Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #585003 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-15 11:47 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-06-17 06:25 -0400 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 196 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:47 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-15 18:02 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-15 18:53 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-15 19:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-15 20:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-15 22:18 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-16 05:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 08:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-18 12:59 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 08:45 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-19 13:49 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 10:56 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-20 15:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:30 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-20 18:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-20 21:55 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 01:32 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 06:09 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-21 09:04 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 18:23 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-21 23:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 13:16 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 12:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-21 20:18 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-21 16:12 -0500
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-21 21:31 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:25 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-22 21:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 22:30 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-23 06:27 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:19 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-24 06:43 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 05:12 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:23 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 20:53 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 14:37 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 22:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 17:45 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 22:51 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 05:42 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 15:54 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:30 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-01 05:47 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 00:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 19:55 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 05:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:25 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 23:15 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 21:39 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:52 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 22:43 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-04 16:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:06 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 01:03 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:00 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-09 17:06 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:23 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:41 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:21 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:50 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 18:08 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 17:46 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 02:56 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-04 09:33 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:58 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-07 00:17 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-07 14:07 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-07 19:05 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 02:48 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 18:42 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:03 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:00 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 23:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 17:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 17:43 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 02:54 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-02 23:01 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 21:43 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:55 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 22:46 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-04 16:34 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:11 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 01:10 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:07 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-09 17:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:37 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:33 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:59 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 09:59 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 18:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 18:06 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 03:11 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-08 01:16 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:18 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-03 22:25 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 19:40 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 18:51 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 18:26 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:32 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 22:39 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 05:01 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 13:50 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 15:07 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 18:11 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 23:31 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 20:15 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 05:05 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 05:50 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 17:54 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 15:24 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 22:58 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 05:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 16:03 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-24 22:56 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 08:54 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-25 14:21 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:33 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:32 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:41 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-01 05:56 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:32 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 01:03 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 19:56 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 05:34 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:05 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:27 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 23:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 21:41 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:56 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:53 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:12 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 01:12 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:08 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:38 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:59 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:01 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 18:29 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 18:09 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 03:14 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-02 23:03 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-24 22:44 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 08:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-25 14:31 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:39 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-25 16:43 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-26 00:05 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-26 15:40 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-27 21:31 +0100
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-28 06:18 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-26 22:29 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:36 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:28 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:26 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:36 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-06-21 15:37 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 18:27 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:11 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-21 09:02 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:59 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jonathan <writeInstead@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 05:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:55 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-07-05 06:06 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:04 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-20 21:59 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 01:42 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 06:21 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 13:36 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:34 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 13:54 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 10:24 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:42 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:12 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 04:30 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-18 12:45 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 08:37 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 04:18 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-17 06:25 -0400
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 20:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nka0b4$p0l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #585876 |
On 6/20/2016 5:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > SpaceX has > dismantled and inspected the first booster they recovered. They have > stated that it all looks clean and virtually brand new. Yet curiously SpaceX hasn't yet static test fired any recovered boosters. I know that SpaceX is busy trying to increase their launch tempo (and having considerable success) but this delay really is starting to get curious, particularly in the face of their success at recovery. Their stated goal was to static fire a recovered booster several times, and to do it quickly. It hasn't happened. Why not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 21:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31d26972f5d6593b989777@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #585905 |
In article <nka0b4$p0l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, vaughnsimon@gmail.com says... > > On 6/20/2016 5:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > > SpaceX has > > dismantled and inspected the first booster they recovered. They have > > stated that it all looks clean and virtually brand new. > > Yet curiously SpaceX hasn't yet static test fired any recovered > boosters. Actually, they did in January: SpaceX fire up returned Falcon 9 first stage at SLC-40 January 15, 2016 by Chris Bergin https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/spacex-fire-up-falcon-9-first- stage-slc-40/ > I know that SpaceX is busy trying to increase their launch > tempo (and having considerable success) but this delay really is > starting to get curious, particularly in the face of their success at > recovery. Their stated goal was to static fire a recovered booster > several times, and to do it quickly. It hasn't happened. Why not? I'm betting it's the huge backlog of launches to take care of. Paying customers no doubt come first. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 01:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5768d3cb$0$22630$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #585935 |
On 2016-06-20 21:59, Jeff Findley wrote: > I'm betting it's the huge backlog of launches to take care of. Paying > customers no doubt come first. Would it be correct to state that production of new stage1s has been "productized" and is now running smoothly ? If they need to increase production rate, then it is a matter of duplicating machines and employees. Easier said than done, but folks like Boeing, Airbus increase production rates routinely. Would it be correct to state that recovery, inspection and attempts at relaunch of used stage1s would be an R&D effort that would operate separately from the production line ? If so, it would not be impacted by attempts at increasing production of new parts for stage1. However, budgets may be such that the R?D for reflight is limited because not so strategically important/urgent. or maybe they reaslize it is more work tnan they had thought. Wher I can see some impact with production is in inspecting the landed stages, they discover some part that is damaged and then tell production folks to strenghten that part. (and then wait for that stage with improve part to land so they can inspect it and perhaps use that one for first reflight). There are too many possibilities to draw any conclusions on this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 06:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31d2df411c6a338c989779@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #585957 |
In article <5768d3cb$0$22630$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says... > > On 2016-06-20 21:59, Jeff Findley wrote: > > > I'm betting it's the huge backlog of launches to take care of. Paying > > customers no doubt come first. > > > Would it be correct to state that production of new stage1s has been > "productized" and is now running smoothly ? If they need to increase > production rate, then it is a matter of duplicating machines and > employees. Easier said than done, but folks like Boeing, Airbus increase > production rates routinely. Sure, but that sort of capital investment costs a lot of money. Better to reuse vehicles you've got than build new ones needlessly. > Would it be correct to state that recovery, inspection and attempts at > relaunch of used stage1s would be an R&D effort that would operate > separately from the production line ? Most likely, but they would both share engineering, ground test, and launch resources. SpaceX isn't building an entire spaceport in Texas just for fun. > If so, it would not be impacted by attempts at increasing production of > new parts for stage1. Nope. Building new stages is just one part of the overall process. The rest is shared between new and flown stages. > However, budgets may be such that the R?D for reflight is limited > because not so strategically important/urgent. or maybe they reaslize it > is more work tnan they had thought. It's limited by their orbital flight rate, since at this point in time the test program is to recover and refly stages from actual orbital missions. SpaceX has gone well beyond the realm of analysis and ground test to the point that needlessly performing additional ground tests (on unflown stages) just adds costs and generates little to no useful data. > Wher I can see some impact with production is in inspecting the landed > stages, they discover some part that is damaged and then tell production > folks to strenghten that part. (and then wait for that stage with > improve part to land so they can inspect it and perhaps use that one for > first reflight). > > There are too many possibilities to draw any conclusions on this. Yes, they'll find problems and fix them. That's a given. But to timidly assume that vehicles are bad just because they've flown to space and back is silly, especially since they've been designed from the beginning to do just that. Somehow we've lost our "guts". There are streets at Edwards Air Force Base named after men who weren't afraid to climb into a flown vehicle (many powered by rocket engines) and fly it again. Their names on the streets were proof that this wasn't always successful. But, it is also proof that they believed so strongly in advancing the state of the art of aviation technology that they literally put their own lives on the line in order to do it. Why in the hell have we become so risk averse and timid? At times this disgusts me, since it greatly limits progress. Rand Simberg wrote a book about this very issue: Safe Is Not an Option Paperback ? October 31, 2013 by Rand E. Simberg (Author), William Simon (Editor), Ed Lu (Foreword) https://www.amazon.com/Safe-Not-Option-Rand-Simberg/dp/0989135519 Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 13:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57697b17$0$3879$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #585970 |
On 2016-06-21 06:21, Jeff Findley wrote: > Yes, they'll find problems and fix them. That's a given. But to > timidly assume that vehicles are bad just because they've flown to space > and back is silly, especially since they've been designed from the > beginning to do just that. > > Somehow we've lost our "guts". When you look at history of jetliners, it used to be like that. In fact, the Comet flew for a while before it was discovered there was a huge flaw in its design (square windows) that led to structural failure and loss of life. The Aloha airlines "convertible" accident happened decades after the 737 first flew and was certified with the tests from those days. Yet, it was found that there were limits to the aircraft and beyond a certain numebr of cycles, it needed its rivets closely inspected. With every accident, we learn and more precautions are taken to prevent it. So the "lost our guts" is merely "we're better at testing before putting stuff in production". Today, far more tests are done to a new aircraft before it is given its certification and allowed to fly commercially. That is to incorporate all the knowledge learned from previous crashes to help prevent them. The Airbus A320 was given its certificate because it passed the "analogue" tests of the 1980s. But after that, the agencies including FAA realised those tests weren't enough to validate a plane's computer software. So more tests put in. And by the time a plane makes its first test flight, it has been simulated to far greater extent than ever before, especially for its software. The engines have been tested far more than ever before. So yeah, while test pilots still wear parachutes on first few flights, it s a remnant of days where the first flight was truly dangerous. Back to SpaceX. When you have a hundred million payload on your head, (and insurance companies on your back), you want to make really sure that your procedures to qualify a stage for reflight are complete and will detect any/all problems. Remember the Comet. it took many flights before pressure cycles caused cracks at the window corners to stary to spread. They didn't think of looking for this so it wasn't detected until the crash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 06:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7egimbp1d7qb6kq5ntql9abiddaak9imd0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585957 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-20 21:59, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> I'm betting it's the huge backlog of launches to take care of. Paying
>> customers no doubt come first.
>>
>
>Would it be correct to state that production of new stage1s has been
>"productized" and is now running smoothly ? If they need to increase
>production rate, then it is a matter of duplicating machines and
>employees. Easier said than done, but folks like Boeing, Airbus increase
>production rates routinely.
>
Have you ever worked for Boeing or Airbus? Are you aware that rockets
are HAND BUILT, so increasing production requires acquiring new
workforce and bringing them up to adequate skill levels?
>
>Would it be correct to state that recovery, inspection and attempts at
>relaunch of used stage1s would be an R&D effort that would operate
>separately from the production line ?
>
No.
>
>If so, it would not be impacted by attempts at increasing production of
>new parts for stage1.
>
>However, budgets may be such that the R?D for reflight is limited
>because not so strategically important/urgent. or maybe they reaslize it
>is more work tnan they had thought.
>
>Wher I can see some impact with production is in inspecting the landed
>stages, they discover some part that is damaged and then tell production
>folks to strenghten that part. (and then wait for that stage with
>improve part to land so they can inspect it and perhaps use that one for
>first reflight).
>
>There are too many possibilities to draw any conclusions on this.
>
Only if you're stupid.
Learn to read and read what people are telling you.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 13:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57697f59$0$9259$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #585987 |
On 2016-06-21 09:34, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Have you ever worked for Boeing or Airbus? Are you aware that rockets > are HAND BUILT, so increasing production requires acquiring new > workforce and bringing them up to adequate skill levels? There is a lot of machinery involved to make the components, and I strongly suspect that to get to the precision needed, they use CAD/CAM driven machines to make the parts. If you increase production, you need to invest in machinery and space to put it and the new employees. I don't know that SpaceX right now is betting its life on ability to re-use. Definitely betting beers on it, but not its life. Also, in french, there is a saying "you can't sell the bear's skin before you killed it". SpaceX can't sell a flight on a specific reflown stage until that stage has landed safely and passed the tests. What if you sell "the next reusable stage1" for a launch in November, but by November, you don't have a resusable stage1 handy ? A solution is to keep enough recovered stage1 in stock so that you can sell a stage1 today for launch next year, while another recocvered stage1 sold a year ago launches next week. This inventory may be reduced over the years as certaintly of recoverability increases and SpaceX is abloe to more closer to "just in time".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ashlmb1ln1ctotchd1e829tanv3nspouba@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586031 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-21 09:34, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> Have you ever worked for Boeing or Airbus? Are you aware that rockets
>> are HAND BUILT, so increasing production requires acquiring new
>> workforce and bringing them up to adequate skill levels?
>>
>
>There is a lot of machinery involved to make the components, and I
>strongly suspect that to get to the precision needed, they use CAD/CAM
>driven machines to make the parts.
>
Since those are used for pretty much everything, that goes without
saying. It also goes without saying that nobody makes all their own
parts these days.
>
>If you increase production, you need
>to invest in machinery and space to put it and the new employees.
>
Well, DOH! Aren't you just Captain Obvious?
>
>I don't know that SpaceX right now is betting its life on ability to
>re-use. Definitely betting beers on it, but not its life.
>
You don't know much of anything, but that doesn't surprise anyone
anymore.
>
>Also, in french, there is a saying "you can't sell the bear's skin
>before you killed it".
>
The French say many stupid and inappropriate non sequiturs.
>
>SpaceX can't sell a flight on a specific reflown stage until that stage
>has landed safely and passed the tests. What if you sell "the next
>reusable stage1" for a launch in November, but by November, you don't
>have a resusable stage1 handy ?
>
Well duh, Captain Obvious.
>
>A solution is to keep enough recovered stage1 in stock so that you can
>sell a stage1 today for launch next year, while another recocvered
>stage1 sold a year ago launches next week.
>
That's certainly *A* solution, but it's not the one anyone with sense
would choose.
>
>This inventory may be reduced over the years as certaintly of
>recoverability increases and SpaceX is abloe to more closer to "just in
>time".
>
That inventory may be reduced to zero at any time.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 07:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nkb976$efs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #585935 |
On 6/20/2016 9:59 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: >> Yet curiously SpaceX hasn't yet static test fired any recovered >> > boosters. > Actually, they did in January: > > SpaceX fire up returned Falcon 9 first stage at SLC-40 > January 15, 2016 by Chris Bergin > https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/spacex-fire-up-falcon-9-first- > stage-slc-40/ > Thank you, I remember that now! But that is still far different from the test they proposed, which I believe was supposed to be ten firings to demonstrate the robustness of the booster. The article only mentions one 2-second burn, and a questionable engine. Incidentally it was also supposed to be done at their new pad, but with the new "bleeding edge" super cooling equipment and procedures, I can see where that may have slipped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 20:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <p3chmb1d9erci19b8e5km602mb7djhmoed@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585905 |
Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/20/2016 5:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> SpaceX has
>> dismantled and inspected the first booster they recovered. They have
>> stated that it all looks clean and virtually brand new.
>
>Yet curiously SpaceX hasn't yet static test fired any recovered
>boosters. I know that SpaceX is busy trying to increase their launch
>tempo (and having considerable success) but this delay really is
>starting to get curious, particularly in the face of their success at
>recovery. Their stated goal was to static fire a recovered booster
>several times, and to do it quickly. It hasn't happened. Why not?
>
Because they're busy. Nothing 'curious' about that.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 04:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ibamb126trss48sbk983n2dushlb1vrr7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585066 |
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <5761dc6e$0$29122$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com>,
>jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
>>
>> On 2016-06-15 18:02, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> > Remember, "perfect is the enemy of good enough". If they can make this
>> > "good enough", they can learn from it and incorporate all of the lessons
>> > learned in their next generation vehicle. Not everything has to be
>> > fixed in version 1.X of a vehicle. Version 1 just has to be "good
>> > enough". Version 2.0 can contain major upgrades and will hopefully be
>> > even better.
>>
>>
>> There is one issue not being mentioned: right now, they are testing the
>> limits of the vehicle.
>>
>> They may come to the conclusion that for high performance launches,
>> there is too much speed and not enough fuel to make a reliable landing.
>> Say they manage 50% of landings (for sake of discussion).
>
>Possibly, but I doubt it. Out of the last three GTO missions (high
>performance) they successfully landed two out of three. That's not bad,
>IMHO, considering how early in the test program it is and the fact that
>Musk has said repeatedly that these post GTO mission landings are very
>high risk because they really are at the very edge of the capabilities
>of the stage.
>
There will be missions where the size of the payload precludes
recovery (because you can't reserve the landing fuel and get the
performance the customer needs). They have a pretty good idea of
where that line is. For anything else, given the cost of building a
new stage, it is probably always going to be cheaper to try to recover
the stage than not even bother with the attempt. After all, you've
already paid for the recovery hardware ("Of Course I Still Love You")
and the staff required are still on salary, so the marginal cost of
attempting a recovery is low.
