SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL takes a 40 meter hop

Rucking_Fetard

I see Zuckerberg challenged Bill Gates to do that Ice Bucket Challenge, Gates has challenged Musk to do it now. He has 24 hours. Should be good.

https://time.com/3111965/here-are-the-11-best-celebrity-ice-bucket-challenge-videos/

Rucking_Fetard

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Gates has challenged Musk to do it now. He has 24 hours. Should be good.

Dry enough.

nokia69

nokia69

Rucking_Fetard

Blew itself up after detecting an anomaly.

I wonder how that works??

Considering where it still was, could they not have just cut the engines and let it fall back down?

Rucking_Fetard

Here's abit more on blowing themselves up,

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

and when it goes wrong,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708

thecommander

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Considering where it still was, could they not have just cut the engines and let it fall back down?

It would explode once it hits the ground, damaging structures within close distance. Better to burn off in the air and debris to fall.

Rucking_Fetard

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Maybe not worth new thread so I'll put it here. 6 Mil to put a Sat in space. Vids in link, not on youtube.

Kiwi rocket company ready to blast off

Even better, don't bother with a sat at all.

Unmanned, ultralight, hover indefinitely propeller-driven aircraft.

Rucking_Fetard

Musk’s SpaceX Vies With Boeing as NASA’s Taxi to Space Station

Rucking_Fetard

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Musk’s SpaceX Vies With Boeing as NASA’s Taxi to Space Station

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.

Capt'n Midnight

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

:pac:

nokia69

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

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

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

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.

nokia69

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

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

Rucking_Fetard

Spacefight: Jeff Bezos Declares War on Elon Musk

Rucking_Fetard

Industry Perspective With SpaceX Lead Software Engineer Stephen Jones

nokia69

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Spacefight: Jeff Bezos Declares War on Elon Musk

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

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.

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

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.

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

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.

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/

Rucking_Fetard

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

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.

Capt'n Midnight

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

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

Rucking_Fetard

Elon Musk argues that we must put a million people on Mars if we are to ensure that humanity has a future

A little shy of 7000 words.^^

Rucking_Fetard

I'll put this here,

Argentina launches its first home-built satellite

ArSat-1: Argentina to communicate its heightened space ambitions

nokia69

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/new-commercial-rocket-descent-data-may-help-nasa-with-future-mars-landings/#.VEIvSb4-Bz9

shedweller

nokia69 wrote: »

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/new-commercial-rocket-descent-data-may-help-nasa-with-future-mars-landings/#.VEIvSb4-Bz9

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

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

Rucking_Fetard

Richard Branson Responds To Elon Musk's Criticism; 'We're About To Prove Him Wrong'

Rucking_Fetard

shedweller

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

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

Rucking_Fetard

shedweller wrote: »

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

o/






What it took for Elon Musk’s SpaceX to disrupt Boeing, leapfrog NASA, and become a serious space company

nokia69

http://webcast.amps.ms.mit.edu/fall2014/AeroAstro/index-Fri-PM.html

an interview with Musk

nokia69

nokia69

INPUT INNPUT

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

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/

Capt'n Midnight

INPUT INNPUT wrote: »

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

nokia69

FF7 7777

So the attempted landing of the Falcon is today, at 11am to be precise going by countdown on the page, spaceX will have a webcast on their site and Musk is doing a Reddit now. 50/50 for successful land.

Linkys,

spacex.com/webcast/

reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2rgsan/i_am_elon_musk_ceocto_of_a_rocket_company_ama/

nokia69

if this goes to plan they will make history today, but if not I think they will get it right this year

from reddit

Previously, you've stated that you estimate a 50% probability of success with the attempted landing on the automated spaceport drone ship tomorrow. Can you discuss the factors that were considered to make that estimation?
In addition, can you talk more about the grid fins that will be flying tomorrow? How do they compare to maneuvering with cold-gas thrusters?

Musk's reply

I pretty much made that up. I have no idea

The grid fins are super important for landing with precision. The aerodynamic forces are way too strong for the nitrogen thrusters. In particular, achieving pitch trim is hopeless. Our atmosphere is like molasses at Mach 4!

FF7 7777

Made up 50/50, lol.

nokia69

FF7 7777 wrote: »

Made up 50/50, lol.

its an interesting comment from Musk, the previous landings on water must have been pretty accurate for them to try a ship landing now

so many things can go wrong but I think the chances are good, even if they fail it will help with future landings

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30696895

US company SpaceX has postponed an experiment to bring part of its Falcon rocket down to a soft landing on a floating sea platform.

The firm has now rescheduled the Cape Canaveral demonstration for Friday.
...

The problem responsible for Tuesday's scrub decision related to a technical issue detected in the steering mechanism of the rocket's upper stage.

The next chance to send up the vehicle will be on Friday at 10:09 GMT (05:09 local Florida time).

FF7 7777

Here's a firework factory blowing up while we wait till (hopefully) Fridays launch.

youtube.com/watch?v=LyofFp2GpfU



And look at this for one mad Firework,

hobbyspace.com/Blog/?p=9535

INPUT INNPUT

Off again until tomorrow.

shedweller

INPUT INNPUT wrote: »

Off again until tomorrow.

Couple of hours to go and it looks like an 80% chance of the weather playing ball. Last i heard anyway...
Apparently Mr. Musk gives it a 50/50 chance of success!

thecommander

shedweller wrote: »

Apparently Mr. Musk gives it a 50/50 chance of success!

If the landing is successful they're going to show the replay on the web stream. Source is their staff intranet. Be great to see it.