Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Can the upper stage of the Stoke vehicle be made into a capsule?  Is it large enough?
Three ton payload seems lean.
Future alternate size versions of the stages seem likely to increase potential for human capability. I think Lapsa hinted at it if I remember correctly.

I think you could do a crew module for at least 1-2 astronauts in the 3mT capacity and volume of their initial Nova vehicle, especially if you're willing to lean-in on leveraging the capabilities of an RLV upper stage rather than just doing a plain vanilla capsule like you would on an expendable-upper-stage launch vehicle. That said, larger follow-on vehicles would move it from "yeah you can probably make this work with sufficient cleverness" to being obviously doable.

~Jon

The Gemini spacecraft was in the 3-4 tonne range, and that includes the heatshield, and parachutes, and entire adapator (service) module, all of which are jobs that the Nova upper stage could do.

Mind you, it probably can't do all of those jobs at once; I'm almost positive their down-mass is less than their up-mass. But since the down-mass should mostly be determined by the final landing burn... for an extreme example, the crew compartment could ride to orbit on Nova, use Nova as it's service module while in orbit, use Nova's heatshield for reentry, and then detach and deploy parachutes before the landing burn. How many more people could you fit in a vehicle the size of Gemini, if it didn't need it's adaptor module or heatshield? I think 4 person crews like Dragon would totally be in the cards. If you want to do more than ~6 orbit tourist flights, you'll need a docking adaptor, which I suspect would knock it down to a 3 person crew.

You would of course never ever actually build this vehicle. For many reasons. Not the least of which is that Nova's upper stage is hydrolox, which boils-off, so your time on-orbit would be like ~12 hours before you were forced to come down due to low fuel / heatshield coolant.
But it's a fun thought.

EDIT: I have now read the rest of the thread between these posts I'm replying to and this one, and I see that you guys covered most of these points already (although coming from the Mercury angle instead of Gemini, for some reason). So, kudos.
92
Maybe related to the delay, posting here for reference.

Quote
🏳️‍🌈Alejandro Alcantarilla Romera (Alex)
@Alexphysics13
Integrated Falcon 9 fairing and Starlink stack rolling back after having gone to the pad earlier this week for the Starlink 10-36 mission. This Starlink and another one from Vandenberg have both delayed almost 1:1 and now this... Maybe there's an issue?

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/2024150468885135371
93
Quote
🏳️‍🌈Alejandro Alcantarilla Romera (Alex)
@Alexphysics13
Integrated Falcon 9 fairing and Starlink stack rolling back after having gone to the pad earlier this week for the Starlink 10-36 mission. This Starlink and another one from Vandenberg have both delayed almost 1:1 and now this... Maybe there's an issue?

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/2024150468885135371
94
SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Starship Future Engine Development
« Last post by OTV Booster on 02/18/2026 04:19 pm »
To many, Russian engineering appears crude. In my mind it seems wondrously practical. The ultimate in the KISS principal. As an aside, it's a great approach for planning a martian settlement. With so many negatives against it, I wonder what advantage the Russians (or maybe Korolev specifically) found in multiple chambers per pump.

Keep in mind that Korolev had to work with the materials, knowledge, and capabilities of his time (1950's), and that the limitations that he had to work with may no longer be limitations for modern rocket engine development.

And SpaceX seems to be at the pinnacle of rocket engine development, mainly because they have such a large demand for engines, so they can iterate their designs faster than anyone else.

I would not be surprised if Raptor 3 is not iterated on, but it sure seems like the basic design is pretty much everything they hoped for.
ISTM it has to fly before it can be judged. Even if it's the real deal (I hope, I hope) it'll be tweaked for a while.
95
Blue Origin / Re: Blue Ring project - Space Tug
« Last post by catdlr on 02/18/2026 04:18 pm »
Quote
you follow
For you
Following
Vandenberg Launch Enthusiasts

See new posts

No file chosen
Your Home Timeline
James W. Draper
@James_W_Draper
·
43s
Happy National Battery Day ⚡🚀 From silver-zinc power in early space missions to nickel-hydrogen on Hubble and the ISS, space drove battery breakthroughs that now power our phones, cars, and homes. Space batteries changed everyday life.
@ccspacemuseum
NSF - NASASpaceflight.com reposted
Elisar Priel
@ENNEPS
·
11m
Starbase GigaBay Month Four
This month, it looks like teams have completed the next level of the GigaBay, and hopefully we will see the four cranes rise as work begins on the next level.
@NASASpaceflight
 | http://nsf.live/starbase
Blue Origin
@blueorigin
·
4m
A Blue Ring mission delivers up to 3,500 kg of hosted and deployable payloads to the cislunar domain, including circumnavigation of Lagrange points and all the way to Low Lunar Orbits. Blue Ring’s capabilities enable cislunar missions that are more cost-effective, without limiting science and exploration objectives, by increasing usable payload mass or maneuvering capability. Multiple constellation satellites are deployed on a single Blue Ring vehicle, with reduced propellant per spacecraft, and direct orbit access is achieved without dedicated transfer propulsion on each spacecraft. Once in cislunar, Blue Ring can operate as a command, control, and relay node, allowing deployed payloads to communicate with the spacecraft without requiring direct-to-Earth communications capabilities.


Learn more about Blue Ring: https://blueorigin.com/blue-ring
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/2024169814697071052
96
SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Starship V4
« Last post by JaimeZX on 02/18/2026 04:15 pm »
Followup to what I post above:

Quote
The fracked gas that would flow through the Valley Crossing Pipeline was clearly meant to be exported to Mexico, which means that the company should need a federal permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to build. However, in taking advantage of FERC’s flawed process for analyzing cross-border pipelines, Enbridge claimed that the section of Valley Crossing that would need a federal permit is just the 1,000-foot section of pipe that crosses the U.S./Mexico border hundreds of miles off the coast of Brownsville, while the rest of the 140-mile pipeline falls under the regulatory oversight of the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC). If you’re familiar with the RRC regulatory process for pipelines, you know that it’s not so much of a process as it is a rubber stamp agency for these kinds of permits.
Is that graphic not to scale?  Because the crossing appears to be ~12 miles (+/- 2, because eyeball) offshore, not "hundreds."

Source: https://www.sierraclub.org/texas/blog/2018/07/valley-crossing-pipeline-exercise-corporate-trickery
97
Feb 18

Quote
National Air and Space Museum
@airandspace
·
27m
On #TDIH in 1977, Space Shuttle Enterprise made its first "captive-inactive" flight atop a Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center (now Armstrong Flight Research Center).

https://twitter.com/airandspace/status/2024163719320654299
98
SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Starship Future Engine Development
« Last post by OTV Booster on 02/18/2026 04:12 pm »
tried the rocket equation on this yet to see if this entire thread is worth discussion? 

It is a space flight forum.  let's try the rocket equation and see what happens.

assuming 3 SL raptors throttled down to 50% (vacuum ISP 353), and 6 Vacuum raptors @ ISP 373, we get

(353*1.5 + 373 * 6)/7.5 = average ISP of 369.

Now suppose we made the bells magically bigger, ignoring the extra dry mass on Starship this would entail.  We'llp ut the ISP at 385 (and I'll let someone else calculate the bell size required)

(353*1.5 + 385 *6) / 7.5 = average Isp of 379.

so you've just increased the Isp by 379/369 = 1.027 or 2.7%.


If our typical deltaV is 7km/sec this means with ISP:

369 Isp we have a mass ratio of 6.915.
3]79 Isp we have a mass ratio of 6.57

You've improved the mass ratio by 5%.

If our dry mass is 300t that gives us a fuel mass of

369 Isp (6.915-1)*300 = 1,775t
3]79 Isp (6.57-1)*300 = 1,671t

You've saved 104t of fuel.  This is one ring of fuel. Why not just make the rocket one ring longer?  That'll cost you about 1.7t of mass, or rounding error effectively.

now by making your rings ALL wider to accommodate the wider bells, what's our mass budget?

(6.57-1) * dry_mass = 1775t

dry_mass = 319t.

so the breakeven point is when we've added 19t of additional mass to the starship to make it however wider.  Anything more than that reduces our payload.

Anything between 300t-319t increases our payload, anything above decreases the payload.

that's a mass budget of about 19t/21 rings = 900k/ring.  the surface area of each ring for say a 12m ring is 1.33x that of the 9m ring which is about 400-500kg additional of stainless steel. 

So in reality what your wider rings did was add about 8-9t of additional payload.  You could have gotten that by adding one ring at 9m.

It seems like a huge amount of work to go to 12m rings so we can eek out an additional 2.7% of Isp.

easier to increase the thrust to keep the TWR and add a ring for fuel.

which, just so happens, is the plan for Starship V4.
This is a perfect example of letting facts get in the way of a good story.


Thank you.
99
Historical Spaceflight / Re: JUMPSEAT vs. SDS satellites
« Last post by LittleBird on 02/18/2026 04:11 pm »
Thanks both. Now that I look at WallE's list I see that the gap between CANYON 1 and 2 was actually the shortest of all, and they may well have speeded it up to max extent possible.
100
Quote
Andrew Parsonson
@AndrewParsonson
DLR has successfully completed vibration tests of the landing legs for the Callisto reusable rocket stage demonstrator. The testing was conducted at the ATLAS EMS facilities in Bremen. The demonstrator is expected to be launched for the first time in 2027. Image credit: DLR



https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/2024036118044213514
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1