Quote from: Peter.Colin on 08/13/2017 12:09 pmTo contribute to the nose vs jaw discussion, why not use a "breadbox hinge".I think this violates the KISS principle. Is there a good reason for this?
To contribute to the nose vs jaw discussion, why not use a "breadbox hinge".
I would be surprised if ITS launches payloads dense (and therefore large) enough to require a fully opening payooad bay.
SpaceX is doing a lot of work to try to get fairing recovery to work. My guess is it has a real future beyond Falcon.So can someone do a version of ITSy with a more regular fairing?
Quote from: jpo234 on 08/13/2017 01:22 pmQuote from: Peter.Colin on 08/13/2017 12:09 pmTo contribute to the nose vs jaw discussion, why not use a "breadbox hinge".I think this violates the KISS principle. Is there a good reason for this?It doesn't have the disadvantages of a nose or jaw hinge discussed above.No problems during unloading on the surface like a jaw hinge.It can also be closed seamlessly an outside nose hinge could get to warm during re-entry.Much better resistant to acceleration, gravity or wind when opened than nose or jaw hinge.Probably most lightweight solution.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/13/2017 07:46 pmSpaceX is doing a lot of work to try to get fairing recovery to work. My guess is it has a real future beyond Falcon.So can someone do a version of ITSy with a more regular fairing?Sorry, but what would be the point? I though the second stage more or less had to look like the Spaceship to be able to land? Or do you want a fairing on a non recoverable second stage?I'll be glad to do one once I understand the idea ;-)
On the subject of imagining what a mini-ITS could be like...a little something me and Teamonster conceived of.
Quote from: redliox on 08/13/2017 11:02 pmOn the subject of imagining what a mini-ITS could be like...a little something me and Teamonster conceived of.Magnificent renderings. I have a question though, the solar panels, even in an origami arrangement, would seem to be too massive to fit in the lower compartment of ITSy. Am I misjudging the volume capacity of the solar panel compartment?
Quote from: Kaputnik on 08/13/2017 02:49 pmI would be surprised if ITS launches payloads dense (and therefore large) enough to require a fully opening payooad bay.I we build on the ideas of IonMars, then this might be a possibility:a 15m long, 7.8m id diameter habitat/general purpose module, that could be outfitted by clients into pretty much any service that might be required in space.For such a case we would need a large bay door :-)The third image shows the volume of a 150 tonnes fuel tank.Interestingly, we could test Martian habitats under vacuum conditions before we send them over there...
I know I asked before, but has there been any speculation with numbers about how small/squat you could possibly go while sticking with 9m?For example, could you make a 9m expendable upper stage with just one raptor? I guess the absolute shortest you can practically make a stage is the point at which one of the tanks becomes spherical, ie where the cylindrical portion vanishes entirely.
Quote from: moreno7798 on 08/14/2017 03:25 amQuote from: redliox on 08/13/2017 11:02 pmOn the subject of imagining what a mini-ITS could be like...a little something me and Teamonster conceived of.Magnificent renderings. I have a question though, the solar panels, even in an origami arrangement, would seem to be too massive to fit in the lower compartment of ITSy. Am I misjudging the volume capacity of the solar panel compartment?I'f I recall the original ITS reveal discussion correctly, the panels fold flat like a fan, and then are wrapped around a spool like a tape measure.