Can we not start twisting words already? I said a nominal landing is safe. Why did you switch the subject to reentry?
Now you bring up Soyuz TMA-11 which is known for its unusually steep reentry (due to an anomaly) which everybody survived. Yes shit can happen in reentry. I suffer you to find any system for decelerating a vehicle through the atmosphere from 7.5 kilometers a second to 0 with 0.00000000000% risk. There is nothing especially dangerous about Soyuz in this respect.
And this is a far cry from you trying to claim the landing is "very bad on the human body."
There is nothing particularly unsafe about the landing system. Maybe you have some kind of agenda to show otherwise? Your video is called "Safe landing for Soyuz capsule." Maybe you were trying to use the title ironically because you saw that there were medics in the video (as there would be medics at any landing of a ship that came from space), but actually it's from Reuters and they really mean it was a safe landing.
Yes, but Space X's boosters are unmanned when they return. Landing on land would be a big advantage. You wouldn't need any of the crazy technology that allows a powered landing on a tiny target, since it wouldn't matter so much if you missed your target by even a few hundred meters. The problem with water landings is that the salt water ruins everything. If you land on land, you don't need the accuracy provided by a powered landing, and could instead just have huge parachutes. We have huge, empty wastelands too in the south west. You could still launch from the east coast, that's fine, the ocean does make a great launch range. But there's no reason it has to come back down in the ocean too on a successful return.
Considering some of the 'unusal' reentries that the Soyuz capsules have suffered (partial burn through on Soyuz 5 from service module not detaching - which also also happened on Soyuz TMA-11), it is a pretty safe vehicle.
people are comparing a capsule landing (soyuz) with a rocket landing (falcon 9). They are completely different vehicles. The soyuz is supposed to land. And so does the dragon (the equivalent to soyuz) when it comes down from ISS with cargo back. The rockets that launch soyuz do not land, unlike the falcon 9.
Can we not start twisting words already? I said a nominal landing is safe. Why did you switch the subject to reentry?
Now you bring up Soyuz TMA-11 which is known for its unusually steep reentry (due to an anomaly) which everybody survived. Yes shit can happen in reentry. I suffer you to find any system for decelerating a vehicle through the atmosphere from 7.5 kilometers a second to 0 with 0.00000000000% risk. There is nothing especially dangerous about Soyuz in this respect.
And this is a far cry from you trying to claim the landing is "very bad on the human body."
There is nothing particularly unsafe about the landing system. Maybe you have some kind of agenda to show otherwise? Your video is called "Safe landing for Soyuz capsule." Maybe you were trying to use the title ironically because you saw that there were medics in the video (as there would be medics at any landing of a ship that came from space), but actually it's from Reuters and they really mean it was a safe landing.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to twist words and I may have worded myself incorrectly. What I was trying to say is that imagine coming from re-entry at a few G's of force and then pretty much landing/instantly stopping on solid ground. We already know that with the parachutes deployed, they're still going 24 feet per second, then the sudden stop and roll. The whiplash alone from that can cause bodily harm. It's like when you get into a car accident, you suddenly stop from having momentum. You might not feel the pain that day, but the following days/weeks causes soreness maybe even nerve damage. Whiplash is something that is very concerning at least for me especially when you're coming back from being in Zero-G for months.
I believe the soyuz is safe in terms of flying and returning from ISS, but that landing is scary. I'd rather land in water.
On January 20 2015 20:45 misirlou wrote: people are comparing a capsule landing (soyuz) with a rocket landing (falcon 9). They are completely different vehicles. The soyuz is supposed to land. And so does the dragon (the equivalent to soyuz) when it comes down from ISS with cargo back. The rockets that launch soyuz do not land, unlike the falcon 9.
My point is that it must be easier to recover the Falcon 9 if it lands on land. You don't need to worry about landing on a tiny barge. Because you don't need to be so accurate, you could have parachutes instead of a powered landing. It doesn't matter so much if you miss on land because you won't flood the whole thing with salt water.
WASHINGTON — Tests of the crew escape system for SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft, once scheduled for November 2014 and, more recently, January, now will take place “later this year,” a company spokesman said Jan. 14.
“I don’t have an update on dates,” SpaceX spokesman John Taylor told SpaceNews. “We can be more specific if we get a little bit closer.”
NASA is partially funding these tests under the milestone-based Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) Space Act Agreement it awarded SpaceX in 2012. That deal is separate from the more recent Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract the company got in September to complete development of crewed versions of its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft.
SpaceX is competing with Boeing Space Exploration of Houston to replace the retired space shuttle as NASA’s means of sending astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) has raised a billion dollars in a financing round with two new investors, Google and Fidelity. They join existing investors Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Valor Equity Partners and Capricorn. Google and Fidelity will collectively own just under 10% of the company.
On January 20 2015 20:45 misirlou wrote: people are comparing a capsule landing (soyuz) with a rocket landing (falcon 9). They are completely different vehicles. The soyuz is supposed to land. And so does the dragon (the equivalent to soyuz) when it comes down from ISS with cargo back. The rockets that launch soyuz do not land, unlike the falcon 9.
My point is that it must be easier to recover the Falcon 9 if it lands on land. You don't need to worry about landing on a tiny barge. Because you don't need to be so accurate, you could have parachutes instead of a powered landing. It doesn't matter so much if you miss on land because you won't flood the whole thing with salt water.
From what SpaceX has said in their PR stuff the reasoning is that they are developing the technology so they can land on bodies without a good atmosphere for parachutes. Easiest way to test it is on earth since that is the only place with high frequency of landings.
Can we not start twisting words already? I said a nominal landing is safe. Why did you switch the subject to reentry?
Now you bring up Soyuz TMA-11 which is known for its unusually steep reentry (due to an anomaly) which everybody survived. Yes shit can happen in reentry. I suffer you to find any system for decelerating a vehicle through the atmosphere from 7.5 kilometers a second to 0 with 0.00000000000% risk. There is nothing especially dangerous about Soyuz in this respect.
And this is a far cry from you trying to claim the landing is "very bad on the human body."
There is nothing particularly unsafe about the landing system. Maybe you have some kind of agenda to show otherwise? Your video is called "Safe landing for Soyuz capsule." Maybe you were trying to use the title ironically because you saw that there were medics in the video (as there would be medics at any landing of a ship that came from space), but actually it's from Reuters and they really mean it was a safe landing.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to twist words and I may have worded myself incorrectly. What I was trying to say is that imagine coming from re-entry at a few G's of force and then pretty much landing/instantly stopping on solid ground. We already know that with the parachutes deployed, they're still going 24 feet per second, then the sudden stop and roll. The whiplash alone from that can cause bodily harm. It's like when you get into a car accident, you suddenly stop from having momentum. You might not feel the pain that day, but the following days/weeks causes soreness maybe even nerve damage. Whiplash is something that is very concerning at least for me especially when you're coming back from being in Zero-G for months.
I believe the soyuz is safe in terms of flying and returning from ISS, but that landing is scary. I'd rather land in water.
It doesn't hit the ground at 24 fps because in addition to the parachutes it has solid retrorockets well as shock absorbing seats. Airliners can touch down at a sink rate of 10 fps. Where's documentation of Soyuz astronauts having whiplash problems?
On January 20 2015 20:45 misirlou wrote: people are comparing a capsule landing (soyuz) with a rocket landing (falcon 9). They are completely different vehicles. The soyuz is supposed to land. And so does the dragon (the equivalent to soyuz) when it comes down from ISS with cargo back. The rockets that launch soyuz do not land, unlike the falcon 9.
My point is that it must be easier to recover the Falcon 9 if it lands on land. You don't need to worry about landing on a tiny barge. Because you don't need to be so accurate, you could have parachutes instead of a powered landing. It doesn't matter so much if you miss on land because you won't flood the whole thing with salt water.
It's the opposite, you have to be extremely accurate to do it on land so that the FAA approves you launching an orbital missile and then landing it back near a populated area. Parachutes won't have quite that kind of accuracy. And it does take more fuel to get back to land and while you're in the testing process that fuel can be used as margins to make sure you can do an accurate landing.
It also doesn't make sense in terms of engineering to use parachutes. You'd have to fire the engines to get back over land anyway and after that the terminal velocity will be on the order of like 100 m/s anyway. That's a pretty small delta-v for the returning boost stage and it doesn't take that much fuel to cancel. So you are talking about adding all the weight of a parachute system (as well as making the legs probably more shock-absorbing or firing the rocket anyway to soften the touchdown) versus the weight of fuel that you already have to use for the huge rocket engines attached at the bottom. Just use those. Parachutes aren't necessary. And like Yurie says they only work on Earth.
You might think they would be a good idea when you remember the shuttle SRBs but since those are solid you can't reignite or throttle them in any way that would let you guide them to a landing so parachuting after burnout was the only option. Actually in the old days there was a study to use a modified first stage of a Saturn V to launch the shuttle and external tank and then return it to the launchpad for reuse. That would have been cool.
Can we not start twisting words already? I said a nominal landing is safe. Why did you switch the subject to reentry?
Now you bring up Soyuz TMA-11 which is known for its unusually steep reentry (due to an anomaly) which everybody survived. Yes shit can happen in reentry. I suffer you to find any system for decelerating a vehicle through the atmosphere from 7.5 kilometers a second to 0 with 0.00000000000% risk. There is nothing especially dangerous about Soyuz in this respect.
And this is a far cry from you trying to claim the landing is "very bad on the human body."
There is nothing particularly unsafe about the landing system. Maybe you have some kind of agenda to show otherwise? Your video is called "Safe landing for Soyuz capsule." Maybe you were trying to use the title ironically because you saw that there were medics in the video (as there would be medics at any landing of a ship that came from space), but actually it's from Reuters and they really mean it was a safe landing.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to twist words and I may have worded myself incorrectly. What I was trying to say is that imagine coming from re-entry at a few G's of force and then pretty much landing/instantly stopping on solid ground. We already know that with the parachutes deployed, they're still going 24 feet per second, then the sudden stop and roll. The whiplash alone from that can cause bodily harm. It's like when you get into a car accident, you suddenly stop from having momentum. You might not feel the pain that day, but the following days/weeks causes soreness maybe even nerve damage. Whiplash is something that is very concerning at least for me especially when you're coming back from being in Zero-G for months.
I believe the soyuz is safe in terms of flying and returning from ISS, but that landing is scary. I'd rather land in water.
It doesn't hit the ground at 24 fps because in addition to the parachutes it has solid retrorockets well as shock absorbing seats. Airliners can touch down at a sink rate of 10 fps. Where's documentation of Soyuz astronauts having whiplash problems?
.
You act as if I don't know what I'm talking about...
Start it at 18:25. It's exactly as mentioned, a car accident. They may or may not experience it, but it's a possibility and we just don't know about it. I'm sure they're happier about being back on earth than the pain that may or may not come afterwards from that landing.
Can we not start twisting words already? I said a nominal landing is safe. Why did you switch the subject to reentry?
Now you bring up Soyuz TMA-11 which is known for its unusually steep reentry (due to an anomaly) which everybody survived. Yes shit can happen in reentry. I suffer you to find any system for decelerating a vehicle through the atmosphere from 7.5 kilometers a second to 0 with 0.00000000000% risk. There is nothing especially dangerous about Soyuz in this respect.
And this is a far cry from you trying to claim the landing is "very bad on the human body."
There is nothing particularly unsafe about the landing system. Maybe you have some kind of agenda to show otherwise? Your video is called "Safe landing for Soyuz capsule." Maybe you were trying to use the title ironically because you saw that there were medics in the video (as there would be medics at any landing of a ship that came from space), but actually it's from Reuters and they really mean it was a safe landing.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to twist words and I may have worded myself incorrectly. What I was trying to say is that imagine coming from re-entry at a few G's of force and then pretty much landing/instantly stopping on solid ground. We already know that with the parachutes deployed, they're still going 24 feet per second, then the sudden stop and roll. The whiplash alone from that can cause bodily harm. It's like when you get into a car accident, you suddenly stop from having momentum. You might not feel the pain that day, but the following days/weeks causes soreness maybe even nerve damage. Whiplash is something that is very concerning at least for me especially when you're coming back from being in Zero-G for months.
I believe the soyuz is safe in terms of flying and returning from ISS, but that landing is scary. I'd rather land in water.
It doesn't hit the ground at 24 fps because in addition to the parachutes it has solid retrorockets well as shock absorbing seats. Airliners can touch down at a sink rate of 10 fps. Where's documentation of Soyuz astronauts having whiplash problems?
On January 20 2015 20:45 misirlou wrote: people are comparing a capsule landing (soyuz) with a rocket landing (falcon 9). They are completely different vehicles. The soyuz is supposed to land. And so does the dragon (the equivalent to soyuz) when it comes down from ISS with cargo back. The rockets that launch soyuz do not land, unlike the falcon 9.
My point is that it must be easier to recover the Falcon 9 if it lands on land. You don't need to worry about landing on a tiny barge. Because you don't need to be so accurate, you could have parachutes instead of a powered landing. It doesn't matter so much if you miss on land because you won't flood the whole thing with salt water.
It's the opposite, you have to be extremely accurate to do it on land so that the FAA approves you launching an orbital missile and then landing it back near a populated area. Parachutes won't have quite that kind of accuracy. And it does take more fuel to get back to land and while you're in the testing process that fuel can be used as margins to make sure you can do an accurate landing.
It also doesn't make sense in terms of engineering to use parachutes. You'd have to fire the engines to get back over land anyway and after that the terminal velocity will be on the order of like 100 m/s anyway. That's a pretty small delta-v for the returning boost stage and it doesn't take that much fuel to cancel. So you are talking about adding all the weight of a parachute system (as well as making the legs probably more shock-absorbing or firing the rocket anyway to soften the touchdown) versus the weight of fuel that you already have to use for the huge rocket engines attached at the bottom. Just use those. Parachutes aren't necessary. And like Yurie says they only work on Earth.
You might think they would be a good idea when you remember the shuttle SRBs but since those are solid you can't reignite or throttle them in any way that would let you guide them to a landing so parachuting after burnout was the only option. Actually in the old days there was a study to use a modified first stage of a Saturn V to launch the shuttle and external tank and then return it to the launchpad for reuse. That would have been cool.
If you use the fuel intended for powered landing to boost the launcher higher after payload deployment, you could continue almost to orbit and land in the desert in the southwest US. There's thousands, maybe millions of square kilometers of nothing out there. I'm sure you wouldn't have much trouble getting the FAA to let you land out there. Then consider the fact that we have a great understanding of parachutes, while this automated powered landing of booster-sized vehicles is pretty new. Yes, there are issues with this plan. But they're not new problems, unlike a powered landing on a barge.
IMO landing on land would be easy once you can land on a barge, and landing on a barge just sounds more impressive.
Sure it might be easier to land when you're you a very big designated landing site, but that's has been done in similar fashion. What they're trying to achieve is something more precise, and we should encourage that, because it open the door for future applications.
Can we not start twisting words already? I said a nominal landing is safe. Why did you switch the subject to reentry?
Now you bring up Soyuz TMA-11 which is known for its unusually steep reentry (due to an anomaly) which everybody survived. Yes shit can happen in reentry. I suffer you to find any system for decelerating a vehicle through the atmosphere from 7.5 kilometers a second to 0 with 0.00000000000% risk. There is nothing especially dangerous about Soyuz in this respect.
And this is a far cry from you trying to claim the landing is "very bad on the human body."
There is nothing particularly unsafe about the landing system. Maybe you have some kind of agenda to show otherwise? Your video is called "Safe landing for Soyuz capsule." Maybe you were trying to use the title ironically because you saw that there were medics in the video (as there would be medics at any landing of a ship that came from space), but actually it's from Reuters and they really mean it was a safe landing.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to twist words and I may have worded myself incorrectly. What I was trying to say is that imagine coming from re-entry at a few G's of force and then pretty much landing/instantly stopping on solid ground. We already know that with the parachutes deployed, they're still going 24 feet per second, then the sudden stop and roll. The whiplash alone from that can cause bodily harm. It's like when you get into a car accident, you suddenly stop from having momentum. You might not feel the pain that day, but the following days/weeks causes soreness maybe even nerve damage. Whiplash is something that is very concerning at least for me especially when you're coming back from being in Zero-G for months.
I believe the soyuz is safe in terms of flying and returning from ISS, but that landing is scary. I'd rather land in water.
It doesn't hit the ground at 24 fps because in addition to the parachutes it has solid retrorockets well as shock absorbing seats. Airliners can touch down at a sink rate of 10 fps. Where's documentation of Soyuz astronauts having whiplash problems?
.
You act as if I don't know what I'm talking about...
Start it at 18:25. It's exactly as mentioned, a car accident. They may or may not experience it, but it's a possibility and we just don't know about it. I'm sure they're happier about being back on earth than the pain that may or may not come afterwards from that landing.
Yeah I am acting like either didn't know what you were talking about or you were being dishonest because you tried to pass off the 24 fps figure which is the capsule's speed on parachutes (right?) as the touchdown velocity? If you knew what you were talking about you would have mentioned the retrorockets, if you knew and purposely left them out you were being dishonest to overstate your case of a scary landing. Even 24 fps is how big a deal? It's like being in one of those scary 16mph/25kph car crashes? I watched that video too and it looked like nothing... the guy didn't even drop the book he was holding.
Can we not start twisting words already? I said a nominal landing is safe. Why did you switch the subject to reentry?
Now you bring up Soyuz TMA-11 which is known for its unusually steep reentry (due to an anomaly) which everybody survived. Yes shit can happen in reentry. I suffer you to find any system for decelerating a vehicle through the atmosphere from 7.5 kilometers a second to 0 with 0.00000000000% risk. There is nothing especially dangerous about Soyuz in this respect.
And this is a far cry from you trying to claim the landing is "very bad on the human body."
There is nothing particularly unsafe about the landing system. Maybe you have some kind of agenda to show otherwise? Your video is called "Safe landing for Soyuz capsule." Maybe you were trying to use the title ironically because you saw that there were medics in the video (as there would be medics at any landing of a ship that came from space), but actually it's from Reuters and they really mean it was a safe landing.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to twist words and I may have worded myself incorrectly. What I was trying to say is that imagine coming from re-entry at a few G's of force and then pretty much landing/instantly stopping on solid ground. We already know that with the parachutes deployed, they're still going 24 feet per second, then the sudden stop and roll. The whiplash alone from that can cause bodily harm. It's like when you get into a car accident, you suddenly stop from having momentum. You might not feel the pain that day, but the following days/weeks causes soreness maybe even nerve damage. Whiplash is something that is very concerning at least for me especially when you're coming back from being in Zero-G for months.
I believe the soyuz is safe in terms of flying and returning from ISS, but that landing is scary. I'd rather land in water.
It doesn't hit the ground at 24 fps because in addition to the parachutes it has solid retrorockets well as shock absorbing seats. Airliners can touch down at a sink rate of 10 fps. Where's documentation of Soyuz astronauts having whiplash problems?
On January 21 2015 02:16 Millitron wrote:
On January 20 2015 20:45 misirlou wrote: people are comparing a capsule landing (soyuz) with a rocket landing (falcon 9). They are completely different vehicles. The soyuz is supposed to land. And so does the dragon (the equivalent to soyuz) when it comes down from ISS with cargo back. The rockets that launch soyuz do not land, unlike the falcon 9.
My point is that it must be easier to recover the Falcon 9 if it lands on land. You don't need to worry about landing on a tiny barge. Because you don't need to be so accurate, you could have parachutes instead of a powered landing. It doesn't matter so much if you miss on land because you won't flood the whole thing with salt water.
It's the opposite, you have to be extremely accurate to do it on land so that the FAA approves you launching an orbital missile and then landing it back near a populated area. Parachutes won't have quite that kind of accuracy. And it does take more fuel to get back to land and while you're in the testing process that fuel can be used as margins to make sure you can do an accurate landing.
It also doesn't make sense in terms of engineering to use parachutes. You'd have to fire the engines to get back over land anyway and after that the terminal velocity will be on the order of like 100 m/s anyway. That's a pretty small delta-v for the returning boost stage and it doesn't take that much fuel to cancel. So you are talking about adding all the weight of a parachute system (as well as making the legs probably more shock-absorbing or firing the rocket anyway to soften the touchdown) versus the weight of fuel that you already have to use for the huge rocket engines attached at the bottom. Just use those. Parachutes aren't necessary. And like Yurie says they only work on Earth.
You might think they would be a good idea when you remember the shuttle SRBs but since those are solid you can't reignite or throttle them in any way that would let you guide them to a landing so parachuting after burnout was the only option. Actually in the old days there was a study to use a modified first stage of a Saturn V to launch the shuttle and external tank and then return it to the launchpad for reuse. That would have been cool.
If you use the fuel intended for powered landing to boost the launcher higher after payload deployment, you could continue almost to orbit and land in the desert in the southwest US. There's thousands, maybe millions of square kilometers of nothing out there. I'm sure you wouldn't have much trouble getting the FAA to let you land out there. Then consider the fact that we have a great understanding of parachutes, while this automated powered landing of booster-sized vehicles is pretty new. Yes, there are issues with this plan. But they're not new problems, unlike a powered landing on a barge.
No, you physically couldn't do that. There isn't enough fuel to go around the earth by a long shot. Try it in Orbiter you will end up just falling a little bit farther into the Atlantic.
I don't think it's even possible with the first stage alone (because it's not a single stage to orbit vehicle). I tried in Orbiter also flying a first stage only with no second stage and no payload and basically the farthest I got was a reentry over Africa and that was burning the tanks empty with no margin. Possibly you could make a SSTO rocket out of the F9 first stage but you would have to stage some of the heavy engines probably like the Atlas did.
This is neglecting the fact that the first stage was engineered (and actually updated i.e. hypersonic fins) specifically to reenter from a suborbital trajectory and the fact that even in your imaginative plan you would have to add weight to the vehicle (again like I said earlier for parachutes but also) for heat shielding to survive a reentry from orbital velocities. Which the second stage, which is already in orbit and which your plan would make more sense to try on that, can't do and is nowhere close to trying.
Also not every flight would even go over the midwest desert in its first orbit depending on the launch site and inclination.
What you're proposing when you say just boost to near orbital velocity and go around the earth and land in the desert... That reminds me of the time we went on a road trip and I said I forgot my drink and we went back to the house to get a drink and then started driving again and I said oh I forgot my iPod and my friend said fuck it it's too late to turn around even though we weren't even on the interstate yet.
The Air Force and SpaceX have reached agreement on a path forward for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program that improves the competitive landscape and achieves mission assurance for national security space launches. Under the agreement, the Air Force will work collaboratively with SpaceX to complete the certification process in an efficient and expedient manner. This collaborative effort will inform the SECAF directed review of the new entrant certification process. The Air Force also has expanded the number of competitive opportunities for launch services under the EELV program while honoring existing contractual obligations. Going forward, the Air Force will conduct competitions consistent with the emergence of multiple certified providers. Per the settlement, SpaceX will dismiss its claims relating to the EELV block buy contract pending in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
EPT
