Steel

Members
  • Content count

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

179 Excellent

About Steel

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Short answer I'm afraid: no. As @mikegarrison mentioned, unless you're doing brachistochrone trajectories (you're definitely not with an ion drive), any orbital trajectory where the impulse cannot be assumed to be instantaneous needs to be computed numerically.
  2. It is?! Well I completely missed that part!
  3. I think the reason it's not reusable is probably the issues getting something that big to reenter safely/be controllable in atmosphere going the wrong way.
  4. I believe you're right. Interesting and completely off topic (hence in spoiler box) musing below:
  5. Other than, engines, airframe, aerodynamic design, avionics, controls, passenger capacity, range and a few more I haven't though of, no absolutely nothing But seriously, as @Gaarst said above, just because they look similar doesn't actually mean they are the same in any way.
  6. Privately-developed, not privately funded. EDIT: no I'm still wrong. I think most people just misquote "first privately-developed liquid-fuel launch vehicle" as "first privately-developed launch vehicle"
  7. Yes, but those engine were not used at launch, they were glorified (and highly complicated) RCS thrusters. My point was that to launch the shuttle again you have to build a new fuel tank, to launch a F9 again you do not.
  8. You could rewrite it as an energy gradient (you can do whatever you like!) but it would be incorrect. The whole heat of fusion thing is accurate, more energy in doesn't change the temperature above the melting point, thus doesn't change the heat transfer to the next wafer until it melts. Just to throw another major annoyance into the works, have you considered the fact that the heat capacity of materials changes with temperature? EDIT: not that you really need to, a reasonable average will get you close enough
  9. I disagree. The way I (and I would imagine SpaceX) would argue it is as follows: SpaceX 1st stage: launch, land, inspection, refuel, relaunch. One fully self contained stage that can be (in theory) relaunched many times. Space Shuttle: launch, land, inspection, build a brand new external fuel tank, refuel, relaunch. "Stage" is not self contained, requires a new fuel tank to be built for every launch. By that logic you can see why SpaceX are claiming it's the first reusable stage. The shuttle orbiter being reused is a bit like that plan for the Vulcan to reuse the engines of the first stage, and ESA would definitely not claim that just saving the engines was reusing the whole first stage.
  10. No rocket will ever be able to produce those conditions because the rocket would immediately destroy itself (any rocket with a 36000 K exhaust temperature would)
  11. There's literally no rocket (and no mix of chemicals) that could produce those conditions. The wiki won't say because we know next to nothing about Jupiter's core. We think it's probably metallic hydrogen and we've made some guesses from that, but we have no solid evidence.
  12. Regrettably I imagine that there is no magic formula, precisely because there's a lot of factors at play, all changing at different rates due to different things (as it looks like you're discovering). AFAIK the only way you're going to get an answer is numerical simulations (which is what it looks like you're putting together with your first principals stuff). Word of advice on numerical simulations, don;t try to do them on an Excel sheet, you'll just give you and your computer a headache!
  13. So this is one of these threads that never actually goes anywhere because the question basically boils down to "what happens to the laws of physics when we violate the laws of physics to create a situation" and so doesn't really make any sense. Nonetheless: So, because the vacuum is inherently absent of most matter, there is very little thermal conduction (i.e no convection, so only heat transfer is via radiation), so not much would happen to the temperature of the ice. The pressure probably (and that is a huge unknown) wouldn't have too much of an effect either if this is just a small bubble inside a huge ice structure, so you'd essentially just have a vacuum chamber inside the ice. In this case, since you have effectively an infinite heat and pressure reservoir, the ice would melt and shatter due to the pressure. Not entirely sure what you're asking here. Almost certainly no way of knowing, considering my first statement!
  14. But they can't afford a launch, see above: