RCgothic
-
Posts
2,872 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by RCgothic
-
-
Interesting shot of the damage.
Construction near the high bay.
Pad C? At the old oil well.
-
I don't think modular Saturn really works as a concept. The only common stage was S-IVB, an upper stage on both. S-II as a 1st stage would never get off the launch pad. You need a different 1st stage for each configuration.
Core+SRBs is a very cheap way to get variable performance.
Having a common upper and lower core diameter also reduces tooling costs. This is why the "Heavy" configuration of multiple cores also works quite well.
-
-
2 hours ago, DDE said:
Was it, though? I believe the coking is the reason for the rush to methalox.
Whilst I'm not sure if individual Merlins have flown/fired more times than SSMEs, I believe the SSMEs were completely overhauled between flights whereas Merlins apparently needs little more than cleaning fluid.
-
7 minutes ago, derega16 said:
Isn't that more problem on launch more than space operation itself?
You'd have thought. But apparently it really doesn't like being exposed to solar radiation.
-
1 minute ago, derega16 said:
This make me realize how awesome it would be if any of shuttle ET adaptation program was persued, like telescope one or wet lab one
I saw this discussed today on Twitter. The foam shedding situation was described as like "popcorn". Probably not the best idea after all.
-
-
Random musing I think probably doesn't deserve its own thread:
Space Shuttle would have been better with Kerolox Main Engines. My reasoning:
1. No insulation foam.
2. RP1 up top would prevent falling ice.
3. Extreme reusability of Kerolox engines have been demonstrated.
4. It doesn't need to go BLEO so low ISP isn't a handicap.
5. Smaller External Tank.
Yes it would be about 700t heavier on the pad, but it'd still be lighter than Saturn.
-
-
SN9 is on the move:
-
Although actually, by stunting HLS funding Artemis is going to get pushed back so maybe an SLS might be available for clipper after all. It's all a bit Machiavellian.
-
I've asked on Twitter but I'm not fully clear - are the bid amounts total for the next phase of development? I.e. divided over years it at least *somewhat* matches the proposed funding.
Or is it an annual dev cost and the proposed funding is therefore a joke?
-
Ok, wow. Maybe NT aren't the front runners after all!
On that budget I think SpaceX is the only realistic prospect.
-
In other SLS news:
SLS won't be available. It can't be spared from Artemis.
-
4th time lucky?
-
News round up.
-
Pretty cool
-
20 consecutive landings despite failures earlier in the year is pretty impressive:
-
On 12/17/2020 at 9:20 AM, Albert ninestein said:
Sorry for old thread revival. I was googling the (impossible) idea of recycling rocket exhaust in a closed system which this topic shows doesn't work to get forward motion.
My thoughts that led me here were a closed cylinder with a device at one end that launches a lump of ice backwards towards the rear of the cylinder. If the rear of the cylinder was open then the lump would exit the craft and there would be a positive thrust (I think).
What would happen if the cylinder was now closed and after launching the lump of ice a series of lasers were fired at it from within the cylinder so it was vaporised before if hit the rear of the cylinder and cancelled out the forward momentum gained from launching it reward.
Is there any possibile configuration of this setup or do you still end up with the same mass of steam instead of ice going backwards (sorry no drawing but hopefully my description is clear).
If you vaporise the ice chunk then its water vapour atoms will impact the rear of the cylinder with the same momentum transfer as the solid lump of ice.
If you can draw an imaginary border around your system such that nothing crosses that boundary, then that system has not exchanged momentum with its environment and shall not be moving today.
-
They aren't going to replace the failed PDU on Orion because it's too hard to access and the risk of collateral damage exceeds the risk of flying without one of the capsule's redundancies.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/12/17/artemis-i-orion-progress-update/
-
It'll be a good-looking rocket when they build it.
-
-
3 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:
I'm not an engineer, but I can't think of an alternative solution that would solve as many problems as the header tanks do. They provide propellant for the landing burn, minimise propellant sloshing as they're always full, and balance the COM for stable EDL. Sure, they had the fuel header pressurisation issue on SN8, but the fact that they're not immediately scrapping newer SNs probably implies that that issue can either be fixed by software or minor hardware alterations. Starship's EDL sequence is incredibly dynamic and successfully drawing sloshing propellant from the huge main tanks during the violent flip maneuver sounds like it'd be harder than simply altering the header tank system slightly.
As far as I can tell, this means one of two things:
- They need more time to fix SN9.
- They need more time to scrap SN9 and bring SN10 up to speed.
Header tanks also insulate the propellant from direct sunlight via the vacuum in the main tanks.
-
New video from Everyday Astronaut and some Elon comments:
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
NSF has a new article on SN9's test and flight program:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/12/starship-sn9s-test-series-targets-new-years/