>
>> What is the cost of the attempted landing (drone ship, crews, helicopter
>> to video it etc) as well as the cost of repairing the drone ship after
>> the big explosion. Economics may dictate that for such flights, it is
>> best to ditch in ocean. Aka: value of 5 recovered rockets < then cost of
>> trying to land 10 rockets, and repairing damage from the 5 failed ones.
>
>Ditching in the ocean was tried before the barges were available. Every
>one was lost, even the ones that successfully "soft landed" on the ocean
>surface. They all broke apart due to wave action. There is a reason
>ships have very thick hulls. Liquid fueled launch vehicle stages do not
>have thick hulls. The solid fueled shuttle SRBs survived because they
>had very thick steel casings.
>
And even the SRBs required a lot of work before they could have been
reflown.
The only real 'delta cost' for recovery is the fuel to move the barge
(which you already own) plus flight hours on any aircraft (and you
don't HAVE to video the thing - SpaceX does that for the 'cool
factor', Musk recognizing that a lot of us geeks (like the ones he has
working for him) like to see it). Damage from an 'explosion' of the
stage to the landing ship is probably unlikely. Remember, these
things are designed to have firing rocket engines impinge on them.
Despite how flashy the explosion might be, that's probably tougher on
the landing ship than any uncontained explosion of a stage.
>
>> But we're not there yet because it is too soon to establish the
>> economics of landing the rocket.
>
>The economics of recovering and ref-lying a vehicle is a narrow view.
>Widen your view to the overall company's economics...
>
>At this point, reducing pressure on the manufacturing capacity is quite
>important, even if these first few re-flights don't "save" any money.
>Also, getting the stages back for inspections is a good thing. It
>allows for more engineering data than dropping it in the ocean and
>letting it sink, which is the alternative that every other current US
>launch vehicle provider uses.
>
Not only that, but as long as the cost of FUEL for the recovery
systems plus necessary refurbishment is less than the cost of
manufacturing a new stage, recovery is a big incremental economic win
regardless of which cost model(s) are used to recover the cost of
recovery.
Sorry, about all the 'recovery' in that statement, but I'm still in
recovery. :-)
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 12:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57657a9d$0$62773$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #585412 |
On 2016-06-18 07:30, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> There will be missions where the size of the payload precludes
> recovery (because you can't reserve the landing fuel and get the
> performance the customer needs).
There are obviuos cases where ditching stage 1 is happening, and there
are borderline cases. That "borderline" area right now is those GTO
launches.
> For anything else, given the cost of building a
> new stage, it is probably always going to be cheaper to try to recover
> the stage than not even bother with the attempt.
Accountants will decide this once SpaceX has enough data points and once
its software has matured. Right now, it appears there is still much
fine tuning of software possible. But once optimized to the max, they
will know pretty well what the limits are in terms of having enough fuel
to reliably land.
> After all, you've
> already paid for the recovery hardware ("Of Course I Still Love You")
> and the staff required are still on salary, so the marginal cost of
> attempting a recovery is low.
That is for accountants to decide. There is the cost of refurbishing the
barge after an explosion.
Also, the marginal cost of deploying vs leaving in port may not be so
small. If engines require maintenance based on hours of operation, then
the more you use it, the most it costs to maintain. And while crews are
at sea, they may cost much more than on land (meals, overtime etc). It
is also not clear whether SpaceX owns the support ships that we never
see or whether it leases them "on demand".
Accountants would have such numbers by now. (including cost of refurb
after landing failure).
And if the cost of refurbishing the barge is high, accountants may ask
engineers to have rocket decide whether landing is possible or not (fuel
remaining vs speed/altitude) or have the software wilfully ditch next to
the barge if it thinks it can't make a safe landing due to insufficient
fuel.
> And even the SRBs required a lot of work before they could have been
> reflown.
SRBs landed in salt water.
Nobody is suggesting refurbishing a stage1 that falls flat on its belly
in the ocean.
With regards to revenues for flights on new rockets, it would not
surprise me if negotiations included a rebate if stage1 is recovered.
(or recoverable because of easier flight profile).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <igscmb15mgpmc33n4lplek4dsr6b5li4sa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585473 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-06-18 07:30, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> There will be missions where the size of the payload precludes
>> recovery (because you can't reserve the landing fuel and get the
>> performance the customer needs).
