Jump to content

SpaceX's Big Falcon Topic 2


SpaceChampion

Recommended Posts

For those that are interested the European Space Agency  is having a naming contest for the Mars rover. Airbus has a link on their site to the contest also. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Marsie McMarsface?

Rovie McRover?

Roy of the Rovers?

The ESA learned a lesson from the last naming contest and is not making it a popularity contest. A jury will pick the most suitable name for an explorer of Mars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight!  1:50am ET (05:50 UTC) Sunday -- SpaceX is looking to launch a second Block 5 rocket, this time carrying the Telstar 19V satellite to GEO.  From now on, all Falcon 9 flights will be the Block 5 version, though they may make minor upgrades as they learn more.

The first one flew on May 11, flawlessly.  Their engineers have been assessing the landed booster from that flight, and seeking to confirm the performance of materials, systems and reusability, checking expected rates of wear & tear on the vehicle.

Livestream here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Looks like another successful launch. I just don’t get one thing: Why would you want your satellite to be in geostationary transfer orbit? Does it boost into geostationary orbit on its own later or does it stay in the transfer orbit?

Yes, they have thrusters to transfer to GEO, and to use for stationkeeping (drag of the thin atmosphere over time can pull it lower).  When the thuster's fuel runs out, the sat may still be usable for a while but if it doesn't stay in the correct orbit they'll have to ditch it into the sea.  So at some point they have to decide if they have enough fuel for ditching or not.  If not for that, sats could probably last a lot longer unless there are other problems like circuits damage by getting zapped by cosmic rays.  This is why there are always efforts to find alternatives like (1) in-orbit refueling where late in its life it would be visited by a third-party spacecraft that would refuel it; (2) alternative stationkeeping methods like ion thrusters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, surprisingly no flat earthers invaded the comments section. Kinda disappointing, it's entertaining to read their shit. Though I suppose it gets tiresome when they keep trotting out the same garbage every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Wow, surprisingly no flat earthers invaded the comments section. Kinda disappointing, it's entertaining to read their shit. Though I suppose it gets tiresome when they keep trotting out the same garbage every time.

I think their trollish nature is demonstrated, in part, by the fact that they are fading away as their attempts to get people riled up fail because they are recognized as trolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

That feels like a lot of talk after cancelling Red Dragon.  Not that I'm not glad they're trying to plan for bigger missions to Mars, but still - they had a big mission to Mars that would have been a valuable test for future crewed missions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Summer Bass said:

That feels like a lot of talk after cancelling Red Dragon.  Not that I'm not glad they're trying to plan for bigger missions to Mars, but still - they had a big mission to Mars that would have been a valuable test for future crewed missions. 

That is an uninformed comment. I will explain why, as briefly as I can.

SpaceX has limited money. Red Dragon was going to be based off of the development of the original Dragon 2 concept - funded by NASA - which would use propulsive landing technology, thus allowing it to not only land on earth, but on any solid body in the solar system (including those with insufficient atmospheric pressure to allow the use of parachutes).

Sometime last year, NASA got cold feet and canned the propulsive landing feature in the Dragon 2, and instead told SpaceX to revert to traditional parachute landings into the ocean. Thus SpaceX no longer had a Dragon capable of landing on Mars.

They could of course proceed to develop that at their own cost, but decided instead that the money could be better spent on developing the BFR sooner, rather than spending a lot of money on a one off landing of a relatively small Dragon capsule on Mars.

BFR will land 150 tons of cargo on Mars, compared to the few tons that Dragon could have done. BFR just makes more sense. Short term disappointment, sure, but in favour of vastly greater long term pay-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Some time on Monday we're suppose to find out who the first paying commercial passenger on the first BFR to fly around the Moon will be. 

Also, BFR design looks updated: there seems to be a dorsal fin (in addition to the two delta wings) and a canard on the nose end.  It's looking really classic 1950's sci-fi.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...