Jump to content

sh1pman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,460

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by sh1pman

  1. sh1pman
    All you need to counter this is a strong magnetosphere. But a moon is unlikely to have it, so it must be orbiting close enough to its parent gas giant that has magnetosphere. Preferably not inside a radiation belt, but thick atmosphere can help with that.
  2. sh1pman
    I have some of his merch. “Buran” T-shirt, F1 engine T-shirt and a set of grid fin-shaped drink coasters.
  3. sh1pman
    No, and I have no idea why this is gettin brought up repeatedly. It’s evolving in a completely different direction than Shuttle. ITS-2016 and BFR-2017 looked more like a Shuttle than the current Starship design.
  4. sh1pman
    Rogozin’s cosmic wealth. (with English subtitles) (mildly political, but quite relevant)
  5. sh1pman
    Roscosmos sends their regards
  6. sh1pman
    Missile carriers can be cruise missiles. Missile-ception. They'll be fine. Because "the likelihood of legislative changes is high, since it would be “wrong” to drive enterprises into a debt hole".
  7. sh1pman
    RC Dozers doing a little moonscaping project in preparation for Artemis landing? Maybe even paint a giant X in the center?
  8. sh1pman
    Sounds about right. But wouldn’t SpaceX want to pursue a secondary mission as well?
  9. sh1pman
    So how many refillings does it need to land 100t on the Moon and return? Must be around 6-7 in GTO, right?
  10. sh1pman
    1.8km Stanford torus*
  11. sh1pman
    Right, who needs a complex pre-cooler when the engine itself is supposed to be expendable?
  12. sh1pman
    Roscosmos filed a patent for a combined cycle engine for... spaceplanes? Hypersonic air launch motherships? https://ria.ru/20191118/1561051596.html
  13. sh1pman
    You make reusable rockets, you get less money for them, seems totally fair!
  14. sh1pman
    Well, it's a start. If the goal is commercialization of HSF, especially in BLEO, then it’s better to have cheap heavy rockets, compared to one ridiculously expensive rocket that can launch once or twice a year. Hilton is less likely to spend $4 billion to launch their space hotel to the Moon than to spend whatever it costs to launch a reusable rocket by a company that previously developed a cheap rocket for NASA’s commercial Moon missions.
  15. sh1pman
    Are these non-government customers of vital importance to the program? I don’t think so. CCrew vehicles can exist on NASA funding only, serving as a LEO taxi for NASA astronauts and their international partners.
  16. sh1pman
    First, there’s going to be more than one company with cheap reusable heavy rockets, and their competition WILL drive the prices down. Second, this “difference” will be invested into the development of even better and cheaper rockets to make BLEO activities more accessible. If LEO activity can be successfully offloaded to commercial rockets developed through fixed-price contracts, why can’t the same be done with BLEO missions?
  17. sh1pman
    50 billion, jeez. And I thought Vostochny cosmodrome was the greatest monument of bloated government spending of public funds in space industry. So what was the point of using Shuttle-based parts for it, then?
  18. sh1pman
    About a year and a half. 100 ships, 3 launches/day/ship.
  19. sh1pman
    I read somewhere that for Roscosmos this October marked one whole year without anomalies for the first time since early 2000-s. Huge win!
  20. sh1pman
    Even in New Glenn fairing? if not, then surely paying Blue Origin to make a bigger fairing must be a cheaper option compared to, well, the SLS option.
  21. sh1pman
    Maybe it’s better to compare failure rates of both rockets since the day Block 5 started flying? Disregard that, I can’t read, apparently...
  22. sh1pman
    10 tons of thrust, same as RL-10 (almost). Decent ISP. 3D printed, so likely cheap to manufacture. I like it.
  23. sh1pman
    I think it’s because these new satellites were made to completely burn up in the atmosphere, and this required some material changes.
  24. sh1pman
    Hmm, experiment or accident?
  25. sh1pman
    Another option is to fill aft cargo bays with Starlink. The bays aren’t used for tourist launches anyway. Launch into a useful orbit, drop Starlinks, wait for a few days, land. That would kill two birds with one launch.
×
×
  • Create New...