|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SES-9 status?
Wednesday, postponed to chill the tanks?
Thursday, postponed but Space-X hasn't said why yet? /dps -- I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know any particular reason, but I have always been glad. _Roughing It_, Mark Twain |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SES-9 status?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SES-9 status?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SES-9 status?
After serious thinking Snidely wrote :
On Friday or thereabouts, Jeff Findley asked ... In article mn.cd847e0211341c87.127094@snitoo, says... Wednesday, postponed to chill the tanks? Thursday, postponed but Space-X hasn't said why yet? Same reason. Issues with sub-chilling the LOX. This is the heaviest GTO payload that SpaceX has ever launched, so achieving the lowest possible LOX temperature is critical to "densifying" the LOX in order to maximize performance. This is still relatively new, from an operational perspective. It's no surprise that there are issues which need to be worked. The customer, SES, wants the maximum performance possible on this flight. In fact, the final orbital parameters won't be known until after payload orbital insertion because the customer wants the 2nd stage to burn nearly to completion, again for maximum performance. Also, because of the performance requirements, there is a higher than normal likelihood that the barge landing attempt will fail. SpaceX has been setting expectations accordingly. Thanks. I wasn't following the livecast, and SpaceX didn't have much on either their home site or Facebook ("technical difficulty"). It appears that Sunday is the new launch date. Someone missed a NOTAR? Was the boat intrusion the reason for today's scrub? /dps -- Ieri, oggi, domani |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SES-9 status?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SES-9 status?
In article ,
says... Jeff Findley wrote: From what I read on Twitter last night, it sounds like the intrusion of the (NAVY?) vessel, and the resulting delay, may have directly contributed to the problem. Where'd you get the idea that it might have been a Navy ship? I find that just pretty unlikely. Supposedly the info originally came from this site: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/...455232/zoom:10 I firsts saw the info on Twitter, which is why I added the "?" in the parenthesis. We all know info comes in fast and loose on Twitter. According to Reddit, the vessel was the USNS Lawrence H. Gianella (T- AOT-1125). The accusation that it was a Navy ship is still on Reddit and on other online forums: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comm...r/rspacex_ses9 _official_launch_discussion_updates/t1_d0hgyp2 http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthre...1189085&page=3 But, all "legitimate" news sites have just said it was a "boat" without any other information. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SES-9 status?
Jeff Findley wrote:
Supposedly the info originally came from this site: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/...455232/zoom:10 I firsts saw the info on Twitter, which is why I added the "?" in the parenthesis. We all know info comes in fast and loose on Twitter. According to Reddit, the vessel was the USNS Lawrence H. Gianella (T- AOT-1125). The accusation that it was a Navy ship is still on Reddit and on other online forums: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comm...r/rspacex_ses9 _official_launch_discussion_updates/t1_d0hgyp2 http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthre...1189085&page=3 But, all "legitimate" news sites have just said it was a "boat" without any other information. http://www.floridatoday.com/story/ne...crub/81102952/ Claims it was a tug with a barge. rick jones -- the road to hell is paved with business decisions... these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SES-9 status?
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 8:32:16 PM UTC+13, snidely wrote:
Wednesday, postponed to chill the tanks? Thursday, postponed but Space-X hasn't said why yet? /dps -- I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know any particular reason, but I have always been glad. _Roughing It_, Mark Twain HERE ARE THE NOMINAL FIGURES: http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities Capability: 4850 kg GTO HERE IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING TODAY: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/te...iday/81169226/ SES will launch a 5300 kg communications satellite to GTO. This is 200 kg less than the 5500 kg achievable with 'densified' propellant. Check it out; 5300 kg is 450 kg or 9.3% greater than the nominal mission. LET'S LOOK AT THE DETAIL: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html The Falcon is a LOX/RP1 two stage rocket. DENSITY CHANGES WITH TEMPERATU http://www.nist.gov/srd/upload/jpcrd423.pdf https://goo.gl/26Xswz http://www.slideshare.net/chem_engin...perties-by-ifp