RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,442
Posts: 5,507,546
Members: 25,133
Currently online: 467
Newest member: jokerone

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Thread Tools
Old August 23 2014, 10:51 PM   #91
Rear Admiral
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
Re: SpaceX's Grasshopper

sojourner wrote: View Post
The test site wasn't moved. They've always done flight tests in McGregor, TX. It also wasn't a "downscaled version". That was a full size F9 first stage. It just had only 3 engines instead of 9.
Hm, for some reason I thought they had already moved to the New Mexico site, and didn't read the Texas part. They had said their current site is too populated for dangerous tests at high altitudes. But I guess this wasn't high altitude (even if the video made it seem so, I thought the operator was going to be hit by debris).

Isn't 3 engines downscaled? When I read it, seemed far enough from launch configuration to make me consider it different from the launch vehicle. The real vehicle would re-enter with fewer engines (3?!), but lifts off on all nine. And, while it is probably ridiculous to speculate without any information on what the anomaly was, if it was an engine anomaly I would guess nine engines give you more room for gracefully ending the flight in ways other than blowing up on purpose. At the very least, you could shut down the anomalous engine while the capsule flies to safety and the vehicle is away from inhabited areas. Then again, this might be something completely unrelated to engines.

Regardless, having a failure of a test flight with a different number of redundant engines (and less fuel I assume) that's pushing the vehicle to the limits and trying new things doesn't tell you much about the vehicle reliability in its forthcoming real flights, which was basically my point.
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2014, 12:21 AM   #92
sojourner's Avatar
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: SpaceX's Grasshopper

Considering the F9 will be mostly empty of fuel during the flight regime after second stage separation, the only real difference is the number of engines on the vehicle. All 9 engines aren't needed for the tests they're doing. "Downscaled" isn't really the right word since everything there is full size, try "not installed".
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...

Last edited by sojourner; August 24 2014 at 12:38 AM.
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.