SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL takes a 40 meter hop

Maximus Alexander

I get what you're saying Wibbs, and I'd normally totally agree. But... there's just something about Musk. People were quite literally laughing at him from day one with SpaceX, but he's still there, and still delivering. He just seems to achieve everything he sets out to do, and while his timelines do sound impossibly optimistic, I find it really difficult to bet against him ultimately sending someone to Mars.

nokia69

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I get what you're saying Wibbs, and I'd normally totally agree. But... there's just something about Musk. People were quite literally laughing at him from day one with SpaceX, but he's still there, and still delivering. He just seems to achieve everything he sets out to do, and while his timelines do sound impossibly optimistic, I find it really difficult to bet against him ultimately sending someone to Mars.

I have been watching them since the early Falcon 1 flights and back then I thought it was interesting enough, but how the hell did he intend getting to Mars with a Falcon 1 sized rocket, and yes he really was a laughing stock, ULA, ESA, the Russians they have all spent more than ten years laughing at SpaceX, I don't think they are laughing any more

In the end if he gets to Mars in 15 years and not 10 will that be some kind of failure, I don't think so

nokia69

Wibbs wrote: »

Manned flight to low earth orbit. We've been doing that for nearly sixty years. We know the engineering of it all pretty well at this stage. He(and others) are aiming to make the process cheaper and more repeatable and more power to his elbow, but he ain't reinventing the wheel here.

I agree but they need to take a step by step approach, and make money along the way, its working so far

Wibbs wrote: »

Quite simply bigger is more difficult, it's not a case of doubling the size of the plans on the printer. Look at the differences between earth orbit Mercury and Gemini missions and the Lunar Apollo stuff. There was a huge gulf between them(which makes it all the more remarkable).

Of course, we all know that, do you think SpaceX don't know this, but in may cases it is just a scale up job

Wibbs wrote: »

"Not that far away"? That's before the suite of engineering and practical space skill sets required for a Mars mission. Many of which will not be a case of polishing up old tech and expertise it will require completely new thinking and engineering and practices. He, they will be working on completely new ground. Consider that the big boys have lost nigh on half their missions to Mars and the fantastic successes were one way trips for machines no bigger than an old style Mini car. And that stuff is fantastic because of the real scary level difficulties of doing it.

This is not really true, the key part of the plan is the Raptor engine, and its actually not that big, it looks to be about the size of the Shuttle main engine, the only difference is that its powered by Methane, I don't think building an engine that size is beyond SpaceX and once thats finished the rest will fall into place

Wibbs wrote: »

Essentially and very basically what SpaceX have done so far is to launch a yacht into Dublin bay and got it back to the harbour. And they did it in the equivalent of a shed, so fair play and cool beans. Back in the 60's the Americans got from Dublin bay to Cardiff in Wales and back in a much bigger yacht with engines and sails(and hookers and blackjack). Going to Mars is like building an ocean going vessel and getting to Newfoundland, bringing your own house with you, staying there and then getting back.

The claim for landing on Mars by 2025. That right there is a reality distortion field. I will bet you now, It Will Not Happen. I'll further bet they won't get humans to Mars by 2040(and back of course. That's the trick). Certainly not on their own. I could get into other areas of Musk's biz and point out the old time razzamatazz flimflam, but that's for another day in another place.

Don't get me wrong I do admire the chap and I fully endorse his idea that we need to get the fcuk off this rock and in numbers, because even one colony increases our chances exponentially. Indeed relevant to this very topic; the language of the only men to walk on the moon was English. Not because the English themselves did it, but because they and others had colonies apart from home base in bigger places with wider fields of vision and endeavour and more resources.

Don't get me wrong Part Two; I also admire the daftness of "youthful" thinking. Ah sure we can do it, we just need to apply ourselves. That thinking will get us out there, to Mars and beyond. Sooner or later, though in the case of Musk et al and Mars I'm seeing later, likely much later. I want to be proven wrong.

