Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Well, the weather looks very British... I hope they're doing a time-lapse, but doubt it.

I like the way the Stan Draws' animation manages to convey the inlets pointing into the direction of travel.

Given the furore over the BAe linkup, and it dooming SABRE to military applications I'm surprised the 2014 linkup with Bayern-Chemie (for intakes and ramjets) hasn't been mentioned here, despite the reference in REL's 2015 progress update.
Commercial Space Flight General / Re: ARCA Space Corporation
« Last post by dror on Today at 09:39 AM »
So I ended up investing in ARCA and got to know the team a little bit.
Did you read this thread before making that investment?
If so, what gave you the confidence in their ability to execute, in spite of the skepticism shown here?
SpaceX Mars / Re: Many smaller sized Raptor engines on future BFR's?
« Last post by jpo234 on Today at 09:36 AM »
Things can be done in parallel. You don't have to wait for the engines to pass qualification before you design the rest of the booster.
My reading of this article is, that it doesn't talk about the money the Air Force pays for a launch. It's about the operational cost to the Air Force  for performing a launch for any SpaceX customer.
If SpaceX use tested if not flight ready subscale Raptor they could start designing and building ITSy now. In case of full scale Raptor everything is on hold till it is operational. This is new engine even if based heavily on subscale version, there are no guarantees development will go smoothly.

Hi guys,

I am Bernard (from the UK). I will be going to the IAC as well so Steven should have at least two in the audience  :).

Got me a room just a couple of blocks away from the venue but have to agree with Mike, this event is a monster.

So many things that look well worth attending, sadly only one of me
Sorry for digging up an old thread but am i right in saying the main advantages of air launch are not efficiency gains but;
A Very mobile launch pad (it literally flies)
This allows matching of the target obit's ground track meaning no more waiting days/weeks for launch windows only hours
This also allows launching into any inclination with the same "launch pad". (unlike SpaceX needing west and east coast pads)
You can move your launch range to better ensure range availability
Smaller benefit = being able to pick up payload from customer lowering transport costs/time for payload

Problems include developing expensive carrier vehicle (stratolaunch) but you could just use of the shelf vehicles for smaller rockets (VG) and having people near the rocket during fuelling and launch

 "FTL drops you off in another universe"    looks like a good answer.
Having x, y, z filled with matter and t almost empty except for t=present time looks like a waste of resources.
In addition "something" should leak out because of quantum indeterminacy.
So if this is true the problem is resolved.

BTW the linked paper says: "To ensure agreement with these data  and  to  keep  a  full  agreement  with  the  well-known  Special  Relativity,  the proposed  model  changes  our  view  of  reality  by  giving  to  “time”  the  secondary  role  of  derived  coordinate.    The  overall number of fundamental large dimensions is still equal to the observed four, which have now the properties of spatial dimensions."
Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Last post by TrevorMonty on Today at 08:15 AM »
I'm all for ISRU and robotic base but we could be waiting a while for this happen and who is going to pay for it. If they wait for ISRU it may never happen. Better to plan mission with what is at hand and hope future commercial developments help reduce mission cost.

The likes of Blue NG, Space FH or ITS and ULA distributed launch could all help bring mission costs down. When it comes to crewed lander and rover I don't see any commercial company planning to build these without government funding and technology input.

Anyone else notice the (new?) graphic at the end with a shadowy outline of a ~Falcon9 sized ARCA rocket? :o

You're not a rocket scientist worth their salt unless you dream big! :-) Surprised they are not using a common bulkhead, as you get significant mass savings there. With HTP/RP-1 a single wall can be used, so its not that expensive.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next