Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


708 Excellent


Profile Information

  • About me
    Wernher's Appretice
  • 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

2,785 profile views
  1. It means they made it work. They were able to get the design mass back within margins shortly after the HLS selection, so this isn’t really news.
  2. I know this is kinda off topic, but while you remember right about the dual turbines, each also had their own separate preburner: That said, you are onto something. Pratt and Whitney also thought it would be a fine idea to stick both turbines onto a common preburner: This didn’t end up actually being used as an SSME powerhead, but I have it on good authority that the XLR-129 which led to this proposal also heavily influenced the block upgrades that did fly on later engines, and which are being used as SLSME*s today! *Space Launch System Main Engine, which I just made up. They actually call them RS-25s nowadays.
  3. I think that take is a little more cynical than mine. I don't necessarily think you're wrong, just... oof. I hope Mars is a little more concrete of a thing than crypto.
  4. The thing is, Mars is really, really expensive. They need to make money to pay for Mars, and if they run out of money operating Starship as a white elephant then they're not gonna be able to make that hapen. I have my own doubts about how sincere Musk is with those plans, but even if he's totally being honest about how engaged he is, even as the richest person in the world he can't afford to be operating a superheavy launch vehicle and developing the rest of the program without making money. It's really important that everything is as economical as possible, including launch - so there's a really strong incentive there to make the thing pay for itself. Starship does need to make money if it's gonna be an effective vehicle for those plans.
  5. Yeah, but at the risk of sounding obvious, while it’s a human-rated car, it’s not a human-rated spacecraft.
  6. Well, that might be part of it, but the machinery still looks pretty big when there is a nozzle to put it into context:
  7. I think this is a mandatory review since it missed its window - they’ll almost certainly come out with “yeah, it is.”
  8. Please don't do that. I can't stop you, but preordering creates preverse incentives for game publishers. It encourages the release of games that aren't feature-complete or playtested properly. KSP2 is not immune to this.
  9. ...after release and reviews, of course.
  10. How will we tell it they worked or not?
  11. This I do disagree with a little. They put a capable abort system on it this time, thank goodness.
  12. That seems more likely than my “the engine was shutting down after almost too early of a start” idea.
  13. I remember the Galileo atmosphere probe had something like half of its mass just in the heatshield, but it did survive entry. So it’s possible to have something survive entry even at >48 km/s. That being said, just how bad of an idea is it to try to aerobrake an orbiter at a gas giant to save on Δv required for capture from fast transfers?
  14. I’m guessing that the “composite heat shield structure” they’re looking at reusing is not the ablative material, but instead some framing and support to keep the ablative where it needs to be.
  15. This is just speculation on my part, but I’ve suspected for a while if it gets to this point they’ll do a thorough review and analysis of the possible failure modes and risks involved with the propellant sag of leaving the boosters stacked for so long. Through that they’ll conveniently find that the SRBs are good to go for another couple of months.
  • Create New...