DocM Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watkinsx2 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 What? The Falcon 9 can get to geo-stationary orbit no problem. You sound like you're here to troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watkinsx2 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watkinsx2 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watkinsx2 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 24, 2013 Author Share Posted December 24, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUtrecht Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 @ 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 24, 2013 Author Share Posted December 24, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUtrecht Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 24, 2013 Author Share Posted December 24, 2013 Not with this much sketchy data, but estimates for a methane fueled, 9 Raptor engined "Falcon X" (notional name until SpaceX fills it in) run as high as 240 metric tons to LEO with 3 cores and propellant crossfeed. More than 2x Saturn V. The methane Raptor is very real, with component tests starting at NASA Stennis in early 2014. The FH center core would start with a virtually full tank high up due to the side cores passing propellants to it. A 3 core Falcon X would likely do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted December 24, 2013 Veteran Share Posted December 24, 2013 Cleaned Enough with the troll accusations. If someone broke the rules, simply report the post and move on. There's no need to reply to announce that you reported or ignored them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 hmmm.. what about thaicom? i don't see countdown on livestream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 hmmm.. what about thaicom? i don't see countdown on livestream. It probably won't show up until closer to tomorrow's launch window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 Hmmmmmm....2 LOUD tests at the McGregor TX test site yesterday. Whatever it was, it was worth flying the SpaceX corporate jet there to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Any work on what this was btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Nothing but <crickets> so far. Speculation runs from a 115% power F9 test (it is capable), Grasshopper 2 flight, or DragonRider testbed with 8 SupetDracos on a test stand to the precombustor for Raptor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 nearest launch is feb 22? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Yes, the CRS-3 Dragon cargo run to ISS. A tad later than scheduled because of upgraded fridges & freezers for sample & experiment returns and the mods to support them. While they were at it they did some upgrades to Dragons service bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Thanks for info, DocM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts