SpaceX Reusable Rocket Prototype Explodes Over Texas

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:47:59 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Actually converting the enterprise aircraft carrier into a landing vehicle would of been nice. it would of retained a historic vehicle with a proud name. its big enough to be used for launches too.

while perhaps not the cheapest, it could be used as a tourist attraction when not in use for space activities, and ideally could of been rebuilt with diesel engines to be self propelled

Not the cheapest is an understatement does not begin to describe it.
You've got to essentially destry the ship just to get the reactor
out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

ahh the reactors must be removed no matter what.

buy the hulk once all hazardous materials have been removed, then rebuild it

In article ,
says...

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:47:59 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Actually converting the enterprise aircraft carrier into a landing vehicle would of been nice. it would of retained a historic vehicle with a proud name. its big enough to be used for launches too.

while perhaps not the cheapest, it could be used as a tourist attraction when not in use for space activities, and ideally could of been rebuilt with diesel engines to be self propelled

Not the cheapest is an understatement does not begin to describe it.
You've got to essentially destry the ship just to get the reactor
out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

ahh the reactors must be removed no matter what.

Essentially destroying the ship.

buy the hulk once all hazardous materials have been removed, then rebuild it

No one, not even the US Government, is going to waste billions of
dollars rebuilding what's left of Enterprise. After removing the
reactor it will be little more than a lifeless hulk with a significant
portion of its structure literally cut out of it. Musk certainly isn't
going to engage in such folly.

It was far cheaper to purpose build a new vessel, which is exactly what
SpaceX did. You'd have to take what SpaceX spent on the barge and
multiply it by a factor of 100 or 1000 to do the same with what would be
left of Enterprise. Even if SpaceX decides they need a bigger platform
in the future, they simply can't afford to waste billions on it.

Why do you persist in doing things the hardest way possible? No logic
and reason, just your "gut" telling you what would be nice.

You do know that Kennedy's "we choose to do the things that are hard"
speech had zero to do with his support for space exploration? Kennedy
didn't give a rat's ass about space. It was a tool to prove that
democratic capitalism was superior to autocratic communism. You know,
we had to beat the godless commies to the moon to fight the spread of
communism around the globe.

All of that is dead, gone, and buried. The way forward in space
exploration is cost minimization through private competition, not the
socialist government design bureau way of the '60s that got us to the
moon.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:09:27 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:47:59 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Actually converting the enterprise aircraft carrier into a landing vehicle would of been nice. it would of retained a historic vehicle with a proud name. its big enough to be used for launches too.

while perhaps not the cheapest, it could be used as a tourist attraction when not in use for space activities, and ideally could of been rebuilt with diesel engines to be self propelled

Not the cheapest is an understatement does not begin to describe it.
You've got to essentially destry the ship just to get the reactor
out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

ahh the reactors must be removed no matter what.

Essentially destroying the ship.

buy the hulk once all hazardous materials have been removed, then rebuild it

No one, not even the US Government, is going to waste billions of
dollars rebuilding what's left of Enterprise. After removing the
reactor it will be little more than a lifeless hulk with a significant
portion of its structure literally cut out of it. Musk certainly isn't
going to engage in such folly.

It was far cheaper to purpose build a new vessel, which is exactly what
SpaceX did. You'd have to take what SpaceX spent on the barge and
multiply it by a factor of 100 or 1000 to do the same with what would be
left of Enterprise. Even if SpaceX decides they need a bigger platform
in the future, they simply can't afford to waste billions on it.

Why do you persist in doing things the hardest way possible? No logic
and reason, just your "gut" telling you what would be nice.

You do know that Kennedy's "we choose to do the things that are hard"
speech had zero to do with his support for space exploration? Kennedy
didn't give a rat's ass about space. It was a tool to prove that
democratic capitalism was superior to autocratic communism. You know,
we had to beat the godless commies to the moon to fight the spread of
communism around the globe.

All of that is dead, gone, and buried. The way forward in space
exploration is cost minimization through private competition, not the
socialist government design bureau way of the '60s that got us to the
moon.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Theres some support here for SLS Orion, and that has nothing to do with saving money at all!

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
Awesome video. More data for the engineers at SpaceX. Since the grid
fins failed and went "hard over", I'm not surprised it didn't come down
vertically.

But what is "hard over" for each grid fin? One interpretation would
be they would all end-up in the same orientation relative to the stage
when the hydraulics ran-out. And at that point they should cancel
each other out shouldn't they?

Hard over usually means completely to one side. I suppose if hard over
was one set of fins (on one axis) giving maximum positive rotation along
the long axis of the stage while the other set of fins were giving
maximum negative rotation along the long axis of the stage you would get
close to zero net force and torque. Still, this would only work in
"calm" weather conditions. Any wind is going to cause the stage to want
to tip over, so I'm really not sure what the utility would be in real
world conditions.

Might be worth a few landing tests (with the new copy of Grasshopper II,
or whatever they're calling it). To see how it would work and if any
tweaks need to be made to the flight control software when the fins do
go hard over. I'm guessing it would still significantly degrade the
stage's ability to fly in a crosswind.

Now, if they didn't all go to the same orientation relative to the
stage at the same time...

Then you've got a random set of forces and torques operating on the very
top of the stage, which is *very* far away from the center of gravity
(near the engines). The result would be a "bad day".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...
Theres some support here for SLS Orion, and that has nothing to do with saving money at all!


So you're advocating for doing something extremely expensive and stupid
because you think SLS/Orion is doing the same? Apples and oranges.

SLS/Orionj is about "saving jobs" in *several* Congressional districts.
A single re-purposed aircraft carrier does not spread jobs over enough
districts. It would be seen as a give-away for the district that was
awarded the port of operations for the stupid thing. It would be
branded a dead aircraft carrier to nowhere.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In sci.space.policy message -
september.org, Sat, 24 Jan 2015 11:09:20, Jeff Findley
posted:


It was far cheaper to purpose build a new vessel, which is exactly what
SpaceX did.

Not exactly new, according to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship :- "It
was converted from a barge named Marmac 300 in late 2014".

And :-
Career
Class and type: Deck barge
Name: Marmac 300
Owner: Marmac, LLC.
....
Completed: 1998
Acquired: 1 May 1998
Identification: USCG ID 1063184
Hull No. 291
Fate: Converted for SpaceX

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.

In article id,
lid says...

In sci.space.policy message -
september.org, Sat, 24 Jan 2015 11:09:20, Jeff Findley
posted:


It was far cheaper to purpose build a new vessel, which is exactly what
SpaceX did.

Not exactly new, according to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship :- "It
was converted from a barge named Marmac 300 in late 2014".

And :-
Career
Class and type: Deck barge
Name: Marmac 300
Owner: Marmac, LLC.
...
Completed: 1998
Acquired: 1 May 1998
Identification: USCG ID 1063184
Hull No. 291
Fate: Converted for SpaceX

Point taken. So, it was far cheaper to convert a "deck barge" than
would have been to convert a decommissioned nuclear aircraft carrier.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer