Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
The most basic item after [re-usability] is being able to do propellant transfer.
With those 2 pieces in place SX will send something Starship sized to Mars in 2024.

Maybe the will maybe the won't.

We certainly can't be certain! But unless something changes in the underlying motivations of the enterprise, we can be fairly confident they will want to keep Mars on their agenda.

[Re-usability] is nice to have. Even, it's a requirement for a long term solution. But it's not part of MVP (minimum viable product)
[and] propellant transfer is not required, either.

There's possibly a business case for SS/SH as a low cost, partially-expended, non-refilled launch system. SpaceX hasn't seemed interested in addressing that market a second time. Falcon is doing that just fine....
Historical Spaceflight / Re: MOL discussion
« Last post by Blackstar on Today at 07:30 pm »
Why would Congress act on what a Presidential candidate says?
You make my point for me.

This statement is just hot air. It doesn't matter what any candidate says. This is a many billion dollar idea (WAY more than SLS). Unless its obvious that congress would be all about it, its nothing more than a fantasy.  Thats my point, trump is WAY to polarizing to win over both parties for an idea like this (he was just the 3rd or 4th president in line for SLS, he didn't start sls/orion/gateway/moon trip ect. He just renamed some of it and let the programs continue). Without congress this is just fantasy.
Do we know why B7 is being returned to build site?

To finish re enclosing the the RB engines for one I would think. They also need to determine how to quick release all the addition hoses that are rerouting the GOX exhaust from the engines away from Stage 0.
Just Kerbal it and stick some SRBs in the skirt for pad aborts.

You joke, but there is room for 3 solid rocket boosters on Starship with a burn time of a few seconds.   Instead of adding 3 vacuum raptors, add 3 solid rocket boosters of the same dimensions.

The joke is probably applicable.  First of all, this is a new engine.  SRBs aren't particularly complicated, but still, if you're comparing the amount of work to something like the enshrouded D2 escape system, they're within shouting distance of one another.

Also, this makes the mass-flow problem in the skirt worse.  If you're going to start any engines on the Starship while still mated to the SH, you're going to have to engineer blowout panels at the very least.  But at some point, there's so much mass flow, irrespective of blowout panels, that you're going to destroy the top of the SH LCH4 dome, which will be game over.  Since SRBs derive their thrust from insane amounts of mass flow, they'll make things a lot worse.

A quick note:  The T/W=6 with the most lightly loaded crewed Starship possible to orbit already assumes 9 engines.

The Crawler-Transporter 2 is stationed outside of launch pad 39B at Kennedy Space Center in preparation to return the #Artemis I mobile launcher back to the Vehicle Assembly Building later this week.
Forms being set under the rebar on top of the berm.  Looks like about a two meter extension.  From Lab Cam.

Blue Origin / Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Last post by jimvela on Today at 07:15 pm »
What's up with all the pedantry?

If the comment was describing a period of weeks, firing at only one per week, over that period of time any mention of firing cadence would indeed be proper to describe firings- as over that period of weeks there will be multiple firings.
One of the shuttles lost a tile and survived reentry (STS-27) because it happened to be over an antenna mounting plate rather than the normal aluminum skin. The loss of a tile isn't necessarily fatal if the underlying substrate is robust enough. Stainless steel is much better than aluminum in this regards as evidenced by the lack of need for lee side TPS on SS.

Having a stainless structure probably helps somewhat.  That could turn a marginally fatal situation into one that was marginally survivable, which ain't nuthin'.

On the other side, I've been trying to figure out what the implications of a pinned tile with a heat-resistant underblanket are vs. directly-bonded RCC or TUFI.  It seems like a small chip might allow the flow to generate more lift on the chip, making it more prone to snapping off using the pin(s) as a fulcrum.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography