Skylon

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

It was designed for propulsive landing after de-orbit. I think the only design change is not doing the landings, I doubt they would have resized the fuel tanks. Of course I could very well be wrong, so take this with a grain (or mountain) of salt.

What about venting fuel after deorbiting and before chute opening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

What about venting fuel after deorbiting and before chute opening?

It's hypergolic, flammable, and toxic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It's hypergolic, flammable, and toxic..

The apollo did this...

And wouldnt the propulsive landings be harder without altitude to surface, which the dragon is unlikely equipped with?

Chances are that propulsive landing would be harder than a failing triple chute.

The last time a chute failed, it was the soyuz 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xd the great said:

The apollo did this...

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM06_Command_Module_Overview_pp39-52.pdf

270 lb on start, so a pair of canisters on descending.

 

1 hour ago, Xd the great said:

The last time a chute failed, it was the soyuz 1.

When it totally failed.

Sometimes 1 of 3 failed.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It's hypergolic, flammable, and toxic..

As opposed to all those entirely non-flammable rocket fuels presumably?

Edit:  Scratch that comment before this thread devolves into an argument as to whether kerosene counts as a flammable fuel.

 

 

Edited by KSK
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KSK said:

As opposed to all those entirely non-flammable rocket fuels presumably?

As opposed to all things which you want to pour on your capsule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KSK said:

As opposed to all those entirely non-flammable rocket fuels presumably?

 

 

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

As opposed to all things which you want to pour on your capsule.

I launched a rocket with just air and water, once. :D

Granted it didn’t go very high, but...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

 

I launched a rocket with just air and water, once. :D

Granted it didn’t go very high, but...

*blasts rocket aluminium strut with water beofre launching it*

*rocket explodes*

Edited by Xd the great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Xd the great said:

And wouldnt the propulsive landings be harder without altitude to surface, which the dragon is unlikely equipped with?

They would, but it’s relatively trivial to upgrade it with something like the Soviet strontium-based Kaktus gamma-ray backscatter altimeter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heheh:

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! StarHopper is that big? I mean, i've seen tiny peple next to it, but comparing it to Space Shuttle really bring things into perspective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scotius said:

Wow! StarHopper is that big? I mean, i've seen tiny peple next to it, but comparing it to Space Shuttle really bring things into perspective.

Zero surprise. Sci-fi ship designers have been adding “greebles” to their ships since forever to make them seem bigger than a flat surface would.

imperial_class_star_destroyer-wallpaper-

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DDE said:

Zero surprise. Sci-fi ship designers have been adding “greebles” to their ships since forever to make them seem bigger than a flat surface would.

Starship would look like greeble on those Star Destroyers, since the Millenium Falcon was stuck to the back of a SD bridge below one of the geodesic domes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, tater said:

Starship would look like greeble on those Star Destroyers, since the Millenium Falcon was stuck to the back of a SD bridge below one of the geodesic domes.

It would look more or less like this:

iVOA0I0.jpg

So, not quite blending in with the rest of the greeble. An Imperial-class Star Destroyer is 1600 m long, or almost exactly one mile.

Edited by cubinator
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, cubinator said:

So, not quite blending in with the rest of the greeble. An Imperial-class Star Destroyer is 1600 m long, or almost exactly one mile.

That's the bogus figure you see on the internet, but the Falcon on the back makes that 1600m figure way too big. I want to say it's closer to 700m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tater said:

That's the bogus figure you see on the internet, but the Falcon on the back makes that 1600m figure way too big. I want to say it's closer to 700m.

*coughs*

Canonical, Disney Approved Data.

The movies are FULL of inconsistencies, especially in ESD and RotJ. These have sparked endless debate about the *real* size of ships, yes, but almost exclusively the Executor, not the ISD.

 

Back on topic, though... I'm increasingly curious as to how this is going to shake out. Part of me remains deeply skeptical, but I was also deeply skeptical of their plans to reuse the Falcon 9 first stage, and we all know how that turned out.

It;s a shame they decided not to attempt reuse of the second stage as well... they've got a heck of a product with the Block 5 Falcon 9. It'd be a shame to just throw it away when they get their (literally) shiny new toy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tater said:

Heheh:

 

I really like the design of a rocket in the middle. It looks spectacular on the photo that Elon shared in his Twitter. I wonder how the third rocket will look like. Hope to see it in the near future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

*coughs*

Canonical, Disney Approved Data.

The movies are FULL of inconsistencies, especially in ESD and RotJ. These have sparked endless debate about the *real* size of ships, yes, but almost exclusively the Executor, not the ISD.

I don't care what any approved data says, I can see the 2 stuck together, which is the best relative measure. If 2 ships look the same... they're the same. A CA doesn't look exactly like a BB  perfectly scaled down.

On topic:

 

LOL, Startship cam (live cam feed from South padre Island, the view switches, but wait a couple minutes and you'll see close ups):

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, tater said:

I don't care what any approved data says, I can see the 2 stuck together, which is the best relative measure. If 2 ships look the same... they're the same. A CA doesn't look exactly like a BB  perfectly scaled down.

 

That's a problem with the Falcon, not the ISD. See also the falcon docked with the medical frigate in the same movie, and the medical bay window with known characters standing next to it, does not match those same characters standing against or inside the falcon.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

That's a problem with the Falcon, not the ISD. See also the falcon docked with the medical frigate in the same movie, and the medical bay window with known characters standing next to it, does not match those same characters standing against or inside the falcon.

More evidence Lucas is an idiot then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now