Talk-Polywell.org

Maui wrote:

Betruger wrote:Sounds like DeltaV is underlining that the F9R legs'll probably cope with the plume worse than the fixed "ballast" GH1 legs.

I would have said he meant better not worse. What I guess I didn't read anything DeltaV wrote as negative, but I guess I'm outnumbered 2-1 at this point.

It read like it was better because the legs did not spend so long so near the plume.

mvanwink5 wrote:I can't understand what it is you have against camels or the SpaceX legs. The pictures are appreciated though. Thanks for those. I still miss seeing Johnny Cash on the launch, or his music during launch.

The man in black did seem to bring some class into the action.

New competiton for SpaceX:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24090322

Amazing they have a mission control of just 8 people. That is revolutionary.

Something that lofts 1200kg to LEO for $39 million is not a competitor for SpaceX. Epsilon is a solid fuel rocket, too, which probably simplifies the launch process. Using automation to cut down the number of people required is still interesting, though.

Actually, if you read carefully the claim in the source materials (BBC) is that the rocket took $39M to develop. The cost of the launch is not in the original piece. The first piece I read was some no-name pseudo-journalism and they said $39m to launch--seems it's an easy mistake to make.

So no idea what it costs to launch yet. Just saying, SpaceX can take a tip from this new embedded AI and tiny mission control. Would save them lots of money. From past pics I'd say SpaceX has at least 40 people in its mission control, and using a lot more than 2 laptops for launch.

Agreed solids are easier. I don't know if SpaceX actually throttles the Falcons on ascent though, or they just vector the thrust.

SpaceX has one advantage that solids will never achieve. They can run the rocket on the central core with fuel from the outer cores and still have a full tank when the booster cores are jettisoned.

That and the fact kerosene has much more specific energy than any solids. Solids can't compete. They're great for suborbital missiles that need to be in storage for decades, but not much else.

GIThruster wrote:That and the fact kerosene has much more specific energy than any solids. Solids can't compete. They're great for suborbital missiles that need to be in storage for decades, but not much else.

Well, that and where a lot of power is needed. A solid is less efficient, but even with a very efficient rocket engine, if you generate 100,000 pounds of thrust and you weigh 100,000 lbs , then with vertical launch you are going nowhere fast, at least until you have burned a significant amount of your fuel, which eats into your final efficiency. You need excess thrust to get moving, even if it is not very efficient. The benefit is similar to staging. A lot of thrust with a lot of weight. At least the weight is shed fast so you do not need to carry it with you for long. The compromises results in the optimal solution. That is presumably why a lot of launchers use strap on solid boosters.

Dan Tibbets

GIThruster wrote:That and the fact kerosene has much more specific energy than any solids. Solids can't compete. They're great for suborbital missiles that need to be in storage for decades, but not much else.

The Epsilon rocket looks an awful lot like an ICBM, don't you think?

Launcher development makes a great cover for ICBM development, and there is a lot of strategic maneuvering going on between China and Japan right now.

Just sayin'...

Well, the payload mass is not all that competitive with Falcon9. It seems to be more in the Falcon1 range. There is a reason why SpaceX discontinued Falcon1. There were not even customers.

they had a picture perfect launch yesterday! Falcon 9 1.1 delivered all its payloads to orbit and they managed to relight the first stage engines for a controlled descent. They did a second relight for a controlled touchdown, but the stage started rolling and the slushing of the fuel caused a premature shutdown and the stage was lost. They allegedly know the problem and will try again on CRS1.

This was released today. The most recent flight was 2400 feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO- ... e=youtu.be

Launch at 5:41 ET

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

superb news!

I was hoping to see news of whether they had better luck with a controlled return of the first stage this time, but can't see any mention of it. Anyone know if they attempted it for this launch?