You can look up various different plans to put people on Mars and they are all based around a large rocket, once you have that its really not as hard as people like to claim, I recommend you watch a few Robert Zubrin videos on youtube

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

Essentially and very basically what SpaceX have done so far is to launch a yacht into Dublin bay and got it back to the harbour. And they did it in the equivalent of a shed, so fair play and cool beans. Back in the 60's the Americans got from Dublin bay to Cardiff in Wales and back

LOL

And Blue Origin are taking a trip around Malahide Estuary.

Wibbs

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

He just seems to achieve everything he sets out to do, and while his timelines do sound impossibly optimistic.

Yes and no MA and more no than yes in actual terms. His timelines never pan out. It's much more of a cultish vibe to his support base, rather than concrete realities. Though funny enough I give his space launch biz more long term hope than his car or "power wall" battery biz. The latter are at best a nudge to get the other car makers moving, at worst missing the point entirely*

nokia69 wrote: »

I agree but they need to take a step by step approach, and make money along the way, its working so far

Again yes and no and more the latter concerning making money. He's propped up by billions in US government money. And that's cool and actually a likely better spend of their money than keeping it in house, but making money is a long way off.

Of course, we all know that, do you think SpaceX don't know this, but in may cases it is just a scale up job

It really isn't.

This is not really true, the key part of the plan is the Raptor engine, and its actually not that big, it looks to be about the size of the Shuttle main engine, the only difference is that its powered by Methane, I don't think building an engine that size is beyond SpaceX and once thats finished the rest will fall into place

To put humans on Mars? I really don't feel you get the logistics of such a venture. It's not within an asses roar of "get into earth orbit, add bigger engine, go". Basically you have to get into orbit and assemble something not far off the size of the ISS with added complexity. You then have to heavy lift the habitation and fuel and food and the like to Mars, then land it, maybe with some preassembly ahead of humans getting there. Then you have to factor in near complete unknowns like radiation risk/damage to the would be Martians on the way there, while there and on the way back. Pretty much every one of the Apollo guys suffered early onset cataract formation, all of them saw regular flashes as cosmic rays zapped through their eyeballs and they were beyond earth orbit for a week, now run that kinda thing for six months. The surface of Mars is so ill protected by it's near non existent atmosphere(and zero magnetic protection) that you may as well be in deep space. It looks nice, but with an air pressure of less than 1% of earth you may as well be in deep space on that score too. Sure they could land near caves and live in them which would help., but.. Then you've to come back. If at any point in the mission a solar flare of any magnitude kicks off, then bye bye Buck Rogers.

TBH - and I realise I'll be making few friends with this opinion - I think Mars is a big white elephant as a human destination in anything like the near future. It appeals as a place on so many visceral levels, but in cold hard practical terms it's pretty much a bust. The moon is a far better bet. It's days away as opposed to months for a start. Sure it's not as "pretty" but it's practically the same kind of environment with many of the same issues and what we learn by regular visits and setting up bases there stands us in very good stead for eventual missions to Mars and elsewhere and would itself be a low grav stepping stone to the planets. Never mind the best place for deep space telescopes, visual and radio and the mining options and the science of moon formation etc. And it's in our "back yard".






* the powering of a car isn't so much the issue as the concept of the car itself. Never mind that the battery tech they all use is about as "environmentally friendly" as an oil spill. Indeed Musk's influence is a bad one in many ways. The fuel cell being a far cleaner engine and far more practical). His power wall battery pack is a farce. Real flimflam stuff. A small shed full of old style lead acid truck batteries would work better and cost a fraction of the price.

nokia69

Wibbs wrote: »

Again yes and no and more the latter concerning making money. He's propped up by billions in US government money. And that's cool and actually a likely better spend of their money than keeping it in house, but making money is a long way off.

I have heard all this stuff before and most of it is pure BS, Musk gets far less "subsidies" than any of his competitors, you should read up a little on ULA for example before you start bashing Musk or SpaceX

Wibbs wrote: »

To put humans on Mars? I really don't feel you get the logistics of such a venture. It's not within an asses roar of "get into earth orbit, add bigger engine, go". Basically you have to get into orbit and assemble something not far off the size of the ISS with added complexity. You then have to heavy lift the habitation and fuel and food and the like to Mars, then land it, maybe with some preassembly ahead of humans getting there. Then you have to factor in near complete unknowns like radiation risk/damage to the would be Martians on the way there, while there and on the way back. Pretty much every one of the Apollo guys suffered early onset cataract formation, all of them saw regular flashes as cosmic rays zapped through their eyeballs and they were beyond earth orbit for a week, now run that kinda thing for six months. The surface of Mars is so ill protected by it's near non existent atmosphere(and zero magnetic protection) that you may as well be in deep space. It looks nice, but with an air pressure of less than 1% of earth you may as well be in deep space on that score too. Sure they could land near caves and live in them which would help., but.. Then you've to come back. If at any point in the mission a solar flare of any magnitude kicks off, then bye bye Buck Rogers.

