JoeSchmuckatelli

So... Footfall had one, and as mentioned it was a 'desperation' ploy. @Spacescifi has shown a lot of interest in Orion - mainly (as I read his posts) b/c he's trying to craft a story that doesn't use a lot of handwavium to get his people about... although there may be 'elements'. Some of the other interest I've read elsewhere is how KSP 2 will implement it... and frankly, if they do - I hope it has a lot of negative consequences for atmospheric use!

Now I'm interested to see what NASA has SS do with the crew/payload design. That's a really great visual reference! Thanks

That's actually a lot of volume for science / operational payloads, too. Interesting.

Should I read that as 'ISS-sized craft' or 'habitat'? Serious question; I know SS is big; I don't know what it's habitable volume is likely to be compared to the ISS.

Ummm... ... Chance it goes 'boom'? (I'm almost willing to start a bet whether it gets scrubbed/scrapped)

Sci-Fi application: as I mentioned in the other thread, I first stumbled upon the idea through reading Niven/Pournelle's Footfall, where it was an act of utter desperation to 'not lose' the war (that was almost assuredly already lost). Then with some handwavium about 'hard-wired universal surrender by rolling on one's back' the good guys stomped an elephant-thingy on the chest and won the day. ... I looked into Orion back then, (concurrent with some non-proliferation studies in college) and became wholly dissatisfied with it as a concept. Basically completely forgot about it for decades. Only since KSP2 looks to be including it has it been a fascination on this board (and b/c SpaceSciFi is apparently writing about it) and so, thus, it keeps popping up. I don't want to discourage him - and worry that at times I have come off as overly critical - but that doesn't change my opinion of the thing. It's nuts.

Way ahead of her time. Wheels are anachronistic?

Given the delta-v requirements and proximity, doesn't figuring out the moon work as an iterative step toward Mars? (There's a LOT of stuff needed to be done before we can have 'regular' congress with our nearest neighbor... and figuring that stuff out and normalizing it makes Mars a fairly easy next-step, doesn't it?) Further - I think people want to go to the Moon. From a simple emotional connection standpoint, to those wanting to 'do the thing' (like Everest tourists) to say they did the thing, to the potential for... whatever... I think the number of people who would do Moon (returnable) vs Mars (nope) in the short term is probably more economically viable than doing a suicide run to Mars because you can. Or are you suggesting that the challenges are effectively equal, and so SX as an entity might entertain NASA's interest in the moon as a side-project but stay focused on their Mission for their own work?

Au contraire, mon frere

We already have several "Orion" threads: but I don't want to derail them. Question: If someone were to try an Orion launch from the surface... isn't that the equivalent of dumping several EMP blasts on the way up? So - effectively (and regardless of the pollution) - you destroy your technical infrastructure and economy just to get mass to orbit?

From what I understand about ST - they didn't so much orbit the planets they visited (at least not ballistically) - they were in a 'parking orbit' which was essentially a stellar orbit co-located with the planet. Clearly they had the drive power to resist being drawn down to the surface while maintaining a stable altitude /distance. If you presume that technology - is there any issue with just 'driving ' down and back? ST shuttles never looked ballistically capable to me - so clearly they were not entering the atmosphere at ballistic speeds. ... @Spacescifi- with this in mind: from your scenario I presume that handwavium isn't applicable... But given the power of the ship you propose: why even enter orbit around the planet? (Doing so requires attaining orbital velocity relative to the surface / atmosphere - along with the concurrent risk of overheating during entry). Wouldn't it be better to set an intercept course with the planet on approach and just decelerate until you touch down? (the relative velocity of the ship and the world in relation to the star has to be zeroed out anyway... Why not make landing part of that equation?)

Fun! Given the ingenuity of humans in any trade towards overcoming obstacles and narco-subs as one solution... Narco rockets is fair speculation. However... ( ;D ) The key metric for drug trafficking is to maximize profits while minimizing exposure. To do that you have to operate just below or at the 'irritant' threshold. Like a mosquito. (Once above that threshold the subject stops being irritated and takes active measures to eradicate you). A slow sub smuggling drugs is irritating. But an international missile? That 'gets on everyone's radar'. Even if the payload isn't explosive - that level of escalation gets a lot of attention. I'm fairly critical of 'the war on drugs' for how it was applied domestically and resulted in lopsided, racially biased incarceration in the US... But there were aspects of it that were quite successful. Examples: JTF - 6 (now JTF North) was manpower intensive but stopped all trafficking and human smuggling for a while and other stuff, like our incursions into Columbia - were from a military and tactical standpoint quite successful - but arguably strategic failures. Should the cartels decide to 'become interesting' there is nothing to stop military intervention from reducing those capabilities. We'd succeed and they would adapt and go back to low tech, low risk successful strategies like those employed currently

Which is their signal, organizational strength. Love it!

Tried looking this up but... figured it would be easier just asking here. B7 has a new design over B4, and presumably with the different layout and use of R2s is the more capable craft. I know there was talk of changing the flight control surfaces on SS - but I haven't seen if they've implemented those as yet. So do we think S20 will fly? Or will it go the way of B4 with the new delay in the environmental review granting time to iterate?

BFR. Does that refer to the booster or only the booster / SS stack?

Oh crap! That's the part I keep forgetting. I've been so focused on the 'getting off the planet' stuff (which is also what Orion was used for in Footfall) - I completely forgot to think about the post - LEO applications.

Just how 'off the shelf' does your question require? Because if you allow 3D printing - then it's just a question of knowledge and money. https://youtu.be/cA9HuaQTV_s

Serious question: why, after scratching the surface of Orion do people retain the fascination with it? I looked at this after reading Niven and Pournelle's Footfall - and even in the book it's such a desperation move, and IRL clumsy and inefficient. This isn't a dig at @Spacescifi It's that Orion is kind of a trope thing... And I don't understand the continued interest Further - it's likely to be part of KSP2... And one might hope that the way they present it is as a very early tech that gets quickly obsolete

I remember from my airborne days that a 'cigarette roll' (failed chute deployment) was a particularly bad thing; not only wouldn't the failed chute save your life - it could rob your secondary of lift. (That's why you throw a reserve away from yourself, and don't just pull the cord). We were also trained to 'pull in' (i.e. try to climb) the failed chute. The cigarette roll was often the result of bad packing and tangled lines. Cigarette roll, however, doesn't describe the partial deployment / expansion of the 4th chute on the capsules. To me it looks like the first 3 to fill do their jobs too well, making the 4th redundant. IOW - once 3 fill, there is not enough airflow to expand a 4th chute. Which suggests that the system needs to be redesigned with 4 lesser capable chutes - thus requiring all 4 to work (the first 3 don't slow down the craft as well as they currently do, allowing the 4th to deploy) - or we accept that 3 is 'good enough' and they can keep the 4th as a reserve.

Actually - if true - it's a very SX thing to do... And I find it strangely comforting. As in, they are mission focused and not married to any particular iteration or equipment

Not decommissioning, surely? (also - if R2 is the future for SX - can they sell existing Rs to anyone?)

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/world/odd-radio-circles-space-scn/index.html ... I swear I have seen that image on the screen of the original series of Star Trek.

I read stuff like this... and think that we are still awaiting the 'environmental review', and hope that means good things for Boca Chica's ability to keep launching rockets and innovating. But I also fear this is NASA setting unrealistic timelines. For 2024 to be a realistic target date... SX has to be - on paper - a lot further along than I suspect they are. We've seen them stick one landing of SS. We've never seen Booster fly. Maybe the 'rocket scientists' over there have looked at SX's modeling and data and are confident this will work in a reasonable timeline... and maybe there's some politician saying 'we need to hit a 2024 milestone'. There is a LOT to be done between testing the boosters and SS and landing and everything else... and any 'demonstration flight to the lunar surface'. (Would love someone to tell me 'yeah, it's not only doable, but likely'!) (Also, quoting tweets on this forum is weird; it's like twitter does something to just make it less easy than it should be).

These are examples of people coming up with potential problems... then solving those problems. ... We are, if nothing else, a creative species.

What if someone forgot to insist on a properly worded non-compete...