×

Certification of SpaceX missions to ISS likely to slip to end of 2019 by Morphior in spacex

[–]Zucal 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Waaaaaay back in the day, early 2003. It was barely mentioned publicly, but they were serious about it. Here's a link that mentions it:

Previously, the company had talked about developing a “Falcon Heavy”, which would have used two additional first stages strapped onto the core first stage, analogous to the Delta 4 Heavy. In fact, information about the company distributed at the reception still listed the Falcon Heavy along with the “Falcon Standard”, now called Falcon 1.

They ended up canceling Falcon Heavy for Falcon 5, which they ended up canceling for Falcon 9. So it goes...

Found it! B1043 headed North! by fatherofzeuss in spacex

[–]Zucal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if they fuel in Benson, would love any links/reports about that. Marana to Bowie/Bowie to Marana anywhere on the I-10 is probably the best spot to see one in the evening. If we see it again I'll try to get you a time in advance.

Dr. Hans Koenigsmann to be on: Subcommittee on Space Hearing - An Update on NASA Commercial Crew Systems Development - Wednesday, January 17, 2018, 10:00am by TheBlacktom in spacex

[–]Zucal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

you would still be constantly loading propellant

But the vehicle would still be far more stable than during initial fuel loading. You're referring to topping off, a process that involves much less fuel and far less of a temperature gradient.

Certification of SpaceX missions to ISS likely to slip to end of 2019 by Morphior in spacex

[–]Zucal 7 points8 points  (0 children)

  • Falcon 1 Heavy

  • Falcon 1 first stage recovery and reuse

  • Falcon 1 vehicle longevity

  • Falcon 1E

  • Falcon 5

  • Falcon Air

  • Falcon 9 second stage reuse

  • Falcon Heavy 2013 launch

  • ASDS-to-shore propulsive hops

  • Dragon 2 propulsive landing (including Red Dragon 1, 2, & 3)

  • Dragon 2 reuse

Certification of SpaceX missions to ISS likely to slip to end of 2019 by Morphior in spacex

[–]Zucal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Other providers are not in the habit of using densified propellant, nor immersing COPVs in it.

Question: Does a SpaceX DragonEye patch exists? by ticklestuff in spacex

[–]Zucal 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Tell me more about all your DragonEye documentation :P

How much of the ongoing delays in Commercial Crew have been because of SpaceX, and how much NASA? by KubrickIsMyCopilot in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Please read my comment. NASA has not yet made a decision on allowing LOX-immersed COPVs on Falcon 9 for manned flights. That is not a SpaceX statement. This is straight from the horse's mouth, the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.

Anything not contained in that report is your hearsay.

How much of the ongoing delays in Commercial Crew have been because of SpaceX, and how much NASA? by KubrickIsMyCopilot in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 3 points4 points  (0 children)

SpaceX dismissed this warning even after a rocket and payload was lost, and persevered in insisting on using COPV in manned flights. They are being shutdown on this.

They were warned that fueling a rocket with people on board was not acceptable....Especially one that has a chance to blow up from COPV being fueled improperly. SpaceX is now in the process of engineering metal tanks for the helium.

This isn't actually true. If you read the 2017 ASAP report, you will find it reads thus:

However, to further improve safety, SpaceX and NASA agreed that a redesign of the COPV was necessary to reduce the risk for missions with crew onboard. Using what they learned from the mishap investigation, SpaceX redesigned the COPV and NASA started a rigorous test program to characterize the behavior of the new COPV in the cryogenic oxygen environment...

It also should be noted that NASA and SpaceX are working on an alternative helium tank design should the COPV certification efforts fail.

Fully assessing all the hazards is critical in determining the best time to load the crew onboard the Dragon 2 for launch after considering the risks and benefits associated with such a decision.

So yes, SpaceX is persevering in the use of COPVs submerged in densified LOX for manned flight. They are not being "shut down" on that decision - they're investigating the ramifications together with NASA and preparing an alternative, should the ongoing effort fail.

They were not warned that fueling a rocket with people on board was not acceptable. The timing of crew loading versus propellant loading has yet to be determined.

The official r/SpaceX Subscriber Survey 2017 is now live! by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]Zucal 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can you explain why? (Google account requirement, questions too personal, etc.)

The Secret Zuma Spacecraft Could Be Alive And Well Doing Exactly What It Was Intended To by Dingo_Roulette in spacex

[–]Zucal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

2) The Delta IV partial failure.

The first flight of Delta IV Heavy with a boilerplate payload, or the RL-10 anomaly on the successful GPSII-F3 flight?

Official r/SpaceX Falcon Heavy Static Fire Updates & Discussion Thread by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]Zucal 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If you're both not aware of it already, I recommend TerraServer. It updates imagery for any given location every 2-6 months (usually depending on how urban it is or isn't). It's a decent middle ground between Google Earth and pre-neutered Planet. It does require registering an account, but it's still free.

My idea for a fairly realistic BFR/BFS timeline by Spacexforthewin in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

'Inherently' suggests the objective standard of physics, not "Is it better than Ares I/STS? Y/N."

The entire concept of "Planetary Protection" is complete nonsense. by [deleted] in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 5 points6 points  (0 children)

First off - you do realize that planetary protection applies to bodies other than Mars, right? Europa and Titan, among others, are potentially life-bearing destinations for exploration.

any Earth Based Microbial life would die within minutes of being exposed to Martian conditions

A blanket assumption that is at best unproven, and at worst completely false. A simple Google search will show multiple studies of Earth bacteria being subjected to Martian conditions, demonstrating their ability to survive in limited numbers in low pressure, low surface temperatures, and high UV.

If you believe in this Planetary Protection stuff wholeheartedly then you can never allow a manned landing on Mars

I'm not entirely sure you know what planetary protection actually consists of in practice. No serious figure uses it to deny the utility or necessity of boots on Martian soil. It's a policy to allow the careful and measured study of potentially inhabited bodies while reducing our chances of fouling up any native life that may exist.

The Secret Zuma Spacecraft Could Be Alive And Well Doing Exactly What It Was Intended To by Dingo_Roulette in spacex

[–]Zucal 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't want to weigh in on the conversation, so I'm just going to say:

There is no reason that Zuma has to be the thing you claim it can’t be, and every reason for it to not be the thing you claim it can’t be. I don’t see how Zuma not being what it can’t be means it also can’t be...

This is the single most tortuous phrase I have ever seen on this subreddit :P You might want to rephrase it slightly.

My idea for a fairly realistic BFR/BFS timeline by Spacexforthewin in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd go as far as to suggest that the factory site is more uncertain than that.

My idea for a fairly realistic BFR/BFS timeline by Spacexforthewin in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wasn't that supposed to start this year?

lol

39A should be left untouched to support the last few Falcon and Crew Dragon missions, and only converted after demand ends for those.

Not if SpaceX continues with the plan to have two separate HIFs and launch mounts on the same pad.

My idea for a fairly realistic BFR/BFS timeline by Spacexforthewin in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And BFS is inherently a pretty safe system

I would have a hard time arguing that. A vehicle with no traditional launch abort system, pushing the boundaries of rocketry in every aspect - from full-flow staged combustion to carbon fiber propellant vessels... it may come to be safe, but "inherently" is a very specific word.

Falcon 9 vs. Falcon 1 - same scale (1/72) by buzzmedialabs in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Different vehicles with different purposes... although Bezos did ruminate about using New Shepard as the reusable first stage for a smallsat launcher.

r/SpaceX Discusses [January 2018, #40] by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]Zucal 5 points6 points  (0 children)

that will be the next core to come off the production line.

Correct, 1045 has already shipped.

/r/SpaceXLounge Questions Thread for January by Senno_Ecto_Gammat in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Define 'equipment.' SpaceX has many dozens of external suppliers for all of their projects.

Falcon 9 vs. Falcon 1 - same scale (1/72) by buzzmedialabs in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would have also had a longer first stage so mute fuel to boot.

They were also planning to switch the second stage material from aluminum to aluminum-lithium.

Falcon 9 vs. Falcon 1 - same scale (1/72) by buzzmedialabs in SpaceXLounge

[–]Zucal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Falcon 1E was going to use the base Merlin 1C, but the structure needed to be upgraded for the engine's increased propellant flow and load requirements. The idea was to swap Falcon 1 to a reduced-thrust Merlin 1C while they finished developing Falcon 1E, and then bring in Falcon 1E with the ability to make full use of the engine.