Jump to content

zolotiyeruki

Members
  • Content Count

    706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

476 Excellent

About zolotiyeruki

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The shuttle had a lifting body and wings because 1) one of the requirements was for 1000 miles of crossrange capability, i.e. it could land anywhere within 1000 miles of its intended target, and 2) it needed to be rapidly reusable (which never happened), and a horizontal landing had the potential for minimizing how much refurbishment was required before relaunch.
  2. If you're going to catch SS in a net, you could also add parachutes to slow the descent. Since stopping distance is proportional to the square of the starting speed, assuming constant deceleration, dropping the terminal velocity, say, in half would reduce the stopping distance by 75%. The approach seems a bit odd to me, given SpaceX's decision to scrap a similar approach with the fairings. Of course, the fairings have a much lower vertical velocity, and are presumably much more susceptible to wind, and SpaceX have figured out how to fish them out of the ocean without damage. I *wou
  3. Is there a corrosion issue with storing LOx in a mild steel tank?
  4. So....no big net to catch F9 fairing halves, but yes to a really, really big net for catching SS? That's gonna be somethin' to watch... WRT the tanks, it might also just be a matter of "Hey, the welding crew has a couple days with nothing on the schedule. Since we're paying them anyway, why don't we get them to build us a GSE tank?"
  5. It may also be an issue of delivery timing. With the pace of fabrication on-site, SpaceX may have realized that, setting cost aside, it would be faster to build their own tanks than to bid it out, select a supplier, wait for the supplier to get the materials, fit it into the supplier's schedule, and then somehow ship a 9m-diameter tank across some distance. Time is money, after all, so even if it ends up being more expensive, they'd get it WAY sooner, and wouldn't have to worry about the specs/requirements being misinterpreted.
  6. Well, I suppose all the accoutrements could be packed into the payload section, as you'd do with a moving truck, and then unpacked into the larger volume once it's in orbit and the fuel has been vented. It'd be a bit like building a house from the inside.
  7. I LOVE the idea of using spent SS's as a space station, but question the cost. I mean, the whole raison d'etre of Starship is reusability, which entails bringing it back down to earth to save money. If you just leave it in LEO, that sorta defeats the purpose. Is there a way to loft large, empty vessels into orbit AND bring SS back to earth? Deployable somethings like that inflatable module they put on the ISS? Some way to decouple the engines and avionics from the tanks, and then recover the expensive bits? Or, since they're currently just disposing of F9 second stages, maybe they
  8. And the LOX header tank in the nose shifts the CoM higher, away from the engines, making the gimballing even more effective
  9. Given that they're planning to land on 1-2 engines anyway (i.e. center of thrust is offset), plus the gimbal range, I'm not particularly concerned about the small shift in CoM due to the tiles. Besides, if you double-hull the windward side, that would shift the fuel leeward, but you'd be adding a whole second layer of stainless steel on the windward side, too, therefore adding more weight where you don't want it.
  10. Hehehe, this can be interpreted at least three ways off the top of my head, and all of them are gloriously humorous!
  11. I'm not terribly concerned about the "landing between towers" issue, because: 1) The towers are likely to be removed. They were originally designed for drilling oil wells, and are unlikely to be suitable for SpaceX's operations. In fact, very little of the existing topsides equipment and structure are likely to be useful. These rigs are going to get stripped down. 2) F9 landings are remarkably accurate, and I believe the same will become true for SS. Heck, with their two attempts to date, they've already been really close. 3) Any new towers could retract a la F9's strongback 4) OCI
  12. Sure, if you were designing a rocket specifically to go to the moon, you could make it significantly more efficient than Starship. But fuel is relatively cheap, and even though the cargo part of the spacecraft would need engineering, you'd be starting with a propulsion and landing section (engines, tanks, control systems, etc) that is already proven.
  13. Eh, I'm sure the birds would have been (safely) blown out of the way if Stage 1 had landed norminally. As always, it'd be interesting to find out what went wrong. It's odd awesome when *not* recovering the booster is the anomaly!
×
×
  • Create New...