|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon Heavy Static Fire
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon Heavy Static Fire
JF Mezei wrote:
Dynamic fire (aka: launch) at 13:30 Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday. Note: Elon Musk once again tweeted it was going to Mars. (as opposed to explaining it would go to elliptical orbit between earth and mars orbits). It's a tweet. How many characters is that limited to, again? And posted a picture of a space dummy in the driver seat of the car. Also, does anyone know why his Boring company marketed/sold flame throwers? When the next California wild wire causing bilions in damages will be blamed on somepone using Musk's flamethrowers for fun, it will be bad PR for him (and possibly lawsuits). Or is this a subtle jab at how silly it is for a country to refuse to regulate dangerous weapons ? Flamethrowers are legal in 49 states. I know folks around here who use them for weed control. You can't sue a manufacturer for selling a legal product that functions as advertised. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon Heavy Static Fire
In article ,
says... Dynamic fire (aka: launch) at 13:30 Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday. Note: Elon Musk once again tweeted it was going to Mars. (as opposed to explaining it would go to elliptical orbit between earth and mars orbits). And posted a picture of a space dummy in the driver seat of the car. Looks like the SpaceX pressure suit for commercial crew. Could be an early mock-up or a test article. Hard to tell, but I'm sure it's a "throw-away" piece that's not production hardware. NASA would have donated such a thing to the Smithsonian where it would have been packed in a crate and stored with the dozens of other pressure suits where no one could ever see it (my speculation here). Also, does anyone know why his Boring company marketed/sold flame throwers? When the next California wild wire causing bilions in damages will be blamed on somepone using Musk's flamethrowers for fun, it will be bad PR for him (and possibly lawsuits). Actually they sold propane torches (like for weed burning) in a fancy looking case with their name on it. Or is this a subtle jab at how silly it is for a country to refuse to regulate dangerous weapons ? Don't lose your **** over an over priced weed burner. OMG the sky isn't falling. Look, it's not a flame thrower. That would be illegal in California. It's just a large propane torch or commonly known as a weed burner, so I don't see the problem. I can pick one up at any Harbor Freight store across the country for literally $19.99. https://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-91033.html Or you can order one online from any number of places (e.g. Walmart.com) for about the same amount of money. Musk is just a marketing genius. $500 for a gussied up $20 tool you can buy "anywhere"? He's making a bit of cash on this one. 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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon Heavy Static Fire
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon Heavy Static Fire
In article ,
says... Booster engines fully shut before pneumatic pistons detach the boosters. Would it be correct to state that such a manoeuver would only appen in thin enough atmpsphere so that the boosters do not become a big drag on stack between the time their engines shut and booster separation ? They're a big drag because the center stage is still firing placing the stack under continuous acceleration. Air drag wouldn't change that much. The problem with air drag is more the worry that it could cause lateral forces which cause the boosters to recontact the core. This happened with the D-21. http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/M21_Crash.htm 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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon Heavy Static Fire
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... Booster engines fully shut before pneumatic pistons detach the boosters. Would it be correct to state that such a manoeuver would only appen in thin enough atmpsphere so that the boosters do not become a big drag on stack between the time their engines shut and booster separation ? They're a big drag because the center stage is still firing placing the stack under continuous acceleration. Air drag wouldn't change that much. I've tried to explain to Mayfly that the issue isn't air density per se, but rather 'Q'. Q stays fairly high throughout the boost phase because you're trying to accelerate the vehicle. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon Heavy Static Fire
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
... JF Mezei wrote: Dynamic fire (aka: launch) at 13:30 Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday. Note: Elon Musk once again tweeted it was going to Mars. (as opposed to explaining it would go to elliptical orbit between earth and mars orbits). It's a tweet. How many characters is that limited to, again? 280 -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Live coverage: Falcon 9 rocket set for static fire | Spaceflight Now | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 6th 17 08:40 AM |
Could Delta IV Heavy use the same technique as Falcon Heavy | Alan Erskine[_3_] | Space Shuttle | 1 | May 20th 11 07:56 AM |
SpaceX to static-fire Falcon 9 Friday | Pat Flannery | History | 11 | December 6th 10 04:01 AM |
SpaceX to static-fire Falcon 9 Friday | Pat Flannery | Policy | 7 | December 6th 10 04:01 AM |
The Falcon 9 static fire is scheduled for 1 p.m. EST today | Jeff Findley | Policy | 31 | March 15th 10 03:05 AM |