Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
The separate docking station with space buses and taxis looks good in this context.
Yep. A taxi can be really minimal and thus very low mass. At the extreme, just a self-contained EVA suit, but in reality, a plastic bubble with a thruster. It has many of the same problems with docking to a rotating station that have been discussed here at length, but with the low mass and a conformable bubble, there are perhaps simple solutions.

Extensible tubes rated for 1atm pressure.
Harder than taxis but nicer for easy transfer.
Would still have airlocks at both ends for safety.
Probably can do a rotating seal for ship to station hub.
2
The separate docking station with space buses and taxis looks good in this context.
Yep. A taxi can be really minimal and thus very low mass. At the extreme, just a self-contained EVA suit, but in reality, a plastic bubble with a thruster. It has many of the same problems with docking to a rotating station that have been discussed here at length, but with the low mass and a conformable bubble, there are perhaps simple solutions.
3
The recent catastrophic accident in Baltimore puts a new light on the risks of collision between ship and station.
You would think that such an accident would be impossible, with too many failures required, but reality bites.

One solution that might have prevented Baltimore is massive rockfill buttresses around the pilings.  Is there a space equivalent?  Nothing to anchor to, of course.

The separate docking station with space buses and taxis looks good in this context.


4
https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/1773359710999068976

Quote
Rapid
Recovery

ASOG with heavy hauler Signet Warhorse III made a record turnaround from landing to port. B1078 seen vertical with 1060 lowered for transport.

Learn more about the history and future of the SpaceX fleet

youtu.be/_mGqTceez0M?si…

📷 @NASASpaceflight
5
https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1773359534293008588

Quote
Three common booster cores are being filled with 120,000 gallons of liquid oxygen, chilled to Minus-298 degrees F, as the #NROL70 countdown continues to liftoff of #TheDeltaFinale. bit.ly/div_nrol70
6
https://adm-severouralsk.ru/news/media/2024/3/27/informatsionnoe-soobschenie-2/

"Ракета-носитель «Союз-2-1б» № 067 (стартовая масса 313 тонн, длина 46,3 метра, диаметр 2,9 метра) с разгонным блоком «Фрегат» № 122-05 и космическим аппаратом «Ресурс-П» № 4."

Why are they talking about a Fregat upper stage?
They write about fragments.
I think that's the number of the fairing.
My guess is wrong  :(
7
I think it's even more commendable that they have determined only "some temperature sensors and unused battery cells are starting to malfunction", which in the end are diagnostic and redundant subsystems not integral to the lander's core functions, after two full lunar day/night cycles in an off-nominal landing orientation, no less!
8
Given they are also limiting hydrolox to the second stage rather than trying to force fit it into the booster too for an all hydrolox design they have a decent chance of succeeding, at least technologically if not economically.
I hadn't noticed this. Yes Hydrolox is a poor choice for the booster of a TSTO.

The challenge with limited resources is how to limit the divergence between stages and engines and keep maximum commonality.

That would suggest making the booster a plug nozzle as well. Making the engine out of engine modules (in principal) means you can have the booster with N modules and the US with a smaller number of the same modules, provided you can design a module that can accommodate the different fuels.

The joker in the pack is if something happens to the US and it's unable to separate or ignite its engines. There's no practical way to dump its fuel into the booster engines. How likely a failure mode this is depends on peoples opinions of stg1 and stg2 reliabilities. Clearly Stoke reckon the performance benefit is worth the risk. Given the stg2 engines are design to be altitude compensating I think they are right.
9
Advanced Concepts / Re: Spinlaunch on the Moon
« Last post by lamontagne on Today at 01:32 pm »
https://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/compound-tethers/

Decade and a half ago compound tethers were suggested. Tether with a tip speed of half of final has a secondary tether hub at the tip with similar velocity. Tips hit final velocity on one part of the circumference but reach zero relative on the opposite point. Could handle cargo without spindown/spinup.
Cool concept.  This solves one problem and, perhaps, causes another :-)  I think it increases the acceleration, that is one of the limiting factors.  It adds a latching step, that must happen real fast.  And isn't it going to be a very large device?
It also adds rotating joints that are operating under a few thousand gees, that might be a design difficulty.  Perhaps for generation 2?
I think you need to spin up and spin down anyway, since the work done to accelerate up the payload will reduce the overall velocity of the arms by momentum transfer.  After launch, you will need to speed up back to the '0' velocity.  After launch the grapples will go by the catch point with non zero velocity, until they are accelerated back up again.

10
SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Starship specs - weight, volumes, etc
« Last post by JayWee on Today at 01:32 pm »
Can anyone comment on the latest payload bay size?

For a long time the 1000 cubic meter “larger than a Boeing 747” pressurised volume was the stated goal. But recent specs seemed to indicate a somewhat smaller ~600 cubic meter payload bay size.

Is this expected to be temporary with the larger payload bay returning at some point in the future?  For Mars journeys (and as an initial Mars base) we want Starship’s living and cargo area to be a ~20m, 7 story building, not a just a jumbo version of a space capsule. Also necessary for launching large space telescopes and space habitats.

Any insights on this?

Elon mentioned that a version 3 of Starship would be longer, so perhaps a cargo stretch.

Cargo stretch indeed - they do need to fit Starlinks.

Right now, if we assume height of V2 30cm then 150t/1.25t = 120 sats, two per level => 60 * 0.3m = 18m
But the straight section is only 8m now, so at LEAST 10m more needed. Probably more for future growth.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0