• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

SpaceX and other space stuff

#221
DrMole said:
I am not discussing controlling the weather. I suspect you know that or are being disingenuous. Adapting to the weather
then.
We modify our structures, vehicles to handle weather. Rain seems a rather trivial problem- compared to putting a multi-ton vehicle in space. Poor administrative choices caused weather to be an issue with the Challenger. We CAN adapt to overcome these issues.

It seems a bit flippant of me- but would you trust a vehicle in the near vaccum and near absolute-zero of space that could not reliably be launched in rain?
Click to expand...

We're on the same page my friend in regard to controlling weather.
I'm not an authority on this subject, so I don't want to present myself that way.
I had the same response as you regarding rain, and weather in general, delaying space missions. Are you kidding me that rain can stop a rocket when I know how to deal with it in my truck?
What I learned after digging around is it's more than one thing that contributes to the variables that lead to decisions to cancel or delay space missions when it comes to weather. So what's the difference then since we can't control the weather on earth yet we don't stay home or cancel commercial air flight when it rains? I'm still reading and learning.
I suppose I could sit here and copy and paste the articles I found, but I'm not going to insult you with that since I'm sure you're capable of that yourself.

-Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMole and OldDog52
#223
It's way more than just "weather" as the layman is familiar with it. Also, realize, rockets are BIG and moving fast. Max Q is difficult enough without mother nature lending a hand. All weather down range has to be considered as well, in case of an abort (basically everything from Florida to Ireland).
It's been awhile for me, since I left that career path about 12 years ago, but, "back then" there were over 25 specific data points that were checked in various places, at various altitudes, to give a green light on conditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldDog52, DrMole, MJ5150 and 2 others
#225
MJ5150 said:
We're on the same page my friend in regard to controlling weather.
I'm not an authority on this subject, so I don't want to present myself that way.
I had the same response as you regarding rain, and weather in general, delaying space missions. Are you kidding me that rain can stop a rocket when I know how to deal with it in my truck?
What I learned after digging around is it's more than one thing that contributes to the variables that lead to decisions to cancel or delay space missions when it comes to weather. So what's the difference then since we can't control the weather on earth yet we don't stay home or cancel commercial air flight when it rains? I'm still reading and learning.
I suppose I could sit here and copy and paste the articles I found, but I'm not going to insult you with that since I'm sure you're capable of that yourself.

-Mike
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifications.
Obviously safety is paramount and who knows if weather is blamed at times when other issues are truly the reason.

I spent many years closely following our space program but am not even an armchair astronaut- many problems are surmountable but the issue really becomes $$$.

Yea we can fix XYZ for (pick your figure in 10s or hundreds of billions) but can we sell that to whomever is banking the project.

Just being a somewhat wishful kid (still) that had such high hopes watching us leave Earth in the early seventies- only to be disappointed at the lack of vision and resources expended to maintain and expand those early herculean efforts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJ5150
#229
DrMole said:
Thanks for clarifications.
Obviously safety is paramount and who knows if weather is blamed at times when other issues are truly the reason.
Click to expand...
No, at least not in the US Space Program, especially where NASA is in control of the launch system.
DrMole said:
I spent many years closely following our space program but am not even an armchair astronaut- many problems are surmountable but the issue really becomes $$$.

Yea we can fix XYZ for (pick your figure in 10s or hundreds of billions) but can we sell that to whomever is banking the project.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. It does cost money, but, there's also just risk/reward, and a lot of problems we don't have the technology (often material technology, followed very closely by power) to solve. Can't throw money at that and just have it go away, much as many of us wish that were the case.
DrMole said:
Just being a somewhat wishful kid (still) that had such high hopes watching us leave Earth in the early seventies- only to be disappointed at the lack of vision and resources expended to maintain and expand those early herculean efforts.
Click to expand...
There isn't a lack of vision, not with the people actually working in the industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMole, ahc, Winslow and 1 other person
#230
bholder said:
I don't think it's so much the rain as it is chances of lightning and high winds.
Click to expand...
It's also a matter of scale, and potential impact of errors / faults. A car can drive in adverse weather, because generally, the speeds are low enough, and the mass of the vehicle small enough, that the weather doesn't affect it nearly as much as things could threaten what is essentially a metal building flying faster than the speed of sound, loaded with some of the most volatile fuels on Earth. The bigger and faster the ride, the more careful you've got to be. :thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJ5150
#232
Winslow said:
It's also a matter of scale, and potential impact of errors / faults. A car can drive in adverse weather, because generally, the speeds are low enough, and the mass of the vehicle small enough, that the weather doesn't affect it nearly as much as things could threaten what is essentially a metal building flying faster than the speed of sound, loaded with some of the most volatile fuels on Earth. The bigger and faster the ride, the more careful you've got to be. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Going to pick nits -- the fuel used actually isn't that volatile. The gasoline in your car is arguably worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahc and Winslow
#235
Selta said:
Going to pick nits -- the fuel used actually isn't that volatile. The gasoline in your car is arguably worse.
Click to expand...
The fuel isn't dangerous, it's the oxidizer - stainless steel burns easily in the presence of LOX. Dangerous stuff.

(Oh, and the hypergolic igniter fuel that causes the "green flash" at ignition is pretty nasty stuff, too, highly toxic and "touchy" - but they use very little of it.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Winslow, ahc and Selta
#236
So was the first stage expendable or did they try to land it? I missed the actual launch. :( (Didn't refresh my browser window, wasn't seeing the live signal until too late.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winslow
#240
bholder said:
The fuel isn't dangerous, it's the oxidizer - stainless steel burns easily in the presence of LOX. Dangerous stuff.
Click to expand...
The LOX was what I had in mind for the most part. "Volatile," from the technical definition, was probably not the most accurate word. :bag:

Selta said:
It successfully landed on OCISLY. It could be reused, but, I'd argue that it should end up in a museum instead.
Click to expand...
I was wondering then when I saw that it had touched down. I thought, "Ok, got it! Now be really careful on the ride back home." :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: bholder, ahc and Selta

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back