SpaceX Tuesday...

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Eric Mc

122,032 posts

265 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
It was a war. War drives technical advancement.

We need something similar IFwe want to make similar leaps. Of course, we would have to put up with the overbearing fear of nuclear annihilation as well. But maybe it was a good tradeoff.

If the US Air Force had their way, the US would have gone from sub-orbital lobs to space planes in FOUR years. In fact, the air force was all for abandoning sub orbital ballistic nonsense and going straight to space planes.

Beati Dogu

8,892 posts

139 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
Indeed, the US Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) has been a thing since 1982.

scubadude

2,618 posts

197 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
If the US Air Force had their way, the US would have gone from sub-orbital lobs to space planes in FOUR years. In fact, the air force was all for abandoning sub orbital ballistic nonsense and going straight to space planes.
Yes although the USAF has a reputation for expensive halo projects that always cost overrun and under perform- just look at almost every aircraft they've commissioned in the last 30yrs :-)

I wonder how far the Soviet Union would have progressed if it had continued to lead the Space Race over the Americans? I think it fair to say they were in with a shout of a moon landing but the relentless US pace steamrollered them.

There are some cracking/bonkers/imaginative programs that were proposed and scrapped during the rush to the moon- MOL, Big Gemini, Manned Venus Flyby etc.

Eric Mc

122,032 posts

265 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
Don't confuse USAF manned projects with the moon race. In many ways, the Air Force was very ANTI moon race as they thought the REAL Soviet threat in space wasn't space spectaculars, but missile systems, spy satellites and possibly even orbital bombardment systems and ant-satellite systems. T
hey wanted to develop technology to enable humans (i.e. USAF personnel) to get into earth orbit and disable these Russian threats.

They were also miffed that virtually all the money for manned spaceflight was going to NASA and not to them.

They tried to get two manned programmes funded, Dyna-Soar and, when that was axed, MOL. That too got axed and the crews transferred to NASA (who didn't want them).

RoadRunner220

945 posts

193 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
Something went boom at the McGregor test facility in Texas earlier:

What I really want to know however, is how the hell they made the resulting cloud look like an ostrich.

The Wookie

13,948 posts

228 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
RoadRunner220 said:
Beati Dogu said:
Something went boom at the McGregor test facility in Texas earlier:

What I really want to know however, is how the hell they made the resulting cloud look like an ostrich.
Don't be daft, they haven't made it look like an ostrich, it's clearly a Turkey... festive you see

Beati Dogu

8,892 posts

139 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
It's a teapot

Although it could be a dragon.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

98 months

Sunday 18th December 2016
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
It's a teapot

Although it could be a dragon.


Ain't no dragon's here...

Oh and to tie it in (loosly) with the thread I viewed this asterism from the same location that I viewed the space station followed by the space shuttle..


Edited by Sylvaforever on Sunday 18th December 19:32

MartG

20,678 posts

204 months

Wednesday 28th December 2016
quotequote all

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

98 months

Friday 30th December 2016
quotequote all
Oh boy.

Beati Dogu

8,892 posts

139 months

Friday 30th December 2016
quotequote all
It's only a year since they landed the first Falcon 9. Quite a year, despite losing 4 months of it after the pad explosion.

Eric Mc

122,032 posts

265 months

Monday 2nd January 2017
quotequote all
Interesting findings following the investigation into the September 1 launchpad explosion -

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/01/02/spacex-failu...

CrutyRammers

13,735 posts

198 months

Monday 2nd January 2017
quotequote all
More or less what they said before, but with a nice background explanation. Cheers Eric.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

98 months

Monday 2nd January 2017
quotequote all
Jan 8th launch for Iridium, 10 sats I believe woohoo

Beati Dogu

8,892 posts

139 months

Saturday 7th January 2017
quotequote all
They completed a successful static test fire at Vandenberg AFB a couple of days ago.

The launch itself is set for Monday, Jan 9 at 6:22 PM UK time. Weather permitting of course. sonar


EDIT: "Launch moving due to high winds and rains at Vandenberg. Other range conflicts this week results in next available launch date being Jan 14." - SpaceX

That's Saturday at 5.54 PM UK time.


Edited by Beati Dogu on Sunday 8th January 17:28

Eric Mc

122,032 posts

265 months

Saturday 14th January 2017
quotequote all
Just a bump to remind people that this launch is due off tonight.

FurtiveFreddy

8,577 posts

237 months

Saturday 14th January 2017
quotequote all


"Weather overall 60% favorable"

MartG

20,678 posts

204 months

Zoobeef

6,004 posts

158 months

Saturday 14th January 2017
quotequote all
Having only watched the hosted Web cast, what's the difference between the 2?

callmedave

2,686 posts

145 months

Saturday 14th January 2017
quotequote all
Zoobeef said:
Having only watched the hosted Web cast, what's the difference between the 2?
About 4 seconds

Oh, and Hosted is with commentary.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED