Talk-Polywell.org

I just don't understand the NASA/ULA fascination with Pyros. Just finished reading the excellent "How Apollo Flew to the Moon" by W. David Woods, and could not believe that they used pyros to cut the LEM from the CM after it had done its job.

Consider that a mechanical docking system was acceptable to attach the LEM, hold it fast on the trip to the Moon, then unlatch and deploy the LEM with descent module down to the lunar surface. Then accepatable again to re-attach the LEM (ascent module only) to the CM when it got back, but after off-loading all the science/samples from the LEM, they used a ring of high explosive to detach it the last time, destroying the docking ring in the process.

The astronauts had to be fully suited when the cutting charge was activated because there was a definite non-zero chance that the cutting charge would breach the hatch on the command module, and they would have had to be fully suited for the whole trip back to Earth and re-entry.

Yet, they had a perfectly good and tested mechanical separator that had already worked at least once during the mission.

And, consider that every time the astronauts went from CM to LEM, they were one static discharge away from being cut in half by high-explosives.

My brother pointed out that it was technology developed in World War 2 when they needed to cut away fuel tanks and bombs when computers and hydraulics and pneumatics were totally unreliable, and servos weren't even invented.

Yet, here we are, 70 years later, and NASA is still just enamoured of these things, despite the fact they tend to throw shrapnel in all directions when they fire. In the era of space-junk mitigation, I don't know how they can justify this stuff.

Hmmm. “Classified mission” that “failed”? Perhaps they just want folks to THINK it failed.

I've been wondering about that. We don't know what the payload was ... possibly a test of a re-entry system? But I don't want to speculate too hard ... If I guess right, they may have to kill me.

Given there is no two line for track USA-280, it can be fairly safe to assume there is nothing being tracked at this point. Most likely, payload didn't make it based on public statements by SpaceX that Falcon 9 did it's job inferring something went wrong that was not Falcon 9 related.
For whatever reason, the vehicle appears to have bricked and lawn darted.

Didn't the X-37 manage to skirt tracking without this much attention?

Yawn... another boring day at Spacex

https://www.space.com/39533-spacex-govs ... bcast.html

get your SpaceX flamethrower today kids before supplies run out!!

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/1/25 ... flamethrow

I got my son a hat. He loves it. It came in the mail yesterday.
He also said he wants a flamethrower. My wife, however, was not thrilled about that idea. Granted, it was some interesting dinner table discussion.

ladajo wrote:He also said he wants a flamethrower. My wife, however, was not thrilled about that idea. Granted, it was some interesting dinner table discussion.

Maybe I am wrong...but I thought a "flamethrower" well, throws flame.


https://www.instagram.com/p/BeeUSFwgLrM/

This contraption seems like an overpriced portable gas fueled burner.


Thought this was a flamethrower:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2syJreKgKQ

That is it shoots out a stream of burning liquid (gasoline I think) that will burn anything it touches. As an aside none of my beeswax, but I think your missus is correct; no way I would give Musk's burning toy to an average boy; hope you (and your neighbors) have good house insurance if you do.

Yes, I agree, it is an oversized lighter. However, the idea, nonetheless, is cool...
I wonder if he could sell a ranging one without some kind of permit? Don't have time to look into it.

In the mean time, the hat is cool! Glad I thought to get one for my son.

I did look into it and in most states if the flame is shorter than 10 feet it is not a "flamethrower" but is considered a weed burner and an agricultural implement . — unlicensed possession of “any non-stationary and transportable device designed or intended to emit or propel a burning stream of combustible or flammable liquid a distance of at least 10 feet” is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison, according to RawStory.
Not that you should give up, of course. Licenses, can be obtained from the state fire marshal in most cases. Be wary local law may apply. this is not to be considered legal advice but informative banter.

Sounds like an interesting job, being the guy with the tape measure...

Amazingly enough, only 23 days after "losing" a billion dollar government payload, SpaceX was tapped to launch another billion dollar government payload in GovSat1. Which they just deployed into a perfect GTO orbit.

Another flawless launch, and, from the commentary, a clean, soft, gear-down landing in the ocean for the B1032 Falcon 9 Block III core.

Now just six more days until Falcon Heavy.

[quote="jnaujok"]Amazingly enough, only 23 days after "losing" a billion dollar government payload, SpaceX was tapped to launch another billion dollar government payload in GovSat1. Which they just deployed into a perfect GTO orbit.

Another flawless launch, and, from the commentary, a clean, soft, gear-down landing in the ocean for the B1032 Falcon 9 Block III core.
[quote]


Is it really lost if it visits a space station before it disappears ? And if they really buggered up the launch , why would NG have four more launches with them in the future?

jnaujok wrote:Amazingly enough, only 23 days after "losing" a billion dollar government payload, SpaceX was tapped to launch another billion dollar government payload in GovSat1. Which they just deployed into a perfect GTO orbit.

Another flawless launch, and, from the commentary, a clean, soft, gear-down landing in the ocean for the B1032 Falcon 9 Block III core.

Now just six more days until Falcon Heavy.

Why do you think SpaceX "lost" anything. Everyone who's looked at the data agrees their hardware did exactly what it should.

paperburn1 wrote:

jnaujok wrote:Amazingly enough, only 23 days after "losing" a billion dollar government payload, SpaceX was tapped to launch another billion dollar government payload in GovSat1. Which they just deployed into a perfect GTO orbit.

Another flawless launch, and, from the commentary, a clean, soft, gear-down landing in the ocean for the B1032 Falcon 9 Block III core.

Is it really lost if it visits a space station before it disappears ? And if they really buggered up the launch , why would NG have four more launches with them in the future?

???

I also have to agree with the idea that the booster did it's job.