Radiation is a problem that can be solved, and we know how to solve it, the Apollo missions had little or no shielding, but and Mars mission will of course involve some clever radiation shielding, its not a show stopper

Again I recommed you watch a few Robert Zubrin videos on the subject he talks about the radiation and all the other reasons people have for not sending people to Mars

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH - and I realise I'll be making few friends with this opinion - I think Mars is a big white elephant as a human destination in anything like the near future. It appeals as a place on so many visceral levels, but in cold hard practical terms it's pretty much a bust. The moon is a far better bet. It's days away as opposed to months for a start. Sure it's not as "pretty" but it's practically the same kind of environment with many of the same issues and what we learn by regular visits and setting up bases there stands us in very good stead for eventual missions to Mars and elsewhere and would itself be a low grav stepping stone to the planets. Never mind the best place for deep space telescopes, visual and radio and the mining options and the science of moon formation etc. And it's in our "back yard".

Thats just a matter of opinion, and plenty of people would agree, but you are wrong about the Moon being the same kind of environment, the Moon has its own problems that IMO make it hard to work with, I would still like to see a return to the Moon which of course will happen because its so close, and once you have a rocket big enough for a Mars mission then a return to the Moon will happen

Wibbs wrote: »

* the powering of a car isn't so much the issue as the concept of the car itself. Never mind that the battery tech they all use is about as "environmentally friendly" as an oil spill. Indeed Musk's influence is a bad one in many ways. The fuel cell being a far cleaner engine and far more practical). His power wall battery pack is a farce. Real flimflam stuff. A small shed full of old style lead acid truck batteries would work better and cost a fraction of the price.

This is just wrong, you need to do a little more reading into Hydrogen fuel cells, the whole thing is a scam, you should ignore Jeremy Clarkson, James May, Honda and Toyota press releases ect, these people have an agenda and it doesn't involve the truth




Watch the video below, its the Mars direct plan, it looks like Musks plan is based on it, more or less

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

Wibbs

nokia69 wrote: »

I have heard all this stuff before and most of it is pure BS, Musk gets far less "subsidies" than any of his competitors, you should read up a little on ULA for example before you start bashing Musk or SpaceX

I didn't say others didn't. Indeed I said that this was probably a better spend of public money than not. And I'm certainly not "bashing" Musk. Not unless you're his press agent and all news must be good news. The facts are yes Musk gets results, but he also makes wild claims for the future, claims that don't always pan out(actually pretty much never do on claimed timelines). What I said earlier about a kind of cultism around this guy is a real thing, tends to muddy the realities and this sorta thing IMH is an example of it.

Radiation is a problem that can be solved, and we know how to solve it, the Apollo missions had little or no shielding, but and Mars mission will of course involve some clever radiation shielding, its not a show stopper

Actually Apollo had shielding and they flew the the spacecraft with the mass ahead of the crew into the radiation to attenuate it more. As I pointed out those journeys involved days, not many months in interplanetary space. The radiation will be an issue I would bet my life on it. As for shielding, yep there are some solutions, certainly for the lower energy stuff, but the most damaging higher energy stuff is more problematic. You'd need about a foot or so of liquid water to stop the majority of it. Unless someone comes up with lightweight materials that will stop high energy particles the weights are going to keep going up. Another option is to create a mini magnetosphere around the living quarters, but that takes energy and lots of it. Energy you're not going to pull out of solar panels and you'd need a helluva lot of fuel cells(more weight), nuclear is an option, though launching nuclear reactors is considered dubious for obvious reasons.

Again I recommed you watch a few Robert Zubrin videos on the subject he talks about the radiation and all the other reasons people have for not sending people to Mars

He is an stone cold evangelist for Mars and his way to get there(which is a good way IMH) but TBH I find some of his dismissals of the issues, well… dismissive.

Thats just a matter of opinion, and plenty of people would agree, but you are wrong about the Moon being the same kind of environment, the Moon has its own problems that IMO make it hard to work with, I would still like to see a return to the Moon which of course will happen because its so close, and once you have a rocket big enough for a Mars mission then a return to the Moon will happen

Think for a second about how daft that reads. Unless one is completely drunk on the Martian Koolaid the moon is clearly the more practical "first step" to colonising the solar system. While Mars and the Moon look very different as far as practicalities they're remarkably similar environments. Mars main two advantages are higher gravity(which can be a disadvantage) and less wild temperatures. A third would be more water and CO2 to use, though finding, collecting it and extracting it will be fun. I've seen solar panels being mooted which is a bit wishful as noon daylight on Mars is about as bright as dusk on Earth. Radiation on both bodies is pretty identical, the atmosphere on Mars is so thin it's trying its best to be a vacuum. Both places require full EVA suits and near identical habitats(though thermal shock would be less an issue on Mars).

In the long term, as far as full human colonies go Mars is the better bet. Mainly because the soil would grow food with little enough coaxing, though sealed biodomes would be required of course. Could we terraform Mars? Not with anything like current tech. The planet is too small to hang onto a decent atmosphere without active vulcanism constantly refilling it and a magnetosphere to stop it being blasted off into space.

This is just wrong, you need to do a little more reading into Hydrogen fuel cells, the whole thing is a scam, you should ignore Jeremy Clarkson, James May, Honda and Toyota press releases ect, these people have an agenda and it doesn't involve the truth

Huh? I wasn't getting my info from people like Clarkson I always thought he was gung ho for batteries anyway? I do know that Zubrin's "agenda" is anti hydrogen so maybe that's where you're getting it from, but to say he's a tad disingenuous on the matter is being kind. He reckons hydrogen isn't much cop but is fine with his mate Musk peddling lithium ion batteries that are an environmental menace and if the world went battery cars tomorrow the lithium issue alone would be a bloody nightmare. Oh and I find it interesting that he reckons getting hydrogen cheaply on earth is problematic yet the same guy has us setting up plants on Mars and harvesting local gasses with ease? Eh… wut? It may be informative to read up on where much of his funding comes from. I don't know, but I have follow the money as a good plan and a really good plan when pros and cons debates get heated.

Oh and what do you think will be providing the power on Musk's future spacecraft(if any actually go beyond near earth orbit), batteries?

nokia69

Wibbs wrote: »

I didn't say others didn't. Indeed I said that this was probably a better spend of public money than not. And I'm certainly not "bashing" Musk. Not unless you're his press agent and all news must be good news. The facts are yes Musk gets results, but he also makes wild claims for the future, claims that don't always pan out(actually pretty much never do on claimed timelines). What I said earlier about a kind of cultism around this guy is a real thing, tends to muddy the realities and this sorta thing IMH is an example of it.

there is cultism around Musk and unfortunately I expect it to reach Jobs levels soon enough, if its not there already, but on the other hand there is a lot of BS spread about him too, he is pissing off a lot of very powerful people, keep that in mind when you read something negative about him, the truth as usual will be somewhere in the middle

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually Apollo had shielding and they flew the the spacecraft with the mass ahead of the crew into the radiation to attenuate it more. As I pointed out those journeys involved days, not many months in interplanetary space. The radiation will be an issue I would bet my life on it. As for shielding, yep there are some solutions, certainly for the lower energy stuff, but the most damaging higher energy stuff is more problematic. You'd need about a foot or so of liquid water to stop the majority of it. Unless someone comes up with lightweight materials that will stop high energy particles the weights are going to keep going up. Another option is to create a mini magnetosphere around the living quarters, but that takes energy and lots of it. Energy you're not going to pull out of solar panels and you'd need a helluva lot of fuel cells(more weight), nuclear is an option, though launching nuclear reactors is considered dubious for obvious reasons.

the best way to solve the radiation problem is to use the tons of food and water as shielding, its not that hard, I doubt something like a mini magnetosphere will be used

Wibbs wrote: »

He is an stone cold evangelist for Mars and his way to get there(which is a good way IMH) but TBH I find some of his dismissals of the issues, well… dismissive.

