Space Discussion Thread

[paul1598419]

Time will tell.

 

[RedCowboy]

Well on the news of the tax bill AT&T just gave 200,000 employees a 1000.00 Christmas bonus, that's 200 Million dollars straight to the stagnant pay workers, So did Boeing and a couple of major banks.

You won't see that news on cnn.

 

[Benm]

Well, $1000 is not quite enough for a space holiday yet

Giving money to the middle class actually is not a bad thing though, as they are quite likely to spend that money relatively quickly and in large part on domestic services and goods.

It's better than what's going on in europe at least, here they're creating money like crazy (due to quantitative easing etc) but none of that goes into the -real- economy. In just ends up in increasing stock prices as interest rates are zero and from stocks you at least get the dividends even if the price does not increase. The real risk is losing value when the bubble bursts, reducing your assents on paper by a huge amount... but you will still retain your share percentage in the company and will still collect dividends despite the lower valuation.

 

[paul1598419]

Yes, I remember getting nice Christmas bonuses back in the 80s and 90s. Usually around $2000.00, but those days have been gone for awhile. Used to expect it, so when they stopped it made for a more frugal Christmas.

This corporate bonus and pay raises is a tiny fraction of the money these companies will benefit from. Wells Fargo expects a $3.7 billion addition per year to their bottom line from this very unpopular tax bill. Boeing had $8.8 billion in excess cash on hand in the last quarter and could have done something for their works before now if they had wanted to do so. This is a PR stunt to try to make this tax bill look more palatable to the middle class who have suffered from stagnate wages for many years. $200 million is nothing compared to the billions AT&T will gain from this bill. I doubt the majority of the middle class will think this tax bill is favorable to them when it is shown how much these companies are going to make from this expensive tax give away to the wealthy.

 

[Rivem]

I wonder if the Falcon Heavy is going to attempt a second stage recovery. While the first stage recovery is impressive and still a serious money saver, it's also not quite as necessary to use the thrusters.

It'd be crazy to see a second stage booster make it back like the original plan though. At that altitude, the rocket thrust might be the only option to keep it from burning up since the boosters probably can't be too heavily shielded. I guess falcon 9 never tried it since the payload cost was too high.

 

[diachi]

I wonder if the Falcon Heavy is going to attempt a second stage recovery. While the first stage recovery is impressive and still a serious money saver, it's also not quite as necessary to use the thrusters.

It'd be crazy to see a second stage booster make it back like the original plan though. At that altitude, the rocket thrust might be the only option to keep it from burning up since the boosters probably can't be too heavily shielded. I guess falcon 9 never tried it since the payload cost was too high.

There was talk of attempting second stage recovery, it's far more challenging than first stage recovery though. It's going a whole hell of a lot faster than the first stage. The nozzle on the Merlin Vacuum engine is far larger and more fragile too, plus the second stage lacks cold gas thrusters and grid fins for attitude control. Definitely very challenging.

 

[Rivem]

There was talk of attempting second stage recovery, it's far more challenging than first stage recovery though. It's going a whole hell of a lot faster than the first stage. The nozzle on the Merlin Vacuum engine is far larger and more fragile too, plus the second stage lacks cold gas thrusters and grid fins for attitude control. Definitely very challenging.

Yep. I know they've tested relighting on the second stage with F9, but it'd definitely be something else if they can recover it of heavy. Still don't know if that's going to be attempted on the upcoming launch or not.

It'd definitely be a more revolutionary step since first stage recoveries in general weren't exactly new when F9 had its first vertical landing, and the SpaceX goal has been full recovery of the booster rocket.

Either way, definitely looking forward to the launch.
Wish I was in FL still to watch it.

 

[diachi]

Yep. I know they've tested relighting on the second stage with F9, but it'd definitely be something else if they can recover it of heavy. Still don't know if that's going to be attempted on the upcoming launch or not.

It'd definitely be a more revolutionary step since first stage recoveries in general weren't exactly new when F9 had its first vertical landing, and the SpaceX goal has been full recovery of the booster rocket.

Either way, definitely looking forward to the launch.
Wish I was in FL still to watch it.

Second stage re-light is proven. They use it on plenty of launches, not sure how many they have per launch, but it's used already.

As for the recovery part, the idea maybe isn't new, but no one had actually done it with an orbital class rocket before SpaceX. The closest was probably the DC-X: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

The Space Shuttle doesn't really count, as much as I love it.

 

[Rivem]

Second stage re-light is proven. They use it on plenty of launches, not sure how many they have per launch, but it's used already.

As for the recovery part, the idea maybe isn't new, but no one had actually done it with an orbital class rocket before SpaceX. The closest was probably the DC-X: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

The Space Shuttle doesn't really count, as much as I love it.

Yeah. Pretty sure relight has been tested on almost every recent generation F9 from the launches I've watched. I do wonder how much higher the F9 first stage separation happens than the SS boosters now that I think about it. Both happen in the upper stratosphere iirc.

I just want to see a second stage come back. No orbital booster has ever been recovered completely. SS is probably the closest thing, but the tank had to be jetisoned.

 

[diachi]

Yeah. Pretty sure relight has been tested on almost every recent generation F9 from the launches I've watched. I do wonder how much higher the F9 first stage separation happens than the SS boosters now that I think about it. Both happen in the upper stratosphere iirc.

I just want to see a second stage come back. No orbital booster has ever been recovered completely. SS is probably the closest thing, but the tank had to be jetisoned.

The Space Shuttle external tank was jettisoned and a new one was used each time. The SRBs may as well have been built new each time, I think refurbishing them ended up being more expensive than just building new ones. The shuttle itself also needed extensive servicing after each mission.

The idea was good in principal, but it ended up being way too expensive and the only thing that was really reused was the shuttle itself, after extensive refurb.

 

[paul1598419]

Talking about the reusability of the space shuttle during the Reagan administration, it cost ~$1 billion to get a shuttle ready to launch again. This was not reported at the time as NASA wanted the populace to believe these shuttles were as reusable as a 747. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[diachi]

Talking about the reusability of the space shuttle during the Reagan administration, it cost ~$1 billion to get a shuttle ready to launch again. This was not reported at the time as NASA wanted the populace to believe these shuttles were as reusable as a 747. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yup, exactly. It was supposed to be cheap initially, but a whole bunch of government agencies wanted it to have other capabilities that weren't in the original design. IIRC that, at least in part, made the whole thing stupidly expensive.

 

[paul1598419]

Another problem was the design made escape from the shuttle impossible during an emergency. During most of the 80s we were sending shuttles up every few months and discounting the price to move satellites for private companies just so the public would stay on board for a reusable shuttle.

 

[RedCowboy]

The space shuttle lands like a brick and is much rebuilt each time, not really a reusable space plane, more of a plane shaped rocket with solid fuel boosters.

I loved the concept but we could have done a lot more with the money using conventional rockets as the space shuttle only carried 1.3% of it's total weight as payload.

Why not build a space plane that could be piggybacked into the thin air then power itself from there? Getting off the ground and to the edge of gravity......strike gravity, insert atmosphere...... is the expensive part, a 2 part space plane would make sense, even if they were smaller.

Here's a cool look at Falcon heavy : http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

 

[diachi]

The space shuttle lands like a brick and is much rebuilt each time, not really a reusable space plane, more of a plane shaped rocket with solid fuel boosters.

I loved the concept but we could have done a lot more with the money using conventional rockets as the space shuttle only carried 1.3% of it's total weight as payload.

Why not build a space plane that could be piggybacked into the thin air then power itself from there? Getting off the ground and to the edge of gravity is the expensive part, a 2 part space plane would make sense, even if they were smaller.

Here's a cool look at Falcon heavy : Falcon Heavy | SpaceX

Cool animation of FH:

Note: The centre booster won't be landing back at the landing pad, it'll be landing on a barge. They've currently only got two landing pads.

 

[paul1598419]

The space shuttle lands like a brick and is much rebuilt each time, not really a reusable space plane, more of a plane shaped rocket with solid fuel boosters.

I loved the concept but we could have done a lot more with the money using conventional rockets as the space shuttle only carried 1.3% of it's total weight as payload.

Why not build a space plane that could be piggybacked into the thin air then power itself from there? Getting off the ground and to the edge of gravity is the expensive part, a 2 part space plane would make sense, even if they were smaller.

Here's a cool look at Falcon heavy : Falcon Heavy | SpaceX

Actually, there is no getting it to the edge of gravity. The gravity at the stratosphere is still pretty much what it is at ground level. What you want to do is get it into orbital velocity where it continues to fall back to the earth, but because of its horizontal velocity, it keeps missing the earth and just orbits. Once you get here, there is no gravitational effects felt because gravity is the only force exerted on the vehicle. To feel gravity, you need another force acting against the gravitational force.