Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
2
It would be much better for the Indian Air Force to acquire and maintain their own separate launch capability, by carrying out their own SSLV launches to fulfill their mission requirements.

Otherwise ISRO's going to wind up in the crosshairs.
Now you expect soldiers to become rocket scientists too?
Actually militaries around world have such rockets. US got Minataur, Russia got SMART-I while China got Kuaizhou. Such quick reaction rockets facilitate to immediately fill the gap created NY ASATs. It's our version.
3
ESA Launchers - Ariane, Soyuz at CSG, Vega / Re: FALCon---DLR
« Last post by Asteroza on Today at 04:15 am »
it does solve a specific problem, which is your ground track having no landing sites (which is pretty common for east bound coastal spaceports).

I don't know about that.  If your ground track doesn't have a landing site -- build a landing site. :-)  If people are worried about the booster crashing off the landing site, you'd have the same risk with mid-air capture.  If the mid-air capture goes wrong, the booster can still make a big hole in the ground out of someone's house.

Since most coastal launch sites don't have a handy island downrange, your options are limited to a floating runway (such as the megafloat demo, but redesigned for offshore use, much like the old US Navy mobile offshore base concepts), or you are landing vertically on a barge or platform. The bit about crashing at the landing site is when you are doing a RTLS landing, and the landing pad is near existing launchpads. Other customers/operators may find that unacceptable. If you commit to vertical landing nowhere near the launchpad, then you might as well use a barge downrange if still committed to vertical landing. The fact is, most spaceports have a nearby airport that is still far enough away that the launchpad operators don't break out into a cold sweat at the thought of RTLS boosters landing near their pads.
4
Indian Launchers / Re: NavIC/IRNSS discussion
« Last post by advaidhya on Today at 04:08 am »
News update: ISRO's Pseudo Satellites for Navigation?

*IRNSS renamed as NavIC is a success (?)
*ISRO working towards Pseudolite Based Navigation System (PBNS)
*Pseudolite or Pseudo Satellites are ground based device
*this is to benefit aerospace industry, various aircrafts, drones(-their navigation)
*experiments are in progress
*this info is provided by former ISRO chairman, AS Kiran Kumar
*occasion was his lecture(?): ‘Indian Space Programme and Future Technologies Needed to Grounded Aerospace Activities’ ahead of 'Aero India 2019'
*on NavIC, he said, "an international chip manufacturer had already developed a microchip that can access global coordinates"
*“There is a phone in the market that uses it for navigation”, he added. More phones may follow as he hinted later

i wonder which phone was he talking about?
guy's do you really feel that NavIC is a complete success? i think its still 'work in progress'.
which "international" chip manufacture could that be?

(https://www.chetansindiaspaceflight.com/2019/01/news-update-isros-pseudo-satellites-for.html)

What is there to be work in progress? NAVIC is already a success. It is used in Indian army as well as Indian shipping and boating vessels. It is limited to regions of about 5000km radius from India due to it not having global constellation.

Making chips of 180nm is already available in India. This is 2002 technology and hence is still usable. As a result, all Indian boats will get this system so as to maintain their route and prevent entering enemy waters
5
Concorde only had a much shorter range of Paris to NY so the time savings were not very much. Flying Paris to Sydney the time savings will be much bigger for a sub-orbital spaceship.
There will be a lot of demand from thrill seekers.
Would it make more economical sense to have one flight a week for 1000 people or several flights a week of a smaller craft, assuming price charged per passenger was the same ?
6
The market for Starship Point to point is trips of greater than 10,000 miles. That's about the point where the linear costs of a direct flight in the atmosphere passes the costs of a "Newton's Cannon" low suborbital rocket flight, where each extra mile is cheaper than the one before it.

There was a study that said the average passanger count for those flights of 10,000+ miles is just over 300.

1000 seats is far too many, but 400-450 might work well. Give you room for high-side deviance from average, but  leave people a bit of legroom, even if they're only there for an hour.

This is starting to sound a lot like Concorde.. That design was ~100 seats and didn't really work in the end. Ignoring the technical challenges, "..the airlines could make more profit carrying first-class passengers subsonically".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
Concord had three problems it range was limited and it could not fly overland supersonic.
This limited the routes it could fly, the last problem was that you needed enough passengers to make it economical limiting the routes far more say you wanted to fly from London to Miami, it would not be enough high paying passengers to finance the route so you had to fly to New York then take an second plane negating much of the benefit of the concord.
Starship P2P faces lots of the same problems, limited number of pads both by physical constrain and number of passengers. Its main benefit is that you can avoid lots of the real long flights who are an pain, this also make connecting flights more acceptable as you save 12 hours.
Still is it enough high paying passengers for it?
7
It would be much better for the Indian Air Force to acquire and maintain their own separate launch capability, by carrying out their own SSLV launches to fulfill their mission requirements.

Otherwise ISRO's going to wind up in the crosshairs.
Now you expect soldiers to become rocket scientists too?
8
Lesser mortals with less enthusiasm for dominance games would like to know, too.   :)

Eric Anderson dreamt it up. Jim Muncy pushed it up the hill.
9
SpaceX General Section / Re: UK tech showcase at SpaceX Hawthorne
« Last post by alang on Today at 03:20 am »
Seems an old fashioned approach in the era of the internet, or at least old fashioned when dealing with a management team such as that at SpaceX.
The only thing I can think of is that now that SpaceX is an established brand it might be happy to take advantage of those who want to supply cheaply in order to show case talent and get to list SpaceX as a customer.
Maybe that is the most important thing to take away from this: the world is now coming to SpaceX.
10
Lesser mortals with less enthusiasm for dominance games would like to know, too.   :)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next