Jump to content



Photo

SpaceX Updates (Thread 4): F9, FH & Dragon


220 replies to this topic

#76 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 15,692 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 22 December 2013 - 22:53

You have truly learned nothing anywhere and from no one, and you are obviously not prone to independent study - relying only on your own very faulty assumptions.

But then it's not really about facts with you, is it? All you want is to cause disruptions and feel like the Big Guy, as all Trolls do. It was that way at The Spaceport, where you were banned for multiple registering after a suspension for trolling, and now you're here. Lucky us.

As such our conversations are over. Have a nice life little Trollski. Enjoy your bridge.


#77 watkinsx2

watkinsx2

    Neowinian

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 01
  • Location: Hertfordshire
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: HTC One/Lumia 920

Posted 22 December 2013 - 22:56

What? The Falcon 9 can get to geo-stationary orbit no problem. You sound like you're here to troll.



#78 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 15,692 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 22 December 2013 - 23:07

What? The Falcon 9 can get to geo-stationary orbit no problem. You sound like you're here to troll.


BINGO!! Give that man a gold ring!!

#79 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 22 December 2013 - 23:16

What? The Falcon 9 can get to geo-stationary orbit no problem. You sound like you're here to troll.

such orbits have been possible for decades & many rockets in the World have done it on routine schedule. So? :) f9 hasn't shown even results of 60s of the 20 century.



#80 watkinsx2

watkinsx2

    Neowinian

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 01
  • Location: Hertfordshire
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: HTC One/Lumia 920

Posted 23 December 2013 - 17:52

such orbits have been possible for decades & many rockets in the World have done it on routine schedule. So? :) f9 hasn't shown even results of 60s of the 20 century.

 

 

The Falcon 9 may not (yet) have repeated all the the achievments of Nasa from the 60's and 70's like sending a man to the moon but Space X aren't far off with the F9 Heavy and it wont have costs them billions of tax payers money to do it.



#81 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 23 December 2013 - 19:48

The Falcon 9 may not (yet) have repeated all the the achievments of Nasa from the 60's and 70's like sending a man to the moon but Space X aren't far off with the F9 Heavy and it wont have costs them billions of tax payers money to do it.

actually, nasa has funded them, all Musk's claims are paper tiger so far. in reality, his rockets are expendable, have run underloaded, haven't met dates to launch (flood of delays) + all missions have stuffed by glitches. 



#82 watkinsx2

watkinsx2

    Neowinian

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 01
  • Location: Hertfordshire
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: HTC One/Lumia 920

Posted 23 December 2013 - 20:47

actually, nasa has funded them, all Musk's claims are paper tiger so far. in reality, his rockets are expendable, have run underloaded, haven't met dates to launch (flood of delays) + all missions have stuffed by glitches. 

 

If you Nasa has awared Space X commercial contracts which they bid for and won then yes Nasa have funded them. Musk used plenty of his own money.  All launches are delayed - are you suggesting they launch anyway and risk a launch vehicle failure?

 

I think your just saying things to wind people up, making inflammatory and inaccurate statements without backing them up. So so why don't you just skip on over to another forum and leave.



#83 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 23 December 2013 - 21:19

Watkinsx2,

Musk is political project, nasa has had everything to get new rockets w/o so doubtful innovations. actually, current cost of Musk's rockets have eclipsed even Shuttle's cost. and yet again, why the video of the last attempt to return stage hasn't been published?



#84 watkinsx2

watkinsx2

    Neowinian

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 01
  • Location: Hertfordshire
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: HTC One/Lumia 920

Posted 23 December 2013 - 23:58

Watkinsx2,

Musk is political project, nasa has had everything to get new rockets w/o so doubtful innovations. actually, current cost of Musk's rockets have eclipsed even Shuttle's cost. and yet again, why the video of the last attempt to return stage hasn't been published?

 

 

Cost more than the shuttle? What are you smoking?



#85 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 24 December 2013 - 00:24

Watkinsx2,

 

take actual crs payloads: f9 did run severely underloaded + all SpX's rockets/vehicles have been in R&D phase, thereby the're no way to say about final cost.



#86 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 15,692 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 24 December 2013 - 00:50

This forum is better when SarK0y is on the ignore list!!

Which is 100% recommended. That and a Troll report.

Guys - by responding to his nonsense you are giving him exactly what he wants - ATTENTION.

PLEASE, DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

#87 ImUtrecht

ImUtrecht

    Neowinian

  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 13
  • Location: Utrecht
  • OS: osx

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:06

@ sarboy... go trolling somewhere else please.... 

 

I have a question, how much could Falcon Heavy get to LEO with four boosters like the Russian Soyouz ?  And the super heavy with four boosters ? 

Probably they would use carbon tanks for the SH. They work close together with Ten Cate a Dutch company that is innovative with composites. 

So it could be more then 200 tonnes in LEO.



#88 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 15,692 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:28

Using >2 boosters would mean strengthening the Falcon 9 v1.1 center core to take higher physical loads than the design originally called for. Not simple or cheap.

It also poses another problem - with that much extra thrust it's likely that acceleration loads will peak way past what most payloads are designed for (~6-8G's). To keep the G's down you need to either deeply throttle the engines, at the cost of efficiency, or shut engines down. In either case it defeats the whole idea of adding the extra 2+ cores to begin with.

This kind of multi-booster approach was considered for an evolvable Delta IV Heavy with up to 6 boosters surrounding the central core, but it was given a pass. They limited them to just 2.

#89 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 24 December 2013 - 02:24

So it could be more then 200 tonnes in LEO.

 

 

it has to be really new engines to reduce launch weight 2X-3X from modern rockets. in fact, SpX only increases launch weight. for example, they don't know how many extra fuel is needed for 1st stage to provide reliable power-landing + to land capsule on thrusters is yet another reason to bloat rocket towards perfectly insane size.



#90 ImUtrecht

ImUtrecht

    Neowinian

  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 13
  • Location: Utrecht
  • OS: osx

Posted 24 December 2013 - 02:39

To (re)design the Falcon 9 v1.1 center core would not be very smart at this time.

But the idea of a Falcon 9 heavy starting at a height of 60 km doing mach 6 makes me  :)

 

For the Super Heavy it might be different.

With crossfeeding it could be possibele to jettison two boosters early in flight and later the two others.

That might keep the G's down without deeply throttle engines or shut engines down.

Any idea how much it could put then to LEO ?





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!