Think for a second about how daft that reads. Unless one is completely drunk on the Martian Koolaid the moon is clearly the more practical "first step" to colonising the solar system. While Mars and the Moon look very different as far as practicalities they're remarkably similar environments. Mars main two advantages are higher gravity(which can be a disadvantage) and less wild temperatures. A third would be more water and CO2 to use, though finding, collecting it and extracting it will be fun. I've seen solar panels being mooted which is a bit wishful as noon daylight on Mars is about as bright as dusk on Earth. Radiation on both bodies is pretty identical, the atmosphere on Mars is so thin it's trying its best to be a vacuum. Both places require full EVA suits and near identical habitats(though thermal shock would be less an issue on Mars).

In the long term, as far as full human colonies go Mars is the better bet. Mainly because the soil would grow food with little enough coaxing, though sealed biodomes would be required of course. Could we terraform Mars? Not with anything like current tech. The planet is too small to hang onto a decent atmosphere without active vulcanism constantly refilling it and a magnetosphere to stop it being blasted off into space.

the way I see it, Mars is better than the Moon but if you design a system to reach Mars than you can use the same system to reach the moon. but the reverse is not true

Wibbs wrote: »

Huh? I wasn't getting my info from people like Clarkson I always thought he was gung ho for batteries anyway? I do know that Zubrin's "agenda" is anti hydrogen so maybe that's where you're getting it from, but to say he's a tad disingenuous on the matter is being kind. He reckons hydrogen isn't much cop but is fine with his mate Musk peddling lithium ion batteries that are an environmental menace and if the world went battery cars tomorrow the lithium issue alone would be a bloody nightmare. Oh and I find it interesting that he reckons getting hydrogen cheaply on earth is problematic yet the same guy has us setting up plants on Mars and harvesting local gasses with ease? Eh… wut? It may be informative to read up on where much of his funding comes from. I don't know, but I have follow the money as a good plan and a really good plan when pros and cons debates get heated.

Clarkson and co never waste a chance to bash BEVs and tell us fuel cells are the future, every time they test a BEV or a hybrid they always seem to run out of power, yet every time they test a fuel cell car there is never a problem, its almost like they have an agenda, as it happens the Top Gear episode where they tested the Roadster and the Honda FX Clarity was on RTE2 last week, the bias was very clear, you should look it up I'm sure its on youtube, Zubrin is anti Hydrogen because he knows its all based on bad science, I have never heard him say anything for or against Lithium ion batteries or EVs, AFAIK he thinks methanol is the best alternative fuel

if you think Zubrin is against Hydrogen fuel cells because Musk funds the Mars society then I think you don't understand the problems with Hydrogen, I have been having this argument with people for more than 15 years now, and fuel cell cars are always 10 years away, but right now I see electric cars every day and I don't expect to ever see fuel cell cars in the real world anytime soon

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and what do you think will be providing the power on Musk's future spacecraft(if any actually go beyond near earth orbit), batteries?

My guess is they will use solar power on the spacecraft and maybe Nuclear on the surface, batteries will be used to store power,

josip

This is not dissimilar to a Djokovic-Murray rally but much more entertaining

_Tombstone_

Will SpaceX have access to all NASAs work?

NASAs working on getting there sometime around 2039 and are slowly figuring everything out to that timeline, I haven't come across any stories on SpaceX working on anything only the Rocket so everything else after that for them is based on someones elses work, will they have access to that?

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Will SpaceX have access to all NASAs work?

NASAs working on getting there sometime around 2039 and are slowly figuring everything out to that timeline, I haven't come across any stories on SpaceX working on anything only the Rocket so everything else after that for them is based on someones elses work, will they have access to that?

