Rakaydos Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 7 hours ago, satnet said: Another negative impact of the square-cube law is that expander cycle rockets are limited to ~300 kN of thrust. This is because the surface area over which you can extract heat grows slower than the volume you need to fill with fuel and at some point you can't extract enough to run the pumps to fill the volume. Anexceptio to that would be expander cycle aerospikes. Aerospikes have the opposite problem, where it has more throat that needs cooling per unit thrust, which is normally a problem, but solved the expander cycle problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 Sigh... it’s kinda cruel to show us starship and then take it apart again T_T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 This is a fascinating analysis of Starlink. I'll also post the link in that thread, but it bears on the business case for Starship, so it belongs here as well: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/11/02/starlink-is-a-very-big-deal/ Worth the full read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 seems SpaceX has also ditched the “conical blunt-body” design for the easier to produce monolithic rectangular Block sort... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 Just look at that efficient new design! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chemp Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 4 hours ago, tater said: Worth the full read. Indeed. Thank you for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Dry spell on SpaceX launches ending. 2 static fires (first is the same type on the capsule that blew up before) this week, then a Starlink. My gut feeling up thread I think was right. SpaceX moved Starlink, then slammed many parachute tests, and get ready for the ground test before MaxQ abort. They were demonstrating to NASA who comes first (NASA). Starlink launch is Nov 11, that will have a static fire this week as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Still wondering how (and WHEN!!!) they’re gonna move that thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Still wondering how (and WHEN!!!) they’re gonna move that thing... I’m guessing they’re going to put it on a crawler, similar to what they did with Mk1. Also, they’ll probably move it soon(tm). Maybe they’ll do the same as they’re doing in Texas - move the bottom half to the pad first. Edited November 4, 2019 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 In a shock to absolutely no one, Elon's Twitter absence lasted all of... 3 days. This tweet tells us that there are more parachute tests- the parachute test shown was NOT the final Mk3 parachute test, but the first of 10 multi-chute tests. I guess the 12 before it were single-chute tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elro2k Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Speaking of 80% reusability, does anyone recall what happened to the second stage recovery concept? Elon tweeted in April of 2018 that they would try to recover the second stage using a "giant party balloon" and have it land on a "giant bouncy house." Anyone know what happened to this idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 2 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said: I’m guessing they’re going to put it on a crawler, similar to what they did with Mk1. Also, they’ll probably move it soon(tm). Maybe they’ll do the same as they’re doing in Texas - move the bottom half to the pad first. IIRC, there’s some potential issue with a rail bridge starting construction and blocking the way if it’s not real Soon™️. 1 minute ago, Elro2k said: Speaking of 80% reusability, does anyone recall what happened to the second stage recovery concept? Elon tweeted in April of 2018 that they would try to recover the second stage using a "giant party balloon" and have it land on a "giant bouncy house." Anyone know what happened to this idea? Shelved to focus entirely on Starship. And the way things are going, looks like the right call, as Starship could fly (and get much better data) by the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 6 minutes ago, tater said: Can I order 1 to land next to my house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Frequent daily flights?.. Come on, that’s crazy talk, even for someone like Elon Musk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Frequent daily flights?.. Come on, that’s crazy talk, even for someone like Elon Musk. That's Shotwell's take on P2P as well. I'm unconvinced, but it will be interesting to see what happens, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 If they make good on orbital refueling, then multiple flights per day (define frequent?) isn't too much of a stretch. At the very least they will need multiple flights a week for refueling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 31 minutes ago, tater said: That's Shotwell's take on P2P as well. I'm unconvinced, but it will be interesting to see what happens, that's for sure. I understood it as frequent daily flights from the same spaceport (Starport? ), which is mind blowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 1 hour ago, sh1pman said: I understood it as frequent daily flights from the same spaceport (Starport? ), which is mind blowing. She said that the P2P business case was partially that the same vehicle could make multiple flights a day. Again, I'll buy that when I see it, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 2 hours ago, Elro2k said: Speaking of 80% reusability, does anyone recall what happened to the second stage recovery concept? Elon tweeted in April of 2018 that they would try to recover the second stage using a "giant party balloon" and have it land on a "giant bouncy house." Anyone know what happened to this idea? My thinking is that the F9 system would lose too much payload capacity after adding all the new shielding and landing hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 5 hours ago, Xd the great said: Can I order 1 to land next to my house? Wrong thread. Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, tater said: That's Shotwell's take on P2P as well. I'm unconvinced, but it will be interesting to see what happens, that's for sure. I've already posted all the many reasons why Starship point2point is about as realistic as Space Ghost Coast2Coast. And that was *before* the 737 scrutiny. Gotta admire the optimism, however, of a guy saying "Starship will be fully reusable with booster reflight possible every few hours & ship reflight every 8 hours" when neither one has ever flown once. Edited November 5, 2019 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 42 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Wrong thread. Hide contents Spoiler I wanted a controlled landing, not a broken fuel tank spewing toxic hypergolic fuel all over me! 10 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I've already posted all the many reasons why Starship point2point is about as realistic as Space Ghost Coast2Coast. And that was *before* the 737 scrutiny. Agreed. Doesn't sound very plausible, the dangers sound way too high. 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.