• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

827 Excellent

1 Follower

About magnemoe

  • Rank
    Flight Director
  1. The correct word is hot staging, you fire upper stage before disconnect, Russian rockets uses it, that is why they have an grind structure between the stages. Benefit is that you don't need trust to push the fuel and oxidizer down before firing either with the reaction jet or dedicated solid fuel engines. It will not work on Facon 9 as the insterstage is an long tube who also hold the grind fins for landing
  2. More likely they will make an cargo version with just an large cargo hold. It will reenter on the side, think space shuttle with no wings so using an fairing will mess up this. Main issue I see is that ITS is a bit of an overkill for most uses
  3. This sounds more like an reorganization than anything else. They tried to merge the icbm and space branches once and it did not work well because of very different culture.
  4. I see some issues with landing on the clamps, first is the need for accuracy, you can not miss, you can also not change your mind during the final braking burn. 50 cm off and you crash on an pad you might be 10 meter off and no issues. So landing on clamps will work most of the time but with too low reliability. Worse you lose tower and lots of other structure on fail, so your reliability need to be larger than 99%. Landing on an pad and you can lose some stages, you might even use up the fuel carriers, a in use old boosters until break. That is an benefit of spacex, they are free to lose hardware, feel that NASA play a bit too safe, then you use lots of money developing an mars rover, why only send one, I assume the development cost is far higher than the construction and launch cost. Sending multiple probes also let you lose some
  5. The video of it show vertically on pad. No idea how they will move it however. Both after construction and for doing major service on it, minor service will be done on pad but you would have to replace engines for one. Pretty skeptical to landing back on pad, Main issue is that its riskier than landing on legs and any fail and you will loose the launch pad and tower. How heavy will legs on the ITS be anyway compared with landing it into the launch clamps, you would need the attachment points anyway.
  6. They could just have launched it up in the air, thinking of the insane video there the escape system escaped and the parachute popped some seconds after.
  7. This sounds more like an gyro for navigation than an reaction wheel. The gyro is used to monitor your bearing and rotation, the reaction wheels are used for rotating you without using reaction mass, this require an high momentum to be effective. Now in zero g magnetic bearing should be very effective as in not wear out as its no wear and tear, still its an moving part.
  8. As I understand the FH core stage has modifications to handle the boosters and probably the heavier cargo. One issue other pointed out was shear load during horizontal assembly, another is how much load the upper stage can handle, this is more important than the first stage capacity who anyway has to handle the 90 ton upper stage. For the upper stage an heavier payload would increase the load on the payload adapter 5 times but only 1.5 times for first stage
  9. Yes, weird if its no carbon sources who is easy to use. Thinking about it all the carbon we use is organic, either biomass, this includes fossil one. You might find water some places off the poles, was some talk of lava tunnels, but this would not be huge amounts. That is nice for an Moon base but not for heavier use For moon landings I guess an specialized craft running on hydrogen and oxygen would work better. Dock with the ITS, move over cargo and passengers, land and return later to dock again.
  10. A fully fueled upper stage can take of from Mars and return to earth. Mars return is 3800+1440+1060=6300 Moon an back is 3260+680+1732=5672 to land and 1732+680=2412 back Here assuming free aerobrake and not including landing on earth who would be the dame for both. Moon an back will be more expensive. Make me wonder if its ice deep down on the Moons around Mars who can be mined. That would be very practical if you do an Mars route. You can fuel up in Mars orbit before landing letting you carry more from Earth, you could even bring water back to LEO for refueling. You can also refuel on Moon but only the poles have verified water.
  11. In EU an EULA is not legal binding. Yes you can get banned for breaking EULA, but that is internal rules, just the same way as the soccer rules are internal. you will get expelled from the field breaking them but they have nothing to do with law just internal rules. If the EULA is legally binding they could take you to court for using exploits in an online game No nobody will do it, it make no sense and might well stop making EULA legal binding.
  12. All motherboards support all gpu in general. The issue is the case, small cases might not have room for the longest one. 1060 is an mid range card and they tend to have few issues. You can generally measure this yourself, measure the length of the graphic slot. from the back of the case to the back of the end of the pci-e slot, then measure the minimum free space behind the slot It should be twice the distance to hold an full length card. Another issue is power, still not an major issue on an 1060. Main issue is then buying cheap brand computers as they tend to have all sort of insane solutions who waste space and restrict you. Sitting with an case here who hold 8x3.25" disks and can handle multiple full length graphic cards
  13. Add that light interference is used a lot then you need very high degree of accuracy. Often used in modern inertial navigation systems, tiny accelerations will change how far the beams has to travel and this is accurate down to an fraction of the wavelength. Far smaller and no movable parts
  14. First question Why is the pressurized gas tanks the same size for the far smaller tanks on the upper stage. Its also missing on the first stage upper tank I think.
  15. Very nice, I assume its sped up as it rotate very fast. How much magnification is used,