SpaceX successfully returns to flight and lands Falcon 9 at Cape Canaveral
141 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Whomobile;49366375]Is this rocket going to be reused or is it only a proof of concept for future rockets to be reused?
Really cool none the less, I regret sleeping in today.[/QUOTE]
They could reuse it, but they are keeping it for historical purposes.
-snip- Sorry, the post on the previous post hadn't loaded when I scrolled through.
Just the Helicopter footage.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;49366441]Footage from the helicopter - practically a bullseye.
[video=youtube;ZCBE8ocOkAQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBE8ocOkAQ[/video][/QUOTE]
That looks so fucking sci-fi. Fantastic.
Man I really, really wish somebody made a video of all the SpaceX landing videos with Cortex Command music playing in the background.
[QUOTE=OvB;49330245]You can start one now but you'll basically be in hibernation for decades. [url=http://www.planetaryresources.com/#home-int]Planetary Resources[/url] already exists. (though funded by billionaires)[/QUOTE]
Isn't that pretty much illegal, sort of like going to Notre Dame, knocking off a gargoyle then taking it with you and selling it?
Something something preservation something something world heritage.
Really excited about this, but I won't celebrate until they make sure that rocket is reusable and will survive a few launches.
[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;49367245]Isn't that pretty much illegal, sort of like going to Notre Dame, knocking off a gargoyle then taking it with you and selling it?
Something something preservatino something something world heritage.[/QUOTE]
hell no you can do whatever the hell you want if you actually build the machines to get you there (hard)
at least in the early 21st century, we live in a wild west era like that
[QUOTE=Sableye;49330059]first you must figure out how to land a profitable size chunk of w/e you have mined back on earth without killing everyone[/QUOTE]Refine the minerals in space (you can't really pollute space with fumes) and transport it back to earth via tubes similar to that of those "space elevators" they've been talking about for decades. One day they may even manufacture in zero-g with robotics and/or 3D printers, perhaps even construct space stations up there in the 22nd century.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49330169]Adapt SpaceX's BFR :P
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/MBMZDaj.jpg[/thumb]
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/n2mJI8s.jpg[/thumb]
In all seriousness though asteroid mining probably won't be financially viable for a long long time.
[editline]16th December 2015[/editline]
[URL="http://www.patrick.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070716-028.pdf"]Also weather has a 90% go for Saturday.[/URL][/QUOTE]Yeah, but these things take time, like going to Mars. You'd need advancements in computer power so you could run more accurate simulations and for better control in robotics in order to make it work (I'd imagine the mining would be done by some sort of robotic probes), the other issue is that there isn't really anything other than ion thrusters (which are pretty weak) that could an object that far without a metric butt ton of litre of fuel.
[QUOTE=OvB;49330245]You can start one now but you'll basically be in hibernation for decades. [url=http://www.planetaryresources.com/#home-int]Planetary Resources[/url] already exists. (though funded by billionaires)[/QUOTE]How young are those billionaires? I'd invest in more current technology,
The engines already go through several ignitions before they are used for launch. A full static burn at McGregor, and the 3 - 5 seconds burn on the launch pad. They seem to test random engines individually with a full burn as well. So the engine side is probably good to go for reusability. The hull itself is probably going to take some refinement, as Musk has stated before they will need to strengthen some things and probably find that they have over engineered other things.
Planetary Resources has some very wealthy people behind it, including the CEO of Google (well Alphabet now I guess..). If we can start constructing things in orbit then it might be worth it, but taking it back down to the surface of earth is hard to do.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49368275]The engines already go through several ignitions before they are used for launch. A full static burn at McGregor, and the 3 - 5 seconds burn on the launch pad. They seem to test random engines individually with a full burn as well. So the engine side is probably good to go for reusability. The hull itself is probably going to take some refinement, as Musk has stated before they will need to strengthen some things and probably find that they have over engineered other things.
Planetary Resources has some very wealthy people behind it, including the CEO of Google (well Alphabet now I guess..). If we can start constructing things in orbit then it might be worth it, but taking it back down to the surface of earth is hard to do.[/QUOTE]
Their engines are rated for 50 ignitions.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49368275]The engines already go through several ignitions before they are used for launch. A full static burn at McGregor, and the 3 - 5 seconds burn on the launch pad. They seem to test random engines individually with a full burn as well. So the engine side is probably good to go for reusability. The hull itself is probably going to take some refinement, as Musk has stated before they will need to strengthen some things and probably find that they have over engineered other things.
Planetary Resources has some very wealthy people behind it, including the CEO of Google (well Alphabet now I guess..). If we can start constructing things in orbit then it might be worth it, but taking it back down to the surface of earth is hard to do.[/QUOTE]
Every engine is tested at McGregor and shipped back to Hawthorne. Then they're attached to the stage, then shipped back to McGregor for full flight duration testing as a stage. By launch the stage has already gone through one cycle, and the engines have been fired at least three times each. (Test fire, full stage test, static fire)
[editline]22nd December 2015[/editline]
So much noise comes out of McGregor that it has fadded into the background for residents of Waco and McGregor. Though SpaceX still warns residents about "louder than usual" tests, which are the full duration stage tests.
wow I didn't know they were launching a satellite with this launch. Thought they were only moving the rocket. that made it way more impressive.
[QUOTE=kimr120;49370109]wow I didn't know they were launching a satellite with this launch. Thought they were only moving the rocket. that made it way more impressive.[/QUOTE]
11 satellites iirc
[QUOTE=Morgen;49368275]The engines already go through several ignitions before they are used for launch. A full static burn at McGregor, and the 3 - 5 seconds burn on the launch pad. They seem to test random engines individually with a full burn as well. So the engine side is probably good to go for reusability. The hull itself is probably going to take some refinement, as Musk has stated before they will need to strengthen some things and probably find that they have over engineered other things.
Planetary Resources has some very wealthy people behind it, including the CEO of Google (well Alphabet now I guess..). If we can start constructing things in orbit then it might be worth it, but taking it back down to the surface of earth is hard to do.[/QUOTE]I would be worried that there would be some sort of metal fatigue over time.
'In my opinion' it would be possible to build things in orbit with robotics, but you'd have to launch a lot of experiments up there to confirm if an idea will work in zero-G which wouldn't be cost effective until SpaceX has made the the cost of launches more economical than it currently has. As for getting things back down to earth it's no more difficult than anything SpaceX is already trying to do with regards to landing on the surface of Mars.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;49371624]I would be worried that there would be some sort of metal fatigue over time.
'In my opinion' it would be possible to build things in orbit with robotics, but you'd have to launch a lot of experiments up there to confirm if an idea will work in zero-G which wouldn't be cost effective until SpaceX has made the the cost of launches more economical than it currently has. As for getting things back down to earth it's no more difficult than anything SpaceX is already trying to do with regards to landing on the surface of Mars.[/QUOTE]
The gravity of Mars is considerably lower than Earth's gravity though. Not quite asteroid mining but funny none the less:
[video=youtube;HetUD1D0Zpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HetUD1D0Zpw[/video]
[QUOTE=Morgen;49372600]The gravity of Mars is considerably lower than Earth's gravity though. Not quite asteroid mining but funny none the less:
[video=youtube;HetUD1D0Zpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HetUD1D0Zpw[/video][/QUOTE]Yeah, but Mars has less atmosphere, so things like parashoots and anything else that relies on air resistance would make it hard. The thing about asteroids is this that you don't have to use as much energy fighting gravity getting loads from the surface to the space. With bring minerals down, you'd need some sort of really long tube or other means of directing the minerals downward to the right location, it doesn't really matter if they slam into the ground at terminal velocity, as long they're only going to a specific location and with no air in the tube to create friction, the only issue would be how much space you'd need on earth.
There's not a lot of point in going to Mars for the sake of lure resource extraction, compared to asteroids. Asteroids can be especially dense in the rarer metals too. But for establishing a long term base it's much better. The magnetosphere isn't as lovely as Earth's by any means, and yeah there's damn near no atmosphere. But even that should help the staff or workers not get wrecked with radiation. And mining operations in low grav are so much easier than zero or micrograv. There are a lot of issues most people don't consider with micrograv mining. Setting up an orbital elevator or space tether on Mars is much easier too, so running constant amounts of cargo out of Mars orbit would be much easier too. And since it's cargo, letting it take the several month or year slow boat trip to Earth is fine.
Otherwise the rest of your post doesn't really make much sense.
[QUOTE=paindoc;49374542]There's not a lot of point in going to Mars for the sake of lure resource extraction, compared to asteroids. Asteroids can be especially dense in the rarer metals too. But for establishing a long term base it's much better. The magnetosphere isn't as lovely as Earth's by any means, and yeah there's damn near no atmosphere. But even that should help the staff or workers not get wrecked with radiation. And mining operations in low grav are so much easier than zero or micrograv. There are a lot of issues most people don't consider with micrograv mining. Setting up an orbital elevator or space tether on Mars is much easier too, so running constant amounts of cargo out of Mars orbit would be much easier too. And since it's cargo, letting it take the several month or year slow boat trip to Earth is fine.
Otherwise the rest of your post doesn't really make much sense.[/QUOTE] I was basically saying you don't need to mine on Mars when you can mine asteroids and not have to worry about launching against the forces of gravity. But asteroid mining would be as challenging as getting humans to Mars, which has no financial gains. What are some of the issues with mining in zero gravity, obviously the inertia would make positioning hard, but what are some of the other problems? I'm assuming they would use robotic probes to do the asteroid mining, I personally don't see the benefit of putting humans in space, robots are expendable and don't need life support.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;49374878]I was basically saying you don't need to mine on Mars when you can mine asteroids and not have to worry about launching against the forces of gravity. But asteroid mining would be as challenging as getting humans to Mars, which has no financial gains. What are some of the issues with mining in zero gravity, obviously the inertia would make positioning hard, but what are some of the other problems? I'm assuming they would use robotic probes to do the asteroid mining, I personally don't see the benefit of putting humans in space, robots are expendable and don't need life support.[/QUOTE]
Well, inertia is the biggest. But so is dust and such. The asteroids (and comets especially) have enough mass that they can sustain what would become an "atmosphere" of dust kicked up by the mining operations. This dust would likely be very very very fine particulates, stuff that has been eroded to tiny grain sizes due to milennia of wear from the solar wind and other impacts. The dust is likely to be highly abrasive and corrosive, and depending on the material of the asteroid may contain substances that are terrible carcinogens (now in a form that can enter the body) or substances that are only more abrasive than they already were.
Other asteroids my have a makeup akin more to a loose collection of gravel, some could fragment when we mine into several smaller asteroids (a nightmare for collision avoidance too), and so on. We don't really know a lot about the actual detailed make up of the majority of the asteroids, as the only ones we really glimpse and get data on are those large enough to be picked up by passing spacecraft and the like. oh, and if we mine in orbit or near earth orbit these small particles, of damn near any size, are capable of damaging satellites. Gravel sized stuff and the like. Small chance, but it could cause a runaway reaction (not as catastrophic as Gravity, but the space around earth is dense as [I]fuck[/I] compared to interplanetary and interstellar standards)
[editline]23rd December 2015[/editline]
Also forgot temperature shocks. Asteroids don't rotate constantly or have equilibrium in temperature. Turning one, disturbing its orientation, or adding any large amount of heat could cause the asteroid to shatter like hot glass under cold water. The larger the asteroid the faster this effect takes hold. Most of the time it doesn't result in complete destruction, but from 2.5-3AU from the sun its going to be the major factor in deciding the structure of asteroids and how intact they are.
[editline]23rd December 2015[/editline]
Not gonna lie I'm hoping to score the Planetary Resources internship near where I live so I can learn more about this topic <3
[editline]23rd December 2015[/editline]
Last edit I promise, but a lot of my sophomoric assumptions come from this paper, evaluating the risks of NASA's Asteroid Redirect mission [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.03800[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.