Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
Typo: 173638 should be 173639

ugh, I had it right in one of 2 places.


SpaceX just purchased and offloaded a second crane at that port. So having a port in the Bahamas would require yet another crane.
I'm sure the new crane and the existing on that SX uses so frequently are both the property of Port Canaveral See also
No one seems to have said this - but Blue Origin is moving into Port Canaveral right next to SX. Maybe they too expect a harbor crane to be available. (Although the brand new crane above the words "Port Canaveral" in this tweet is BO's)
Debra C + OCISLY departed PoLB on Feb 20 @ 2:42pm PT / 5:42pm ET
Doug + ASOG departed PC on Feb 20 @ 6:04pm ET
Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Perigee Aerospace
« Last post by tankat0208 on Today at 01:24 am »

They have released the launch animation of Blue Whale 1, their launch vehicle
Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor. 

Nah.  It's just going to stay with using the ASDS barges.  Plus E.Musk is so not the type of guy to buy a island in some tropical paradise. His workers would want time off.   His style is more like buying his own Stratovolcano, or at lease a fair size cinder cone on the flanks of a Stratovolcano somewhere that's dark, cold, & nothing to do for the employees but to work 16 hours a day. 

Hello Iceland.

He could buy a cinder cone property on the Snaefellsjokull penninsula, and have them name it something like "Risastórhelvítiseldflaugheimfyrirríkastamannheims-jökul".

edit: That's mouthful, and most Icelandic people know English, so "loosely" translated, it's just "Elon's big rocket house"

One mostly straightforward change that could help with FH center core recovery would be to stretch the upper stage - allowing for the center core to stage slower.  The lower T/W ratio for the upper stage could be somewhat offset by flying a more lofted trajectory, which would also help keep the boosters closer to land. 

It already stages lower than others.
Lofting means higher abort loads on crew.

Is there a simple explanation/reason for higher abort loads to a higher lofted trajectory with an earlier staging event? Is the higher abort load biased to the booster burn or the upper stage burn for example?

Sorry, abort entry loads.  Steeper ascent means steeper descent

So the premise of a second stage stretch precludes human rating due to abort entry loads, but for cargo flights, that limitation isn't present. That does sorta imply that crew Dragon will not do anything other than station runs in LEO with no more trunk capability than is currently present (which has implications on long term trunk cargo size/mass on crewed flights).

It does end up being a manufacturing issue as you have two similar but different second stages to deal with, with the attendant added complexity on the GSE side of things.

If starship wasn't in the wings, having a locked in booster+v5 second stage for manned certification, and the same booster with stretch upper stage for cargo is an interesting scenario, especially if the stretch really doesn't involve much more than adding barrel segments.

Not quite sure what to say about this...
Ignoring how it looks...let's think about WHAT it is! Water tank? Has to be, right? For the new flame trench? Can't think what else this size might be needed at Masseys...

Photo Credit: Lab Padre (on Twitter post - fair use)
It might be new as one of the typical purchase options is where you order the base product and have it shipped where a contractor finishes it out at the job site. This is a common method of purchase for special purpose railway tank cars such as those used to transport refrigerants, cryogenics, hypergols, and commodities such as Phosphorus.
Blue Origin / Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Last post by Torlek on Today at 01:11 am »
Definite BE-4 test tonight. That thing rumbles with a purpose. Feels like a train passing within 10 m from about 10 km out.
It's not about understanding of the rocket equation (and it's rather insulting to say so)....

...getting the required thrust with that Isp means either:
- deploying utterly enormous, super-thin-film solar panels in space...

Matching fusion Isp at 13,000 s with electric engine you'd get ~ 10 mN/kW.  That fails OP requirement, obviously. 

You're making a story without numbers there.  You might read the Electric Thruster thread for relevant basics, e.g., the fundamental performance curve.

a) there are lots of numbers in that post. Please don't be so condescending. But I admit I didn't go through the full math.

b) You don't need 13k Isp for Mars; in fact, it's rather too high to be efficient. According to your own numbers:
fwiw, an optimal 29 km/s impulsive departure burn gives Mars arrival in 30 days with Vinf magnitude (entry speed) of ~ 32 km/s.

29 km/s + 32 km/s = Total mission delta-v 63 km/s. If you can use aerobraking/entry for say 8 km/s of the deceleration, that becomes more like 55 km/s.

If we accept a mass ratio of 6, we need an effective exhaust velocity of 30.7 km/s, or Isp 3130.

If we need a mass ratio of 3 (far less than an interplanetary Starship would have) we instead need ~50.6 km/s or Isp ~5160.

That's way more achievable.

And some of the VASIMR articles were talking about 39 days to Mars, so using electric propulsion for fast transits isn't just me being crazy. The power source is challenging, but I think very thin film solar is less development risk than fusion drive. Also, if you don't quite make it, 50-60 days to Mars is still useful, but if the fusion drive doesn't work you have nothing.
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