Jump to content

RyanRising

Members
  • Content Count

    619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

386 Excellent

1 Follower

About RyanRising

  • Rank
    Wernher's Appretice

Profile Information

  • Location
    Stuck in Jool's core, I thought we went over this!
  • Interests
    Lightsabers, space, I tend to fixate on one thing a lot for a long time and then move on. I've done this to KSP thrice, apparently.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,577 profile views
  1. Raptors are still finicky, I see. I wonder if we’ll ever get to hear the stories of the development challenges with Raptor, much like the early days of the SSME or the F1? I hope we do, and it’s from the same angle of “we had to throw this many engines in the meat grinder to get something that consistently worked, but once it did, it really worked.” ...I thought the people who were suggesting this were joking. Had no idea it was an actual option.
  2. This paper investigates a hydrogen engine using a mixture ratio that’s variable but still pretty near the common 6:1 oxidiser/fuel mix for hydrogen, which isn’t stoichometric. But a FFSC engine is still investigated, compared to a fuel-rich SC engine, where it shows no benefits in specific impulse, but instead says the benefits are in avoiding needing really high-performance helium seals and taking some of the load off of the higher-power fuel turbopump and transferring it to the lower-power oxidiser turbopump, and (I think as a result) the maximum pressure in any turbopump is lower. I was
  3. Would Blackrack's Singularity shader be a good fit here?
  4. I don't see why a full-flow staged combustion cycle necessitates a stoichometric mix - all it means is you have both an oxidiser-rich and fuel-rich preburner that both supply the main combustion chamber, right? So your fuel-rich preburner could be more fuel-rich than your oxygen-rich preburner is oxygen-rich, resulting in a mixture ratio that's still fuel-rich. I'd also like to say that, perhaps in contrast to Zorg, I really like do like having the cyan colour in there as a contrast to the purple near sea level, and (in the case of a RAPIER's closed cycle) to the orange-yellow plasma surr
  5. That fuel doesn't return to the economy, but the money spent on it does in exactly the same way the money spent on SLS does. Almost all ways you can possibly spend money have the same effect.
  6. OK, but that money could have easily come from somewhere else. Our work making money is how the company funds us doing the work and drinking coffee. NASA gets money from the government instead, but it doesn’t really matter - money is interchangeable, so it shouldn’t matter where that money comes from when you spend it. Just cause we made revenue doesn’t make our expenses less real. And just cause NASA money flows to other things, and, in part, itself (through the US government) doesn’t make SLS cost less.
  7. I’m a little confused now. I’m buying John Doe? We’re spending the same amount of money on more coffee?
  8. Cost is an upfront measure, how the money gets distributed after it’s spent doesn’t lower it. It’s like, if I go to Starbucks and buy a coffee, that $5 will get distributed amongst the workers, corporate, and maybe even wherever they get the materials for it. Those people will use that money again to do other stuff. But the coffee still costs me $5.
  9. Or flipping upside down. What’s the deal with that, anyway? I could have sworn they didn’t do this a while back.
  10. Wow. Thanks for doing the math! I was expecting a ridiculous result, and boy howdy I guess I got one. I think this could be used as a good preface to introducing modern moon missions: it explains why doing things like Apollo did doesn't scale up well at all, and why we need to take a different approach this time around. Tyranny of the rocket equation indeed.
  11. Looks to me like they are tapered, though very slightly, on the case walls. This is less pronounced in 5.56x45 than, say, 7.62x39, but I think it's still present. That being said, I'm only reading the documentation here, not actually poring over handful of ammo. I understand, though, that you'd want some amount of taper to help with extraction? If they were perfectly straight-walled, seems to me the cases would really like to stick in the chamber no matter how hard you pull on the end.
  12. I think Starship will probably be expensive enough that expending it won't be cheaper than a F9 launch. There's a lot of hardware and work hours that will go into a full-up orbital Starship, and it's a significantly more complex beast than a F9 second stage. That being said, I absolutely think that they'll put Starlink sats on the first couple orbital launches and reentry tests. You're going to orbit anyway, why not put something up there?
  13. I think it depends on the casing - if your round is tapered and you try to line them up wall-to-wall, you'll get a curve. If your magazine is long enough and the round is tapered enough, matching the magazine to the curve the rounds naturally make will improve feeding. For an extreme example of this, see the Chauchat magazine. Straight magazines, on the other hand, are easier to pack, so if the magazine is short enough relative to the taper of your cartridge that you can get away without curving it it's usually easier to handle. Additionally, some cartridges aren't tapered at all, so a cu
  14. I know this absolutely, positively will not and cannot happen, for many, many reasons. But what sort of rocket would it take to send Orion, an appropriately upgraded service module, and a four-person lander on a lunar landing mission single-launch? Expense, debris, and politics aside.
  15. I thought the 10 uses per booster was the figure given as what they wanted to be able to do without substantial refurbishment, not the minimum break-even point. Or do those numbers just happen to coincide?
×
×
  • Create New...