SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL takes a 40 meter hop

Capt'n Midnight · 13-09-2016 6:05pm

josip wrote: »

Every time I see one of those updated rocket list pictures I dream of what it would have been like to feel a Saturn V launch.

Scary http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/01launch_ascent.htm

(2) is where they turned off the centre engine , you go from 3.5g back to 3g and then up again to 4g at (3)

_Tombstone_ · 13-09-2016 9:18pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What's the specific impulse of either the BE-3 or the BE-4 ?

I don't think he ever released them, Nasa spaceflight has thread here where using what figures have been released they work it out at

theoretical ideal specific impulse of 327 s SL and 351 s vac.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-09-2016 1:01am

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

I don't think he ever released them, Nasa spaceflight has thread here where using what figures have been released they work it out at

Thanks

https://www.blueorigin.com/be4

BE-4 is the only engine that can fly by 2019, meeting the congressionally mandated deadline to eliminate dependence on Russian-built engines.

I'll keep my cynical hat on until they release some real info.

The only real advantage of Methane compared to RP-1 is that it doesn't coke as much when used to cool the engine, and even that only applies to reusable engines. RP-1 is way easier to handle and a lot safer as you are comparing natural gas with heating oil. If you are going cryogenic then Hydrogen is a lot lighter. And rocket fuel is cheap compared to rocket hardware.

Developing a new engine ?
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.

_Tombstone_ · 14-09-2016 10:18am

Spacex to be back launching in November from either of their nearly finished pads at Kennedy or Vandenberg. No update on cause of explosion and their back in November!?
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN11J2OJ

Will Rockets Ever Be Reliable?
http://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/Will_Rockets_Ever_Be_Reliable_999.html

"There really needs to be a stronger response from the spaceflight community. In fact, some sectors need to give out howls of rage. It's about time that rocketry became more reliable. It should become more difficult to accept the mediocre performance standards of the whole global space launch industry. The public knows that astronauts walked on the Moon before many of them were even born. Now they watch mundane orbital launches shower the ocean with debris."

josip · 14-09-2016 11:11am

Will Rockets Ever Be Reliable?
http://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/Will_Rockets_Ever_Be_Reliable_999.html

"There really needs to be a stronger response from the spaceflight community. In fact, some sectors need to give out howls of rage. It's about time that rocketry became more reliable. It should become more difficult to accept the mediocre performance standards of the whole global space launch industry. The public knows that astronauts walked on the Moon before many of them were even born. Now they watch mundane orbital launches shower the ocean with debris."

Written by a journalist who doesn't appear to have any practical experience of working in a technical, let alone space industry.
His doctorate is in Philosophy from Wollongong which is better known for its surf and steel than its university.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/morris-jones-a415635

Open to correction if I'm wrong and have done him an injustice, but I'd pay more attention to my mother's recital of hey diddle diddle than this guy's opinion on rocketry.

_Tombstone_ · 16-09-2016 3:18am

Nice little round up on the near near 70 launch vehicles vying for a chunk of the SAT launch business.

Little wonder Spacex is pushing to get back up fast.

_Tombstone_ · 16-09-2016 5:10am

Spacex crewed flight looks pushed back to late 2018?

Capt'n Midnight · 18-09-2016 9:36pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The only real advantage of Methane compared to RP-1 is that it doesn't coke as much when used to cool the engine, and even that only applies to reusable engines. RP-1 is way easier to handle and a lot safer as you are comparing natural gas with heating oil. If you are going cryogenic then Hydrogen is a lot lighter. And rocket fuel is cheap compared to rocket hardware.

OK there's another use for LNG, in theory you could use it for pressurisation of tanks. If done right you could vastly simplify the turbopump. But against that is the addition weight of a pressurised tank and lower efficiency of a lower pressure engine.

ULA were getting Russian rocket engines for $10m each, and $800m a year from the Air Force. At the prices ULA were charging even free engines wouldn't have saved much.

This is about the same price as the Vulcain engine but the hopes are to get it's replacement down to a million or so each. Great if you get the volume of launches to offset the development costs.

Anyway all moot since LNG boils at -160 compared to O2 at -183. And it's not like anyone uses compressed Oxygen to drive rockets or turbopumps these days.

Critical temp/ pressures are similar too
Oxygen −118.6 °C (154.6 K) 49.8 atm (5,050 kPa)
CH4 (methane) −82.3 °C (190.8 K) 45.79 atm (4,640 kPa)

50 atm is the sort of pressure you'd get half a kilometre underwater, so we're not taking lightweight tanks here.

_Tombstone_ · 21-09-2016 3:20pm

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Spacex to be back launching in November from either of their nearly finished pads at Kennedy or Vandenberg.

