History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:04 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3462
Location: CIVLANT
Theodore wrote:
Folks have different expectations these days. Work-life balance is more important to more people than it used to be. Working in a 24/7 operation in an industry that's notoriously bad at work-life balance is an eye-opener for people when they first get here, and that kind of life isn't for everyone. I think that's one reason we like hiring ex-military - they're used to working long strange hours.
Theo what you wrote is God's Own Truth. Especially those "different expectations".

As you folks know I Consider the leadership, not necessarily the incredibly naive, ignorant, young PC brain washed followers, of "The Left", DNC and "Progressives" the agents of Satan and I mean that literally. We have had it too damn good for far too long and these mush heads have no idea what they are throwing away.

I'd like to end this little p!ssing match before I alienate people I actually rather like and whose ideas are worth listening to. So Unless I am personally attacked, I will be bowing out of this string now. Must be getting soft in my old age. ;)

No hard feelings PAX?

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:21 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17482
Location: Chicagoland
Theodore wrote:
Folks have different expectations these days. Work-life balance is more important to more people than it used to be. Working in a 24/7 operation in an industry that's notoriously bad at work-life balance is an eye-opener for people when they first get here, and that kind of life isn't for everyone. I think that's one reason we like hiring ex-military - they're used to working long strange hours.


Yeah. I never had it really bad, but I now wish I had spent more family time and less work time. Still my kids turned out OK. You did what you did.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 15541
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
OSCSSW wrote:
Theodore wrote:
Folks have different expectations these days. Work-life balance is more important to more people than it used to be. Working in a 24/7 operation in an industry that's notoriously bad at work-life balance is an eye-opener for people when they first get here, and that kind of life isn't for everyone. I think that's one reason we like hiring ex-military - they're used to working long strange hours.
Theo what you wrote is God's Own Truth. Especially those "different expectations".

As you folks know I Consider the leadership, not necessarily the incredibly naive, ignorant, young PC brain washed followers, of "The Left", DNC and "Progressives" the agents of Satan and I mean that literally. We have had it too damn good for far too long and these mush heads have no idea what they are throwing away.

I'd like to end this little p!ssing match before I alienate people I actually rather like and whose ideas are worth listening to. So Unless I am personally attacked, I will be bowing out of this string now. Must be getting soft in my old age. ;)

No hard feelings PAX?


Bah, Humbug!! You always wuz soft Senior Chief!! A few rounds from the NVA fly over head and your all upset!! :mrgreen:

Let me tell you My predicament. Be a loan officer and take a loan from your favorite agent for some dinky $40,000 condo with a bad credit buyer with no money to speak of. Give up most of your commission, which isn't much to begin with, to help make the deal work.

The problem is that down stream are like 6 other deals, (none of which are mine) ending with some 2 million buck Mc Mansion in Potomac. If my deal doesn't go, they don't go. Naturally, interest rates are rising, I'm going to need everyday of a 60 day lock to Maybe get it approved.

There are about 10 real estate agents involved. Did I mention that they were ALL WOMEN?? :facepalm: I was badgered constantly, all hours day and night, 7 days a week.. The whining, the kevetching, the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. The hectoring, the threatening, the bullying, and attempted bribery!! :shock:

Sobbing RE agent calls me up 10:30 Sunday night asking me to call her buyer cause the buyer thinks things are being delayed so the rate locks expire and all the buyers will get stuck with a higher rate. Her buyer is some Big Swinging Dyke (play on words that a VN Vet should understand!!) with a high powered law Washington DC law firm, and is the last deal in the line. Naturally, the first (screaming) words out of her mouth are "I'm going to get all the buyers together and sue!!" :roll: Being a gentleman, I politely explain reality to her and then tell her to take a number and stand in line if she files a law suit. :lol:

Naturally, due to the wonderfulness of myself, all the deals closed on time. I made about 50 bucks on that deal. That wasn't the only one of those sorts of deals I got stuck with either.

I think if your a type A personality, which most of us here probably are, you end up in high stress jobs cause deep down, you like it. Makes you feel alive.

_________________
I am Charlie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:30 pm 
Offline
Mockingbird

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:29 am
Posts: 3826
Location: BB-16, BB-62
OSCSSW wrote:

I just reread YOUR posts Belushi TD in this string and NO I do NOT mean to include YOU or Craig as one of the millennials "Whyiers".



No hard feelings.

Belushi TD


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 10:30 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:28 am
Posts: 5117
Location: CL-4, BB-14
Type A? Moi??? :lol:

Says my wife to me one day, "I wish I could go to work with you and see what you do all day."

Says I, " You don't want to do that."

"Why not?"

"You wouldn't like me."

"Why not?"

"I'm kind of an asshole."

"What do you mean?"

"You know how I am when I get into full take charge, no prisoners, this is how it's going be mode?"

"Yeah...I don't like that." Pause. "Is that how you are at work?"

"Multiply that by ten, for eight hours."

"Oh. You're right, I don't want to do that."

_________________
"If it's not the end of the world, I'm not coming!" - Kelsie at the SAC Museum

Inner Columnist


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 220
brovane wrote:
Calder wrote:
I wonder if the production schedules are deliberately massively over optimistic? After all at least part of Musks success is getting Wall Street to invest in his schemes. I expect marketing is at least half the reason behind his dates.


Let's back off the loaded language like "schemes", what Musk does is getting investors to invest in his companies. When you use the word schemes, you make it sound like he is a con artist.


Fair enough. I am actually a huge fan of Musk and what he is doing. I would compare him with Steve Jobs in that they both have a flair for marketing and both have been extremely successful with multiple products acrossed different industries (except Musk is a much more talented engineer.)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5836
Location: Cambs, UK
Theodore wrote:
Type A? Moi??? :lol:

Says my wife to me one day, "I wish I could go to work with you and see what you do all day."

Says I, " You don't want to do that."

"Why not?"

"You wouldn't like me."

"Why not?"

"I'm kind of an asshole."

"What do you mean?"

"You know how I am when I get into full take charge, no prisoners, this is how it's going be mode?"

"Yeah...I don't like that." Pause. "Is that how you are at work?"

"Multiply that by ten, for eight hours."

"Oh. You're right, I don't want to do that."


So you're only in Professional Mode for half of the working day then? :)

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 5:50 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:28 am
Posts: 5117
Location: CL-4, BB-14
Ha! I stopped working those kinds of hours years ago and don't miss them a bit. It's grateful for the Hours of Service law I am.

_________________
"If it's not the end of the world, I'm not coming!" - Kelsie at the SAC Museum

Inner Columnist


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:53 pm
Posts: 1587
Location: The People's Republic of Kalifornia
Calder wrote:
brovane wrote:
Calder wrote:
I wonder if the production schedules are deliberately massively over optimistic? After all at least part of Musks success is getting Wall Street to invest in his schemes. I expect marketing is at least half the reason behind his dates.


Let's back off the loaded language like "schemes", what Musk does is getting investors to invest in his companies. When you use the word schemes, you make it sound like he is a con artist.


Fair enough. I am actually a huge fan of Musk and what he is doing. I would compare him with Steve Jobs in that they both have a flair for marketing and both have been extremely successful with multiple products acrossed different industries (except Musk is a much more talented engineer.)


I am just tired of people attacking Musk. Any WSJ article about Tesla is full of attacks by readers about how Tesla is a scam, pyramid scheme, etc. These are readers that from their postings on other articles are fiscal conservatives that attack Tesla and Musk because of he makes electric cars and solar panels. They complain about subsidies to Tesla yet ignore the Billions of subsidies that go to companies like Alcoa, Intel, Boeing etc. They will even attack Musk, because SpaceX has government contracts. Basically completely irrational attacks (Taking a page out of the liberal playbook) from conservatives. It is all very strange.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 220
brovane wrote:

I am just tired of people attacking Musk. Any WSJ article about Tesla is full of attacks by readers about how Tesla is a scam, pyramid scheme, etc. These are readers that from their postings on other articles are fiscal conservatives that attack Tesla and Musk because of he makes electric cars and solar panels. They complain about subsidies to Tesla yet ignore the Billions of subsidies that go to companies like Alcoa, Intel, Boeing etc. They will even attack Musk, because SpaceX has government contracts. Basically completely irrational attacks (Taking a page out of the liberal playbook) from conservatives. It is all very strange.


For some bizarre reason a certain segment of the population hates success and anyone who succeeds. [Shrug], as you have noted there are conservatives and liberals who suffer from this condition.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 2:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 4940
Location: Sweden
Theodore wrote:
Type A? Moi??? :lol:

Says my wife to me one day, "I wish I could go to work with you and see what you do all day."

Says I, " You don't want to do that."

"Why not?"

"You wouldn't like me."

"Why not?"

"I'm kind of an asshole."

"What do you mean?"

"You know how I am when I get into full take charge, no prisoners, this is how it's going be mode?"

"Yeah...I don't like that." Pause. "Is that how you are at work?"

"Multiply that by ten, for eight hours."

"Oh. You're right, I don't want to do that."

Heh, my jolly new squad asked me if I'm as....drill sergeanty in my day job as well.
I had to tell them an honest no, I'm much worse there, taking it easy on you guys.
There was disbelief and silence. :lol:

_________________
"Messieurs, je suis Vermlandais, Vermlandais véritable!".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:53 pm
Posts: 1587
Location: The People's Republic of Kalifornia
Tom Mueller gave a 60-minute Skype Interview/Speech, he is the chief propulsion engineer at SpaceX.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6b043z/tom_mueller_interview_speech_skype_call_02_may/dhiygzm/

He touches on a lot of interesting topics.

-The Falcon-9 is an evolutionary design and they are potentially looking at ten times savings on launch costs.
-Even re-usable you have to make the rocket low cost. If your rocket costs a Billion dollars and you use it 100 times it is still expensive to launch.
-The Mars rocket they are designing will be able to deliver 100 times launch cost savings and will make all previous LV's obsolete from a cost perspective.
-Block V landing legs will be able to retract themselves and have better ablative protection across the bottom of the rocket.
-Satellite constellation will double current global bandwidth
-Hitting limits of chemical propulsion with Raptor, it is designed for 99% chemical efficiency
-SpaceX is looking at nuclear for Mars surface power but will have to start with Solar because of regulatory hurdles and cost
-Musk can be extremely demanding to work for
-Musk is known for going a totally different direction despite engineers wanting to go down the other route, has had horrible results but has also worked well
-Merlin 1D uses a method called “Face shut off”, removes most valves reducing chances of failure by removing components and removing a lot of risk of a hard start. - Musk convinced Mueller of using this method despite Mueller explaining what it is and how it increases the complexity of R&D and increased costs due to blowing lots of hardware up before mastering the method.
-Musk wanted a 12 hour turnaround for Block V but was stopped after being told it was too tricky currently, settled for 24 hour turnaround after landing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7102
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
brovane wrote:
Tom Mueller gave a 60-minute Skype Interview/Speech, he is the chief propulsion engineer at SpaceX.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6b043z/tom_mueller_interview_speech_skype_call_02_may/dhiygzm/

He touches on a lot of interesting topics.

-The Falcon-9 is an evolutionary design and they are potentially looking at ten times savings on launch costs.

From today? I suspect that even the SpaceX rule of doubling that is insufficient.

Quote:
-Even re-usable you have to make the rocket low cost. If your rocket costs a Billion dollars and you use it 100 times it is still expensive to launch.

Ten million capital cost isn't that high, so long as operations costs are kept down.

Quote:
-Hitting limits of chemical propulsion with Raptor, it is designed for 99% chemical efficiency

As opposed to the 98.5% that they have today?
Stuff like this is what really annoys me about SpaceX. We've been mining diminishing returns in rocket technology since the 60s. Anyone who has taken more than a cursory look at it knows this. In trying to squeeze more efficiency out, SpaceX is just doing what every other rocket manufacturer has done since the dawn of rocketry, and there isn't much left thanks to Rocketdyne and co, not SpaceX.
(On the other hand, I do appreciate that he pointed out that hydrogen isn't the magic fuel, because recognition of that is long overdue.)

Quote:
-Merlin 1D uses a method called “Face shut off”, removes most valves reducing chances of failure by removing components and removing a lot of risk of a hard start. - Musk convinced Mueller of using this method despite Mueller explaining what it is and how it increases the complexity of R&D and increased costs due to blowing lots of hardware up before mastering the method.

This, at least, is something I give Musk lots of credit for. Rocketry has long been a serious victim of 'how we've always done it' syndrome, and there are lots of things laying around which should work but have never been tried, and won't be used without service history. Aerospikes/plug nozzles are the best-known, but there are lots of others, like this, which I didn't even know about.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:53 pm
Posts: 1587
Location: The People's Republic of Kalifornia
ByronC wrote:
brovane wrote:
Tom Mueller gave a 60-minute Skype Interview/Speech, he is the chief propulsion engineer at SpaceX.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6b043z/tom_mueller_interview_speech_skype_call_02_may/dhiygzm/

He touches on a lot of interesting topics.

-The Falcon-9 is an evolutionary design and they are potentially looking at ten times savings on launch costs.

From today? I suspect that even the SpaceX rule of doubling that is insufficient.


He was probably referring to ten times savings from launch costs compared to other LVs. So potentially I would say they are looking at F9 launches in the $15M-20M range.

ByronC wrote:
Ten million capital cost isn't that high, so long as operations costs are kept down.


Depends on what you are considering high. Did you read the part about Mueller talking about Musk comparing the manufacturing cost of a Model S to a Merlin Engine?

ByronC wrote:
As opposed to the 98.5% that they have today?


No idea, why Mueller reference this but it was fairly wide ranging.

ByronC wrote:
Stuff like this is what really annoys me about SpaceX. We've been mining diminishing returns in rocket technology since the 60s. Anyone who has taken more than a cursory look at it knows this. In trying to squeeze more efficiency out, SpaceX is just doing what every other rocket manufacturer has done since the dawn of rocketry, and there isn't much left thanks to Rocketdyne and co, not SpaceX.
(On the other hand, I do appreciate that he pointed out that hydrogen isn't the magic fuel, because recognition of that is long overdue.)


The F9 rocket is the most efficient LV ever with a 4.15% of launch mass to LEO. The Merlin Rocket engine also has the highest thrust to weight ratio of any rocket engine. I guess there was some more performance left to find.


ByronC wrote:
This, at least, is something I give Musk lots of credit for. Rocketry has long been a serious victim of 'how we've always done it' syndrome, and there are lots of things laying around which should work but have never been tried, and won't be used without service history. Aerospikes/plug nozzles are the best-known, but there are lots of others, like this, which I didn't even know about.


The most recent Inmarsat-5 F4 launch, the F9 rocket placed the 6100kg satellite into GTO-1570, that would take an Atlas-541 to match that performance. Fairly impressive performance to GTO for an all LOX/RP1 LV.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7102
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
brovane wrote:
ByronC wrote:
brovane wrote:
Tom Mueller gave a 60-minute Skype Interview/Speech, he is the chief propulsion engineer at SpaceX.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6b043z/tom_mueller_interview_speech_skype_call_02_may/dhiygzm/

He touches on a lot of interesting topics.

-The Falcon-9 is an evolutionary design and they are potentially looking at ten times savings on launch costs.

From today? I suspect that even the SpaceX rule of doubling that is insufficient.


He was probably referring to ten times savings from launch costs compared to other LVs. So potentially I would say they are looking at F9 launches in the $15M-20M range.

That's vaguely plausible, although again, I'd suggest doubling it, which gives us $30-40M, which is pretty reasonable.

Quote:
ByronC wrote:
Ten million capital cost isn't that high, so long as operations costs are kept down.


Depends on what you are considering high. Did you read the part about Mueller talking about Musk comparing the manufacturing cost of a Model S to a Merlin Engine?

I only read it for the stuff on face shutoff and engine efficiency. But I did go back and read that, and I'm really, really amused by their statements that even airliners 'are kind of expensive for our cost trades'. So when a pretty competitive market that's producing structures which are more similar to yours than anything else says that you're wrong, the correct response is to scale from cars? This is another good example of the sort of problems I have with SpaceX.

Quote:
ByronC wrote:
Stuff like this is what really annoys me about SpaceX. We've been mining diminishing returns in rocket technology since the 60s. Anyone who has taken more than a cursory look at it knows this. In trying to squeeze more efficiency out, SpaceX is just doing what every other rocket manufacturer has done since the dawn of rocketry, and there isn't much left thanks to Rocketdyne and co, not SpaceX.
(On the other hand, I do appreciate that he pointed out that hydrogen isn't the magic fuel, because recognition of that is long overdue.)


The F9 rocket is the most efficient LV ever with a 4.15% of launch mass to LEO. The Merlin Rocket engine also has the highest thrust to weight ratio of any rocket engine. I guess there was some more performance left to find.

Don't get me wrong. They are finding more performance, but they're having to work harder and harder to get less and less gain. I was annoyed with the framing of 'now, we, with the Raptor, have finally hit the limits of chemical propulsion'. Yes, there are marginal improvements. But I'm going to drag airliners in again. Each new model is more fuel-efficient than the previous one, but the percentage gains are going down. They used to get 5-10%, and now it's more like 3%.
But I have really serious doubts that their published T/W is honest when compared to other engines. I know we've seen improved materials and such, and I don't have a problem crediting it with really good performance, but the weight drop from the 1C to the 1D is a bit hard to swallow. I may look into this more.
Edit: Astronautica credits the 1C and 1D with the same T/W ratio. Sources are slim, but 150 is the typical range for a good modern LOX/hydrocarbon engine and I'm willing to trust it as neutral on this issue.

Quote:
ByronC wrote:
This, at least, is something I give Musk lots of credit for. Rocketry has long been a serious victim of 'how we've always done it' syndrome, and there are lots of things laying around which should work but have never been tried, and won't be used without service history. Aerospikes/plug nozzles are the best-known, but there are lots of others, like this, which I didn't even know about.


The most recent Inmarsat-5 F4 launch, the F9 rocket placed the 6100kg satellite into GTO-1570, that would take an Atlas-541 to match that performance. Fairly impressive performance to GTO for an all LOX/RP1 LV.

Look. I like LOX/RP1 better than most people. I think SpaceX is performing a valuable service to the rocketry business in asking questions that most people don't due to institutional inertia. And they seem to be building a pretty good rocket, even if it explodes too often to make me comfortable riding it.
But I have serious problems with the attitude that surrounds them. While the phrase 'hidebound reactionaries' hasn't been used in my hearing, it's the sort of thing that they would say. (The attempt to use jet fuel instead of RP-1 is probably a good example of this. There's a reason for RP-1, and SpaceX really should have known it.) And we know that in the military world this often means that the speaker doesn't really understand what they're talking about. Yes, large portions of the aerospace industry is hidebound, but they could at least acknowledge that this is a reaction to the early days of rocketry when we paid a fearful price in hardware to get to where we are now.
As for performance, this has more to do with the fact that their design is a decade newer and not built as conservatively than the competition than with SpaceX being magic.
Basically, I'm turned off by the hype, which usually comes across as at least slightly dishonest.
(Another example is the rationale for the switch to methane. At the prices he gives, I have the fuel bill for a v1.1 running ~$600k. Which is more than I expected, but only about 1% of the cost of a launch. Now, when I look at the performance of methane vs RP-1, I see a significant improvement in ISP. Hmm.... I wonder why they switched to methane?)

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:53 pm
Posts: 1587
Location: The People's Republic of Kalifornia
ByronC wrote:
That's vaguely plausible, although again, I'd suggest doubling it, which gives us $30-40M, which is pretty reasonable.


Reasonable for you and me, not reasonable for Elon.


ByronC wrote:
I only read it for the stuff on face shutoff and engine efficiency. But I did go back and read that, and I'm really, really amused by their statements that even airliners 'are kind of expensive for our cost trades'. So when a pretty competitive market that's producing structures which are more similar to yours than anything else says that you're wrong, the correct response is to scale from cars? This is another good example of the sort of problems I have with SpaceX.


Elon does like to challenge the conventional wisdom for anything. The entire "The Boring Company" is another reminder of how unconventional his thinking is, https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/ Of course maybe that is why Elon is a Billionaire and we are not. :lol:

ByronC wrote:
Don't get me wrong. They are finding more performance, but they're having to work harder and harder to get less and less gain. I was annoyed with the framing of 'now, we, with the Raptor, have finally hit the limits of chemical propulsion'. Yes, there are marginal improvements. But I'm going to drag airliners in again. Each new model is more fuel-efficient than the previous one, but the percentage gains are going down. They used to get 5-10%, and now it's more like 3%.
But I have really serious doubts that their published T/W is honest when compared to other engines. I know we've seen improved materials and such, and I don't have a problem crediting it with really good performance, but the weight drop from the 1C to the 1D is a bit hard to swallow. I may look into this more.
Edit: Astronautica credits the 1C and 1D with the same T/W ratio. Sources are slim, but 150 is the typical range for a good modern LOX/hydrocarbon engine and I'm willing to trust it as neutral on this issue.


This is taken directly from Mr. Mueller from a response on Quora. You can decide if he is telling the truth. I do go to say it looks like the Astronautica has updated the entry as the thrust on the Merlin1D has increased. However SpaceX has increased the thrust multiple times, so this is understandable.

The Merlin 1D weighs 1030 pounds, including the hydraulic steering (TVC) actuators. It makes 162,500 pounds of thrust in vacuum. that is nearly 158 thrust/weight. The new full thrust variant weighs the same and makes about 185,500 lbs force in vacuum. You can do the math! BTW, I believe most other engines don't include the thrust vector control actuators in their F/W numbers.



ByronC wrote:
This, at least, is something I give Musk lots of credit for. Rocketry has long been a serious victim of 'how we've always done it' syndrome, and there are lots of things laying around which should work but have never been tried, and won't be used without service history. Aerospikes/plug nozzles are the best-known, but there are lots of others, like this, which I didn't even know about.


That is the engineering frontier that SpaceX is on. I remember not so long ago when SpaceX starting using Sub-cooled propellant and the industry leaders commented that it wasn't worth the trouble. However judging by the last couple of launches it seems that SpaceX is getting a fairly good handle on how to use it.

ByronC wrote:
Look. I like LOX/RP1 better than most people. I think SpaceX is performing a valuable service to the rocketry business in asking questions that most people don't due to institutional inertia. And they seem to be building a pretty good rocket, even if it explodes too often to make me comfortable riding it.


Both times in all seriousness, anyone on the rocket would have survived. I look at each explosion as a learning opportunity. I would be more concerned if they had no problem. You learn the issues when you are trying new things by the problems you have.


ByronC wrote:
But I have serious problems with the attitude that surrounds them. While the phrase 'hidebound reactionaries' hasn't been used in my hearing, it's the sort of thing that they would say. (The attempt to use jet fuel instead of RP-1 is probably a good example of this. There's a reason for RP-1, and SpaceX really should have known it.) And we know that in the military world this often means that the speaker doesn't really understand what they're talking about. Yes, large portions of the aerospace industry is hidebound, but they could at least acknowledge that this is a reaction to the early days of rocketry when we paid a fearful price in hardware to get to where we are now.


Mueller built a 13k thrust rocket engine in his garage. The man knows what he is talking about for rocket engine design. As far as the acknowledgment, Musk has publically acknowledged NASA multiple times about how much help SpaceX did get from the.

ByronC wrote:
As for performance, this has more to do with the fact that their design is a decade newer and not built as conservatively than the competition than with SpaceX being magic.
Basically, I'm turned off by the hype, which usually comes across as at least slightly dishonest.
(Another example is the rationale for the switch to methane. At the prices he gives, I have the fuel bill for a v1.1 running ~$600k. Which is more than I expected, but only about 1% of the cost of a launch. Now, when I look at the performance of methane vs RP-1, I see a significant improvement in ISP. Hmm.... I wonder why they switched to methane?)


Mueller did acknowledge they picked the wrong fuel type, they should have done with Methane to start with.

The F9 was built from the beginning to meet or exceed all NASA standards for the human rating of an LV. They did make design decisions to maximize performance, like locating the Helium tanks inside the LOX tank and using COPV.

Still is one gorgeous rocket, even without landing legs.
Attachment:
33859520404_d6e05150b4_z.jpg
33859520404_d6e05150b4_z.jpg [ 125.71 KiB | Viewed 302 times ]


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7102
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
brovane wrote:
Elon does like to challenge the conventional wisdom for anything. The entire "The Boring Company" is another reminder of how unconventional his thinking is, https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/ Of course maybe that is why Elon is a Billionaire and we are not. :lol:

He's a billionaire because he had a good idea at the right time, and has the charisma and managerial skills to turn it into a billion-dollar company. He appears to have had the right idea in terms of spaceflight, as well as enough money and charisma to make it work. (He's not the first with the idea, but nobody else has had his cash or ability to charm people out of theirs.) The jury is still out on his other ideas.

Quote:
This is taken directly from Mr. Mueller from a response on Quora. You can decide if he is telling the truth. I do go to say it looks like the Astronautica has updated the entry as the thrust on the Merlin1D has increased. However SpaceX has increased the thrust multiple times, so this is understandable.

Is he telling the truth? Well, I don't think he's flat-out lying, but I also don't think he's giving a 100% honest answer. This is called PR. Until they tell me what they did to take 140 kg out of a 630 kg engine (the weight given for the 1C), I'm going to remain skeptical.
(Think about how hard it is to compare group weights for warships of various countries. The same might be at work here.)

Quote:
Both times in all seriousness, anyone on the rocket would have survived. I look at each explosion as a learning opportunity. I would be more concerned if they had no problem. You learn the issues when you are trying new things by the problems you have.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that view if they hadn't tried to sell their rocket as having the best safety record before the first failure. And if they didn't greet representatives from The Aerospace Corporation with 'You guys are crimping our style with all of your rules'.

Quote:
Mueller built a 13k thrust rocket engine in his garage. The man knows what he is talking about for rocket engine design. As far as the acknowledgment, Musk has publically acknowledged NASA multiple times about how much help SpaceX did get from the.

Building a rocket in your garage, while impressive, is not quite the same as building an operational rocket engine. Garage-built cars are often impressive, too, but you expect them to need to go back in the garage a lot more often than the cars built in big factories, and someone who is good at the first might not be good at the second.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:53 pm
Posts: 1587
Location: The People's Republic of Kalifornia
ByronC wrote:
He's a billionaire because he had a good idea at the right time, and has the charisma and managerial skills to turn it into a billion-dollar company. He appears to have had the right idea in terms of spaceflight, as well as enough money and charisma to make it work. (He's not the first with the idea, but nobody else has had his cash or ability to charm people out of theirs.) The jury is still out on his other ideas.


Elon is a Billionaire because he is willing to go all in, has the ability to see inefficiencies in an industry and will out hustle anybody else to succeed. So how long will the jury be out for Tesla?



ByronC wrote:
Is he telling the truth? Well, I don't think he's flat-out lying, but I also don't think he's giving a 100% honest answer. This is called PR. Until they tell me what they did to take 140 kg out of a 630 kg engine (the weight given for the 1C), I'm going to remain skeptical.
(Think about how hard it is to compare group weights for warships of various countries. The same might be at work here.)


You have contacts in the industry, have you asked what SpaceX did between the Merlin1A and Merlin1D to reduce the mass by 140kg?


ByronC wrote:
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that view if they hadn't tried to sell their rocket as having the best safety record before the first failure. And if they didn't greet representatives from The Aerospace Corporation with 'You guys are crimping our style with all of your rules'.


SpaceX is certainly not the first or last company to put a positive spin on the products they are selling.


ByronC wrote:
Building a rocket in your garage, while impressive, is not quite the same as building an operational rocket engine. Garage-built cars are often impressive, too, but you expect them to need to go back in the garage a lot more often than the cars built in big factories, and someone who is good at the first might not be good at the second.


Mueller was the chief designer of the Merlin Rocket Engine which has become a solid rocket engine. The last in-flight failure of a Merlin Engine was back in September 2013 when the Merlin1D vacuum failed to reignite in orbit. Since then 29 launches have occurred and with 10 engines on each flight, those engines have been rock solid even if other issues have impacted the F9.

You are starting to sound like this Meme.

Attachment:
spacexdoingitwrong.jpg
spacexdoingitwrong.jpg [ 131.56 KiB | Viewed 258 times ]


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2017 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7102
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
brovane wrote:
Elon is a Billionaire because he is willing to go all in, has the ability to see inefficiencies in an industry and will out hustle anybody else to succeed. So how long will the jury be out for Tesla?

He's an impressive person, I'll freely grant. But circumstances played a large part in how successful he's been. I'll evaluate Tesla when governments stop throwing money at them. Or when I get some time to sort through stuff on them. I've heard it both ways.

Quote:
You have contacts in the industry, have you asked what SpaceX did between the Merlin1A and Merlin1D to reduce the mass by 140kg?

I keep meaning to, but haven't yet.

ByronC wrote:
Building a rocket in your garage, while impressive, is not quite the same as building an operational rocket engine. Garage-built cars are often impressive, too, but you expect them to need to go back in the garage a lot more often than the cars built in big factories, and someone who is good at the first might not be good at the second.


Quote:
Mueller was the chief designer of the Merlin Rocket Engine which has become a solid rocket engine.

:?:
One of us is very confused about the latest version of the Merlin. :D
I'll agree that the Merlin has turned out well. And I do respect them technically. But a lot of their public statements seem to be rather more dishonest than we see in other fields, and I have no problem calling them out on it.

Quote:
You are starting to sound like this Meme.

I've repeatedly pointed out things I think SpaceX is doing well. I singled Musk himself out for praise on the face shut-off decision. But I also think that they've gone too far towards adopting the culture of a software company. My criticisms are usually of their communications, not their products.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:39 pm
Posts: 479
Thanks for all the good info (from someone who knows) Brovane. The anti-SpaceX hysteria is frankly tiresome, and whilst they're not perfect they're not the devil that those who should know better (and those who appear to like the sound of their own "voice") think they are.

Please continue, Sir.

_________________
My MBA really helped with my tactical awareness...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Waarthog and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group