http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd122.pdf The book "Rocket Propellants" by S.F. Sarner lists for density at 15 C: JP-1: 810 kg/m^3 (narrow cut kerosene, to expensive to make, abandoned) JP-2: 764 kg/m^3 (experimental, not now used) JP-3: 760 kg/m^3 (wide cut, wide boiling, volatile, not now used) JP-4: 773 kg/m^3 (current jet kerosene) JP-5: 827 kg/m^3 (narrow cut, low volatility similar to RP-1) JP-6: 817 kg/m^3 (similar to JP-5 but lower freezing point) RP-1: 806 kg/m^3 (specified for 1950+ US rockets) T-1 : 825 kg/m^3 (Russian jet fuel similar to JP-5) The density of RP-1 with temperature isn't listed, but that of RP-1 is: 50 C : 802 20 C : 824 0 C : 838 -20 C: 852 -40 C: 867 The density of LOX is increased by 15% by cooling and the density of RP-1 is increased by a factor of 8%. Now LOX/RP1 Oxidizer fuel ratio for peak performance is 2.56:1 So, an increase of 1.15 * 2.56 / 3.56 + 1.08 * 1.00/3.56 = 1.13 ~ 13% So, 8% is easily achievable, 12% will be achieved as the technique matures. This is what the documents I've seen indicate. Merlin has an exhaust speed of 2.73 km/sec at sea level and 3.07 km/sec in vacuum. Its reported to have 4850 kg at GEO and 13,150 kg at LEO with a 505,846 kg TOW. So, using the Tsiolkovsky equation we can estimate the following; TOW: 505,846 kg Prop: 402,286 kg Struc: 22,000 kg u: 0.795 d-Vee: 4.330 km/sec S2-TOW: 81,560 kg Prop: 64,867 kg Struc: 3,543 kg u: 0.795 d-Vee: 4.870 km/sec **Payload: 13,150 kg LEO** NOMINAL GEO Maneuver TOW: 16,693 kg Propellant: 8,300 kg **Payload 4,850 kg GEO** NOMINAL u: 0.497 d-Vee 1.06 km/sec **DENSIFIED MERLIN:** An 8% increase in propellant weight - structure same - which is less than the 13% possible. TOW: 544,733.2 kg Propellant: 434,468.9 kg Structu 22,000.0 kg u: 0.798 d-Vee: 4.36 km/sec S2-TOW: 88,304.4 kg Propellant: 70,056.4 kg Structu 3,543.0 kg u: 0.793 d-Vee: 4.84 km/sec Payload: 14,705.0 kg ** DENSIFIED (by 8%) ** GEO Maneuver: TOW: 18,028 kg Propellant: 8,964 kg Structu 3,543 kg Payload: 5,520 kg GEO **DENSIFIED (by 8%) ** u = 0.497 d-Vee: 6.10 km/sec A similar calculation using a 12% increase in propellant increases payload to LEO to 15,490 kg and a payload to GEO of 6,025 kg. SO, this is where this vehicle could go in performance near term. 4,850 --- 6,025 is a 24.2% increase in payload to GEO. At $61.2 million per launch, this represents a reduction in cost from $12,618 to $10,158 - a reduction of $2,460 per kg to GEO. The payload to LEO increases by 18.8% with similar reductions in cost per kg. 13,150 kg --- 15,490 kg $4,654/kg --- $3,951/kg |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
SES-9 status?
With a 12% densified launcher, and an 18,000 kg payload on orbit, the final speed of the second stage is 7.25 km/sec. This stage circles the Earth and lands back at the launch center. Meanwhile, another 0.65 km/sec is added to the 18,000 kg payload by burning 2,416 kg of LOX/Lh2 propellant. 15,584 kg is in LEO.
There are two stages. The first stage totals 7,807 kg and the second stage totals 7,777 kg. The first stage boosts the second stage into a lunar free return trajectory. This brings the stage back to Earth to land on Earth for reuse. The second stage lands 2,345 kg on the lunar surface and returns it safely to Earth. That stage too lands on Earth and is reused. Each stage masses around 325 kg. It has a LOX/LH2 engine array that is MEMS based, and has a tremendous Thrust to Weight. It has a cryogenic system on board, and a number of other features. At 195 kg per person, a dozen persons are taken to the moon and back! The first stage is basically a 3.45 m diameter sphere, with a 2.2 m diameter LOX sphere inside, with a MEMS array rocket at the base. The second stage is a 3.1 m diameter sphere with a 2.0 m diameter LOX sphere inside, with a MEMS array rocket at the base. The two together have a total height of 6..55 m. A pyramidal space frame with a 3.10 m base with a 6.4 m tall apex is attached to the equator of the second stage sphere. The entire system is 11.4 m tall. There are three levels, 1.6 meters apart, each containing four seats that are orientaed radially outward, one every 90 degrees within the spaceframe structure. The space frame structure fits within the aeroshell http://goo.gl/ByyNnv And unfolds creating a frame 10 m tall with a 6.20 m base. Each person on board is equipped with a long-duration biosuit and supplies. Hydrogen and oxygen are fed from the propellant tanks to each of the 12 persons on board. The LOX/LH2 is combined to form electricity and water for each. Oxygen is also supplied from propellants. Surplus hydrogen is used to clean the air of dors and carbon dioxide. CH4 and waste water is produced, which is evaporated to keep the system cool. The suit also has MEMS based thrusters that permit flight around the lunar surface using LOX/LH2. 100 kg or propellant is allocated for each person. 50 kg per person is used to provide oxygen and 500 Watts of electrical power, along with 5.6 litres of water per day, for 14 days. 50 kg per person is used to provide suit propulsion. This is 1.9 km/sec delta vee capability, with two charges, of 0.8 km/sec each, to a 514 mm diameter sphere. This provides 10 minutes of continuous hovering time on the lunar surface per charge. An automated flight control system will carry the astronaut anywhere on the lunar surface and back, up to a distance of 75 km from the landing point, and back, per charge. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...008/RM3752.pdf You can explore what that means here; https://www.google.com/moon/ If we have a pilot and co-pilot, and ten passengers, the launcher is $6.12 million per passenger. http://www.space.com/10611-space-adv...ist-trips.html At $30 million per person, that's $300 million for ten people to go to the moon and back! Four days out, three days back, seven days on the moon, with the ability to fly up to 75 km from the landing point and back. http://www.space.com/27285-astronaut...pacesuits.html With 5 km/hr walking speed, and 7 days on the lunar surface, its possible to walk 420 miles - assuming 12 hours per day walking (three four hour shifts). http://old.marssociety.org.au/images...MCPS_large.JPG After landing the people on board jet out of the harnesses in which they are seated, and fly down to the lunar surface. There they walk and fly to points of interest, and back again. The ideal thing would be for people to walk along a route of interest, and use rocket power to hop over any obstacle encountered, or climb the mountains of the moon, jetting in and out of rough terrain. Then, when within a few dozen miles of the lander, they jet to the landing point and jump back to their seats belt in for take off back to Earth. Arriving at Earth they separate from their spacecraft and each individually fly in for a landing, using a wingsuit type attachment. The rocket belt is used to break their fall at the last minute instead of a parachute. They also have up to 30 kg of moonrocks and other collected items in a knapsack.. If you've never done wingsuit flying, you don't understand just how cool and easy it is! lol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp8_A1HGgV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q971MCu8MyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EY9hnu-d4 10,000s of people pay $100,000s of dollars each to do this. In this group there are 100s that would pay $10,000,000s to fly to the moon and back in a winged biosuit - as described above. The stage re-enters and the strut with the harnesses folds back out of the way, and all pieces and parts are fully recovered and reused. Once he has all parts and pieces of the launcher flying, buying a used ship from Musk for $50 million and paying $5 million to launch it, and selling ownership in the ship at say $10 million and selling it onward to the next buyer, depreciating it appropriately, is a way to handle this aspect of the journey. This would eventually reduce prices to the $1 million range, and you'd need a fleet of launchers operating full time to keep up with demand! The first ten (or twelve, if we organise it so ALL pay, and THEY vote who's their leader, and follow emergency rules and so forth in their training) I think we could charge $50 million a seat, and that's $600 million per launch, and $540 million margin, and I think $500 million profit on the first deal - potential. If we share income for promotional videos, that is, each person is filmed from several angles and so forth, and the data stream in UHDTV is kept - and profesionally put into an IMAX/3D film - and other formats - and professionally sold, the $50 million for each person would be radically reduced, eliminated, or even turn into a profit center for the first persons! The first twelve, would be the first to visit the moon in the 21st century. The first woman would be the first woman in history to be on the moon. The first people from their nation, outside the USA would be the first person from their nation in history, to visit the moon. These are all worth $50 million to the right parties. Couple of things we're working on; (1) Motorised titanium exoskeleton that protects a person to make a 300 kph crash survivable. (a) wingsuit, (b) motorcycle,- flexible multijointed connection to helmet that freezes when accelerometer activated (2) Heads up helmet display, and communications gear (3) Helmet & suit based video suite, (4) Jet wing with VTOL capability, (5) Rocket boost to stratosphere, and return, (biosuit mark 1) (6) Rocket boost across the Pacific, (biosuit, with tps, mark 2) (7) Rocket boost to orbit and back, (biosuit with extended LS, mark 3) Then we're ready for the moon trip as a payload on the Falcon 9. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Status of STS-117 | Danny Deger | Space Shuttle | 5 | March 12th 07 04:19 AM |
STS-114 MCC Status Report #22 | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 6th 05 09:30 AM |
CEV Status? | [email protected] | Policy | 1 | October 18th 04 09:29 PM |
Pad 39-A status? | Nicholas Fitzpatrick | Space Shuttle | 1 | December 23rd 03 01:30 PM |
FGB-2 status? | Thomas Former | Space Station | 7 | October 27th 03 11:45 AM |