SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
SpaceX had a successful launch, orbit insertion, and recovery of all 3 rocket boosters last Thursday. Unfortunately, they were unable to fasten down the central core on the ASDS (Autonomous spaceport drone ship) "Of Course I Still Love You:
Shifting seas and high winds brought it down.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
SpaceX Loses the Center Core of its Falcon Heavy Rocket due to Choppy Seas
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 38 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:34PM (12 children)
If NASA contracts SpaceX for LOP-G and lunar missions, these FH booster landings could become rare as they would almost certainly be expendable mode. Although it would be nice to see Starship/BFR used for that instead.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:48PM (2 children)
Given the scale, it would be hilarious to use Giant Starship to launch Tiny Gateway.
"now that we reached the campground in my 18-wheeler, let's sleep in the 2-person tent I brought!"
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:00PM (1 child)
The volume is laughably huge, but the payload capacity is still uncertain.
100+ tons to LEO, formerly 150. Could increase. But we do know that initial versions will not use vacuum-optimized Raptor engines.
The number for TLI will be less, unless the BFR is refueled in orbit, in which case you could use the same LEO number presumably.
Gateway segments should be in the range of 8-12 tons. I would be surprised if BFR can't launch two or three at once instead of just one.
Now about that campground... if the crewed version of BFR is ready by 2022-2023, why not send some to Gateway and let the astronauts sleep/roam in there? It should be designed to last much longer than 180 days in space (compare to Soyuz, Crew Dragon, Starliner).
The limiting factor could be the length and number of docks on the Gateway. Maybe additional segments should be added in the middle and ends so you can park 2-4 BFRs at Gateway, giving it a massive volume multiple times that of ISS. You could also park the BFRs perpendicular to the station, so it looks like 4 prongs are coming out of it. Make the damn thing a BFR parking lot.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:22PM
Add a mode where BFR docks to another BFR.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:52PM (8 children)
Expending 2x Falcon Heavy (6x Falcon cores) is probably still cheaper than a single SLS.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:02PM (7 children)
Certainly. $500 million SLS is a complete fib. $1 billion might be correct, with the true cost per rocket being many billions if you factor in total program costs. You could probably see six Falcon Heavy launches per SLS pork barrel.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:15PM (6 children)
$1 billion per launch is the figure I've most often heard. And that is not counting total program pork.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday April 16 2019, @09:54PM (5 children)
That puts it on par with the cost of a shuttle launch.
I'll support immediate termination of the program on the day FH does its first manned flight.
It will take a compelling argument to get me to buy into another contract like it too. Parting out development to subcontractors in every congressional district is a great jobs program, but a terrible way to get to space. That much is obvious now.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:32PM (4 children)
F9 can do the manned Dragon 2 fright. FH can send up the primary mission which the Dragon 2 docks with. The FH launch is first. Don't send crew until main mission equipment is already in orbit and verified working. How much more difficulter is it to dock with the mission than with the ISS? Maybe easier, because the main mission might be in a lower orbit than ISS?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:29PM (3 children)
This is a completely reasonable approach, and matches what we're going to do out at (the useless) LOP-G anyway. I don't have a good answer for why we can't assemble and fly from LEO.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:24PM (2 children)
> I don't have a good answer for why we can't assemble and fly from LEO.
As Ars's Statistical puts it, it's because the Senate has been mandating the SLS pork barrel, so the whole architecture is designed to keep SLS absolutely necessary.
Technically, there are quite a few absurd choices in there (the gateway makes things much harder, the capsule can't go to LLO...), which only make sense because no other rocket than SLS Block2 could do it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:38PM (1 child)
If the Senate keeps mandating SLS pork they may find that a private manned lunar mission might beat SLS to ever getting off the ground.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:26PM
One can only hope.
The question is more whether the Private US company will get there before the Chinese.