Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/9/2022 at 2:28 PM, tater said:

PPS—If the Depot stages the nose off to leave a flat top that exactly matches the SH interstage, they could tank the LSS. Stack to the bottom of LSS, as it does with SH, then do the bulk of TLI withthe now tug Depot, depot returns to circular LEO. LSS can fly round trip to LEO.

Having just watched a vid of the Sierra Space inflatable module test I remembered this post and thought I'd throw in here the idea of an inflatable nose cone that would deflate compactly enough for the tanker starship to emulate a booster interface for a starship to refuel.  I'm not sure how hot the nose gets during ascent but maybe some kind of flexible nomex or woven fiberglass outer layer could work.  [Edit]  there could be a section that would be intentional pierced during refueling and refurbished on the ground.  The piercing would be designed to push in between the woven straps of the structures rather than tearing through them

Edited by darthgently
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Having just watched a vid of the Sierra Space inflatable module test I remembered this post and thought I'd throw in here the idea of an inflatable nose cone that would deflate compactly enough for the tanker starship to emulate a booster interface for a starship to refuel.  I'm not sure how hot the nose gets during ascent but maybe some kind of flexible nomex or woven fiberglass outer layer could work.  [Edit]  there could be a section that would be intentional pierced during refueling and refurbished on the ground.  The piercing would be designed to push in between the woven straps of the structures rather than tearing through them

The original plan was to fuel Starship trough superheavy but the skipped that, probably to save on the piping inside superheavy and they needed to stabilize the stack anyway. 
Current plan is to refuel side by side. 
I assume the depot will have an docking adapter and fuel piping looking like the quick disconnect adapter. I also guess it has an standard fueling adapter on the other side. 
Down the line I would like an androgynous adapter so Starships could refuel each others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

So, production at the Cape might begin sooner than we think...

 

Either they are reeeaaaal confident in the iteration they (hopefully) plan to test soon, or they're simply getting stuff ready for production.  Parallel / competing design & iteration seems perhaps aggressive to me given we've not seen SH fly yet and SS is still a very early prototype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

The original plan was to fuel Starship trough superheavy but the skipped that, probably to save on the piping inside superheavy and they needed to stabilize the stack anyway. 
Current plan is to refuel side by side. 
I assume the depot will have an docking adapter and fuel piping looking like the quick disconnect adapter. I also guess it has an standard fueling adapter on the other side. 
Down the line I would like an androgynous adapter so Starships could refuel each others. 

Yeah, I replying to the concept that tanker starship (not super heavy) could have a top like superheavy so refueling would use the same docking mechanisms that were used between the booster and starship.  But that left tanker starship with a need for some kind of removable nose cone. Anyway...

Edited by darthgently
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Barzon said:

A Raptor just ate itself at McGregor (again)

Gobble gobble, nom nom.

On 9/10/2022 at 9:59 PM, tater said:

 

Just an aside, but as usual, public reporting on spaceflight sucks SO bad.

This, from EarthSky:

Untitled.png

Yes, "perhaps" Falcon 9 would struggle with lofting a 1.5 tonne payload. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Barzon said:

A Raptor just ate itself at McGregor (again): 

That green flame is spectacular. Maybe they should add little bit copper containing chemical in fuel in those missions do not need 100 % capacity.

Do you know was that unexpected anomaly or did they some destructive or intentionally risky testing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...