|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-01 15:31, Fred J. McCall wrote: They already have one. Do you ever bother to look up even the most trivial things before you drop your trousers here and show your ass? §o you are stating that SpaceX already have an adaptor to carry modules such an an MPLM, a node or DESTINY to the station , along with the fairing for it ? (along with power/data to keep heaters and telemetry running during flight). You understand that they launch satellites on the ****ing things, right? You don't have to keep anything "running during flight". The Shuttle didn't. MPLM wasn't an ISS module. It was a cargo pod. They call that 'Dragon' now. Destiny is 4.2 meters in diameter and 8.4 meters long. The standard payload fairing for Falcon vehicles is 4.6 meters in internal diameter with an internal length of 11 meters. Over the last 3.3 meters of height the internal diameter narrows clear down to 1.45 meters in a linear fashion. So something as long as Destiny with that diameter won't quite fit (with a 4.2 meter diameter requirement the maximum length is about 7.1 meters). So if you have to replace it you build it in two pieces. Yes, this is rocket science, but it's rocket science someone in Jr High ought to be able to do. Note that none of this information is difficult to find. http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/f...de_rev_2.0.pdf http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_(ISS_module) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-...gistics_Module You know, the point of this newsgroup, being in the sci hierarchy, is DISCUSSION, not "I'm going to ask stupid questions and expect you all to look up the answers that I could just as easily look up myself". -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-01 16:34, Fred J. McCall wrote: No, they're tooling up to build new ones. So they got budget funding to start building new SSMEs already ? I thought NASA was going to stop and think about improvements before starting to build new ones and that funding was way into the future. Note "tooling up". That's pre-building. It takes money to stop and think about improvements, so there better be funding. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-01 18:54, Fred J. McCall wrote: You understand that they launch satellites on the ****ing things, right? You don't have to keep anything "running during flight". The Shuttle didn't. The shuttle had a "cradle" with hooks in special place to hold the modules in place, as well as power/data support during flight. Why? They were inert cargo. MPLM wasn't an ISS module. It was a cargo pod. They call that 'Dragon' now. MPLM was an ISS module without the long term micro meteorite shields and without enough systems to stay bertheall the time. But its shape, attach points, CBM hatchs and tooking to construct by Alenia was the same as Columbus and at least one of the nodes in the station. So from a transportation point of view, very much an ISS module. Then so are Progress and Dragon. And yes, every module sent to ISS was powered by shuttle during flight for both power and data (power to keep heaters running). And one grappled by the arm at station, it was the arm that provided power/data to module. Cite? I'm curious why they would do that. It seems pointless. A lot of modules went up on Proton. How'd that work, magic? linear fashion. So something as long as Destiny with that diameter won't quite fit (with a 4.2 meter diameter requirement the maximum length is about 7.1 meters). So you agree that current Flacon can't carry it. It needs special hardware to carry ISS modules. (not just size but also structural attache pointto transfer G forces without ripping the aluminium cans open). Not at all. Existing modules were sized to the Shuttle. New modules would be sized to fit current boosters. Again, a lot of the Russian modules went up on Proton with no 'can ripping' problems at all. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-01 19:01, Fred J. McCall wrote: Note "tooling up". That's pre-building. It takes money to stop and think about improvements, so there better be funding. You don't tool until you have a final design so you know what you're building and with what materials. Of course you do because you know what it's going to take to build a lot of the parts. This could simply be NASA trying to secure the tooling that was used to build SSMEs in the past. But they wouldn't be building new tooking from scratch until they have finalised what they will build. It could be magical unicorn farts, but it isn't. Right now, they've only modified software/sensors, so if they want to make those engines affordable to build as expandables, they will need to work hard on the design. I'm so glad they put you in charge, what with you knowing so much better than everyone else and all. Again, this stuff is NOT hard to find, you ignorant yammerhead. http://aviationweek.com/space/aeroje...xpendable-ssme https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016...25-production/ http://space.stackexchange.com/quest...cturing-the-rs There's lots more. Are you really too stupid to use Google, or are you just too lazy? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-01 21:08, Fred J. McCall wrote: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016...25-production/ Thanks for update. Last I had read, NASA was still mulling on whether to make serious updates to RS25 or just do the minor sensor/software ones it had done already. Looks like they chose the later. I was unaware that NASA had gone as far as getting 1 billion bucks to give to Rocketdyne to think about restarting production. Does Rocketdyne actually have the go ahead to produce those 6 engines? or will that be a separate contract ? What does the story say? No, they do not have a contract to actually produce engines. There are provisions in the current contract to allow it to be extended (with more money, presumably) to produce 6 engines. In other words, what's going on is precisely what I originally said. They're tooling up to produce engines. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|