Assuming it is an altitude compensating nozzle, it could work like a metal steamer basket. Without other visual cues (drainage holes, etc) it appears o have "gaps" too.
Triple duty, including exhaust shaping, thermal radiation, and engine shielding... Sounds quite within the realm of possiblity of something Elon & Co would think up.
Quote from: tyrred on 09/16/2018 08:38 amTriple duty, including exhaust shaping, thermal radiation, and engine shielding... Sounds quite within the realm of possiblity of something Elon & Co would think up.Hey, totally random thought.. If they did all that, maybe you could do away with any swivel mechanism on the 7 engines? (I think I remember some statement about all engines swivelling though)
Oh, so you think that with this kind of macro-nozzle thing, then none of the engines would have to gimbal? Could the macro-nozzle thing achieve the required control authority on its own, particularly during landing?
Quote from: TripleSeven on 09/16/2018 12:28 amQuote from: envy887 on 09/16/2018 12:21 amQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/15/2018 11:05 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 09/15/2018 10:39 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/15/2018 10:26 pmand no doubt they will continue to get "longer"I don't see why they would. BFS isn't meant to land like a Space Shuttle, and the leg spread with these surfaces already looks a lot like what Falcon 9 has.control authority is high mach flightLike those huge fins the F9 booster has for high Mach flight?the F9 booster would come completely apart had it to reenter from orbital velocities as I suspect they have found out the second stage would as well the comparison is not even remotely relevantHow many vehicles have you seen that re-enter from inter-planetary velocities and have wings?From mere orbital velocities, we know it can be done either with a large wings or without.So where is your confidence coming from?-----ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Quote from: envy887 on 09/16/2018 12:21 amQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/15/2018 11:05 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 09/15/2018 10:39 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/15/2018 10:26 pmand no doubt they will continue to get "longer"I don't see why they would. BFS isn't meant to land like a Space Shuttle, and the leg spread with these surfaces already looks a lot like what Falcon 9 has.control authority is high mach flightLike those huge fins the F9 booster has for high Mach flight?the F9 booster would come completely apart had it to reenter from orbital velocities as I suspect they have found out the second stage would as well the comparison is not even remotely relevant
Quote from: TripleSeven on 09/15/2018 11:05 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 09/15/2018 10:39 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/15/2018 10:26 pmand no doubt they will continue to get "longer"I don't see why they would. BFS isn't meant to land like a Space Shuttle, and the leg spread with these surfaces already looks a lot like what Falcon 9 has.control authority is high mach flightLike those huge fins the F9 booster has for high Mach flight?
Quote from: RotoSequence on 09/15/2018 10:39 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/15/2018 10:26 pmand no doubt they will continue to get "longer"I don't see why they would. BFS isn't meant to land like a Space Shuttle, and the leg spread with these surfaces already looks a lot like what Falcon 9 has.control authority is high mach flight
Quote from: TripleSeven on 09/15/2018 10:26 pmand no doubt they will continue to get "longer"I don't see why they would. BFS isn't meant to land like a Space Shuttle, and the leg spread with these surfaces already looks a lot like what Falcon 9 has.
and no doubt they will continue to get "longer"
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/15/2018 06:37 pmSo money is not a big concern as long as new investments are under $1B per year. With investments only needed when revenue and profits are not enough to cover development costs in that year. This paid for flight will likely produce some profit or be at cost where SpaceX is gaining flight experience in a new regime.It's not the size of the investment that would be of concern, but when the investment would pay off. Google has the luxury of investing in things that don't pay off for a long time, but normal Venture Capital funds manage funds that expect a payoff within 10 years.That said there are likely a lot of sources for $1B or more where the investors have the luxury of being patient, but at some point there needs to be a liquidity event. Would that be pre-Mars colonization, or post-Mars colonization?
So money is not a big concern as long as new investments are under $1B per year. With investments only needed when revenue and profits are not enough to cover development costs in that year. This paid for flight will likely produce some profit or be at cost where SpaceX is gaining flight experience in a new regime.
What I meant by that is "if something goes wrong". We take orbital docking for granted these days on account of how many times it gets done successfully, and routinely, on the ISS. The truth is it's extremely hard, and the ISS docking is nothing compared to what lining up fueling ports on two spacecraft this size is going to be like. To me it add's complexity and risk because now you have much tighter tolerances on not just roll, any irregular body rates are going to have to be perfectly controlled or you either won't get a solid connection on your fueling ports, or you will tap fins or both.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 09/16/2018 05:44 amWhat I meant by that is "if something goes wrong". We take orbital docking for granted these days on account of how many times it gets done successfully, and routinely, on the ISS. The truth is it's extremely hard, and the ISS docking is nothing compared to what lining up fueling ports on two spacecraft this size is going to be like. To me it add's complexity and risk because now you have much tighter tolerances on not just roll, any irregular body rates are going to have to be perfectly controlled or you either won't get a solid connection on your fueling ports, or you will tap fins or both. Really? Harder than landing on a barge? Come on!
With all their spare cash I am kind of surprised Apple haven’t already invested in them.
As far as landing on unimproved landing sites... a thought... Suggest we consider the Moons ~1/6 and Mars ~1/3 gravity and the possibility a one Raptor engine final landing burn could maybe throttle down low enough to hover a loaded BFS and slowly land... sci-fi style... 10+ seconds of blasting a site clear of it's loosest material before sticking the landing gear and lower fins into the debris flying zone may mitigate much of the issue.. At the cost of some prop reserve while sucking up the gravity loss while hovering at say 6m up... Just a wild thought on subtopic...
Yusaku Maezawa 前澤友作 Aug 31I will start tweets not only in Japanese but also in English from today.
Yusaku Maezawa 前澤友作 Sep 1Big announcement here soon. Please follow me and stay tuned!!!
When will be schedule to be announced?Yusaku Maezawa 前澤友作 Retweeted T.H Sep 1about mid September
tuesday is september 18. the first september 19 that falls on a tuesday is 2023...
What I find Interesting is their choice of mission: a fly-around the moon.They can do that without refueling in orbit, right?