Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

  On 1/20/2019 at 4:31 AM, Ultimate Steve said:

It was designed for propulsive landing after de-orbit. I think the only design change is not doing the landings, I doubt they would have resized the fuel tanks. Of course I could very well be wrong, so take this with a grain (or mountain) of salt.

Expand  

What about venting fuel after deorbiting and before chute opening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/20/2019 at 5:19 AM, kerbiloid said:

It's hypergolic, flammable, and toxic..

Expand  

The apollo did this...

And wouldnt the propulsive landings be harder without altitude to surface, which the dragon is unlikely equipped with?

Chances are that propulsive landing would be harder than a failing triple chute.

The last time a chute failed, it was the soyuz 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/20/2019 at 5:47 AM, Xd the great said:

The apollo did this...

Expand  

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM06_Command_Module_Overview_pp39-52.pdf

270 lb on start, so a pair of canisters on descending.

 

  On 1/20/2019 at 5:47 AM, Xd the great said:

The last time a chute failed, it was the soyuz 1.

Expand  

When it totally failed.

Sometimes 1 of 3 failed.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/20/2019 at 5:19 AM, kerbiloid said:

It's hypergolic, flammable, and toxic..

Expand  

As opposed to all those entirely non-flammable rocket fuels presumably?

Edit:  Scratch that comment before this thread devolves into an argument as to whether kerosene counts as a flammable fuel.

 

 

Edited by KSK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/20/2019 at 7:51 AM, KSK said:

As opposed to all those entirely non-flammable rocket fuels presumably?

 

Expand  

 

  On 1/20/2019 at 7:57 AM, kerbiloid said:

As opposed to all things which you want to pour on your capsule.

Expand  

I launched a rocket with just air and water, once. :D

Granted it didn’t go very high, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/20/2019 at 5:47 AM, Xd the great said:

And wouldnt the propulsive landings be harder without altitude to surface, which the dragon is unlikely equipped with?

Expand  

They would, but it’s relatively trivial to upgrade it with something like the Soviet strontium-based Kaktus gamma-ray backscatter altimeter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/20/2019 at 9:49 PM, Scotius said:

Wow! StarHopper is that big? I mean, i've seen tiny peple next to it, but comparing it to Space Shuttle really bring things into perspective.

Expand  

Zero surprise. Sci-fi ship designers have been adding “greebles” to their ships since forever to make them seem bigger than a flat surface would.

imperial_class_star_destroyer-wallpaper-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/20/2019 at 9:55 PM, DDE said:

Zero surprise. Sci-fi ship designers have been adding “greebles” to their ships since forever to make them seem bigger than a flat surface would.

Expand  

Starship would look like greeble on those Star Destroyers, since the Millenium Falcon was stuck to the back of a SD bridge below one of the geodesic domes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/20/2019 at 11:12 PM, tater said:

Starship would look like greeble on those Star Destroyers, since the Millenium Falcon was stuck to the back of a SD bridge below one of the geodesic domes.

Expand  

It would look more or less like this:

iVOA0I0.jpg

So, not quite blending in with the rest of the greeble. An Imperial-class Star Destroyer is 1600 m long, or almost exactly one mile.

Edited by cubinator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/20/2019 at 11:52 PM, cubinator said:

So, not quite blending in with the rest of the greeble. An Imperial-class Star Destroyer is 1600 m long, or almost exactly one mile.

Expand  

That's the bogus figure you see on the internet, but the Falcon on the back makes that 1600m figure way too big. I want to say it's closer to 700m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/21/2019 at 12:12 AM, tater said:

That's the bogus figure you see on the internet, but the Falcon on the back makes that 1600m figure way too big. I want to say it's closer to 700m.

Expand  

*coughs*

Canonical, Disney Approved Data.

The movies are FULL of inconsistencies, especially in ESD and RotJ. These have sparked endless debate about the *real* size of ships, yes, but almost exclusively the Executor, not the ISD.

 

Back on topic, though... I'm increasingly curious as to how this is going to shake out. Part of me remains deeply skeptical, but I was also deeply skeptical of their plans to reuse the Falcon 9 first stage, and we all know how that turned out.

It;s a shame they decided not to attempt reuse of the second stage as well... they've got a heck of a product with the Block 5 Falcon 9. It'd be a shame to just throw it away when they get their (literally) shiny new toy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/21/2019 at 8:26 AM, MaverickSawyer said:

*coughs*

Canonical, Disney Approved Data.

The movies are FULL of inconsistencies, especially in ESD and RotJ. These have sparked endless debate about the *real* size of ships, yes, but almost exclusively the Executor, not the ISD.

Expand  

I don't care what any approved data says, I can see the 2 stuck together, which is the best relative measure. If 2 ships look the same... they're the same. A CA doesn't look exactly like a BB  perfectly scaled down.

On topic:

 

LOL, Startship cam (live cam feed from South padre Island, the view switches, but wait a couple minutes and you'll see close ups):

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/21/2019 at 2:25 PM, tater said:

I don't care what any approved data says, I can see the 2 stuck together, which is the best relative measure. If 2 ships look the same... they're the same. A CA doesn't look exactly like a BB  perfectly scaled down.

 

Expand  

That's a problem with the Falcon, not the ISD. See also the falcon docked with the medical frigate in the same movie, and the medical bay window with known characters standing next to it, does not match those same characters standing against or inside the falcon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  On 1/21/2019 at 3:16 PM, Rakaydos said:

That's a problem with the Falcon, not the ISD. See also the falcon docked with the medical frigate in the same movie, and the medical bay window with known characters standing next to it, does not match those same characters standing against or inside the falcon.

Expand  

More evidence Lucas is an idiot then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...