Jump to content

sh1pman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,460

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by sh1pman

  1. sh1pman
    HOLY FRICKIN’ ****! Here I’m hypothesizing about a possible FH-DCSS-Orion stack, and then this guy releases a video about exactly that!
  2. sh1pman
    KSP taught me otherwise. Look at SLS! So it is technically doable. Which method is more pain, this one or double launch?
  3. sh1pman
    I like the DCSS + Orion on FH scheme more. RL10B-02 has an ISP of 462 s, DCSS mass 30.7t wet, 3.5t dry. Should be more than enough dv.
  4. sh1pman
    They removed the hardware? 348 s.
  5. sh1pman
    They can’t use standard fairing anyway, because there’s Orion with LES on top, it needs crew access, etc. It’ll need to be a custom fairing between S2 and DCSS, maybe integrated with redesigned payload adapter. SLS has this Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter which is also a fairing between the core and ICPS. Something similar should be done for FH. Of course it does, SpaceX advertises it on their website.
  6. sh1pman
    Roscosmos techpriest.
  7. sh1pman
    Yep, that’s what I thought as well. Amazing that a single FH can (in theory) do EM-1. 39A is plumbed for hydrogen, right?
  8. sh1pman
    Isn’t 39A already plumbed for hydrogen? DCSS is 5m wide, a bit less than F9 fairing diameter. It’ll probably look silly, but not sillier than Atlas V with Starliner. Payload adapter can be redesigned for heavy payloads. Or fueled stages. Fuel is dense enough. These are all minor issues. If NASA decides to launch the entire thing on one FH, they will be worked out.
  9. sh1pman
    WAIT. GUYS. Orion capsule + ESM weighs 26 tons. DCSS is 30 tons. 56t total. One FH can lift the stack in one launch. I think it can even do it with 2 ASDS booster landings.
  10. sh1pman
    DCSS wet mass is 30 tons. You can launch two of them with one expendable FH. Or just one, with 2/3 reusable FH.
  11. sh1pman
    Brutal.
  12. sh1pman
    It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
  13. sh1pman
    Did Soviet engineers who designed Energia-2 concepts care about marketing? I really don’t get this “marketing trick” mentality. “Hey, we’re saving a ton of money for ourselves by landing our stages!”. As a potential customer, I wouldn’t care. I’d only want my satellite in space. The only potential benefit of reuse is for the launch provider. And if there’s a competition, reuse allows to lower the prices and be more competitive. If Roscosmos is a for-profit agency, with budget problems at that, it makes all the sense for them to explore the reuse possibility. If they’re waiting for someone else to prove that it works, then that someone will also leave Roscosmos without commercial payloads, which is kinda already happening.
  14. sh1pman
    I wouldn’t mind political gambits if they resulted in nice rockets, not stupid outdated rockets. Now we’re stuck with this Zenit knockoff for the next 50 years.
  15. sh1pman
    Anyway, I’m really not excited about this engine. Who cares if it’s the most powerful engine or not, if the rocket it’s supposed to fly on is already outdated, 3 years before its first launch. Uncompetitive, not reusable, and less capable than F9 that uses way simpler and cheaper Merlins. Why not make something better than what competitors already have? Huge lost opportunity. Same with Angara and that superheavy nonsense. I guess I know the answer, but it’s still sad.
  16. sh1pman
    Either the RD-171MV is secretly a solid-core NTR, or someone isn't good at writing technical news pieces.
  17. sh1pman
  18. sh1pman
    Russia shows off upgraded world’s most powerful rocket engine meant for Soyuz-5 https://www.rt.com/russia/453617-new-russian-rocket-engine/ "No, we're absolutely not jealous of some other rocket engine! That other engine uses gasified propellants, can't compare!" P.S. I like this new trend of showing off new rocket engines, though. P.S.2: RT journo's are completely technically illiterate, as expected.
  19. sh1pman
    To be fair, noone has more experience in flights to other planets than NASA.
  20. sh1pman
    Not looking good for SLS
  21. sh1pman
    "Cause of failure: squirrel in oxygen pre-burner"
  22. sh1pman
    How is it just standing there, out in the open? Insanely complex machine exposed to dust, rain, bird droppings, etc.
  23. sh1pman
    Yep, we could have a large, reusable 8-seater capsule with propulsive landing 30 years ago. Collapse of the country isn’t great for space program funding.
  24. sh1pman
    They’ll still need to carry lots of propellant for abort capability. Unless they vent all of it to space before reentry, it’ll still be there during the landing, unused.
  25. sh1pman
×
×
  • Create New...