tater

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1768254337204260905

Yes

And can't stop the steamroller, Starlink tonight in under 2 hours:

They actually published the vid on Youtube

Wonder where the platform is?

The alternative is to make them someplace where you can then barge them to KSC, or build at KSC. Currently no other options, as there's literally no plausible land for any new facilities for large rockets. I'd imagine that with any success, Stoke gets a facility in FL.

The patents (US links here): https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/20220412709 https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/20210381469 Have the same wording as the previous links. They mention that the plug/aerospike nozzle was discussed before 1960. The only patent by Bono (submitted by James Webb, NASA) dates to 1967 (there's a second also Webb that I can't find, but it's not the detailed one). A patent filed in 1961 for a plug rocket engine was granted in 1967 as well, not Bono. Nonetheless, it was apparently not a new concept even in 1961. I suppose there could well be scholarly articles regarding plug/aerospikes that are not online, but it seems hard to find references. Krase, 1959 (w citations from well before)

NOW BOOOOM Ouch

Trying again tonight in a couple hours I guess:

So start a rocket company and make an aerospike. It's not like the people in question—particularly at Stoke who did the math and decided against it—are not aware of aerospikes. TWR dominates booster design, and it's important to remember "sea level" engines are not best at sea level, they're best at some altitude above sea level—they just actually work at sea level without problems. To get the same kind of TWR, the engines are heavier, so the trade is that you need to get so much Isp that the heavier engine is worth it. And this plug engine booster needs to be no more than ~3.7m in diameter, or you can't transport it.

Then it likely becomes a maritime hazard—dunno who deals with that. Close ashore, the Coast Guard, in international waters presumably the Navy? Weather a bit hinky

It's definitionally not worth it—they are not doing it, and no one else has, either. Apparently every single human on Earth designing boosters is just too dumb. What's the diameter of your notional plug engine booster for Nova, BTW? You realize they face the same constraint that drove Falcon 9 diameter, right? The total SpaceX spending on Starship includes building an engine factory, 2 launch pads, and a rocket factory that looks capable of making a vehicle larger than SLS on the order of 1 per month. Current engines cost that is at most right now about 1/100th the cost of the RS-25E, possibly substantially lower. So far exactly zero operational rocket engines exist that are fully reusable with no refurb. So far for booster engines, they fired full duration on a test flight into space, so yeah, I would call those pretty close to operational if not actually operational.

All other rocket boosters "come down." There is no mishap when they impact the water, there was no mishap when early F9 boosters hit the water. None exploded before hitting the water (that would possibly be a mishap). Commanding FTS and it not working in a timely way at any point? A mishap I assume.

Also, they did nothing of the sort. You can read their patents, you know—they're posted up this very thread, it's not like it takes lots of footwork. https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2020398126A1/en?oq=AU-2020398126-A1 https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2020394317A1/en?oq=AU-2020394317-

1. They're not doing it for stage 1, cause it's not worth it. 2. Altitude compensation happens as a result of a plug, no avoiding it.

They even discussed a Falcon 5 I think. COTS pushed them straight to a larger vehicle.

live now