International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3860
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 02 Feb 2018 03:55

Just putting these figures out to benchmark against the HTT-40's schedule performance, from program start (not contract signature, since the IAF was busy putting up fake excuses to not begin HTT-40 development) to first flight and now from first flight to actual delivery.

Average time from contract signature to delivery for a host of trainer programs, including PC-7, PC-9, PC-21, KAI KT-1, T-6 Texan II, Tucano and Super Tucano and Hurkus is ~8.3 years.

Average time from first flight to delivery for these trainers is ~5.9 years.


and HAL HTT-40's first flight was on May31, 2016.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2274
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 02 Feb 2018 04:34

Kartik wrote:
The program didn't start in 2012. The PDR for the Hurkus-A was in 2007, and the Hurkus-B is a very close derivative of the Hurkus-A civilian variant. Like I mentioned in my previous post, it took 8.5 years from contract signature to first flight for Hurkus-A and 11.5 years for certification for Hurkus-A to EASA standards. And Hurkus-B flew 4.5 years after Hurkus-A. Just do a cursory comparison of that with HAL's HTT-40 and then maybe you'd know how efficient HAL has been with that program so far.

While they've been able to bring Hurkus-A and B to first flight without too much delay, please don't give this program mythical timelines to make it look like they were ultra-efficient.


My apology. I misread an article about the rollout in 2012 as the start of the program. Thanks for the detailed response!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21370
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 02 Feb 2018 11:16

The new Soyuz-2.1a missile was launched using a new fuel

The rocket flew on a completely new fuel - naphtha, an environmentally friendly type of hydrocarbon fuel with the use of polymer additives.

The use of naphtha will allow a family of three-stage medium-range launch vehicles to produce more payloads for all types of orbits than using a chemical rocket engine based on the oxygen-kerosene pair.


The complete transfer of the East to naphthyl is scheduled for 2019.

A unique refueling complex, working directly with several types of fuel, was developed and built in the Amur Region by the Nizhny Tagil enterprise "Uralkriomash". One and them - naphthyl - environmentally friendly type of hydrocarbon fuel with the use of polymeric additives. Its use will allow a family of three-stage medium-range launchers to display a greater payload for all types of orbits than the previously used chemical rocket engine based on the oxygen-kerosene pair. Full transition of the "Eastern" to naphthyl is planned for 2019.


ImageImage
ImageImage

More Pics : https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/103445/

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3860
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 06 Feb 2018 06:45

RAF to scrap twin seat Typhoons

Clearly, the RAF is having a really tough time with budgets, if they're having to scrap and then cannibalise their twin seaters to keep sustainment costs lower on the rest of the single seater fleet


The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is to scrap 16 UK Eurofighter Typhoons as part of a project to save GBP800 million (USD1.13 billion) on the running cost of the service's combat aircraft fleet.


The plans to dismantle the aircraft and harvest spare parts for use on the remainder of the Typhoon fleet were revealed to Jane’s on 29th January by RAF Air Command at High Wycombe, in Buckinghamshire, in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request.

The project, known as Reduce to Produce (RTP), aims to generate GBP50 million worth of parts from each airframe “back into the supply chain”
, according to the FOI data.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 06 Feb 2018 10:03



US entrepreneur Elon Musk will attempt to fly the world's most powerful rocket later from the Kennedy Space Center.

His Falcon Heavy vehicle is designed to have more than twice the lifting capacity of any existing launcher.

Because of the historic high failure rate of maiden flights, the rocket will only carry a dummy payload, however.

Mr Musk has decided this should be his old cherry-red Tesla sports car. A mannequin wearing a space suit will be strapped to the driving seat.

The entrepreneur says David Bowie's classic hit Space Oddity will be looping on the radio in the roadster as it is hurled into an elliptical orbit that stretches out to Mars' orbit around the Sun.

"[The car will] get about 400 million km away from Earth, and it'll be doing 11km/s," he told reporters in a briefing on Monday. "We estimate it will be in that orbit for several hundred million years, maybe in excess of a billion years."

Three cameras attached to the car would provide "epic views", Mr Musk added.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 06 Feb 2018 18:43

F-35 Expanding Footprint in Asia-Pacific



Lockheed Martin’s F-35 will expand its presence in the Asia-Pacific region this year, as Australia, Japan, and South Korea begin populating their first Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) bases.

As a prelude to the coming expansion of the F-35 in Asia, two U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs belonging to the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron-121 “Green Knights” arrived at Changi on Feb. 3 as part of the U.S. delegation to the Singapore Airshow.

Steve Over, Lockheed’s director of F-35 international business development, tells ShowNews this is the first time the JSF has appeared at the show. A full-scale mockup of the aircraft has visited in the past and is on display again this year.

The F-35s are being joined by two U.S. Air Force 525th Fighter Sqdn. F-22 Raptors, also built by Lockheed, which are coming in from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.

Although not stated by the U.S. Defense Department, the presence of America’s two most sophisticated fifth-generation stealth fighters at the show sends a powerful message to friend and foe alike that Washington will defend its interests, and allies, in the region.

For Lockheed (CS02), the stealth show is an invaluable chance to tout progress on the F-35 and talk up its expanding presence in the region. Although F-22 assembly ended in 2012, production of the F-35 is scaling up to satisfy hundreds of orders from the U.S. military, eight partner nations and three foreign military sales customers (Israel, Japan and South Korea).

Over says there are presently 165 JSFs in various stages of production, and the delivery target for 2018 is 91 aircraft: a 37% increase compared to last year’s delivery of 66.

In 2019, production throughput across the three F-35 assembly lines in the U.S. (Fort Worth), Italy (Cameri), and Japan (Nagoya) will increase another 54%, with a target of about 140 units.


Lockheed has not yet booked orders from Singapore, but the nation remains an active security-cooperative participant. Singapore has been evaluating both the F-35A and F-35B, but no orders seem imminent.

Rather than pining over the lack of orders by Singapore, Over says Lockheed is keenly focused on executing existing programs and making good on commitments. “We’re focused on ramping this global supply chain to full-rate production and figuring out how to deliver sustainment affordably,” he says.

After 17 years of development, the aircraft is about one month away from completing development and transitioning into operational test and evaluation. Australia, Japan and South Korea also have significant milestones coming up.

On Jan. 26, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force 3rd Air Wing’s first operational F-35A, aircraft No. 6 (AX-6), arrived at Misawa Air Base to begin forming the nation’s first JSF squadron. A ceremony marking the milestone is planned for Feb. 24.

Nine more aircraft are expected to follow within Japan’s 2018 fiscal year. This is the second of 38 F-35As to be delivered from Japan’s Nagoya final assembly and checkout facility. Tokyo ordered a total of 42 aircraft, and the first four built in Fort Worth are now supporting training operations at Luke AFB, Arizona. Aircraft No. 5, the first built in Nagoya, is presently at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, undergoing electromagnetic environmental effects testing.

Meanwhile, the first six of 40 F-35As for South Korea are marching down the assembly line in Fort Worth, with a rollout ceremony expected in late March. Lockheed expects to build 40 airplanes for Seoul over the next four years.

Initially, South Korea’s aircraft will go to Luke for pilot training but this year, at least one aircraft will make its way to the first operational base in Cheongju. The base right now hosts McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantoms.


In another major milestone, the first operational aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force will arrive down under at RAAF Base Williamtown in December. The initial batch of Aussie F-35s are supporting multinational training at Luke, but Owens says another eight are now under construction.

The Australian parliament has approved the purchase of 72 F-35As, although Canberra has previously considered buying as many as 100. The first operational RAAF squadron will be ready for combat around 2020.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 06 Feb 2018 19:46

Kartik wrote:link to FG

05 February, 2018 SOURCE: Flight International BY: Murdo Morrison Tel Aviv

India and Australia are among the Asia-Pacific nations that Rafael has firmly in its sights with its current and in-development weapons and targeting systems.[b] The company is “in the final stages” of developing the third and latest, ER, version of its I-Derby radar-guided air-to-air missile, and is eyeing a deal with New Delhi, which has already fitted the current I-Derby on its Aeronautical Development Agency Tejas light combat aircraft.




The Australian purchase will likely be out of reach since they were approved as the first export customer for the Aim-120D and will probably be buying into the\ F3R which is a road-map that essentially creates a new seeker for the weapon (first the signal processor upgrade in P1 and then an antenna upgrade in P2). They are also buying into an aircraft that by the early-mid 2020s will also have the Meteor integrated. There is really no good reason for them to look at yet another RF missile particularly when their primary fighter aircraft, threat libraries and the missile upgrade road-map is heavily influenced by the threats originating in their region. Australia works very closely with the USAF and USN EW community on both the EA-18G and the F-35 programs and they have their own team embedded with the EW squadrons that jointly develop and program the threat libraries for the aircraft they will be using.

There is no need to suspect that this sort of arrangement would not be extended to other aspects of their RF purchases and involvement which would naturally cover other systems which rely on this sort of stuff (AARGM and AMRAAM missiles). Modern RF missiles are heavily reliant on software based performance upgrades and there needs to be a pretty robust ELINT/SIGINT and clandestine program that captures data and information on your adversaries advances and capabilities. Once you have that you need to have a robust upgrade program that can introduce changes via upgrades that help you keep up with the threat. Having to manage this with two seperate set of OEMs, and governments especially when there is really no upside to buying the weapon is unnecessary.

SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby SiddharthS » 06 Feb 2018 20:34

T-50B of Black Eagles aerobatic team of korea skids and flips over at the Singapore Air show.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2018 02:36


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2018 03:05

SpaceX successfully launches Falcon Heavy


KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. — A SpaceX Falcon Heavy successfully launched on its inaugural flight here Feb. 6, placing a demonstration payload into orbit and boosting the company’s interplanetary ambitions.

The Falcon Heavy lifted off at 3:45 p.m. Eastern from Launch Complex 39A here, after more than two hours of delays due to high upper-level winds. The two side boosters landed at pads designated Landing Zone 1 and 2 at the former Launch Complex 13 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The center core landed on a drone ship downrange, but the status of that booster was not immediately known.

The second stage entered orbit as planned eight and a half minutes after liftoff. A final burn, scheduled for about six hours later, will place the payload, a modified Tesla Roadster electric sports car, into a heliocentric orbit between the orbits of the Earth and Mars.

The launch is a long time in coming for SpaceX. At an April 2011 press conference, Musk said the vehicle would be ready for a first launch in 2013. Development difficulties, as well as higher priority given to the company’s Falcon 9 vehicle and Dragon spacecraft, delayed the vehicle’s first flight by several years.

During those delays, the launch market has evolved. Improvements in the performance of the Falcon 9 now allow it to launch large commercial communications that would have previously required the Falcon Heavy. Demand for such satellites has also dropped in recent years, based on declining numbers of orders of such satellites, as commercial operators weigh the effect proposed satellite constellations, as well as smaller satellites, have on their plans.

One potential market SpaceX may be targeting for Falcon Heavy is the launch of large national security payloads. The six-hour coast of the second stage after orbit insertion will simulate a mission to insert a payload directly into geostationary orbit, Musk said in a teleconference with reporters Feb. 5. Such trajectories are used for some Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office payloads.

Falcon Heavy is designed to place up to 64 metric tons into low Earth orbit and 26.7 metric tons into geostationary transfer orbit. Those figures, Musk said, assume using booster core based on the upgraded Block 5 version of the Falcon 9, whose first flight is later this year. This demonstration launch used older versions of the booster core with somewhat less performance.

The payload for this demonstration flight is Musk’s own red Tesla Roadster, an unconventional choice that has attracted attention and some criticism. A mannequin wearing a spacesuit like that SpaceX has designed for its commercial crew program is sitting in the driver’s seat of the car.

The car should be in its heliocentric orbit for several hundred million years, Musk estimated, making multiple close passes to Mars. The car is equipped with three cameras, in addition to a large number of sensors on the upper stage. “The most fun still will be the three cameras that are mounted in the roadster,” he said Feb. 5. “They really should provide some epic views if they work and everything goes well.”

Musk, in comments before the launch, said the company was not focused on using Falcon Heavy for crewed missions, including sending a Crew Dragon carrying two people around the moon, a mission the company announced less than a year ago, as the company focuses instead on development of the next-generation, and much larger, BFR reusable launch vehicle. However, Musk said the company could revisit that decision should Falcon Hevay suffer delays.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3238
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Tanaji » 07 Feb 2018 04:44

^^ That was the coolest thing ever! The sight of two boosters landing simultaneously and the car in space was amazing...

From a technical standpoint alone this was impressive not to mention it was from a private company.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1065
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 07 Feb 2018 09:41

[quote="brar_w"][/quote]Is the haze intentional or is it due to rotating blades

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1870
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby PratikDas » 07 Feb 2018 10:48

ArjunPandit wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Is the haze intentional or is it due to rotating blades

It's intentional blurring for concealment. You can see that the blurring remains circular even as the plane flies past and the angle towards the blurred spot changes.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2018 15:51

Some images of yesterday's launch from SpaceX

Image

Image

hanumadu wrote:Why are Boeing and Lockheed Martin not competing with Space-X for reusable first stage and heavier payloads?


Boeing and Lockheed (ULA) are primarily in the business of providing assured launch services to one customer (USDOD) while Space X has a much broader mandate of competing for commercial payloads as well where the customer is much more price sensitive and has a wider choice. IIRC, roughly a third of their 18 launches last year were for a US Government customer (DOD, NRO or NASA) with the remaining dozen or so were commercial missions.

I don't think ULA has plans to ever become hyper competitive in the commercial launch services market given other investment priorities for the respective companies. Having said that, they too are looking at recovering and obtaining cost savings on account of that but of course neither their new engine (that does away with the reliance on supply from Russia) nor their recovery options are anywhere as mature as Space X (Aviation Week in 2016 detailed what they were looking into), where they've done more than 20 recoveries and have re-flown recovered rockets some 6 or so times. The US sat at the top of the world in terms of most successful launches (an area where the US had not led for well over a decade) on the back of Space X's 18 in a year and this is going to continue into 2018 and into the short term. If and when other private ventures mature, like Blue Origin, things will get only more competitive and this is can only be a good thing for both private and government end users of these launch services. It is pretty safe to say that going forward a good portion, if not majority of space launches each year, in the US, would be by private companies for both commercial and government clients.

These are by no means the only efforts under way. DARPA's XS-1 has Boeing on contract and I believe Boeing is fabricating hardware right now. Other private ventures are also looking at other means to lower cost so as an industry, lot of time, money and human capital is being spent on looking into this problem. Whatever may be the end result this could only mean more options to the customer which will end the ULA monopoly and should bring cost down.

JTull wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:Possibly due to their weapons' connection, there is still a bit of stigma on space weaponization


NASA is also developing Space Launch System (CLS) for 70k kg to LEO, but it will cost about $1bln per launch as compared to $90mln for Falcon Heavy. Tells you everything there's to it.

Heavy Rockets


Low or Low(est) cost to LEO isn't really the design goal of the SLS. It is primarily a heavy system meant towards a manned mission to Mars in the future. If all goes to plan they may fly next year or in 2020. There are other efforts which are aimed at much lower cost to space. DARPA's XS-1 with its very ambitious - 10 launches in 10 days - goal is one of them.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Feb 2018 18:21, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 07 Feb 2018 16:33

The goal of SpaceX is Mars, colonization of Mars. All these trips are to fund the Mars trips. Even the Falcon Heavy is a stepping stone for the BFR.

Image
Last edited by NRao on 07 Feb 2018 16:40, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 07 Feb 2018 16:37

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2018 17:06

NRao wrote:The goal of SpaceX is Mars, colonization of Mars. All these trips are to fund the Mars trips.


That is all well and good and gets good PR. However, for the foreseeable future the goal is very much to make and raise money and deliver on a pretty full plate (they have nearly 50 missions under their Future plans). No profit and steady revenue, No Mars.

http://www.spacex.com/missions

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 07 Feb 2018 20:51

Good news. SpaceX made it through the 6 hours in the Van Allen Belt (PoC for human travel to Mars)!!

SpaceX’s just-launched Tesla Roadster missed Mars

However, the final burn has pushed the Tesla way past the orbit of Mars:

Image

Cool ride!

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 08 Feb 2018 01:26

Nice article, with a good amount of data and great graphics.

Only 5 Nations Can Hit Any Place on Earth With a Missile. For Now.

India, in turn, became capable of striking anywhere in Pakistan and most of China, another regional rival, in the last two decades. India is now collaborating with Russia to develop cruise missiles.


Trying to prevent the spread of missile technology is very difficult. But it’s nearly impossible to stop the trade in smaller parts, like guidance systems and engines, as well as human expertise. A single computer thumb drive can hold many secrets.

And, sometimes, a single piece can be the catalyst for a breakthrough: A powerful Soviet engine design that North Korea acquired is thought to be a main driver of the country’s recent advances.

Dr. Lewis added that that many counties are now learning the secrets of rocketry and how to make progressively more threatening models. India, for example, is working on a missile that could enable it to strike nearly half of the planet.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 08 Feb 2018 08:29

Sounds of Falcon Heavy (will need a good headset):




The extended version (16 mins):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7uQ8OWiheM

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21370
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 08 Feb 2018 12:59

The new Japanese aircraft of electronic intelligence

Image

A prototype of the Japanese RC-2 radio and radio reconnaissance aircraft (also known as C-2 ELINT) is based on the Kawasaki C-2 medium military transport aircraft. The prototype RC-2 was converted from the second flight prototype HS-2 (board number 18-1202, serial number 002). Gifu, 02/06/2018 (c) twitter.com/Gifu119V3

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2274
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 08 Feb 2018 21:47

The Turks continue to impress me. Cross-posting from Paki thread. They beat out the Z-10 in direct competition after the Pakis evaluated the chini attack copter for three years.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-helicopter/singapore-airshow-turkey-closes-T129-sale/

Singapore Airshow: Turkey closes in on T129 sale

Pakistan is planning to buy 30 T129 Atak attack helicopters built by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI), said Tamer Ozmen, vice president for corporate marketing and communications, at this week’s Singapore Airshow. TAI is very close to signing a contract, he said.

In December, TAI also received an RfI from Thailand for the T129 with the possible procurement of eight or more aircraft.

...

On the international front, Anka has established strong cooperation with Malaysia’s DRB-HICOM Defence Technologies (DefTech) for a direct sale of the Anka UAV. This would be the first international sale, if approved.

Indonesia is also very interested in procuring six aircraft with two ground stations. Both Malaysia and Indonesia share challenging coastlines dotted with islets favourable to illegal maritime activities, such as piracy and smuggling.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62346
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 08 Feb 2018 22:17

Instead of launching a 70t payload cant they launch 4 x20t modules and put it together in space like iss was done then depart for mars transfer orbit ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 09 Feb 2018 00:52

Singha wrote:Instead of launching a 70t payload cant they launch 4 x20t modules and put it together in space like iss was done then depart for mars transfer orbit ?


Musk's vision is very different. His plan calls for the Big F***ing Rocket (BFR) to loft a capsule (with about 125 humans) into space, have the BFR land (lie the Falcon 9), refuel BFR (in real-time) and go up again, this time with a capsule with fuel for the first capsule that have the humans. The second capsule is expected to transfer the fuel to the first capsule with the humans, which then takes off for Mars. The BFR and the capsule that took the fuel up, both, land, like teh Falcon 9 to be reused.

It is more complicated than that, but that is [art of what he has in mind. The first capsule, for 2022, is expected to carry equipment to manufacture fuel on Mars - for any return trip/s. A capsule with humans - I think - is planned for 2024.

He then has proposed to use the BFR and a capsule as transport on earth. NYC to ND in 30 minutes.

He then has proposed to tie up his proposal under Boring Company to these space flights, where a small, 4 person self driving "car" (SDC), will pick you up at your place and drop you at a space port, etc, etc, etc. The same self sdriving car is actually a "compartment" (like the ones we see on Indian Railway's first class bogies) in a Hyperloop - low pressure - train. The same SDC will drop you off at your destination!!!!

It is just more cheaper the way he does it - massive reuse. The old way is out.

SriKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1577
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby SriKumar » 09 Feb 2018 06:07

Several interesting things about this launch:
1. The solid rockets smoke only during ignition. After lift-off, no smoke. No smoke trail.
1.1 There was white smoke, and then black smoke on the launch pad, perhaps two different solid fuels are being used.
2. The rockets that landed back .....it seems like they could be turned on/off at will? Usually liquid rockets can do that, but solids? In addition, in order to land back it needs to have good control over the downward thrust...or so, one would think. How are they controlling the rocket thrust with solids.
3. These two boosters had to retrace their path back (westward), afterall the launch was eastward.
4. The middle rocket was to land on a platform on the sea (down-range, east, 50 (??) miles). It reached the platform but hit and damaged it. No video release of that.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1870
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby PratikDas » 09 Feb 2018 06:15

SriKumar wrote:Several interesting things about this launch:
1. The solid rockets smoke only during ignition. After lift-off, no smoke. No smoke trail.
1.1 There was white smoke, and then black smoke on the launch pad, perhaps two different solid fuels are being used.
2. The rockets that landed back .....it seems like they could be turned on/off at will? Usually liquid rockets can do that, but solids? In addition, to land back, it needs to have good control over the dowward thrust...or so, one would think.
3. These two boosters had to retrace their path back (westward), afterall the launch was eastward.
4. The middle rocket was to land on a platform on the sea (down-range, east, 50 (??) miles). It reached the platform but hit and damaged it. No video release of that.

The Falcon Heavy has Merlin 1D engines which use clean burning liquid fuels - kerosene and liquid oxygen. The white smoke you see in the beginning is steam generated from the high volume of water sprayed into the engine plumes to suppress acoustic shockwaves and disperse heat.

NASA's Incredible Sound Suppression System Prevents Rockets from Exploding

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 09 Feb 2018 06:50

SriKumar wrote:Several interesting things about this launch:


2. The rockets that landed back .....it seems like they could be turned on/off at will? Usually liquid rockets can do that, but solids? In addition, in order to land back it needs to have good control over the downward thrust...or so, one would think. How are they controlling the rocket thrust with solids.


They are liquid fueled, the same fuel used to go up, is used to come down too. Just that going up they use 9 engines, coming down they use 3.

Here is a vid of all the Grasshopper tests that led to the ultimate: F9 recovery and re-usablity: See around 50 secs:



3. These two boosters had to retrace their path back (westward), afterall the launch was eastward.


The above vid shows how they achieved that. Here is a better picture:

Image

4. The middle rocket was to land on a platform on the sea (down-range, east, 50 (??) miles). It reached the platform but hit and damaged it. No video release of that.


It did not hit the platform. The rocket slammed into the ocean at 320 mph, about 300 yds away from the platform. The resulting wave damaged two of the engines that stabilize the platform.

The reason it failed was that 2 of the 3 engines did not light, the core never slowed down.


However, none of these cores are reusable. And, they know why the 2 engines did not light.

Next flight of the Heavy is towards the end of this year. This time with a sat.

And, they plan on recovering everything, including the fairings, but the second stage. So, a lot will be reused.


SpaceX has bought land in Texas, along the Mexican border, to build their own launch pad. That should drive the price down even further.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 09 Feb 2018 09:06


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 09 Feb 2018 09:14

THE PHYSICS OF SPACEX'S WICKED DOUBLE BOOSTER LANDING

You might think the coolest part of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy test was the Tesla with a spaceman riding inside, flying out into space. Yeah, sure, that part was cool. But for me, the best part was this footage of the Heavy's two side boosters returning to the launch pad.

There are a bunch of cool physics things you can do with a video like this. For me, I'm going to answer two questions. First, how far away was this camera from the boosters when they turned on the engines? Second, what kind of acceleration did the boosters have while slowing down?

Watch the video above and be sure to have the sound on. Notice that you see the rockets turn on before you hear them? Actually, there are several sounds and I'm not exactly sure what each one is. I know there are multiple sonic booms—but I'm not sure if they happen before or around the same time as the rocket engine. Actually, Destin from Smarter Every Day has a very nice video about the sounds of the Falcon Heavy launch—listen to it with earphones.

So, let's assume that the really loud sound is from the engines turning on. We see them before we hear them because light travels way faster than sound. In fact, it wouldn't be crazy to assume that the light from the engines travels to the camera in zero time—at least that's what I'm going to do. This means that the time between seeing the rockets and hearing them is due to sound traveling over some distance. By knowing the speed of sound and the time difference, I can calculate the distance. In normal conditions, the speed of sound is approximately 343 m/s. From the video, the time between the flash and the sound is about 9.8 seconds. Here is the calculation of the distance.

Image

That seems pretty close—just a little bit over 2 miles away. But that also shows you how loud these things are. Now, you could use this distance and try to find the exact location of the observing camera. Oh, here is something for you to try if you want a homework question: Look at the difference between the time the rockets turn off and the camera stops hearing the sounds. This could be used to find the distance from the camera to the landing point (rather than the distance to the rockets in the air). You could then use this to estimate the altitude of the rockets when the rockets turn on.

Now for the second question: What was the acceleration of the rockets during the landing phase? I am going to start with an assumption—that the rockets were traveling at the speed of sound at the time of rocket ignition. This probably isn't exactly true, but it should be around that speed. The only other thing I need is the acceleration time. This isn't too difficult to see both when the rockets fire and when they touch down. From this, I get a thrust time of 15.6 seconds.

Acceleration is defined as the change in velocity divided by the change in time. I estimated the initial velocity, and the final velocity is obviously zero. This means the acceleration would be:

Image

That's a fairly reasonable acceleration—just over 2 g's. Two things to note. This is the magnitude of the acceleration—so I left off the negative sign. Also, this is the average acceleration. It's very possible that some parts of this landing had accelerations higher than 22 m/s2.

If you want, you can try to get the position vs. time for the landing boosters—but it might be difficult from this video as it's not entirely stable.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62346
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 09 Feb 2018 13:37

NRao wrote:


great stuff. I did not realize even the boosters are recovered . has the look of star wars obi wan and anakin returning from some mission.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3357
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 09 Feb 2018 14:22

Has anyone come across anything published on Ariane 7...?

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2255
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JTull » 09 Feb 2018 15:45

Incredible footage, that special one with sounds.

JTull wrote:Using such large cluster (27) of engines is a first-one and has advantages. Apparently, the Falcon Heavy can launch to intended orbit even if 6 of those hadn't worked. Remember there's extra fuel to bring the boosters back for reuse.

They've shown the way on how to scale-up what is known to work. There are several lessons for the space industry, incl ISRO. Perhaps, large scale clustering with robust avionics is the way rather than developing different thrust engines with essentially the same design.

Link

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2255
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JTull » 09 Feb 2018 15:46

Those boosters are like Megaton bombs that can land anywhere in the world with zero CEP! And, in the hands of a billionaire. I see a James Bonds script here.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 15:48

Just for context on how big these rockets actually are -

Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2274
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 09 Feb 2018 16:27

The American private sector is simply mind-blowing isn’t? This what you get when you are in a pressure-pack competitive system where your ideas and execution of those ideas are survival.

It is something we can replicate here and must replicate here. ISRO notwithstanding. The private sector will always be more efficient.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 17:33

That private sector, and the talent it pipes into has been built on the back of decades of government investment. This isn't an industrial base that could have been built up or even sustained without public spending.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2274
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 09 Feb 2018 18:24

^^^ Brar ji, I do not dispute that. But once the market is established, the private sector must be brought in to capitalize on efficiencies. This is why the US is on its way to commoditizing space.

ISRO is our NASA but at some point we will need our SpaceX.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 09 Feb 2018 19:21

SpaceX is a private company.

They just spent $500 million on Falcon Heavy. And, their CEO fully expected the first test flight to ............... fail!! (And, experts actually supported his statement. The risks were just too many.) Falcon Heavy was nearly cancelled three times - there were/are too many other companies that are relying on FHeavy to succeed, pretty much the reason why they tried it out.

SpaceX, itself, nearly went out of business when the first three rockets failed. Musk spent his last dime to try once more and that is teh one rocket that put him back in business.

There is a vid out there, where he explains why this works only in the the US (he says, it cannot even work in countries like Australia. Or Canada (he migrated to Canada, then to the US))

A lot of risks.

I did not realize even the boosters are recovered . has the look of star wars obi wan and anakin returning from some mission


Each booster has its own avionics.

Added l8r:

Last edited by NRao on 09 Feb 2018 21:26, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3357
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 09 Feb 2018 20:42

x-posting fron Indian space thread:

Indranil wrote:How much fuel is required to slow down a 40 ton object from terminal velocity to zero?


I think you will get a lot of answers and other interesting info here (not sure how authentic it is but some numbers match those I have encountered elsewhere):

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/faq/reusability

Also this one:
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/falco ... ery-2018-2


Some calculations here on fuel burn:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index ... ic=39816.0

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2274
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby darshhan » 09 Feb 2018 23:41

JTull wrote:Those boosters are like Megaton bombs that can land anywhere in the world with zero CEP! And, in the hands of a billionaire. I see a James Bonds script here.


It is interesting to note that Elon Musk is replicating and owning technologies that were till now supposed to be in hands of nation states( that includes establishment companies like Boeing and lockheed). Now the question is how noble are his intentions?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: atreya, Google [Bot], Gus, JayS, pattnayak, SNaik and 41 guests