SpaceX Tuesday...

[Eric Mc]

Except the Titans and Atlases weren't solid fueled. That's why they had to have pretty elaborate blast dispersion systems. One or two Titans did explode in their silos.

[Beati Dogu]

Yes, it's not a good idea to drop a big spanner down the launch shaft when the rocket has paper thin walls.


The Russians have some pretty impressive rocket gear:

This Anti-Ballistic Missile takes off like a scalded cat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bag2HJhcV44


This supersonic Anti-Ship Missile has some rather funky maneuvers as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFV3FUlTzas

[Eric Mc]

Having all that hypergolic fuel sitting there for months at a time can't have been too comfortable.

[MartG]

IIRC the Russians have a satellite launcher which is a repurposed ICBM which is tube launched. They were originally designed to be launched from the back of a mobile launcher like the one below

[rxe]

MartG said:

IIRC the Russians have a satellite launcher which is a repurposed ICBM which is tube launched. They were originally designed to be launched from the back of a mobile launcher like the one below

Looking at that picture, I'm struggling to think of the scenario where Boris would decide to use one of the three small fire extinguishers bolted to the front. Maybe one in each hand would be sufficient to deal with a rocket fuel leak.

[Beati Dogu]

I like how they're painted red as well. Elf n'safety innit comrade.

[CraigyMc]

Beati Dogu said:

I like how they're painted red as well. Elf n'safety innit comrade.

There are also green ones, I see. Presumably those are full of potato alcohol. Just in case.

[CraigyMc]

I saw something referring to an aim to get the heavy booster to land directly back on the launch site without legs.

It occurred to me that if you could get the rocket close enough, there's nothing stopping you putting something on the pad itself to move the rocket around to land it (eg. cold gas thrusters whose exhaust pushes the rocket into position, or even water cannons).

Doing so may help to lower the weight of the landing structures.

[AJLintern]

How about landing it on a pad that has a grid of pneumatic posts which pop up and surround the rocket in the location it actually lands and at the moment it touches down, thus preventing it from toppling...?

[CraigyMc]

AJLintern said:

How about landing it on a pad that has a grid of pneumatic posts which pop up and surround the rocket in the location it actually lands and at the moment it touches down, thus preventing it from toppling...?

Something like the octagrabber?

[AJLintern]

No I was thinking something more automated that deploys wherever on the pad the rocket ends up landing.

[Beati Dogu]

The booster alone will be around 230 ft (70 m) tall, so if they want something to grab it, it'll have to be pretty large itself.

I kinda suggested something similar a few days ago. The opposite of the Soyuz support arms that retract on launch:






These are the ones being installed in French Guyana. They actually hold the Soyuz rocket over the flame trench. As it rises at launch, the weight on the arms decreases and they automatically spring back out of the way via counterweights.

[Beati Dogu]

The recent NASA Crew-1 booster only just clung on to the landing ship:



Pic from TrevorMahlmann


They've got the Octograbber underneath it by the looks of it, but one leg is touching the edge.

It's on a bit of a slant as well.

Edited by Beati Dogu on Thursday 19th November 17:26

[annodomini2]

Beati Dogu said:

The recent NASA Crew-1 booster only just clung on to the landing ship:



Pic from TrevorMahlmann


They've got the Octograbber underneath it by the looks of it, but one leg is touching the edge.

It's on a bit of a slant as well.

Edited by Beati Dogu on Thursday 19th November 17:26

Did it land on the edge or has rough sea shifted it?

[Ian974]

I have no idea how it would work but the answer is obviously a conveyor belt!

[Beati Dogu]

annodomini2 said:

Did it land on the edge or has rough sea shifted it?

The landing seemed OK. I guess it slid across the deck somewhat in rough seas before they managed to get the Octograbber under it.

Sort of like this one did a few years ago:

https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ?t=80

You can see that one bounced off the deck perimeter wall as well. They got that one back, but they did lose a Falcon heavy centre core overboard after landing once. That was because it had different connections than a regular booster and the Octograbber wasn't compatible at the time.


Here's the Octograbber:



It's usually hidden from view, behind a blast door. After landing it'll move out on its tracks right under the booster . Once there it lowers completely to the deck & latches on to the booster's hold down clamps. It then jacks up the booster slightly to take most of its weight. That, combined with friction keeps the whole thing stable (hopefully) so everything can be towed back to port.

The booster is back in port now, but it was a close run thing by the looks of it.



With some new leg crumple zones we'll likely see this one flying the NASA Crew-2 mission in about 6 months.

[Toaster]

Eric Mc said:

Well, they DO when it comes to ICBMs. However, they have to take massive precautions to make sure exhaust gases are vented as the rocket climbs up the tube.
The only reason they are in "tubes" (usually called "silos") is to hide them from spy satellites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO-CE6SW7eo

It also offers some protection from the weather, an ICBM does not like standing in the open for decades plus it also helps provide some defence from a ground attack (not just a rocket strike)

[Dan_1981]

Beati Dogu said:

This Anti-Ballistic Missile takes off like a scalded cat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bag2HJhcV44

Crikey - that shifts doesn't it?!

[lufbramatt]

Dan_1981 said:

Beati Dogu said:

This Anti-Ballistic Missile takes off like a scalded cat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bag2HJhcV44

Crikey - that shifts doesn't it?!

Not sure if its the panning drone footage or the lighting, but that does have a weirdly CGI look to it. Impressive if its real though.

[MartG]

lufbramatt said:

Dan_1981 said:

Beati Dogu said:

This Anti-Ballistic Missile takes off like a scalded cat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bag2HJhcV44

Crikey - that shifts doesn't it?!

Not sure if its the panning drone footage or the lighting, but that does have a weirdly CGI look to it. Impressive if its real though.

The US had a similarly quick ABM in the mid 70s

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