Jump to content

Rakaydos

Members
  • Posts

    2,457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

992 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    Senior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The statistics of starlink are such that if he builds it, people WILL come. The problem lies in the vast gulf between "beginning construction" and "steady state profitability." And from the sound of it, the Ver2 Starlink sats were designed from the ground up for Starship's capability, are already gearing up for production... and the raptor manufacturing apparently isnt keeping up.
  2. Oh, is Porche making an all-electric Tank Destroyer?
  3. "That doesnt sound too hard. My car can go 500 km between recharging/refueling..." -the public
  4. Sounds like a job for a full cargo variant. The aft cargo pods (in the engine bay) are always open to space but protected on launch and entry, so in my mind they make a better place to have utility arms equipped.
  5. Couldnt you just use a standard crew starship, with utility arms in the aft cargo? I'm already assuming that the Depot has a fueling arm that mates with other vessels QD ports, tucked in the aft cargo.
  6. It doesnt. By coincidence, the right recipe of stainless has a good strength at low temperatures, and ALSO has a high melting temperature.
  7. The "base model" is much more flexible than you seem to understand. There's heat shields on all the ones that will return to earth, but depots will have cryogenic insulation instead, and Lunar Starship is a customized build for NASA's HLS program that's built on the same line as Starship, but has a bunch of one-off features and will never return to earth's surface.
  8. Please make yourself aware of the Artemis plan of record regarding Lunar Starship, Tanker Starships, and Depot Starships before continuing this line of questioning.
  9. Send Kimbal as the head botanist. (Elon's brother, who's been working on hydroponics-related stuff)
  10. I suspect it will be an asymetric approch. Tanker has arms in the skirt that can connect and brace against standard quick disconnect ports.
  11. Given that the intermediate zone is RUD territory, and that rocket engines are incredibly optimized, I doubt an off the shelf engine could cover both regimes. Certainty not without including the same exotic materials from the OR turbopump in the main combustion chamber and nozzle!
  12. First things first- if you perfectly mix the fuel and oxidiser, combustion will be too complete and you'll melt any material in existance. They have to be off-balance to have enough unburnt cool propellant to keep the temperature to reasonable levels, for rocket science levels of reasonable. Second- metals that dont combust in hot oxygen rich enviroments are difficult. So it's normally easier to run the exhausts fuel rich, and also offers better ISP with most fuels that are lighter than their oxidiser.
  13. Not ORSC. FFSC, but on the oxygen rich side of schtochimetric. Higher thrust, lower ISP, cheaper and denser propellant mix.
  14. The majority view on NSF is that The Engine to Surpass Raptor is probably a second-generation FFSC methalox engine, using all the lessons and materials developed for Raptor 2 but unrestricted by Raptor's form factor, which was locked in years ago. Particularly optimizing "thrust per dollar" with the goal to make it so the cost to travel to mars is within the reach of at least a million people who want to go. Also some speculation of Oxygen-rich methalox mixtures.
×
×
  • Create New...