RCgothic
-
Posts
2,868 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by RCgothic
-
-
Basically, Dynetics' design was overweight and had to find mass to lose. But the report also states there were significant risks of mass *increases* still to come which would also need to be countered, and the report did not expect that was feasible.
Sounds like Dynetics bit off more than they could chew with their concept, even though it would have been a great capability if they'd been able to get it to work.
This is the sort of thing armchair speculators can't predict. It was a surprise Dynetics was rated this low, but there was no way we could evaluate things like mass budgets or lack of progress on development of the critical MULE refueler.
-
The report implied that the all up development for Starship is likely to be somewhere in the ballpark of $6Bn to $10Bn for booster, ground systems and starship variants.
Considering this is the largest, most complicated spacecraft ever on the most powerful booster by a factor of 2, that's not bad going.
Sure, it's not cheap (a lot cheaper than some others) but less than half is tax dollars and the amount beyond that doesn't really matter. As long as SpaceX deliver a working vehicle the taxpayer had nothing to complain about in this, and as long as SpaceX can afford to service the interest on their private debt it's all good.
-
Another interesting set of wording in the report is that "SpaceX's plans to self fund and assume financial risk for over half of the development and test activities as an investment in its architecture..."
That wording is interesting. "More than half". Not "three quarters of" or "the vast majority of".
SpaceX bid $2.94Bn. On the basis of the above I think it's likely that this indicates total starship development will be less than $10Bn in total.
-
The report has an interesting section on abort capabilities.
Basically, excess capacity in all things leads to improved survivability. Multiple redundant engines is a plus. Excess propellant gives greater ability to return to rendezvous orbits. Greater consumables storage gives much greater ability to linger waiting for a rescue.
This was a significant strength of the lunar starship proposal which stands in stark contrast to the criticisms it gets as a launch vehicle.
-
20 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:
Has there ever been in-orbit refueling of anything on the scale of what's needed?
Not remotely. We're talking over a thousand tons of propellant transfer.
-
From the report:
"Whilse I recognize that return of cargo and scientific payloads may be limited by Orion's current capabilities"
Burn, lol. I guess Starship will just have to tranship them for return to earth in another starship then.
-
Side by side render comparison, a year of progress.
-
Wow. That's either incredibly incompetent or extremely arrogant to assume that they could submit a proposal that doesn't comply with the rules and still expect to get an award.
-
Crew-2 progressing.
SpaceX's announcement tweet.
And of course what we will knew but old-space is extremely slow to acknowledge:
If you're just trying to copy F9 you're destined for failure. Starship may not work reusably, but there's no serious reason not to think Superheavy won't even so be by far the cheapest ride to space on a per kg basis.
-
Contract is for just one crewed landing and a demonstration mission beforehand.
-
Just now, sevenperforce said:
Looks like four banks of six engines each for a total of 24.
Wow, I didn't spot the ones above and to the right.
24 landing engines then. What do we reckon, somewhere in the region of 25kN per engine? That's quite a bit smaller than superdraco.
-
7 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:
Interesting... I’m not seeing any side-firing mini-Raptors... maybe there’s a ring of even-mini-er engines? The mythical hot-gas thrusters, perhaps, spammed around enough to land in lunar grabbity?
In the darker ring above and to the left of the flag and the NASA logo.
-
Launch site is not specified. Could be 39A or elsewhere.
-
No takey-backies.
-
The first three questions on this press conference were really shallow. How does Starship fit into Artemis, will Starship launch on SLS sort of thing.
-
-
-
It's official!
-
And this is how you win a major contract:
-
Sad Vulcan New Glenn and SLS noises.
-
Ninja'd by seconds.
If they choose only SpaceX I expect it will be primarily because SpaceX bid such a low price and the funding for the project has not been forthcoming.
I wonder whether the announcement late on Friday is to let the rage to die down over the weekend.
It'd be a hugely unpopular decision, but NASA really given no choice if serious about getting to the moon on current funding. The angry congresspeople will only have themselves to blame.
-
Fingers crossed for Dynetics and SpaceX!
-
17 hours ago, JcoolTheShipbuilder said:
What about fusing uranium atoms? That will surely go well lol
Will consume power and the fused product would be so large and unstable you'd likely get all the power back instantaneously in some other form along with a shower of decay products.
-
CNBC has interviewed 50 Starlink beta users about their experiences and have found the early response to be overwhelmingly positive.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/spacexs-starlink-early-users-review-service-internet-speed-price.htm
NASA Human Landing System
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
This is how the bids were rated at the previous phase:
Blue Origin: Technical Rating: Acceptable, Management Rating: Very Good (most expensive)
Dynetics: Technical Rating: Very Good, Management Rating: Very Good
SpaceX: Technical Rating: Acceptable, Management Rating: Acceptable (cheapest)
From April 2021 selection statement:
Blue Origin: Technical Rating: Acceptable, Management Rating: Very Good
Dynetics: Technical Rating: Marginal, Management Rating: Very Good (most expensive)
SpaceX: Technical Rating: Acceptable, Management Rating: Outstanding (cheapest)
Blue Origin held steady, Dynetics plummeted on the technical side, and SpaceX more than overcame doubts about its management capability.