Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Wrong. NASA is putting a lot of pressure on ESA/Airbus to deliver the ESMs per a yearly cadence, starting in 2024 for ESM-4. Bill Nelson came personally to Bremen to pass the message.
Coking would actually help in some ways.
This might be Zack's best deep dive yet.

Wow, what a great video.  A few things come to mind:

Starship is paying a large mass penalty for staging, being long and skinny, reentering sideways, the mode switch at landing, and needing to cover the base of the first stage in engines.  To the point where I'd be surprised if a Bono-style single stage vehicle built around a Raptor that meets specs wouldn't actually have a lower payload fraction than the two-stage Starship.  You're paying such a high price for the shape and concept of operation, maybe those propellant consumption efficiency arguments aren't so strong.

However, man oh man is stainless steel an advantage in terms of debugging.  And wow, what a team!

Imagine how awful Skylon's structural problems would be!

And appreciate how good Stoke's configuration is!
Difficult to imagine how the mass of the strengthening they need to add to the second stage could be higher than the mass of the entire first stage, which is almost what you'd be adding if you go single-stage.

I think all we are seeing is the SpaceX iterative design & development process at work. They start by making it as light as possible, then test it, and add strength as required to address issues found during testing. 

When they initially add that strengthening to existing vehicles it is quick and dirty, but it also goes back to the design team and they end up with a much more elegant implementation, probably with a lower mass penalty, several vehicle iterations down the line.

Yeah, that may have been a little enthusiastic.  However, the video was very good and I recommend it to people.  It was, as you say, fantastic to see the iterative process in action.

It did make clear that Starship is paying a heavy price, in mass and time, for problems that it didnít really have to solve unless there is some secret compelling reason for the high-lift high-crossrange reentry style.  It would not surprise me to find they are doubling the mass of the second stage relative to what a Stoke-like configuration would require, assuming you did a Stoke-like configuration with methane and not hydrogen.  That isnít the mass of the first stage, but thatís not really how the math works anyway.

This belongs in another thread so I'll leave it at this comment, but it occurred to me on watching that video that Stoke is introducing a problem that will need to be solved by adding mass in interfacing a long and skinny first stage to the middle of the heat shield on the second stage.  Maybe theyíd be better off with the first stage shaped roughly like the second stage, or at least fatter, such that it could transfer its loads where the second stage engines are and there are already hard points.
Starship (nee MCT) previously had a base-first jumbo-capsule design, with supersonic retropropulsion with canted engines added to reduce heatshield thermal loading. The switch mas made to the sidefirst entry to further reduce heatshield loading whilst eliminating the need for retropropulsion (and the propellant needed for it) during entry. SpaceX are also not using Hydrogen, so an actively cooled heatshield is not a viable option - it would need a separate coolant fluid to be recirculated, or an extreme Methane flow volume to keep temperatures low enough to avoid coking (well below the temperatures the heatshield would actually need to be cooled to for structural reasons).
The current Starship side-first entry is not high-lift (and nowhere close to STS); it has a bit more lift than a lifting capsule, but not dramatically so.
Has there been mention of whether they tried to image the Earth and moon together in the same frame while they were so far out, ala the Artemis Earth-moon full disk photos?
ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan / Re: Potential sale of ULA
« Last post by ThatOldJanxSpirit on Today at 12:52 pm »
For Amazon, if Vulcan fails, they're realistically out of options for Kuiper.  Buying ULA won't change that.
There is always the last option with the folks from Hawthorne.  :P
Heck, they could go all in, and buy the launch vehicle and satellites from those folks - it would be much quicker and cheaper. But that logic ends with them just buying Starlink bandwidth, which would probably by far the cheapest option even if Vulcan didnít fail.
I watched the launch live on YouTube.

I loved it, what a crazy scene, they had so many people watching it looked like an Apollo launch. 

Those solids look so massive, itís weird to see solids after so many Falcon 9 flights.

I canít wait to see the next launch from India.
Not on 27th March

Does this suggest a slip or is it not a concern for some reason?

It's now in it. Also the SDA mission as well
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography