Comments on: The SS2 Drop Test

By: Gregg

Gregg — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:35:36 +0000

I probably shouldn’t have used the word “totally”.

Those two bills ought be voted upon individually and separately.

By: Edward Wright

Edward Wright — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:54:32 +0000

Suborbital? Horrors, no!

I’m curious, Brock. How many hours have you logged in space? How many do you expect to log on Falcon Heavy?

I’m constantly amazed at how many space activists profess to be completely bored by real spaceflight because it doesn’t live up to an ideal which they’ve only seen on television.

And what’s so interesting about Falcon Heavy? Even if works, it’s still substellar!

By: Edward Wright

Edward Wright — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:24:52 +0000

International Trade in Arms Regulations are not not unrelated to defense.

At least in theory.

By: Larry J

Larry J — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:55:54 +0000

If SpaceX isn’t saying, all we can do is speculate. After staging, they could use aerodynamic braking to reduce the first stage’s forward velocity somewhat. Having burned off most of the propellant and gotten rid of the upper stage and payload, they wouldn’t need nearly so much thrust as needed for liftoff. I think they plan on only using the center engine for flyback and landing. Personally, I think it makes more sense to not try to return to the launch site but instead land somewhere downrange like an island or perhaps a platform (kind of like Sea Launch in reverse). If they build their proposed launch site near Brownsville, Texas, they could continue across the Gulf of Mexico and land on the west coast of Florida, say near Clearwater. That’s less than 800 nautical miles (~1475 km) and there could be suitable landing sites in Florida that are even closer to the launch site. For that flight profile, the first stage might continue firing after staging to obtain enough velocity to fly to the landing site on a ballistic trajectory. It’d then use aerodynamic braking and thrust to slow down and land. But that’s just speculation on my part.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:30:43 +0000

did some googling and answered my question. Saw Rad’s PM article of Feb 7th.

Question: Do the first stage engines fire all the time between staging and landing? The SpaceX video avoids that detail.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:48:36 +0000

“Yes, but being part of the Defense Bill makes it prospects for passage good.”

I hate this aspect of Congressional operation. While it’s a great thing to write your Congresscritter, I don’t like all these linkages between two totally unrelated things in bills just to get the bill passed.

It’s very bad for the nation – no matter whether the thing passed is something I like or do not like.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:02:00 +0000

I take it that the cost benefit analysis showed that exchanging extra fuel used to land the (first?) stage, for payload is, in the end, a winner because you don’t throw the “airplane” (airline analogy) away?

By: rickl

rickl — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 02:02:27 +0000

It was pretty cool to see a full-sized rocket stage lifting off and just hanging there motionless.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:12:33 +0000

Yeah I saw that yesterday. Very neat.

By: Brock

Brock — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 03:38:49 +0000

Indeed. And even when (if?) they go commercial, it will still be suborbital. The Falcon Heavy even without Grasshopper tech is more interesting.

Also more interesting is the recent demonstration by Orbitec. A rocket engine that doesn’t suffer thermal fatigue with low weight would really give everyone’s RLV plans a boost. (The ones that use liquid fuels anyway)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/progress-on-vortex-rocket-engine.html?m=1