Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,663 Excellent


About magnemoe

  • Rank
    Flight Director

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yes, space planes has the benefit of having an large cross section then re-entering and they can land like planes. Downsides is the weight of the wings and the landing gear and structure letting it land as a plane. They are also expensive to develop. Powered landings has the benefit of using the engines you already need and it land upright so forces is a lot like liftoff. Now one smart thing about starship is that it does not need to survive reentry to work as an cheap very heavy lift rocket. I don't think launching starlinks on SS will be much more expensive than on falcon 9 even
  2. Funny since most planes has an cylindrical body. Exceptions tend to be modern fighter jets and stuff like the B2. However here the hull is not pressurized and its reasons why hull is not an cylinder like having to fit two huge engines or stealth.
  3. This makes sense as in suicide burn, optimal trajectory here is to get
  4. Well dear moon is commercial. I say this is structural, first organisations like NASA or the military is not supposed to make profit, for the military its even restrictions on this to prevent the officers from using transport aircraft or engineering companies for commercial work. Even in an profit oriented company divisions like customer support are not designed to make an profit, even trough they make some money on stuff like premium support or consultant work their main purpose is customer satisfaction and have them stay with company.
  5. The training module for it anyway, you drive with an 3 second delay but this is trivial with modern tech anyway. Might even be relevant to have an group of unmanned rovers onboard who is controlled from earth and expand the capabilities of the ship. I say the same will be relevant on Mars missions too but here controlled from starship crew. This will be fast cars compared to current rovers as they are charged at the ship
  6. Agree, they probably start launching starlinks on 3th-4th orbital flight, might do an small batch on second. Then try to reenter SS and find out that went wrong. With the capacity of SS this should even be competitive with F9. I say its some chance they do an unmanned moon flyby first with an tanker before dear moon. They could use two dragons if they feel lucky, that would give the A team some days in orbit on SS before second dragon arrive. B team require that second dragon don't get bogged down or moonship leaves without them, again B team. Now they could use the actual moonsh
  7. Does not starship make NRHO redundant, starship is an space station in moon orbit if it orbit the moon. Yes starship has some weaknesses as an long duration station like steel is not very good regarding radiation.
  8. Well the cheapest would be methane and oxygen, might even air. Or as KSK proposed use an remote engine. This offers some interesting options like simply putting portals in the depths of the sea. However to make this a bit more realistic: the sender portal will require the power like the difference in kinetic energy between the rocket and the sender station. Its not an totally free lunch you just don't need the fuel tanks and to lift them with rocket engines. Therefore you will want high performance fuel, one problem with pre burning the fuel is that you can not use this to cool
  9. Its bolts trough the heat shield as I understand. this is not an problem with say an 1 cm bolt, yes it will be hot but the heat would spread out pretty fast. Cabling and cooling pass the umbilical arm on the side to avoid heating as this is stuff who can not handle heat and its also an much larger hole. Pretty sure all capsules use an variant of this.
  10. As I understand much of the problems with the landings has been sloshing in the header tank. First they used pressurized methane but the sloshing created an pressure drop. Next try with helium pressurization and you got bubbles in the methane. Now they know this they can simulate it at least with helium and design baffles who reduce sloshing but don't trap gas while flipping.
  11. SpaceX has the benefit that they only need their hot gas landing engines who they need anyway for accurate landing on earth. Yes they need new legs but they don't have to retract or be hidden by heat shields, an nose docking port. In short this will be pretty cheap for SpaceX, Main cost is probably the procedures for the operation
  12. 13 Jupiter worth of mass will initiate fusion. however this is not the answer you was looking for
  13. Orion is very marginal as an starship, yes you could build something the size of half an death star, there the other half was an pusher plate and use hundreds of megaton charges who would give decent isp. Interplanetary orion make the solar system an playground so would any very marginal interstellar drives.
  14. Good point, but doubt if an 3d weave of carbon nanotube inside a diamond resign would be strong enough And yes the obvious problem then the oxygen interact with carbon.
  15. Then I would used an tiny rocket instead of an gun. Scale this down to something like the fatman in fallout but obviously with an real rocket behind it. https://www.schlockmercenary.com/ has antimatter in an Fullerene matrix as an very strong explosive, no I don't think it would work but an fun idea.
  • Create New...