Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Dude who was living in his car who we all donated to||
|Steam Christmas Sale 2014||
|Wish to purchase a console, recommendations please||
|Official Dogs vs Cats||
|Windows Technical Preview||
Posted 12 January 2014 - 04:52
Posted 12 January 2014 - 06:50
Delving into SpaceX Files: Cameron County property acquisitions detailed
The proposed site of a facility for Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp., where the world’s first privately-owned commercial rocket-launching complex would be located, consists of 87 acres in four tracts along state Highway 4 at Boca Chica Boulevard.
• PARCEL 4: SpaceX already has leased this tract of about 56.5 acres as its primary launch site, and purchased about 27 acres.
The goal is to initiate unmanned launches at the site by the fourth quarter of 2015, according to public records about the proposal.
Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:02
Methane would take less cooling & insulation to store long term than hydrogen.
FYI, until the recent move towards methane every proposed fuel depot design was for hydrogen, and the problems associated with hydrogen was why they weren't done.
http://www.nasa.gov/...ities/cryo.html So far from the least valuable result.
Posted 13 January 2014 - 03:11
Posted 18 January 2014 - 07:28
Posted 19 January 2014 - 02:38
if capsule was flip-flopping that way in real flight, the would be no room to survive because initial velocity of vehicle (in real descending) to shoot drogue out is much greater.
Posted 19 January 2014 - 03:28
Posted 19 January 2014 - 05:35
actually, there is rotation around longitudinal axis (in normal flight) + such rolling can & better off be stopped before *chutting.
Posted 19 January 2014 - 08:25
Posted 19 January 2014 - 20:12
there isn't mistake to inform about: for initial test, such flip-flopping ain't big deal -- it's even good to stress chutes as much as possible. For re-entry phase, Yes -- such dances cannot be acceptable. By the way, that whirling is possible in powered-landing scheme because thrusters have a probability to malfunction even higher than chutes.
Posted 20 January 2014 - 00:49
The reverse is true.
....thrusters have a probability to malfunction even higher than chutes..
Posted 20 January 2014 - 14:12
Posted 20 January 2014 - 17:30
Partly, but it had to be said.
It helps me understand more when you answer him sometimes.