Hmm, maybe not Vandenberg, looking like it could get damaged in that big forest fire over there.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/20/uncontrolled-wildfire-at-vandenberg-air-force-base-continues-to-rage/

_Tombstone_ · 23-09-2016 9:52pm

SpaceX blast investigation suggests breach in oxygen tank's helium system

josip · 26-09-2016 2:32pm

Raptor test fired

Knifey Spoony · 27-09-2016 7:03pm

Mars colonization conference by Elon starting in half an hour:

http://www.spacex.com/mars

Zillah · 27-09-2016 9:32pm

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

Mars colonization conference by Elon starting in half an hour:

http://www.spacex.com/mars

The quality of the audience questions is making me wonder if I'm all that enthused about spreading the human race.

thecommander · 27-09-2016 9:33pm

Zillah wrote: »

The quality of the audience questions is making me wonder if I'm all that enthused about spreading the human race.

Makes me want to save up for a ticket

Ghost Train · 27-09-2016 11:17pm

It's great to see somebody who has that sort of vision and is trying to push the boundaries. He does make it sound like it's not an impossible project and might just become a reality (fingers crossed)

Would have preferred if the audience was more of type you'd get in a nasa press conference.

Zillah · 28-09-2016 10:26am

Ghost Train wrote: »

Would have preferred if the audience was more of type you'd get in a nasa press conference.

"So, like, I was at Burning Man..." *ten minute ramble about shit at world's foremost technoindustrialist*
Bizarre that the questions weren't screened for quality.

Maximus Alexander · 28-09-2016 4:19pm

It's remarkable how awful a public speaker Musk is.

Zillah · 28-09-2016 8:53pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's remarkable how awful a public speaker Musk is.

He is a little stiff. I think anything more severe than that is unfair.

expectationlost · 28-09-2016 9:03pm

he makes it sound all too easy

Hmmzis · 29-09-2016 9:49pm

That's a whopper of a LOX tank! And all made out of carbon fibre.

First test article for the ITS:

Ghost Train · 29-09-2016 10:21pm

Here's link to the presentation (~40mb) few more photos of tank, and lots of other details he went through on stage
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.pdf

Thing I'd see as most challenging would be making fuel on mars but I guess they can work that out a bit later

Ghost Train · 08-11-2016 12:25am

Bit more info on what might have happened to caused falcon 9 failure
Although a bit light on exact details at least (they think) they understand it

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/5/13533900/elon-musk-spacex-falcon-9-failure-cause-solved

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that his company has finally gotten to the bottom of the September 1st Falcon 9 explosion — claiming it was the “toughest puzzle” they’ve ever had to solve. And now that the problem is known, he expects SpaceX to return to flight in mid-December.

Speaking on CNBC yesterday, Musk said “it basically involves liquid helium, advanced carbon fiber composites, and solid oxygen. Oxygen so cold that it actually enters solid phase.”

So what does that mean exactly? Musk gave some hints a little while ago during a speech he gave to the National Reconnaissance Office. According to a transcript received by Space News, he argued that the supercooled liquid oxygen that SpaceX uses as propellant actually became so cold that it turned into a solid. And that’s not supposed to happen.

This solid oxygen may have had a bad reaction with another piece of hardware — one of the vehicle’s liquid helium pressure vessels. Three of these vessels sit inside the upper oxygen tank that holds the supercooled liquid oxygen propellant. They’re responsible for filling and pressurizing the empty space that’s left when the propellant leaves the tank. The vessels are also over wrapped with a carbon fiber composite material. The solid oxygen that formed could have ignited with the carbon, causing the explosion that destroyed the rocket.

SpaceX isn’t giving too many more details about the process, and the company declined to give further clarification about what Musk said on CNBC. Plus, it’s unclear what caused the solid oxygen to form. There’s speculation from the New York Times that if liquid helium was used in the pressure vessels, which Musk seems to have indicated, it might have been cold enough to freeze the liquid oxygen into a solid. Liquid helium exists at -452 degrees Fahrenheit, a lot colder than SpaceX’s liquid oxygen propellant at -340 degrees Fahrenheit. And oxygen solidifies at -361 degrees Fahrenheit.

Despite all this, SpaceX is confident about getting back to flight by the end of the year, based on what the company has found. And in a recent update, SpaceX claims to be focused on improving its helium loading processes so this accident doesn’t happen again.

OCEANIC FIZZY POP NINE · 06-12-2016 8:17pm

Back in action Dec16

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/187901/20161206/spacex-could-launch-falcon-9-rocket-on-december-16-iridium.htm

Knifey Spoony · 07-12-2016 8:03pm

OCEANIC FIZZY POP NINE wrote: »

Back in action Dec16

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/187901/20161206/spacex-could-launch-falcon-9-rocket-on-december-16-iridium.htm

Pushed back to early January now.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

But, on the plus side, January should see the first re-use of a booster.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-12-2016 8:39pm

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

But, on the plus side, January should see the first re-use of a booster.

Indeed

the Space Shuttle has "reusable" boosters. But they were split into individual sections and re-manufactured and reassembled.

SLS will reuse much of the SRB hardware, but won't re-use the boosters. Just not worth it given the low numbers of flights and the overhead of ships and people and facilities needed.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/10/orbital-atk-booster-production-sls-maiden-flight/

OCEANIC FIZZY POP NINE · 22-12-2016 2:47am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brE21SBO2j8

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/20/14028254/spacex-falcon-9-launch-elon-musk-reaction-gifs

yoppy · 08-01-2017 3:13pm

Grand little vid, it's 7 minutes but worth it, of why the rocket exploded, you have liquid oxygen (at super low temperatures) in a tank with another tank of highly pressurised helium in that tank, so you've a tank in a tank, or a "composite overrap pressure vessels" (sounds more expensive and board roomy) and its the inner tank that failed but it failed due to the way the liquids/gases were loaded, superlow and highly pressurised don't want to hang around, a few pages back you'll see it mentioned that they were trying to speed up the launch process, vid explains better, so they don't actually have to change anything for the next launch they just have to go back to how they use to do and redesign that inner tank in the future. The case is closed, the FAA has given them their launch licence back and they're looking at sending up a few iridiums on Monday, weather permitting.

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

http://www.geekwire.com/2017/faa-spacex-falcon-iridium-satellite-launch/

yoppy · 10-01-2017 2:41am

Bad weather, delayed till saturday.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/spacex-will-have-wait-little-longer-its-return-flight-n704841

Ghost Train · 14-01-2017 4:22pm

60% chance of good weather
17:54 GMT launch
coverage from 17:20
http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/01/14/falcon-9-iridium-mission-1-mission-status-center/

Ghost Train · 14-01-2017 7:02pm

Almost missed this myself

Wonder will it land okay

edit, such small landing pad, looks like all went well, much better video than early launches

Peregrine · 18-01-2017 4:02am

Ghost Train wrote: »

60% chance of good weather
17:54 GMT launch
coverage from 17:20
http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/01/14/falcon-9-iridium-mission-1-mission-status-center/

Did they launch from Vandenberg? That's interesting.

Edit: Ah, the Iridium satellites go into polar orbits. Makes sense.

Ghost Train · 18-01-2017 11:38pm

Peregrine wrote: »

Did they launch from Vandenberg? That's interesting.

Edit: Ah, the Iridium satellites go into polar orbits. Makes sense.

Yes, first successful landing on the just read the instructions drone ship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship

Peregrine · 19-01-2017 2:48am

Ghost Train wrote: »

Yes, first successful landing on the just read the instructions drone ship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship

I was more interested in the launch trajectories from Vandenberg. I hadn't realised that the satellites were to go into polar orbits. Vandenberg would be more suitable than Cape Canaveral for polar and retrograde orbits.

SpaceX have put up some pretty good pictures from the launch and landing:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/31579784413/

Ghost Train · 19-01-2017 8:01pm

Never quite seems this big on the live streams

zboz · 19-01-2017 9:38pm

They're leaked financials show the explosion in 2015 cost them 260million and 6 missed launches so Septembers blow up be even more and with 12 missed launches. They're making no money. They've a billion in cash from Googles investment but at least little to no debt.

Projecting 27 launches for this year despite 8 being their most launches in a year. 44 in 2018 and a mighty ONE A WEEK in 2019.

Everything is gonna depend on their still in the planning stage Satellite internet business, they're planning on sending up 4425 car sized satellites, waaay more than everything ever sent up. Their's currently 1400ish working Satellites up their and over 2800 dead ones. When the system is fully up and running sometime after 2025 at a cost of 10 Billion they project speeds for every user in the 1GB range. Googles investment is so they can have some control over this system. Revenue is expected at 25Billion a year when fully up and running...a mars launch by 2024 seems like not a chance when you look at the money end of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD4X8CKGU5s

Capt'n Midnight · 19-01-2017 10:26pm

Ghost Train wrote: »

Never quite seems this big on the live streams

Small , far away.

josip · 20-01-2017 1:24am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Small , far away.

We just need some of those orange-vested perspective guys to be around at launch time, that's all.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-01-2017 2:42am

josip wrote: »

We just need some of those orange-vested perspective guys to be around at launch time, that's all.

or maybe some mannequins ?

old cars would be good for scale , do a top gear !

Capt'n Midnight · 25-01-2017 6:17pm

https://xkcd.com/1788/

ricimaki · 18-02-2017 3:32pm

First Falcon launching from Pad 39a will launch in a half hour. Live stream here.

Its strange seeing the old shuttle equipment with a different rocket at the pad

Ghost Train · 18-02-2017 4:12pm

Called off due to some unexpected issue

retry tomorrow 14.39

irishgeo · 18-02-2017 10:16pm

Ghost Train wrote: »

Called off due to some unexpected issue

retry tomorrow 14.39

13 seconds left on the clock

Knifey Spoony · 27-02-2017 10:57pm

http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year

Going to send two people around the moon by the end of next year. That's some proper space tourism, none of this sub-orbital flight stuff. If only I was that filthy rich.

Ghost Train · 27-02-2017 11:12pm

Knifey Spoony wrote: »

http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year

Going to send two people around the moon by the end of next year. That's some proper space tourism, none of this sub-orbital flight stuff. If only I was that filthy rich.

I would have thought it would take a lot more testing for them to put together a human rated rocket (how many launches since their last launch pad explosion)

Glad to see them pushing on with things ... but they've only had 15 launches in last two years, maybe they need to be launching more often

FFVII · 25-06-2020 11:42pm

SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL takes a 40 meter hop

Comments