Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Avio's participation in A6 is important but not "dominant" actually, it's on the order of MTA's iirc, about 10%, maybe a bit more on an A64 vs A62.
That ownership transaction will be bocked by protection regulations. That aren't applied often enough in Europe.

I imagine it would be difficult, with lots of small shareholders. The total share value is not high.
Perhaps one could see it the other way around - such a purchase would be of no use as a foot in the door - it would immediately remove a set of customers.
The NOVA has grown up  :o

I apologize for not going deeper in the assessment and making two misleading edits, only the leftmost one (thinner) edit fits the 14ft diameter S2 diameter as listed elsewhere in the report (and even then it's a few pixels off).
Do note that the old render is not necessarily to scale, if the S1 diameter was not 12ft.
As far as tank volume is concerned, the leftmost/thinner edit is already easily large enough to contain the ~50 m^3 necessary for the ~18 tons of LH2/LO2 propellant
P111 and HDTW are not quite the same

Projekt 111 started as Kerolox High pressure stage combustion engine under Bölkow-Entwicklung KG in 1957
1968  Bölkow-Entwicklung KG, Messerschmitt AG and Junkers fusion to Messerschmitt-Bölkow GmbH
1969  Messerschmitt-Bölkow GmbH fuse der Hamburger Flugzeugbau GmbH become MBB GmbH

it was P111 that got NASA attention for Shuttle Main Engine

HDTW = Hoch Druck TreibWerk is the Hydrolox version of P111 for EUROPA IIIB
The french gave it designation H20
Original one german HDTW hat to Power second stage or two french conventional rocket engines (HM06?)
HDTW was also proposed for EUROPA IIID (also E?) to power all stages

why was HDTM not taken ?
it was to ahead of it Time, to Radical for politician, ESA and NASA
Chinese Launchers / ? - Yinli-1 (Y3) - Yellow Sea - November, 2024
« Last post by mikezang on Today at 01:28 pm »
There is another launch plan in November by Yinli-1 Y3 from Yellow Sea.

It appears that SpaceX is currently undergoing testing of the Transporter-Erector at Launch Complex 39A. This testing appears to be of the hardware that is used to load propellant onboard @Int_Machines's Nova-C lunar lander.
Other Launchers (Korean, Brazilian etc.) / Re: Brazilian VLM-1
« Last post by ErickSoares3 on Today at 01:12 pm »
So while DLR MoRaBa has set up a dedicated team to the development of the VS-50 guided sounding rocket.
Aviobas comes up with another half year delay for the static firing test, while DLR integrated the gimbaled nozzle onto the S50 stage for the test.
Sorry this is going to be a harsh post.
Given the fact that the VS-50 is very oversized for most of the uses DLR MoRaBa could have for it.
Given the fact that the VS-50/VLM project has been delayed for more than five years.
Given that the VS-50/VLM project fraks of the USA in the USA-German relations, because Germany helps Brazil to guided missile technology. That could easily be repurposed to military use.
Given that solids are less flexible and more dangerous in operation, and have more harmfull exhaust products than liquid or hybrid rockets. And there are three German companies with functional rocket motors, and DLR has worked on several others as well. Besides there are several other European alternatives.
I actually hope that DLR MoRaBa is considering if resources are spent well on the VS-50/VLM-1 program, or if these resources could better be spend on another rocket.
Europe needs independant acces also to suborbital space. aka hypersonic and guided suborbital rockets.
It might be time to put the VS-50/VLM program out of it's miserie.
(just one European nerds opinion.) 
Europe needs a replacement for MAXUS and launcher for Expert, SHEFEX III, Hexafly, etz.

Man, I agree. The Avibras company (the Brazilian side of the program) is a mess, and it  may or may not be sold to a Chinese company (that would really freak Washington out). Talking with space journalists in Brazil, it is clear that the Air Force (direct responsible for rocket technology) never had any real interest on space launch technologies (the VLS-1 program was long delayed and it ended in a lethal disaster - the program only officiallly ended in 2016, when it was clear that its tech was long outdated).
looking true that Data there only Starlink-11216 who able to get into low stable orbit for moment. 235 x191 km
the rest will reenter in coming days like Starlink-11220, how to hell arrive that one into 116 km x 80 km orbit ?
what to hell happen during restart ? look more that second stage had exploded !
can it be that again a COPV tank failed in Lox Tank ?

This would explain the amount of LOX that came out engine part
COPV tank failed either valve or tear, increasing the pressure in LOX tank
pressing more LOX as planed into Merlin engine
here one or more sealing failed were LOX pour into engine cover
After Merlin engine shutdown the Helium pressure continue rising in Lox Tank
until Second stage rupture, catapulting the Starlinks in various orbits.

Source on Starlink 9-3 orbit data
Did you manage your visit yet?

yes i found the Aerospace section at Lichtwiese
and copy some stuff about P111 aka HDTW Engine by MBB
Just wondering about designations here. "HDTW" probably means "Hochdruck Triebwerk". In an old conference article, I see a picture of a MBB 111 Topping Cycle  engine (LOX/RP1) but is that same one that you mean with "P111"? If yes then what does the "P" stand for?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography