Jump to content

CatastrophicFailure

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,162

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by CatastrophicFailure

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, AtomicTech said:

    So one month between flights at locations, offset so that you get a launch from the Cape followed by Starbase two weeks later.

    And they’ve already demonstrated that with F9 and Starlink launches, so all they really have to do is make Superheavy well, work.

    Easy-peasy, right? :D

    RocketLab Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

    So F9's quite a bit better in terms of propellant to payload, despite Neutron's higher energy propellants and ultra-lightweight construction. That surprised me. I think I was expecting a little more.

    I wonder if, perhaps, they’re counting more on cost optimizations on the reuse side as the major benefit. Beck has said before that for him, reuse is more about launch cadence than outright savings. Since it’s built from the ground up for reuse, Neutron may have a much easier process from landing pad back to launch pad. Quicker turnaround means less boosters needed overall so production can focus on mass-producing the upper stage. 

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    44 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

    Now I am going to have nightmares.

    Spoiler

    it2-pennywise.gif

    boo

    prolly shouldn’t use the hand wave gif…


     

     

    22 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

    They are all doomed. In something like 4 billion years the sun is going to become a red giant.

    nah, they’ll have cryogenic stuff on board, so they’ve got really good air conditioners. They good. -_-

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    It’s interesting that people seem to already have a “nostalgic” attachment to the Falcon 9 and want to see it keep flying once it’s no longer needed. :D The paradigm shift that Starship could bring does take a real mental gearshift to grok. 

    To put it another way, a brand new Cessna 172 costs about $300,000, and it can easily take your 50lb payload from, say, Seattle to San Francisco, then crash in the ocean. UPS can ship it there by jumbo jet for a measly $65 bucks, but they keep the airplane. Even if you wanted really personal service, chartering a whole 747 would still only cost around $70,000, but again, they get to keep the airplane. There’s just no economic justification to buy that Cessna and throw it away, no matter how classic is looks. :cool:

    Same deal with Starship (if it works), there’s just no economic justification to keep flying F9. Even your teeny, tiny cubesat all alone will be much cheaper on that reusable behemoth than the throwaway classic. No one else is gonna want to bother with it either, again because it makes no economic sense. 

    SpaceX Discussion Thread

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

    What’s the longest pole? Deciding whether to use nukes or kinetic impactors? Trying to find a way to get sufficient dV to get an intercept? Getting a large enough impactor into orbit? Choosing between EOR for a large impactors and multiple small impactors? What’s the most challenging challenge that’s still preventable?

    That will depend entirely upon the availability of a massive generation ship to commandeer as an impactor and/or a brooding, anachronistic film noir detective to go play kissyface with the Protomolecule. -_-

×
×
  • Create New...