Skylon

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Blue Origin of Kent and SpaceX of Hawthorne. Sounds like they’re honorable knights or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-us-industry-partnerships-to-advance-moon-mars-technology

Quote

SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, will work with NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to advance their technology to vertically land large rockets on the Moon. This includes advancing models to assess engine plume interaction with lunar regolith.

 

Quote

SpaceX will work with Glenn and Marshall to advance technology needed to transfer propellant in orbit, an important step in the development of the company’s Starship space vehicle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Parafoil! Oh, if only we could get recording of fairing halves gently gliding towards catcher ships :D

Edited by Scotius
A typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sh1pman said:

Blue Origin of Kent and SpaceX of Hawthorne. Sounds like they’re honorable knights or something...

It sounds to me that NASA needs SpaceX a lot more than they need NASA atm 

They better at least be getting paid handsomely for it.

( Who really cares what the engine exaust will do to the lunar dirt btw Apollo seemed to get by fine :/ )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dale Christopher said:

It sounds to me that NASA needs SpaceX a lot more than they need NASA atm 

They better at least be getting paid handsomely for it.

( Who really cares what the engine exaust will do to the lunar dirt btw Apollo seemed to get by fine :/ )

I think it's that SpaceX can use the facilities and expertise, and NASA can use the data sort of thing, with no transfer of money. But I may be wrong.

Apollo didn't have to use that engine again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

NASA is taking Starship seriously? I'm becoming less and less skeptical of flying water towers.

I sometimes wish to take just a tiny peek into the future and see how well all those SpaceX plans went and which got changed and which ones worked/didn't work.

Edit:

image0.jpg

Edited by Wjolcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Apollo didn't have to use that engine again.

Ah yer true, wouldn’t want to try to take off only to find a family of lunar ground squirrels had made a nest in your thrust nozzle XD

Edited by Dale Christopher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money not changing hands I think. SpaceX gets NASA data, NASA gets data from SpaceX.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said:

Who really cares what the engine exaust will do to the lunar dirt btw Apollo seemed to get by fine :/

Apollo didn’t have to take off again with the same engine. ;) Which, IIRC, would sustain considerable damage as it was, just from the interaction of the plume with the surface. Sadly, the real world is not the Kerbalverse where you can just land on your engines. ;.;

20 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

sometimes wish to take just a tiny peek into the future and see how well all those SpaceX plans went and which got changed and which ones worked/didn't work.

And maybe pickup a sports almanac while you’re there... place a couple of bets... y’know, no big deal... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Sadly, the real world is not the Kerbalverse where you can just land on your engines. ;.;

Apollo 15 did.

The Apollo descent motor nozzle was designed to be crushable, because they knew they had very limited control over how smooth the terrain was and they didn't have a great deal of clearance between the landing leg pads and the nozzle. Starting with Apollo 15 they had even less than before, because the extra mass of the rover required them to use a bigger nozzle in order to get more performance from the descent engine.

Edited by mikegarrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Apollo 15 did

Au conter counter contry :P I disagree. While Dave Scott certainly did thump it down, the nozzle didn’t actually contact the surface, it buckled due to (relevant subject!) firing so close to the lunar surface, as mentioned here (about 10:00 in):

Hence why the whole subject needs further study. Either way, still wouldn’t wanna take off with it. :wacko:

Edited by CatastrophicFailure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a lunar base is ever established, it also sounds like NASA & SpaceX would both be keen to get a better handle on how best to stop everything nearby (habitats, rovers, equipment, astronauts etc) from being turned into a sieve every time a rocket lands or takes off nearby and starts flinging dirt around at 3km/s in an environment where there's no air to slow the debris down.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2014/0419-forensic-ballistics.html

" The exhaust of the Shuttle’s solid rocket boosters pulled several thousand bricks from the wall of the launch pad’s flame trench, slammed them into each other, creating many thousands of fragments, and blew them as far as a kilometer from the pad."  :o

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think, maybe a flame trench dedicated to landing?

 

First rockets land simutaniously, sets up infrastructure for a landing pad.

Other rockets use that pad for propulsive landing, bringing a lunar base with them.

Edited by Xd the great

Share this post


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

Au conter counter contry :P I disagree. While Dave Scott certainly did thump it down, the nozzle didn’t actually contact the surface, it buckled due to (relevant subject!) firing so close to the lunar surface, as mentioned here (about 10:00 in):

Hence why the whole subject needs further study. Either way, still wouldn’t wanna take off with it. :wacko:

Interesting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tater said:

interesting. Also seems like good news for Starship if they are actually doing this kind of research. Makes it more real somehow. 

Poor BO... If Starship is landing on The Moon that lander seems pretty obsolete. Maybe there will be a market for delivery of robot missions to the surface, but put that next to what is basically a giant chrome hotel... it seems pretty (insert word here that the language filter will turn into "excrement") XD

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

If Starship is landing on The Moon that lander seems pretty obsolete.

They have to fly to orbit first (Starship), then work out the refilling ops. Long poles.

As for BO...

They have to fly to orbit first (with literally anything), then work out transfers and lunar landing, lol. Long poles.

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

The first thing the Starship troopers had seen on the Moon was a rocket nosecone on the horizon.
Watching at it in binoculars they read: "New Musk".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about putting some Super Draco’s higher up on the fuselage?  Can act as a landing engine high above the surface and also an escape system if the craft could be split away from its fuel tanks somehow

Share this post


Link to post
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.