Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
#starlink status: 2615 in service, 3347 total ever launched, 228 re-entered, 115 ground stations.  10/3/2022

https://twitter.com/starlink_map/status/1576824725073932288
2
Obj. 53747 STARLINK-4657 decay prediction: October 08, 2022 UTC 15h32mn 33h  10/3/2022

https://twitter.com/jremis/status/1576829186878341120
3
Rocket Lab / Re: Neutron vs F9R and SS
« Last post by edzieba on Today at 10:30 am »
The core premise that avionics are too expensive and purely open-loop guidance would be an acceptable alternative may have been true a few decades ago, for fixed-nozzle solid stages.
But today, for a liquid propellant stage, the sensors required are not of extreme cost - particularly as you still need the rest of the avionics suite for open-loop control, engine management, TVC, and other stage functions such as spinup, spindown, and seperation - and even if you decide that ring-laser gyros are too pricey, then your fallback is not 'no IMUs' but use of MEMS IMUs.

You're giving yourself a lot of new headaches, making your vehicle less reliable (the first stage now needs to perform absolutely perfectly as your upper stage has no capability to compensate), for a very tiny cost saving.
4
Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Firefly Aerospace
« Last post by TrevorMonty on Today at 10:07 am »
I hope Firefly has her own section because is maybe will be an amazing company...
It might make sense to combine the NGIS and Firefly sections, since the new Antares will use basically the Beta first stage.
Buyout is only guess nobody from NGIS or Firefly have publicly said it will happen. For now they 2 separate companies.
5
Spaceflight Entertainment and Hobbies / Re: Space Stamps
« Last post by salyut on Today at 09:45 am »
May 17, 1965, New Caledonia.
6
Is there anyway to send a camera inside of the solid boosters to check the condition of the solid material?  This would tell if they need to restack and repair or replace the solid material.

No. Segment delamination since initial stacking that is sufficient to damage the propellant cohesion is not visible to the naked eye.
X-ray, ultrasonic and other non-invasive, non-destructive methods should be able to detect invisible changes,
7
Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Phantom Space
« Last post by john smith 19 on Today at 09:25 am »
Checked the website.

So it looks like they want to be another Rocket Lab, in the sense of offering satellite launch and build.

Trouble is that niche has already been filled so it's hard to see what PS will offer that's better against an established player. Especially one that seems to have bought up the #1 providers in their market sector of specific satellite subsystems. IE panels, power systems, reaction wheels etc.

That said it could be that this is the one where Cantrell put's into practice the line of Tom Cruise's character that "Every failure is a dress rehearsal for success"  :)

Or not.  :( 

Time will tell.
8
Ha. Thanks. I don't watch or listen to the NSF broadcasts so missed that. Seems like the simplest, least R&R/Cost way to do a mission like this. I still think if this goes ahead it will end up being two missions. One for boost and another (maybe) replacement of Giros.

Screen capture (cropped) from last night's NSF live showing @brickmack's rendering of Dragon forward thrusters boosting hubble
9
Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Firefly Aerospace
« Last post by Star One on Today at 09:22 am »
I hope Firefly has her own section because is maybe will be an amazing company...
It might make sense to combine the NGIS and Firefly sections, since the new Antares will use basically the Beta first stage.
Id hope if NGIS do buy out Firefly they might keep it as a separate arms length entity rather than just absorbing it into the general NGIS brand.
10
Too much focus on analysis and process above building and getting things done. Also, the tech we had then with rocketry was close to the optimal already (for expendables). And they had more money and wages were lower.

We don't need to spend a significant portion of our GDP on getting back to the Moon today. Even before SpaceX started re-using boosters and lowered the cost of getting to space, we could have designed our lunar exploration system around existing boosters and saved billions and got there a lot faster. Probably more sustainable too.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0