sevenperforce Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 50 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Every time when a SpaceX design flips 180°, it's stated that "SpaceX knows better! That's the best way indeed!" The obvious fact that the "indeed"'s totally contradict each other and look like anything but an existing plan, doesn't matter. Where are those two starships docked by ends? They told me that it is the obviously best way to do. How long is it till turning the 2nd stage into a shuttle and stopping showing off? SpaceX: “We’re going to refuel in configuration A, but we’re not entirely sure how it will work.” Kerbi and Friends: “Preposterous! It will never work!” SpaceX: “If we refuel in configuration B, we can use thrusters for propellant settling.” Kerbi and Friends: “You don’t know what you’re doing! Paper rocket!” SpaceX: “It turns out we can use thrusters for propellant settling even in configuration A, which simplifies GSE operations.” Kerbi and Friends: “You’re contradicting yourself! Just admit defeat! Shuttle!” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 16 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Kerbi and Friends: “You’re contradicting yourself! Just admit defeat! Shuttle!” While the shuttle has flown for 135(?) times. SpaceX and Kerbi&Friends have exactly same number of successful Starship flights. I believe in Shuttle engineers. They prove they knew betteer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 26 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: While the shuttle has flown for 135(?) times. SpaceX and Kerbi&Friends have exactly same number of successful Starship flights. I believe in Shuttle engineers. They prove they knew betteer. The Shuttle concept was announced in 1968 and the Shuttle design was finalized in 1972. The first landing tests took place in 1977 and the first orbital test took place in 1981. The original ITS concept was announced in 2016 and the design was finalized in 2019. The first landing tests took place in 2020 and the first orbital test will most likely take place in 2021, with operational flights in 2022. The Shuttle took 4 years for a finalized design; Starship took 3. The Shuttle took 5 years to go from a finalized design to landing tests; Starship took 1-2 (depending on whether you count unsuccessful tests). The Shuttle took 4 years to go from the first landing test to an orbital launch test; Starship will have taken less than 2. It took 39 years from the date that the Shuttle design was finalized for the Shuttle to reach 135 orbital launches. How many times do you think Starship will have launched by 2058? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 (edited) 34 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: The first landing tests took place in 2020 and the first orbital test will most likely take place in 2021, with operational flights in 2022. = exactly 0 flight tests, and exactly 0 atmospheric flight tests (unlike the shuttle) 34 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Starship took 3. To the moment, and still keeps taking. Until it flies, it's not finalized. They even don't know which side to dock. 34 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: How many times do you think Starship will have launched by 2058? I more "worry", how many times it will be landed. Edited August 9, 2021 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 29 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: = exactly 0 flight tests, and exactly 0 atmospheric flight tests (unlike the shuttle) How is SN15 different from the Enterprise atmospheric flight test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Enterprise couldn't even launch under its own power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 18 minutes ago, Beccab said: How is SN15 different from the Enterprise atmospheric flight test? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_and_Landing_Tests Spoiler Anything but a hopping mockup ever doing this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Looks like a hopping mockup to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 28 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Anything but a hopping mockup ever doing this? The Enterprise is a shuttle without heat shield and any engine, without even the mounts for the orbital thrusters. It had a very small number of sample heat tiles to test the attachment system. The landing gear also lacked the proper mechanism used in the real Shuttles and used temporary single use explosive bolts. Remembers you of anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 34 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_and_Landing_Tests Hide contents Anything but a hopping mockup ever doing this? It didn’t even have engines. 1 hour ago, kerbiloid said: To the moment, and still keeps taking. Until it flies, it's not finalized. They even don't know which side to dock. And I assume you also agree that the Shuttle didn’t even know how to dock until 1995, because that was when the docking adapter was installed in Atlantis to enable it to dock to Mir in STS-71? Oh, wait, that was a different docking adapter than the one Atlantis ultimately used for the ISS, so....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Just now, sevenperforce said: It didn’t even have engines. It had lifting body and wings, and fin. A real spaceship performing a real flight, just from plane. 1 minute ago, sevenperforce said: Shuttle didn’t even know how to dock until 1995 Shuttle knew how to dock, because it was designed to dock to the Skylab, using Apollo docking adaptor. It never had a doubt if dock with tail or with wing. Its adaptor was just not implemented in metal. And it didn't affect its ability to perform a spaceflight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: It had lifting body and wings, and fin. A real spaceship performing a real flight, just from plane. Ah, so I assume Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Vostock, Voshkod, Soyuz, Dragon, Starliner, Orion all aren't real spaceships. They don't have a lifting body, wings or fins after all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Oh, wait, that was a different docking adapter than the one Atlantis ultimately used for the ISS Atlantis 7 times docked to Mir and 12 to ISS, so it had a variant of APAS-95. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Beccab said: Ah, so I assume Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Vostock, Voshkod, Soyuz, Dragon, Starliner, Orion all aren't real spaceships. They don't have a lifting body, wings or fins after all Conical capsules (except Mercury) are lifting bodies themselves. Spherical (Vostok/Voskhod) and Merucry aren't, but they are just first several attempts, and they were 2 m in diameter. 2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: A glider that could neither have functioned in space nor survived re-entry from space. A glider with aerodynamics of real shuttle. Where is the Starship gliding test? 2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Because Shuttle docked to Skylab so many times, right? Shuttle was designed keeping in mind the ability, but this was not critical for its flight. 2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: so they had to change the entire docking structure for Mir and ISS. They changed nothing except the adaptor. Edited August 9, 2021 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: It had lifting body and wings, and fin. A real spaceship performing a real flight, just from plane. A glider that could neither have functioned in space nor survived re-entry from space. 5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Shuttle knew how to dock, because it was designed to dock to the Skylab, using Apollo docking adaptor. It never had a doubt if dock with tail or with wing. Because Shuttle docked to Skylab so many times, right? Oh, wait, it didn’t, and so they had to change the entire docking structure for Mir and ISS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Spherical (Vostok/Voskhod) and Merucry aren't, but they are just first several attempts, First several attempts which worked 2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: they were 2 m in diameter. And? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 (The answers merged in the previous post by the forum) Just now, Beccab said: And? And absolutely different picture of stresses for absolutely different envelope size and shape. What's the difference between a parachute and Boeing-747? They both fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Where is the Starship gliding test? You realize SN8-SN15 were all gliding tests, right? You understand how body lift works, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: You realize SN8-SN15 were all gliding tests, right? Of an empty mockup, not of a fully loaded glider. Currently they have a 30-engine wannabe-1st-stage and a cylinder-with-winglets wannabe-2nd-stage. None of them ever flew seriously. Edited August 9, 2021 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: And absolutely different picture of stresses for absolutely different envelope size and shape. The Gemini capsule was 3 meters in diameter, the Apollo one is 4 meters while the Orion capsule is 5 meters. I assume only Gemini is actually possible and the others are impossible to work with all that size difference, no? 2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Of an empty mockup, not of a fully loaded glider. Please describe a "fully loaded glider". Do you think that Starship will land with full fuel tanks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Just now, Beccab said: The Gemini capsule was 3 meters in diameter, It was 90 in = 2.3 m in diameter, and unlike the Mercury it was already a lifting body. Its shape was much easier to aerobrake than a cylinder perpendicular to flow, and it landed by chutes, and used no winglets. Apollo capsule was 3.5 m in dianeter. All of them are smaller, stronger, and have simpler shape. Their aerodynamics is rather primitive, compared to Starship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Apollo capsule was 3.5 m in dianeter. Which doesn't contradict what I said at all. Your argument "it's bigger so it can't work" is meaningless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Of an empty mockup, Just like Enterprise? No engines, RCS, heat shield, payload… You keep splitting hairs over what qualifies as a flight test article for an orbital rocket you’re gonna end up looking like Picard sooner or later… 2 minutes ago, Beccab said: Which doesn't contradict what I said at all. Your argument "it's bigger so it can't work" is meaningless I think he’s trying to argue “it’s not a space shuttle so it can’t work…” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Beccab said: Which doesn't contradict what I said at all. Your argument "it's bigger so it can't work" is meaningless Starship is a cylindric envelope aerobraking with the side surface, using winglets to stay stable, overturning to land vertically on engines on the exact landing point. Capsules are conical bodies aerobraking axially (mostly), having no need in everything other due to chutes. The only thing to compare is Shuttle/Buran. 4 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Just like Enterprise? No engines, RCS, heat shield, payload… Aerodynamics. Edited August 9, 2021 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 1 minute ago, kerbiloid said: The conly thing to compare is Shuttle/Buran. For you. Those aren't cylindrical, which doesn't mean that starship can't work, just that it is an awful comparison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.