I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exciting than that of United Launch Alliance or Khrunichev or similar systems?
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
101–110 of 185 posts
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#102I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exciting than that of United Launch Alliance or Khrunichev or similar systems?
Over and above the rocket technology itself, they're pushing the boundaries of what they (SpaceX) and others are capable of constantly - this is because they have a grand vision that they're all working towards that isn't primarily shareholder profits.
I think a lot of the excitement, for myself anyway, is that SpaceX represents the only tangible effort to bring us kicking and screaming into the space exploration age.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#103I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exciting than that of United Launch Alliance or Khrunichev or similar systems?
SpaceX is still the only company to land a real first-stage booster, and the Falcon Heavy was the largest rocket (in terms of payload capacity) to fly since the Saturn V.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm not mistaken, the SR-71 and A12 had enough TEB for 15 restarts. After doing an aerial refueling, they had to use TEB to get back to afterburner.
They also had to use TEB to re-light after an unstart [1]. I think 15 is abount right but it seems like a very small margin to deal with considering how common unstarts were. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstart
I've read about unstarts before and never got the impression that the engine in question stopped. It was the shockwave configuration at the inlet that had to be "restarted"?
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#105I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exciting than that of United Launch Alliance or Khrunichev or similar systems?
SpaceX is making progress to their goal of airline style reusable rocket.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#106I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exciting than that of United Launch Alliance or Khrunichev or similar systems?
The exciting innovation that SpaceX promises is lower flight costs by making reusable rockets. This is motivated by the desire to land on mars (which factors into their marketing and recruitment). Many people who work there have issues with work life balance and to work there and the pay is lower than other similar aerospace companies.
In contrast ULA is higher cost but is more reliable. A great deal of their technology is older than SpaceX because they are the incumbent launch platform. They don’t really market themselves the same way due to the fact that they are profitable. The pay I believe is average and has better work life balance than SpaceX.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#107I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exciting than that of United Launch Alliance or Khrunichev or similar systems?
Partially it's the new hotness, but also the landings are pretty spectacular and if the economics work out long term (ie SpaceX isn't just burning cash to break into the market with subsidies like Uber does) will significantly reduce the cost of launches compared to the expendable rockets produced by ULA, Khrunichev, et al. Their launches are already significantly cheaper than the others on a per kg basis to LEO and GTO.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#108I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exciting than that of United Launch Alliance or Khrunichev or similar systems?
SpaceX is putting a huge focus on pricing.
Despite having prices reportedly[1] lower than any newly manufactured rockets[2], they are rapidly approaching parity or superiority on a number of other measurements of quality with other launch organizations.
Basically in the 1960s, it was envisioned that space launches would become routine, but they did not (the "Space Shuttle" was so named as an analogy to shuttle buses that have regular round-trip service). SpaceX is the most successful attempt since then to make it routine.
1: most other launch companies don't advertise prices
2: repurposed ICBMs are historically the cheapest way to space, but see also #1
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#109I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exciting than that of United Launch Alliance or Khrunichev or similar systems?
SpaceX is still the only company to land a real first-stage booster, and the Falcon Heavy was the largest rocket (in terms of payload capacity) to fly since the Saturn V.
false! The energia and the N-1 flow before and they was more powerful that the Falcon Heavy.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
One big flaw in your argument is that the payload was delivered safely and successfully. They're making great strides towards making components reusable when they never really were before. That they're not perfect right out of the gate isn't reason to give up hope it ever could be.
Actually...the payload was put on the wrong trajectory, so OP's argument still stands. "Elon Musk’s cherry red Tesla sports car and its dummy test pilot Starman were on a new course hurtling towards the asteroid belt on Wednesday after overshooting their planned trajectory." https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/elon-musk-sp...
The mission was not intended to get the Tesla to Mars. It was to get it into an orbit that showed that they could get it to Mars. Getting it to Mars itself would have required more careful scheduling of the mission, and would have run the risk of needlessly polluting the planet with debris and earth bacteria. The actual results however showed they could get a mass that size into a heliocentric orbit with Mars.
If Earth and Mars were in the right places then with the right payload they could have gotten to Mars itself.
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/elon-musk-on-the-roadster-to-ma...