For the Mars mission AFAIK right now they're just working on the engine

But that engine is the key part, it will power the first stage of the BFR and the second stage/MCT, it will be used to make a powered landing on Mars and also be used to leave Mars

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

For the Mars mission AFAIK right now they're just working on the engine

But that engine is the key part, it will power the first stage of the BFR and the second stage/MCT, it will be used to make a powered landing on Mars and also be used to leave Mars

OK, like this stuff - The SLS has its first mission now for 2018 - 12 Mini Sats and a main goal of taking unmanned Orion to orbit the moon to test compatibility with the SLS.

One of the SATS - BioSentinel cubesat will use yeast to monitor the long-term effects of deep space radiation on organisms.

18 Months this is gonna take - so 2020 before results of this, all going well.


And another will fly by an asteroid.


Goldmine of Info for SpaceX and probably Planatery Resources there.

Neither of them are listed as having any part in them though...NASA must give this stuff away??

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (This is some Rocket, estimated launch in Spring - April maybe)

Falcon Heavy Launch after getting pushed back 5/6 months to a "maybe late September". Ya'd never be able to plan to be around for that.

Newer Falcon 9 v1.2 next launch delayed until March due to checks - big full house of companies looking to get stuff up.

http://spacenews.com/delays-in-spacex-falcon-9-upgrade-schedule-raises-concerns/




On again off again American ban on importing Russian made RD180 Rockets is causing problems for American Company ULA in fulfilling US Air Force Military $800 Million Contract BUT it's good news for SpaceX though as they are the only ones able to fill the void.

http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/31/spacex-and-russia-change-the-rules-of-the-military-launch-market/

_Tombstone_

Russia’s chief research institute doubts effectiveness of reusable rockets

According to the research institute’s estimates, Falcon 9 with a reusable first stage may lay claim to part of the commercial launches currently being made with the medium-class vehicle Soyuz if the costs of making the first stage of the US rocket for another use will not exceed 5%-8% of the manufacturing costs.

Proton M launch costs down to 70Mil.

_Tombstone_

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/launch-schedule/

Launch list for the next few months, no spacex dates in until ISS resupply run Mar20

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

New Hyperloop video shows off a bunch of tubes lying in the desert

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Hs0r5RUww

MIT STUDENTS WIN SPACEX HYPERLOOP POD COMPETITION

The winning team said the philosophy behind their design "is to demonstrate high-speed, low-drag levitation technology. We aim to build a light pod to allow us to achieve the highest cruise speed." The design relies on a magnetic levitation system that keeps the pod 15 millimeters above the Hyperloop tube’s surface. The pod’s shell will be constructed of woven carbon fiber and polycarbonate sheets. In case of emergency, the pod design includes a braking system that will automatically activate if any system in the pod fails, and, if necessary, the pod would be able to drive itself forward or backward using physical wheels.

Wheels, thats a futuristic deal breaker for me.:o

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Russia’s chief research institute doubts effectiveness of reusable rockets

Interesting, would like to know how he came up with those %, I wonder what the SpaceX number is

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Proton M launch costs down to 70Mil.

Due to the strength of the Ruble more than anything would be my guess

Capt'n Midnight

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Wheels, thats a futuristic deal breaker for me.:o

Wheels are still new-tech , sure they were only invented 15 years ago.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia/
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~gfx/courses/2002/BigData/papers/Misc/Wheel%20Patent.pdf

_Tombstone_

Production ramp up - By the end of this year they plan to be making 30 Merlins a year. And....

Crewed Falcon 9 flights are still on schedule to begin in 2017. Shotwell said the company is planning an in-flight abort test of the Crew Dragon spacecraft before the end of this year, where the vehicle uses its thrusters to separate from a Falcon 9 rocket during ascent. That will be followed in 2017 by two demonstration flights to the International Space Station, the first without a crew and the second with astronauts on board, and then the first operational mission.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-seeks-to-accelerate-falcon-9-production-and-launch-rates-this-year/

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Production ramp up - By the end of this year they plan to be making 30 Merlins a year. And....

Thats enough for 3 launches, they will need a few more than that

josip

nokia69 wrote: »

Thats enough for 3 launches, they will need a few more than that

But if they're going to be able to recover and re-use them all...

Hmmzis

It's 30 cores per year and hundreds of Merlins. Also the handling facilities are being ramped up from 3 cores at a time to 6 cores at a time.

_Tombstone_

Feb 24 for attempt 4 to land on the Barge, Feb 25 back up date.

