A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #21  
Old December 31st 18, 01:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 30 Dec 2018
03:21:22 -0500:

On 2018-12-29 18:02, Jeff Findley wrote:

Soldiers in battle would depend on the new GPS III satellites.


A single satellite with additional features does not make those
additioanl features useful because you can't triangulate with those
extra features with only 1 satellite.

The satellite will become part of the standard GPS constellation
broadcasting the public signals like other GPS satellites and will be
included in the almanach and ephemeris broadcasts. Adding and removing
GPS satellites has been done many times before so this isn't a
"critical" thing.

Once this new satellite is accompanied by other Block 3, then there will
be times where there will be sufficient new GPS satellites visible to a
soldeier to enable whatever new military features have been added.

I really suspect the "critical" nature is more a question of needing to
test this new generation of satellites before you launc the rest of the
constellation.


You constantly "really suspect" all sorts of silly ****. If there is
an operational cut in date for the new capabilities, they need to get
enough satellites up to support it. This will make every launch until
that number is achieved 'critical'.


DOD is currently specifying new Falcon 9 hardware only. DOD has not
certified already flown Falcon 9 first stages for DOD use.


Consider the lawsuits resulting from DoD originally gifting the launch
contract to buddies at ULA. DoD would be hurting ULA if it allowed
SpaceX to sell affordable launch services on re-usable launchers since
that would put ULA out of business. So their write contract specs to
ensure the SPaceX costs are as high as the specs can make them. This
makes it easier for ULA to continue to win contracts with the same specs
(everything new, use only once etc)


Utter hogwash. Even in expendable mode Falcon 9 is preposterously
cheaper than the ULA Delta IV.


And with the new Secretary of Defence expected to be ex-Boeing VP, one
can expect the "swamp" to continue to steer contracts towards ULA
instead of more affordable/competitive services, and only give token
launches to SpaceX and Blue Origin (eventually) once in a while to give
the appearance of conpetition.


They will do that anyway in the interest of keeping multiple launch
providers. The next GPS III launch will be on Delta IV.

Do you have a cite which says exactly when they plan on stopping Falcon
9 first stage production? I certainly don't.


I'd have to go back through all the insults McCall sends me to sift
through it.


You do that. You won't find me claiming what you are currently
claiming, nor will you find anyone else claiming it. The problem is
at the receiver end, as is usual with you.


It is possible that when the initial BFR/BFS schedule was announced,
bridging launches between then and start of BFR/BFS commecial flighst
would have required far fewer Fakcon9s at which point pre-building them
and shuttong down production was more realistic. Or just Elon Musk doing
some marketing theatricals.

Also back then, they didn't have those military contract requiring new
launchers each time. So that changes the equation.


Not appreciably. That's not that many launches and everyone with
sense (which lets you out) always understood that there were going to
be some launches that would require expending the entire vehicle.


As you may recall, I was blasted for stating that re-usability of
Falcon9 had not been proven yet. And it was in that context where I
didn't believe that they could shut down Falcon9 production because once
they had enough they could just re-use them until BFR/BFS was launching
payloads.


Note the "once they had enough" in there?



From what has been reported, BFR/BFS is being built at a different
facility, so I would think Falcon production could most certainly
continue in parallel (at least as far as facilities are concerned).


One of the arguments that had been made was refocusing resources/budgets
towards BFR/BFS so produce enough Fancon9s to bridge the gap and then
move all budgets to BFR/BFS. I suspect this was reviewed when you
consider that Falcon9s provide the funding for BFR/BFS development.


It's more 'resources' than 'budgets'.



I believe this launch was to a much higher inclination than due east
from KSC (55 degrees inclination according to the article below).


From 28", is there a huge performance difference launching north east to
55° vs launching due east and then steering to circularize at 0°
latitude over equator? Both require basically 28° correction from a due
east launch.


Let me try it using small words. Given the mass of a GPS III SV, the
ability of a Falcon 9 in reusable mode to launch to the altitude and
inclination specified is marginal. This is why they launched in 'full
expendable' mode, which provides about the same capability as Delta IV
(the original planned launcher) at about a third of the cost.

Maybe, if BFR/BFS is as successful as planned. That's not a given. The
BFS "hopper" hasn't even flown once, let alone the full up BFR/BFS.


But ! But !


Idiot ! Idiot !


it wasn't so long ago that it was a given, that the tanks
had been fully tested and anyone not believing this (me) was blasted and
insulted to smitereens.


If you don't like being "blasted and insulted to smitereens[sic]" stop
being such a bloody idiot. That includes your insane claims about
what people have previously told you.


So now, people are starting to see that building
the largest ever rocket stage and spaceship capable of holding 100
people may p]ossibly be so delayed and changed that it may not happen on
schedule and project may get scaled back ?


People have always seen that. It's just that your head is so up and
locked that you are incapable of understanding what people tell you.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing David Spain Policy 14 October 15th 11 09:51 PM
SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing Space Cadet[_1_] Policy 7 October 6th 11 09:00 PM
Dragon/Falcon 9 Update [email protected] Policy 16 October 7th 09 04:42 PM
No escape tower on Dragon / Falcon 9 [email protected] Policy 0 September 30th 08 03:43 PM
ESA flubs Titan Landing show Ken Amateur Astronomy 36 January 19th 05 09:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.