Skylon

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

 

Share this post


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

Attach 6 finlegs to the Falcon. What's the difference?

And we can see how the Falcon bounced off. Unlikely these simple legs are enough good for a crew.

6 fins will change how it handle reentry a bit, as in tumble and burning up who is kind of bad. 

Falcon 9 first stage has hinges in the direction of impact not 90 degree off it, it also does an suicide burn  where minimum trust is more than the weight of the stage. 

The problem with starship is an lack of an simple abort system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually participated one time in a test of an airplane emergency escape slide in the specific condition when one main landing gear was deployed but the other one collapsed (so the airplane was tilted). The test was to show that the the emergency escape slides still worked in that case.

I'm just pointing out here that there are a LOT of ways for failures to happen, and commercial airplanes are expected to be robust enough that if you survive the crash in the first place, you're supposed to still be able to escape the vehicle.

Starship is cool, and will push the envelope in many interesting ways, but it's got SO MANY unrecoverable failure modes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Starship is cool, and will push the envelope in many interesting ways, but it's got SO MANY unrecoverable failure modes....

Yeah, which is why as much as I'd be all over a (airline safe!) rocket trip, I find the likelihood of that eventuality to be shockingly low.

Share this post


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

Yeah, which is why as much as I'd be all over a (airline safe!) rocket trip, I find the likelihood of that eventuality to be shockingly low.

What if we add ejection seats to the starship?

Share this post


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

What if we add ejection seats to the starship?

A centrifugal rotapult for 40 seats.

Share this post


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

What if we add ejection seats to the starship?

Not impossible, but the price of a trip (and the rocket itself) would probably be much higher. Not only that but I can imagine ejecting ~1000 passengers at once is pretty hard to pull off.

Edited by Wjolcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

Not impossible, but the price of a trip (and the rocket itself) would probably be much higher. Not only that but I can imagine ejecting ~1000 passengers at once is pretty hard to pull off.

Ahem.... -_-

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


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

Ahem.... -_-

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

If only KSP parachutes would tangle...

Share this post


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

NASA should add a badge: "KSP-rated" or "Proven by KSP"

That "Proven by KSP" badge would be on everything.

The other one will spark a mutiny on ISS.

Edited by Xd the great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSP Rated: This vehicle has demonstrated through extensive testing that each and every individual part will explode instantly upon exceeding design specifications and stress tolerances. Manufacturing quality has been shown to be at or below the quality of assorted items found at the side of the road, and reliability proven via multiple aborts, crashes, and unexplainable accelerations to .9999999 c. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 6:22 PM, magnemoe said:

6 fins will change how it handle reentry a bit, as in tumble and burning up who is kind of bad. 

Falcon 9 first stage has hinges in the direction of impact not 90 degree off it, it also does an suicide burn  where minimum trust is more than the weight of the stage. 

The problem with starship is an lack of an simple abort system. 

Where have I heard that one 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger

SpaceX can not afford to rick dozens of lives like that

Edited by Cheif Operations Director

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

SpaceX can not afford to rick dozens of lives like that

Humans won't be riding on Starship until after landing the thing starts to seem really boring, IMHO.

Share this post


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

Humans won't be riding on Starship until after landing the thing starts to seem really boring, IMHO.

They said the same thing about Columbia and Challenger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:

They said the same thing about Columbia and Challenger

They said they would not fly people on the Space Shuttle until shuttle flights were routine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:

They said the same thing about Columbia and Challenger

I don't think they did. The shuttle had no unmanned flights.

Share this post


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

They said they would not fly people on the Space Shuttle until shuttle flights were routine?

 

Just now, Ultimate Steve said:

I don't think they did. The shuttle had no unmanned flights.

Flight's became routine and safety standards fell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:

 

Flight's became routine and safety standards fell

Not really.

The Shuttle accidents were failure modes from the very start of flight, particularly Columbia.

SpaceX, should they ever put people on Starship, I think are of the mindset of making it as safe/redundant as possible, then just doing it. Airliners have some failure modes that are survivable (ditching, or belly landings for loss of engines), but they have others that are not really survivable. SS would be similar. If it tips over at the very end, it could be a total loss, or it might be like United 232 (Sioux City). All engines failing would be like an airliner losing the empennage. I'm pretty skeptical of SS as a crew vehicle, but that's what they are likely thinking. Early, test versions could have a crew capsule that could abort, presumably.

Share this post


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

I don't think they did. The shuttle had no unmanned flights.

Shuttle cannot do remote controlled flying. Starship can.

This means NASA needs to risk astronauts for testing/routine flying for safety data, but Starship can fly thousands of times before Elon throw himself and his gang on it.

2 hours ago, tater said:

 Early, test versions could have a crew capsule that could abort, presumably.

A crew dragon in the cargo bay.

Share this post


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

A crew dragon in the cargo bay.

That has no abort mode.

You'd need an LES system. Given the relatively inexpensive construction modality, I'd say build a capcule on top that can separate, throw some super dracos on it, and go (assuming they were gonna mess with crew).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shuttle was never designed to fly without pilots, but interestingly the Buran not only was designed to be able to fly without a crew but actually it's only flight was without a crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Starship starts looking more and more similar to GK-175 / Enerrgy-2 2nd stage.

Spoiler

gk175-10.jpg

gk175-11.jpg
 

gk175-12.jpg



gk175-13.jpg

gk175-14.jpg


gk175-15.jpg

gk175-16.jpg


gk175-17.jpg



 

(The nose shroud is heat-protected and retractable + hinged. The wings, fin, orbital engines, avionics are native Buranian.)

Both carry 100..150 t of payload in cargo bay with door(s), both have  ~1000 t total mass.
Both contain the 2nd stage propulsion system.
Both are more or less winged and finned.
Both now have heat-protected nose.

See in ITS BFS BFR Starship series, season 2:
Ep1. "Teflon (donkey)". Starship receives heat protection from one ("bottom") side. ('cuz why fry only nose when you can glide and dissipate the heat with bottom?) (hi, full-steel last-winter Starship!).
Ep2. "Wheels saga". Starship receives horizontal landing and wheels. ('cuz why land vertically when you glide horizontally).
Ep3. "Light steel". Starship receives alumium hull instead of the steel one. ('cuz why need heavy steel when the bottom is anyway heat-protected).
(upd.)
Ep4. "Pillars of Power". The first stage is replaced with 4 falcons attached aside. Payload gets decreased down to 100 t, getting closer to Falcon heavy.
Ep5. "StarFalcon". Both Falcon Heavy made of a Falcon inside and two Falcons aside and Starship projects are replaced with a post-Starship Energy-2-like winged stage with four Falcons aside. Payload ~90 t.
(To be continued).

Gigantic Sea Dragon and Nexus were made of steel on purpose. They were to be manufactured in a usual shipyard from usual ship stuff.
They were much heavier and thicker. So, their huge hulls had huge heat capacity, and their thick walls had low thermal conductivity. So, their steel hulls didn't require additional heat protection.
Their fuel tanks were made of steel due to their huge pressure-fed engines with relatively low internal pressure.

Starship is just as big as aluminium Energy 2nd stage, or a regular airplane.
Steel ships are, steel planes aren't.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

(See the post above for pictures).

On 8/18/2019 at 8:07 AM, mikegarrison said:

Buran not only was designed to be able to fly without a crew but actually it's only flight was without a crew.

About ten of its maiden flights were to be uncrewed. Also, an uncrewed combat module was based on it.

Edited by kerbiloid

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.