They've 46 launches on the books to do, 6 of which are for the Falcon heavy, they plan to launch every 2 to 3 weeks after this next one.

It's the newer version Falcon, the one they landed, this has been delayed for months while they tweaked the second stage of the rocket. 2 burns needed from second stage to get this snazzy sounding tech electric propulsion (new?) ses-9 SAT to geostationary orbit

http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2016/21949255

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/spacex/2016/02/08/spacex-targeting-feb-24-falcon-9-launch-ses-9/79982444/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/07/spacex-wants-to-dramatically-accelerate-its-launch.aspx

https://spacexstats.com/missions/ses-9

nokia69

They will be lucky to get one Falcon Heavy launched this year, and a launch every 2 or 3 weeks will be very hard, too many things can cause delays

Capt'n Midnight

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

2 burns needed from second stage to get this snazzy sounding tech electric propulsion (new?) ses-9 SAT to geostationary orbit

Not new in that it's been done before. Once you are in LEO you don't have to fight gravity to stay still. Even a gentle push from an ion drive will get you to GEO but It'll take about 4 months but means you can use a smaller launcher.

Hmmzis

Issues with the CRS-8 stage 1 reported on NSF. Static fire in McGregor went fine but a subsequent test has caused damage to the engine assembly. Supposedly they are assessing options whether it can be repaired on the spot in McGregor or they have to ship it back. My first guess would be something electrical got fried during a systems check. Still, better this happens on a test stand than on they way up to the ISS.

_Tombstone_

^^^^^^^
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/02/spacex-prepares-ses-9-mission-dragons-return/

New software update aswell means the Dragon Craft with all the Cargo on top of the Falcon has better chance of escaping if something goes wrong. This mission is CRS-8. CRS-7 is the mission that blew, Dragon Craft got free in that one but it's chutes didn't open.

Software update allows for open and release of Nose Cone during first stage boost now so better chance....that was a biggie oversight not having that before?

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Feb 24 for attempt 4 to land on the Barge, Feb 25 back up date.

Or not, the already near 6 month delay of getting this SAT up looks like it may mean no landing attempt this time in order to get it to it's intended orbit quicker (instead of using the SATs onboard Chemical and Electric Propellant which add another Month)


SpaceX pissing off the locals - breaching no Rocket Test after 10pm Rules 5 times in the last year.

"You can't stop it, so what are you going to do,"

Musk toots about starting Electric Jet Company

It's in alot of the big things to expect lists for 2016 and it looks like he gonna take it on.

Where is everyone else??


I read that Investors are buying Japanese Bonds at a negative yield this Week so maybe I shouldn't be surprised where everyone else is...halfwits.

Wibbs

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Musk toots about starting Electric Jet Company

It's in alot of the big things to expect lists for 2016 and it looks like he gonna take it on.

Where is everyone else??

An electric "jet", a supersonic one no less? Eh… no. Not unless he's come up with radical new battery setup or power generation. Nuclear powered jets were developed back in the 50's. They had enough power(barely) but with the slight issue of massive radiation issues.

This is the usual Musk flimflam. He's damn good at it, but the majority of his pronouncements border on and often land in BS. Oh or are just ripped off. "His" hyper loopnotion has been discussed as an idea for many decades. Indeed it was even discussed in the 19th century.

This Musk guy all too often shows up with a wheel and claims it's his idea. Now one positive to all this is that others dragged along in his reality distortion field might actually go and make something happen. Great for Musk too as he can claim it was his idea if it works. If it doesn't it'll be forgotten, or he can detach himself from it.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

Nuclear powered jets were developed back in the 50's. They had enough power(barely) but with the slight issue of massive radiation issues.

you could get lots of power if you dispensed with the pesky shielding
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-slam-missile-would-have-been-a-flying-chernobyl-daa6066850af#.jstoh0hkd

An open-cycle engine like the nuclear ramjet exhales radioactive air and dust-sized bits of nuclear fuel as it roars along, and no technology available then or now could clean it up.

Then again the shock wave off something doing Mach 3 or 4 at low level would take out most buildings it flew over.

Maximus Alexander

Absolute madness. :eek: