Xd the great Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) Well, at least not wheels DIRECTLY on the ship. Edited January 31, 2019 by Xd the great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 hour ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: And then there's the Russians... And then there’s the Russians at their most Russian... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 17 hours ago, Xd the great said: I think they should make Mr. Steven bigger. Like "cargo ship" level bigger. Fairings are $5 million dollars, so if the boat + operating costs is too much, its not worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 12 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: And then there’s the Russians at their most Russian... Buran used an similar system with two tracks. A single track feels to thin for something as large as the Soyuz. And lots of size has the diameter/ width of the shuttle SRB like falcon 9 rockets as its the maximum diameter for rail and something you can transport on road. Soyuz and other Russian rockets having the same constrains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Buran used an similar system with two tracks. A single track feels to thin for something as large as the Soyuz. And lots of size has the diameter/ width of the shuttle SRB like falcon 9 rockets as its the maximum diameter for rail and something you can transport on road. Soyuz and other Russian rockets having the same constrains. There's an old trope that's not entirely true but makes for relatively stimulating dinner conversation: Question: What part of the Space Shuttle launch vehicle is based on an animal's body part? Answer: The solid rocket boosters. NASA's SRBs remain the most powerful single rocket engines ever launched. The only question: why weren't they any larger? The SRBs were built out of segments that were each 3.71 meters in diameter. This diameter was chosen because it was the largest diameter that could be transported by rail through tunnels in the United States. Rail tunnels were built with just over 3.71 meters of clearance based on a 1.44 meter rail track width. US rail tracks were standardized at 1.44 meters in 1886 based on an 1845 British decision to standardize rail tracks at this width. The 1.44m rail width was designed to be just larger than the standard axles at the time, which were build to fit the existing ruts in roads around the country. Those roads were build by the Romans, who brought Roman wagons north from the European continent. Roman standard axles were based around chariots at the Circus Maximus and it was the widest axle that could be behind a two-horse chariot and not have wheel-to-wheel contact at the starting line. So the size of the Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters are dependent on the width of two horse's butts. 1 hour ago, DAL59 said: Fairings are $5 million dollars, so if the boat + operating costs is too much, its not worth it. Yeah, $5M/fairing is a nice chunk of change, but if cost for recovery is too much then sunk cost fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 5 hours ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: And then there's the Russians... ‘Xcuse me. Also, I think the Proton is a record too: apparently they used six locomotives at one point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 5 hours ago, Xd the great said: Well, at least not wheels DIRECTLY on the ship. Choo-choo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 hour ago, DDE said: Choo-choo. That's not a ship. But two can play at this game... This is, uh, getting *slightly* off topic, isn't it... One could say the thread is getting... Spoiler derailed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 5 hours ago, sevenperforce said: There's an old trope that's not entirely true but makes for relatively stimulating dinner conversation: Question: What part of the Space Shuttle launch vehicle is based on an animal's body part? Answer: The solid rocket boosters. NASA's SRBs remain the most powerful single rocket engines ever launched. The only question: why weren't they any larger? The SRBs were built out of segments that were each 3.71 meters in diameter. This diameter was chosen because it was the largest diameter that could be transported by rail through tunnels in the United States. Rail tunnels were built with just over 3.71 meters of clearance based on a 1.44 meter rail track width. US rail tracks were standardized at 1.44 meters in 1886 based on an 1845 British decision to standardize rail tracks at this width. The 1.44m rail width was designed to be just larger than the standard axles at the time, which were build to fit the existing ruts in roads around the country. Those roads were build by the Romans, who brought Roman wagons north from the European continent. Roman standard axles were based around chariots at the Circus Maximus and it was the widest axle that could be behind a two-horse chariot and not have wheel-to-wheel contact at the starting line. So the size of the Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters are dependent on the width of two horse's butts. More likely the 1.44 became standard as it let you put two people side by side in an wagon behind an horse back in the 18-19th century, yes it might be an evolved standard to reduce problem with furrows in the road Yes it just changes it from an horse to human butt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Moderator comes in guns blazing. And how will starship stock up the TEATAB engine ignitor fluid on Mars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Xd the great said: Moderator comes in guns blazing. And how will starship stock up the TEATAB engine ignitor fluid on Mars? This thread as always... And there will be no TEATEB with Raptor, it’s spark ignited. So no issues like the FH core stage. tho they will have to herd sparks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) https://i.imgur.com/S7Y6DXO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/1hggDva.jpg Is it dual bell or not? Edited February 1, 2019 by Mad Rocket Scientist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Wow that thing is huge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) Spoiler EDIT: Ninja'd by @Ultimate Steve Edited February 1, 2019 by Mad Rocket Scientist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 18 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: Is it dual bell or not? Probably not, since they are trying to build this quick-and-dirty. 11 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Why is the engine bell GREEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Did they redesign the engine to be more rugged? It looks dusty, and awfully close to the ground. It could make sense, in line with another pretty recent tweet from Elon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedKraken Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) Holy moley.....250t .sl. optimised for the next version... sad BE-4 face. Anyone want to have a guess at the ER and isp? That pic with the human for scale is awesome. The powerhead has an interesting footprint....tall and skinny for the booster i guess. I wonder what the mass ended up .... 1000 kg? Edited February 1, 2019 by RedKraken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 itshappening.gif intensifies 1 hour ago, Spaceception said: Did they redesign the engine to be more rugged? It looks dusty, and awfully close to the ground. It could make sense, in line with another pretty recent tweet from Elon. I'd imagine it'd be designed to be dusty and close to the ground for a couple years at a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Which cold gas, methane? It needs to be available on Mars as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 Forgot this as well: So dumping landing on the launch clamps, and booster has fins/canards. The launch clamp landing was always nuts, seems like testing would result in many airframe losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 56 minutes ago, tater said: Forgot this as well: So dumping landing on the launch clamps, and booster has fins/canards. The launch clamp landing was always nuts, seems like testing would result in many airframe losses. So... Silver Surfer Skydiver recovery for the booster as well? Makes sense, I suppose... if it’s stainless it can probably easily take the entry heating from only Mach a few, and with aerodynamic deceleration, that saves the entry burn entirely and only need a landing burn from a much lower terminal velocity, hmm... That would certainly be a sight to see. Mostly cuz we’d actually get to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 1, 2019 Share Posted February 1, 2019 1 hour ago, tater said: Forgot this as well: So dumping landing on the launch clamps, and booster has fins/canards. The launch clamp landing was always nuts, seems like testing would result in many airframe losses. Yes, sounded very risky, more so in that you would also damage the launch facility including the tower. Much safer to land then move it. Raises the next question will starship be handled horizontally or vertically? As its 9 meter wide the only benefit to handle it horizontally is that you don't need an 70 meter high building for it. Engines are probably more accessible vertically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.