I wish someone other than that Chinese firm would have the guts to just copy the Falcon 9 recovery method. These smallsat launchers, if they're flying more than a dozen times per year (let alone 24 like Firefly or 100 like RocketLab...), really ought to be at least partially reusable.
Quote from: gongora on 02/12/2018 01:21 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2018 12:37 amI wish someone other than that Chinese firm would have the guts to just copy the Falcon 9 recovery method. These smallsat launchers, if they're flying more than a dozen times per year (let alone 24 like Firefly or 100 like RocketLab...), really ought to be at least partially reusable.They may not have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on developing reuse right now....and that's why you essentially copy SpaceX instead of trying to do something else clever. And also: don't need that much to do what Masten and that Chinese company are doing. But I'm satisfied to know that Firefly at least paid lip service to reuse in the past.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2018 12:37 amI wish someone other than that Chinese firm would have the guts to just copy the Falcon 9 recovery method. These smallsat launchers, if they're flying more than a dozen times per year (let alone 24 like Firefly or 100 like RocketLab...), really ought to be at least partially reusable.They may not have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on developing reuse right now.
On the J2S, extra hydrogen was sprayed into the tapoff ports to reduce the TIT
Temperature at Input to Turbine?
Quote from: chipguy on 02/12/2018 05:10 pmTemperature at Input to Turbine?You've got the right idea, but it's actually "Turbine Inlet Temperature".
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2018 01:40 amQuote from: gongora on 02/12/2018 01:21 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2018 12:37 amI wish someone other than that Chinese firm would have the guts to just copy the Falcon 9 recovery method. These smallsat launchers, if they're flying more than a dozen times per year (let alone 24 like Firefly or 100 like RocketLab...), really ought to be at least partially reusable.They may not have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on developing reuse right now....and that's why you essentially copy SpaceX instead of trying to do something else clever. And also: don't need that much to do what Masten and that Chinese company are doing. But I'm satisfied to know that Firefly at least paid lip service to reuse in the past.The Spacex method won't work for small launchers if they want to stay small. The extra mass of the landing fuel
, attitude system
, hydraulic landing legs and titanium grid fins
almost certainly makes it unworkable, because they will add much more mass than the 100-200kg payload that these guys are trying to carry.
Even the payload range is unique. They will be the first to go after the one-ton payload range.
1000kg market is perfect for smallsat LEO constellations, which is new emerging market. Those same engines can be used for follow on x9 engine RLV with payload of around 1500kg.
There was a wave of FCC filings November 15.Audacy: 3 MEO relays to communicate with LEO spacecraft.SATLOA2016111500117Karousel: 12 IGSO satelllites for videoSATLOA2016111500113Kepler MULTUS: 2-140 LEO nanosats for M2M communicationSATLOI2016111500114LeoSat: 78 LEO satellitesSATLOI2016111500112O3b: Amendment to add another 40 satellitesSATAMD2016111500116SpaceX: has its own threadhttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41634.0SATLOA2016111500118Space Norway: 2 satellites in high-inclination 16-hour orbitSATLOI2016111500111Telesat Canada: 117 in LEOSATLOI2016111500108Boeing: 60 IGSO (this is separate from the smallsat filing they also have)SATLOA2016111500109Theia: 112 for remote sensingSATLOA2016111500121Viasat: 24 in polar MEOSATLOI2016111500120
Just noticed, but the other image (of the whole Alpha rocket) seems to show an odd number of engines, like 5 engines: