Jump to content

sh1pman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,460

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by sh1pman

  1. sh1pman
    95(+)
  2. sh1pman
    86(+)
  3. sh1pman
    82 (+)
  4. sh1pman
    82(+)
  5. sh1pman
    79(+)
  6. sh1pman
    79 (+)
  7. sh1pman
    He’d call it New Alexandria or something like that if he followed the same naming scheme.
  8. sh1pman
    Well, best of luck. Hopefully it won't end up like most other Russian interplanetary missions, on the bottom of the ocean. stranded in heliocentric orbit with no comms. exploded at launch. all of the above.
  9. sh1pman
    Maybe it's not about humans, but about rockets themselves. Suborbital, orbital, lunar, transoceanic?
  10. sh1pman
    3 (+)
  11. sh1pman
    It’s because Orion can’t make a round trip to low lunar orbit. Also, direct communications possible most of the time.
  12. sh1pman
    What’s the optimal number of arms a human should have?
  13. sh1pman
    Probably something similar to what the Shuttle TPS was made of. I think it’s more or less permanent, but who knows with SpaceX these days. Ceramics with a high melting point and low thermal conductivity most likely
  14. sh1pman
    Some kind of tiles on the windward side. Hello Shuttle?
  15. sh1pman
  16. sh1pman
    The second one should be named Sir Liftsalot!
  17. sh1pman
    If Starships are indeed going to be fully and rapidly reusable, do you think they’ll have names, like Shuttle orbiters?
  18. sh1pman
    Would it be practical to skip straight to Block 2, now that FH is a thing? FH can do EM- missions to NRHO (with a kick stage, no co-manifested cargo), Gateway can also be built and serviced with commercial heavy rockets. Only Block 1B can do things that commercials can’t (yet). Block 2 will be useful for things like heavy landers, base modules, pressurized rovers, etc. Of course, when Starship comes, there will be no sense in continuing SLS development. But until then it still makes a bit of sense.
  19. sh1pman
    Discussed that in the SLS thread. Orion can use its own propulsion to finish the TLI injection. Problems: FH needs a custom payload adapter to integrate with DCSS, and 39A will need to be plumbed for hydrogen.
  20. sh1pman
    Looks like they're doing rocket cams now.
  21. sh1pman
    I'm calculating that in my spreadsheet. We're talking about Falcon Super Heavy with 4 boosters.
  22. sh1pman
    With no booster reuse, this monster can push almost 39 tons to GTO. With full reuse (2x RTLS, 2x ASDS booster landings) GTO payload drops to around 31 tons. Central core separates at around 5 km/s and burns up in all configurations.
  23. sh1pman
    Don't need RSS for that, a spreadsheet will suffice. I have such a spreadsheet, but I'm not at home yet.
  24. sh1pman
    The beauty of cost-plus pricing strategy.
  25. sh1pman
    Slight correction, the Congress ordered NASA to build SLS, from specific parts made by specific manufacturers (who have political power). I'm not sure if NASA had any say in this.
×
×
  • Create New...