Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
Blue Origin / Re: Blue Origin Space Capsule/Spacecraft
« Last post by DanClemmensen on Today at 11:47 am »

The big problem, as always, is Starship. If SpaceX succeeds with a crewed EDL Starship, then I think a four-person or even a seven-person capsule will not be competitive.

Other than "Build it, and they will come," what demand is there for sending more than four (or seven) people to orbit, or beyond?

Sure, jumbo jets exist, but I don't see them being used to access the south pole, oil rigs, outback ranches....
There are two separate issues: cost of a mission, and demand.
Cost: The Starship model is a TSTO with the second stage also acting as the crewed spacecraft and all built on an assembly line that also builds other Starships, so low marginal build cost. It uses an infrastructure whose fundamental design goal is low marginal launch cost. It will be difficult for competitors to beat Starship's cost per mission even if the crew size is four. The incremental cost of additional seats (up to and probably beyond 20) will be very low.

Demand: This depends on your vision of crewed space missions. If all you see is CLDs that are slightly more capable than the ISS, plus Artemis-style Moon missions, then crews of four to six are all that is needed, but Starship will still be the least-cost approach. However, CLDs and Moon bases can be built to take advantage of the capacity of crewed Starship, with crew rotations of twenty or more.

Yes, unabashed Starship fans such as myself tend to believe that Starship is the solution to any problem. You (and all of us) must stay as objective as we can about the actual rate of progress of Starship development. Assuming immediate success without analysis is not reasonable. Ignoring Starship or assuming it will fail is also not reasonable.

I think Booster reuse will be reliable by the end of this year, Ship EDL and reuse by the end of 2026, and crewed EDL Starship by end of 2028. Make your own estimates, but I think this is what a BO spacecraft will be competing against.
2
...
No link.  No paper.  No attached file.

Links and attachments: it's all there, last time I checked. Also, all the equations predicting the force etc,  8)
5
Thank you. It appears it doesn’t work on an iPad Safari browser. Tapping on the image goes full screen with no way to see the stereo pair. It goes into spatial view mode, not stereo pair mode.
6
Rocket Lab / Re: Rocket Lab Neutron rocket - Discussion
« Last post by DeimosDream on Today at 11:24 am »
I've spent the past two weeks off and on trying to make a Neutron model that fits the published payload guide, and I think I might have a possible mass distribution.

Assuming...
> 480 ton max includes max payload
> 3.23 km/s vacuum Ve 1st stage
> 3.58 km/s vacuum Ve 2nd stage
> Neutron initially burns to a 185km perigee transfer orbit with an apogee circularization burn for LEO destinations
> The GTO number really are for 40-degree GTO (-2100m/s)
> Residual 1st stage propellent saved for DRL / burned for EXP
> Residual 2nd stage propellent saved for user guide precision state vector shutdown, used for a minimum residuals shutdown to achieve website Lunar/Mars transfer.

1st stage:   80%   [10% dry, 90% propellent, less 3.33% landing reserves for DRL]
2nd stage:   20%   [8.4% dry, 1.6% residual for precision shutdown, 90% nominally burn load]

Ie:
480 tons - 16.4 ton max payload = 463.6 ton wet without payload
1st stage: 370.9 tons wet, 37.09 ton dry, with 12.35 tons saved for DRL landings
2nd stage: 92.7 tons wet, 7.79 ton dry, 1.48 ton residual available if burning until minimum reserve shutdown to achieve Lunar/Mars transfer claims.

Model thoughts:
Pros:
+ Fits the published data to within ±0.15 tons when subtracting 1.25 km/s for atmospheric/gravity losses.

Cons:
- Model predicts only 1.25 km/s of atmospheric/gravity loss which seems low when common knowledge says to expect 1.5-2.0 km/s of losses.
- 2nd stage dry mass seems too heavy. This prediction gives the second stage a better mass fraction than H2/LOX stages such as Centaur-III, but still leaves it heavier than modern RP-1/LOX stages such as F9's 2nd.
- 1st stage dry mass seems too light. Only 20% heavier proportionally for landing legs and an encapsulating fairing? Maybe volume/area scaling is kind.


Long story short, it seems plausible that the published GTO numbers could be correct.

Assuming state vector shutdown vs minimum residual shutdown hypothesis is correct, then this model predicts a GTO burn with a minimum residual shutdown could place 3.3 tons GTO with DRL or 4.3 tons GTO expended. 
9
Chinese Launchers / Fengyun-4C - CZ-3B - Xichang - 2025
« Last post by mikezang on Today at 11:14 am »
10
SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Optimus as part of SpaceX's Mars plan
« Last post by Oersted on Today at 11:05 am »
...as Dr. Strangelove so eloquently put it.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0