magnemoe

Members
  • Content count

    6626
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

790 Excellent

1 Follower

About magnemoe

  • Rank
    Flight Director
  1. Again agree, an commercial supplier can operate on the build it and they will come and gamble on larger satellites, he risk his own money after all. NASA and other should build after planned missions, And yes I can come up with lots of cool mission: sample return from lots of targets is one, I want to look for ice on Moon as an second but this don't require heavy lift. Why are they only building one web telescope, multiple linked would be better, with star-shades. You have done the development, how more would 4 more cost?
  2. Yes, cost obviously matter however the fixed cost will be so high that trying to save money on launches has minimal effect and might even end up loosing money because the increased development cost. You also have payload cost.
  3. I was there this winter, you definitively want the guided bus tour out to the Apollo center, this also show you the vab, new space x and the shuttle / sls pad and some other cool stuff like the crawlers. Can be smart to start with this as you have to line up for an bus. You can also take an extended guided tour for more pads and probably more stuff, I did not take this. Else all is in the visitor center. One tips in that you can skip the videos, I did on the Apollo and Atlantis buildings is I though I had less time than I end up having because of delays.
  4. Yes, weird if one average star is unlike all others we have seen. something weird in orbit makes more sense as it can easy be something very rare who we was lucky to spot since we study 300k stars.
  5. As you will not use an super heavy rocket often re-usability is not important, neither is cost, reliability is as it will often be used for flagship missions. An super heavy lifter can be an fully reusable heavy lifter in disposable mode. This has the benefit of reduced cost because as an often used system and will reduce cost
  6. Probably not, you fly higher so the air is likely to be more stable. It was not an issue for Concorde, nor military jets.
  7. Still an larger diameter payload is pretty fair, and yes its an downside with the falcon superheavy idea, it would be weird with an 8 meter fairing.
  8. Boosters will be slower than F9 first stage but still high supersonic. Extending the wings will be challenging unless you are so high you can ignore the atmosphere. And for an SLS super heavy lift replacement it will be used so rarely adding re-usability would be pointless. The falcon super heavy would be an exception as it use existing hardware for boosters and here it would just be reusable for testing and for replacing falcon heavy disposable.
  9. Glide back is more fuel efficient, but its also far more complex and expensive to develop. When do you fold out the wings, you are supersonic all the time until glide. However it will also depend on your release attitude, higher make it less efficient unless you add an atmospheric engine for fly back. You can also do barge landings with boost.
  10. Ok so supersonic you want an pure turbojet. And yes, you don't want to show up as an zombie, only done regional flights for business here the main issue is how early you have to show up. Fun in that many seasoned business traveler on that route take an sleeper train, you sleep while traveling and is ready to go, travel to airport and airport actions take longer time as the flight. For me I can not sleep sitting, that is unless I'm dead tired as in has not sleep for 40 hours, think very drunk. Laying down and its no issue.
  11. Yes, like the atlas evolution or mine super heavy falcon who is even more modular.
  12. Two of the engines misses the safety pins. Or what is the pins and flyers? 9 engines on that small rocket, yes its correct but I thought it just had one or at least just a couple.
  13. Yes, at least an small unmanned mission is pretty easy to do outside of the transfer window.
  14. True, therefor reuse of boosters was for testing, and some an partial replacement for falcon heavy in disposable mode. Not sure if FH will ever use crossfeed, my 4 and 6 booster idea does not, it used engine shutdown to save fuel in core stage.
  15. Well an 4 booster version of falcon heavy makes sense, perhaps even an 6 booster one. Its basically an strengthen core with more attachments, you would also need to reinforce the upper stage, no crossfeed as its complex, but I would shut of engines, probably turn off the core engines during flight, then trim back on the second set of boosters so they burn longer than the first set. for the 6 booster extreme edition it would probably have to be all expendable because of room around boosters and complexity. You could probably forget to recover the last two anyway. All this would be cheap, for an 2+2+1 test you could recover the 4 boosters. Option for lengthened core and perhaps an new upper stage using methane who would be nice for an moon landing. An heavy version of new Glen would be next step but farther ahead.