Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
One week until launch and neither ESA nor EUSPA/EU make any report about it.
All the information here are been gathered from various good sources (one of them on site). thanks  :)
But what's the problem to making an official announcement? What is secret?
Might it be simple matter of discomfiture over the launcher churn for these satellites?
92
Problem: NASA has no lander.

A more sensible solution: NASA should build the lander itself or force its manufacturer to provide it.
93
Why not something like this with film-cooled turbine blades?
I made this for laugh, but I'm serious xD
The turbine in the main exhaust?

Rn it's at the exit of the pre burners, which is like a percent (well, some small fraction) of the total output.  I am not sure you can keep a turbine alive in the MCC.
I know, but this is the only cycle I can think of that could beat full flow.
Musk said that the engine that would make life multiplanetary would not be called raptor, implying it would have a different combustion cycle. And this is the only cycle left before we reach the physical limit in chamber pressure.
Playing along, the turbine will have lower pressure but higher temperature working fluid. (Two bada)  Not O2 rich. (Good).  A number of seals (bad).  Way too much power (bad) amf not really throttleable.

I think it's a bad trade, and is also something the first rocket builders looked at before going with power packs.

But you're right that this is Musk amd they will look at anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics, even if it's been looked at before.

94
One week until launch and neither ESA nor EUSPA/EU make any report about it.
All the information here are been gathered from various good sources (one of them on site). thanks  :)
But what's the problem to making an official announcement? What is secret?
95
Comparison of the new Starship cargo lander with a previous render:
 
  Removal of conformal solar panels
  Taller and wider cargo bay door
  Replacement of elevator cage with a lifting frame and crane (to lift 15 tons to surface)
  Landing thruster ring appears lower down
  Starship appears to be slightly taller, could be V2?
  [EDIT] Addition of retractable solar panel windows near the top
96
ISS Section / Re: Expedition 70 Thread
« Last post by litton4 on 04/21/2024 12:42 pm »
Checking up on some orbital tracking data, on February 7 the last of the cubesats from NRCSD#26, Moonlighter, re-entered the atmosphere. It was originally deployed on 6 July 2023 along with 5 other cubesats.

Also on the subject of re-entries, we should be on the lookout for the external pallet from HTV-9, loaded up with old nickel-hydrogen batteries, to re-enter in the near future. Its perigee has descended from 300 km to 260 km just since the beginning of the year, so it can't have too much time left.

On the subject of the batteries - I'm assuming they are pretty compact and dense, so is there any chance of large pieces surviving re-entry, or will they behave like (eg lithium) batteries and explode and fragment on the way down?

Please move/delete if this is the wrong thread to ask.....
An AA battery is .14 cm dia and 5 cm long, so about 7.7 cm3, and mass between 23 g and 31 g depending on type.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AA_battery
That's about three to four g/cm3. I speculate that a space-rated battery pack would be less dense.

Aluminium is 2.7 g/cm3. Not hugely different.


It would also depend on the internal structure - there would be a difference in (let's say)  a 1m x 1m x 0.5m block and a few thousand scattered,  individual AA batteries in re-entry survivability.

Also, I think a single AA is more like 2.5 cubic cm  (1.4cm x 5cm - so 0.7 x 0.7 x 3.14 x 5 ), assuming I haven't messed up my maths.

Well, it looks like part of the pack survived and almost made it back to KSC.

NASA have apparently confirmed that one of the support stanchions survived to crash through a Florida property.
97
NGA Rocket Launching and Space Debris notices. ...

Map from the NGA notices.
98
Why not something like this with film-cooled turbine blades?
I made this for laugh, but I'm serious xD
The turbine in the main exhaust?

Rn it's at the exit of the pre burners, which is like a percent (well, some small fraction) of the total output.  I am not sure you can keep a turbine alive in the MCC.
I know, but this is the only cycle I can think of that could beat full flow.
Musk said that the engine that would make life multiplanetary would not be called raptor, implying it would have a different combustion cycle. And this is the only cycle left before we reach the physical limit in chamber pressure.
99
Earth launch vehicles don't scale down very well - the smallest Earth orbital launch vehicle has a mass of 2.6 tonnes for only 4 kg of payload to LEO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Series_(rocket_family)#SS-520-5). I'm guessing Mars launch vehicles don't scale down well either and this is why the MAV is so heavy, 450 kg, relative to its 11.5 kg payload. I'm guessing that because of this poor scaling, further reducing the MAV's payload wouldn't reduce its mass by much.
This is a good point. As far as I can tell, no rocket with a mass and performance similar to the MAV has ever been flown. However, MAVs as small as 250kg (maybe 200kg) have been studied

Perseverence, built by JPL, had a landed mass of 1700 kg. Maybe 2-4 of those EDL systems could be used for MSR?
I think the landed mass for Perseverance was about 1000kg, excluding the mass of the skycrane. The original proposal for MSR had a 300kg MAV landed by the same system used for Perseverance.

The easiest non-Mars tech to adapt may be Blue Origin's Mark 1 lunar lander, which is about the right size.
That is a lander which has never flown built by a company that has never flown anything to orbit. And landing on the moon is very different from landing on Mars.

Europe has relatively small space budgets and their only Mars rover is small, the 310 kg Rosalind Franklin ExoMars rover. So they can't help much.

Europe has committed to building a $2 billion Earth return orbiter, so Europe can help quite a lot.
100
I found this in the documents:

" Discussion of proposed plans for addressing planetary protection requirements,
both backward and forward"

Forward planetary protection (PP) is mentioned in one place in the C.26 document in the "Deliverables for Architectural Studies" section, which you've quoted. But forward PP isn't mentioned in the "Requirements for Mission Design" section of the C.26 document, anywhere else in the C.26 document, or anywhere in the industry day slides. So the simplest resolution of the inconsistency is for the text that you quoted to be in error.
The even simpler explanation is that the inclusion in the architectural study requirements is correct and the omission in the mission design section is in error. One explanation requires that NASA is suggesting bidders ignore exiting US legislation, and one does not.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0