Bill Phil

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1681 Excellent


About Bill Phil

  • Rank
    Some Engineer Guy

Profile Information

  • Location Capital of the Star League
  1. NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads - RIP DSG

    Yes, and? Node 4 would be built using Node STA. It's not flight ready hardware at the moment, afaik. It was originally going to be Node 1, but problems arose, as they so often do. And I know that Raffaello is at KSC. Its first launch was around 2001. Very old hardware.
  2. NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads - RIP DSG

    I thought you were referring to a suggestion by NASA or some aerospace company. Yes, those modules are not really in the running. Node 4 does not quite exist as flight hardware, and, if used on DSG, would be around thirty years old by the time of launch. Raffaello would be nearly thirty years old as well. Certainly not the preferred option for a deep space station.
  3. NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads - RIP DSG

    That was for the Exploration Gateway Platform, which is not DSG. They may be used if DSG is built, but that hardware is fairly old. I certainly wouldn't use them.
  4. NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads - RIP DSG

    DSG =/= Exploration Gateway Platform You can't just use LEO hardware in the deep space environment. There are some major differences that need to be accounted for. DSG was planned to use new hardware.
  5. NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads - RIP DSG

    That would imply actual hardware exists. Not flight-rated hardware, but hardware nonetheless. And DSG has nothing of the sort. Basically, it's less real than VASIMR.
  6. So what song is stuck in your head today?

    Some say the song never ends... It hasn't for me... not yet, anyway. I just can't get this song out of my head. Not like I want to, though... If you find yourself with half an hour to burn (it's only 23 minutes or so), sit back, relax, and listen to Echoes.
  7. Science fiction authors of the KSP forums, UNITE!

    Just add in some small fluff here and there.
  8. Would you like to go to Space?

    Is your name Doctor Farnsworth?
  9. Eagle project

    Excel is great for that, and useful for costs. There's no minimum, as far as I'm aware. 100 man hours is certainly a lot. Record everything. Talking to people about it, writing, and even email writing time. It'll add up FAST.
  10. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    Yeah. The upper stage of the heavy is more for sending payloads beyond LEO than to LEO.
  11. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    The issue with that idea is that a big upper stage would be very useful. That tiny upperstage would have so much work to do...
  12. That is high energy with respect to kerolox. High energy refers to the propellant. Any upper stage would be optimum with a large mass ratio and low TWR even if it uss different propellants. The RS-68 engine is also very likely to have an optimum expansion ratio at some point in the atmosphere and not in vacuum or at sea level. And the hydrolox core is carried to very high altitude with a decent amount of propellant in its tanks. As to why it has less payload to LEO compared to New Glenn? Well, the core doesn't really have a full propellant tank left after the boosters burn out and the upper stage is pretty small, not really optimized for large LEO payloads, but it is optimized for large GEO payloads.
  13. Eagle project

    Paperwork is only a nightmare if you have to waste months on it. Start the paper work now. There's no reason you can't start it. The first page of the proposal is just contacts anyway. Bridges are always good. The one I built for my project was 6 feet wide and 24 feet long... But do what you want, as long as it involves considerable planning and can demonstrate your leadership skills, you should be alright.
  14. It's also in possession of a high energy core and two high energy boosters... The DIV core uses hydrolox. It's got about 365 seconds of isp at sea level, but more in vacuum, over 400.
  15. NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads - RIP DSG

    What's going to fly on Block 1B before Orion? Probably nothing. Especially considering that EC would not really prove anything about how "man-rated" the vehicle is. It's a whole different payload. I highly doubt that EC would help to "man-rate" SLS Block 1B even if it did fly on Block 1B. Flying an unrelated payload does not lead to man-rating. Using Block 1B was chosen due to the changes required to the MLP for EM-2. They chose to just make the changes and use that configuration for EC as well. Considering that they "plan" for EC and EM-2 in the same year, there'd be little modifications that they could make to the vehicle to improve its "man-ratedness" in that little time. Building a second MLP for Block 1B would allow two flights that year, or an earlier flight in 2021 for EC (if they could build it in time). Orion was originally intended to fly on Block 1. But then they decided to have extra payload fly on EM-2, and switched to Block 1B. And they may eventually fly Orion on Block 1, if they keep it. Crew or cargo only flights to DSG could be flown. Currently Block 1B is Crew and Cargo until the later flights (EM-6?). ICPS is similar to DCSS, but it's stretched to deal with boil off and somehow gained eleven tonnes of mass. If a new MLP lets them keep a higher cadence, it's worth it. And it would probably be modified into a Block 1B MLP eventually. Probably in the mid-2020s. Maybe giving room for Block 2, if that ever gets off the ground.