own fuel from the carbon dioxide there

    I think he is just following spaceX, and being a bit of a prick about it too

    no need to bring hydrogen to Mars, plenty of water there already


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    nokia69 wrote: »
    I think he is just following spaceX, and being a bit of a prick about it too

    no need to bring hydrogen to Mars, plenty of water there already
    That's just it , the plan to use methane as fuel has been around since before we knew there was water on mars.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    That's just it , the plan to use methane as fuel has been around since before we knew there was water on mars.

    yeah maybe

    but I think Musk got the idea from Robert Zubrin and Mars direct, Bezos is just following them


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Just had a check in Ignition ( John D Clark) and page 7/8 says
    The VfR was completely unaware of all this when they started work. Oberth had originally wanted to use methane as fuel, but it was hard to come by in Berlin, their first work was with gasoline and oxygen, Johannes Winkler, however, picked up the idea, and working independently of the VfR, was able to fire a liquid oxygen-liquid methane motor before the end of 1930. This work led nowhere in particular, since, as methane has a performance only slightly superior to that of gasoline, and is much harder to handle, nobody could see any point to following it up.

    Very roughly LNG costs about $1,000 per tonne - though this suggests about half that

    So picking random numbers out of the air - hydrocarbon fuel costs for a typical rocket with 250 tonnes fuel would be $0.25m out of a launch cost of $250m. This means the savings by using a different fuel of course be just a fraction of this.

    And of course you have to re-design the engine and fuel tank and pumps re-program everything and do lots of test firings. Which eats into any projected savings. And the other thing that eats into savings is writing off the costs of failed "improvement" projects.
    Or
    the Americans could do what most other space faring nations do, keep flying the stuff that works until there's something better that's flight proven.


    Then again methane is purer than normal rocket fuel


    Another note on the costs of rocket fuel.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-U2
    It featured increased performance compared to the baseline Soyuz-U, due to the use of syntin propellant, as opposed to RP-1 paraffin, used on the Soyuz-U.[1]

    The increased payload of the Soyuz-U2 allowed heavier spacecraft to be launched, while lighter spacecraft could be placed in higher orbits, compared to those launched by Soyuz-U rockets. In 1996, it was announced that the Soyuz-U2 had been retired, as the performance advantage gained through the use of syntin did not justify the additional cost of its production.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Rucking_Fetard


    nokia69 wrote: »
    oh OK,

    would be interesting to know what the bid from SNC cost

    I think boeing were always going to win which is why they could make a high bid

    would have been better with the dream chaser and one of the capsules
    OK, the contracts/Tenders are out now for the next round of resupplys running up to 2024 (the extended life of the ISS).

    Proposals due Nov 15th, decision in May 2015.

    We can follow this one.

    http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/september/nasa-expands-commercial-space-program-requests-proposals-for-second-round-of/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Rucking_Fetard


    Everyones a WINNER, yeeeeeea.:p Boeings getting 4.2Bil, SpaceX getting 2.6Bil

    Even Jeff Bezos Blue Origin is in there as a "added capacity" backup.

    Sierra Nevada Corp. Files Legal Challenge Against NASA Commercial Contracts
    New submitter Raymondware sends an update to last week's news that NASA had awarded contracts to Boeing and SpaceX to provide rockets for future manned spaceflight. Now, one of their competitors, Sierra Nevada Corp, has announced it will launch a legal challenge to the contracts. The company claims the government is spending $900 million more than it needs to for equivalent fulfillment, and they're demanding a review. They add,

    Importantly, the official NASA solicitation for the CCtCap contract prioritized price as the primary evaluation criteria for the proposals, setting it equal to the combined value of the other two primary evaluation criteria: mission suitability and past performance. SNC’s Dream Chaser proposal was the second lowest priced proposal in the CCtCap competition. SNC’s proposal also achieved mission suitability scores comparable to the other two proposals. In fact, out of a possible 1,000 total points, the highest ranked and lowest ranked offerors were separated by a minor amount of total points and other factors were equally comparable.

    Corrupt as F*ck.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Corrupt as F*ck.
    Boeing ?

    This example is more than the annual budget of NASA
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun
    Buying one KC-767 outright costs $150 million. The contract called for 100 aircraft being purchased or leased at an aggregate price of $37b, or $370m per plane. Therefore, the contract, if it had been executed, would have forced the DOD to pay Boeing much more money for each plane than it would have had to if the aircraft were purchased individually.

    or
    Sierra Nevada Corp, & partners , because Lockheed Martin aren't angels and since ULA is on board I'm wouldn't be surprised if the Dream Chaser turned out to be a rebadged Kliper


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Rucking_Fetard




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    nokia69 wrote: »

    Very impressive footage. Stunning! Were they thruster firings at the start to maintain direction?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    shedweller wrote: »
    Very impressive footage. Stunning! Were they thruster firings at the start to maintain direction?

    they use cold gas thrusters to point the rocket in the right direction after stage seperation, before they do the big return burn


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Rucking_Fetard




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller



    Bookmarked for tomorrows viewing!
    Thanks RF!!
    WHO DE MAN??...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Rucking_Fetard




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69




  • Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭INPUT INNPUT


    OK, the contracts/Tenders are out now for the next round of resupplys running up to 2024 (the extended life of the ISS).

    Proposals due Nov 15th, decision in May 2015.

    Seems this is hush hush till NASA announces.

    Few details here,

    spaceflightinsider.com/missions/iss/boeings-cst-100-compete-space-station-resupply-contract/


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Seems this is hush hush till NASA announces.

    Few details here,

    spaceflightinsider.com/missions/iss/boeings-cst-100-compete-space-station-resupply-contract/
    wow

    How much more money will Boeing / ULA get to re-invent the Russian technology in Atlas ? Or even Apollo era tech.


    The Soviets have nearly €3Bn developing Angara. They've been trying to replace Soyuz for nearly 50 years with something better/cheaper.

    and in India costs have spiralled out of control for their new launcher :pac:
    Development costs for GSLV Mk III have risen from the original $400 million budgeted to $477 million. This was for completion of the development programme and carrying out an experimental flight called Launch Vehicle Mk III – Experimental (LVM3-X). GSLV Mk III D1 and GSLV Mk III D2 will also make developmental flights
    paywall / http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?1083-Space-Warfare/page28

    The ISS can already be resupplied by Russia's Progress, ESA's ATV (also used by Orion), Japan's H-II and Cygnus / Dragon so there's a clear need for this

    Corporate welfare at it's finest.
    Although it is not yet clear how many contracts NASA will award, the total contract value will be $14 billion. NASA is scheduled to announce the winner (or winners) of this opportunity on June 10, 2015 with the corresponding missions starting sometime in 2018.

    Meanwhile in India
    10 tonnes to LEO for €24m :eek: from the guys who got to Mars on a shoestring and are developing a crew capsule capable of re-entry


Advertisement