>
>There are obviuos cases where ditching stage 1 is happening, and there
>are borderline cases. That "borderline" area right now is those GTO
>launches.
>
Wrong. It is always worthwhile to try to recover a stage if there is
ANY chance of recovery.
>
>> For anything else, given the cost of building a
>> new stage, it is probably always going to be cheaper to try to recover
>> the stage than not even bother with the attempt.
>
>Accountants will decide this once SpaceX has enough data points and once
>its software has matured. Right now, it appears there is still much
>fine tuning of software possible. But once optimized to the max, they
>will know pretty well what the limits are in terms of having enough fuel
>to reliably land.
>
They pretty well know that now.
>> After all, you've
>> already paid for the recovery hardware ("Of Course I Still Love You")
>> and the staff required are still on salary, so the marginal cost of
>> attempting a recovery is low.
>
>That is for accountants to decide. There is the cost of refurbishing the
>barge after an explosion.
>
I seriously doubt that's a big cost because I seriously doubt an
uncontained explosion on a landing pad is going to damage anything
other than some surface mounted support equipment.
>
>Also, the marginal cost of deploying vs leaving in port may not be so
>small. If engines require maintenance based on hours of operation, then
>the more you use it, the most it costs to maintain. And while crews are
>at sea, they may cost much more than on land (meals, overtime etc). It
>is also not clear whether SpaceX owns the support ships that we never
>see or whether it leases them "on demand".
>
Engine maintenance on a ship is, relatively speaking, pretty damned
cheap. Keeping it in port costs money in port fees. There aren't a
lot of people involved, so paying and feeding them is down in the
noise. There is only one other ship involved.
Again, if there is even a 10% chance of recovery attempting the
recovery is a 'win'.
>
>Accountants would have such numbers by now. (including cost of refurb
>after landing failure).
>
Well, no, they won't. This hasn't been done enough and a refurbed
booster has never been reflown.
>
>And if the cost of refurbishing the barge is high, accountants may ask
>engineers to have rocket decide whether landing is possible or not (fuel
>remaining vs speed/altitude) or have the software wilfully ditch next to
>the barge if it thinks it can't make a safe landing due to insufficient
>fuel.
>
So you take all the expense of a recovery and then toss $18 million in
the water. Makes no sense.
>
>>
>> And even the SRBs required a lot of work before they could have been
>> reflown.
>>
>
>SRBs landed in salt water.
>
Which was irrelevant. Just the impact messed them up, which is what
was being discussed. Salt water doesn't hurt an SRB casing all that
much, given that there's no engine in there that you're trying to
recover.
>
>Nobody is suggesting refurbishing a stage1 that falls flat on its belly
>in the ocean.
>
Nobody sane is suggesting trying to recover a stage from the water,
period. You can't get them down soft enough.
>
>With regards to revenues for flights on new rockets, it would not
>surprise me if negotiations included a rebate if stage1 is recovered.
>(or recoverable because of easier flight profile).
>
That's certainly one funding model that could be used. I can think of
several others that could all be used independently or in combination.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 14:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <G5ednf8AcfY_D_jKnZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #585412 |
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message news:3ibamb126trss48sbk983n2dushlb1vrr7@4ax.com... > >The only real 'delta cost' for recovery is the fuel to move the barge >(which you already own) plus flight hours on any aircraft (and you >don't HAVE to video the thing - SpaceX does that for the 'cool >factor', Musk recognizing that a lot of us geeks (like the ones he has >working for him) like to see it). Damage from an 'explosion' of the >stage to the landing ship is probably unlikely. Remember, these >things are designed to have firing rocket engines impinge on them. >Despite how flashy the explosion might be, that's probably tougher on >the landing ship than any uncontained explosion of a stage. Yeah, someone I was talking to suggested that an explosion might cause a lot of damage, but I tend to doubt it. You already have a pretty solid deck built for the Falcon 9 to "crash" onto and it's built to withstand an engine blast. So sure, maybe a handrail or two and maybe a camera, but as long as you're hitting the deck, my guess is most of the effort is sweeping the debris off after. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 04:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cvaamb57n5gbpam61pu4g4fq3vr45kpes2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585042 |
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <njrt9k$hej$1@dont-email.me>,
>rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
>>
>> The LA Times is reporting today's landing attempt was unsuccessful:
>>
>> SpaceX launches two satellites, but drone ship landing is unsuccessful.
>> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-launch-20160614-snap-story.html
>
>Yes, but the launch *was* successful, so the paying customer is happy
>and the Falcon flight program will continue. :-)
>
Right. And since right now he's charging as if he's not going to get
the stages back, SpaceX is also happy (enough).
>
>> Elon Musk Verified account
>> ?@elonmusk
>> Looks like thrust was low on 1 of 3 landing engines. High g landings v
>> sensitive to all engines operating at max.
>> https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/743097337782763521
>
>He also Tweeted that SpaceX has already been working on ways to handle
>this situation. In other words, it's just like the launch that "ran out
>of hydraulic fluid" for the grid fins. Even before that failure, they
>were working on increasing the fluid available for landings.
>
And even if they don't, if it works only part of the time they still
come out ahead as long as the cost of recovery and refurbishment is
lower than a new booster.
>> My opinion, in order to land successfully in a consistent fashion
>> SpaceX will have to give the F9 hovering ability.
>
>I respectfully disagree. Again, this is a known issue that was already
>being worked on. This is a *test flight program*. SpaceX has yet to
>even refly a stage! Problems are expected during a test flight program.
>You develop fixes for problems as they become known. In this case, the
>problem was already known and a fix was already in the works. This was
>not an "unknown unknown" this time. It was a known risk that they took
>in order to fly the mission for the customer without making them wait
>for a landing fix they largely don't care about.
>
>The customer just wants their satellites in the proper orbit. That
>mission was accomplished.
>
I agree with you. Not only would building in 'hover' for recovery
invalidate all the work they've already done (essentially start over
and crash some more until the landing software was right), but it
would require an expensive redesign of the engines. Since SpaceX can
already compete on price with the existing system, it's just not worth
the cost.
This is the problem with a lot of people who just think about 'theory'
and push for performance. They lose sight of the economics of the
thing.
>> High g landings are endemic to a "hover-slam" landing, more commonly
>> referred to as a "suicide-burn", more accurately referred to as "land or
>> slam", since without hovering ability, you only get one chance at it. You
>> either stick the landing on the first try, or you crash and burn.
>
>You only got one chance at final approach and landing a shuttle orbiter,
>but they were all successful (with arguably a few close calls). So
>that, in and of itself, doesn't disqualify the hover slam approach.
>Besides, the Falcon 9 first stage is unmanned, so nobody was killed.
>
>Remember, "perfect is the enemy of good enough". If they can make this
>"good enough", they can learn from it and incorporate all of the lessons
>learned in their next generation vehicle. Not everything has to be
>fixed in version 1.X of a vehicle. Version 1 just has to be "good
>enough". Version 2.0 can contain major upgrades and will hopefully be
>even better.
>
SpaceX essentially gets the recovered stages for 'free', since they
charge the customer as if the stage is going to be expended. There
are at least three different cost models that would allow SpaceX to
lower costs based on booster recovery. All of them work just fine
(given analysis of costs and recovery success rates) with an
'imperfect' percentage of successful recovery attempts.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 06:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31cd9a1e92b0e4bf989771@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #585003 |
In article <njrt9k$hej$1@dont-email.me>, rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says... > > The LA Times is reporting today's landing attempt was unsuccessful: > > SpaceX launches two satellites, but drone ship landing is unsuccessful. > http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-launch-20160614-snap-story.html > > Elon Musk Verified account > ?@elonmusk > Looks like thrust was low on 1 of 3 landing engines. High g landings v > sensitive to all engines operating at max. > https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/743097337782763521 > > My opinion, in order to land successfully in a consistent fashion SpaceX > will have to give the F9 hovering ability. SpaceX released a video showing how close this landing was. Apparantly the stage ran out of LOX right above the deck. You'll want to take a look because it actually looks very close to hovering in the video. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4ogmvc/elon_musk_on_twitter_loo ks_like_early_liquid/ Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web