RCgothic Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 11 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said: Starship will be on top but I doubt it will really be able to fly the promoted 100 tons. I'm not completely convinced it means 100+mt of pure payload as opposed to payload + residual fuel. Very few rockets actually lift their nominal payload to LEO. But 100t to LEO fuel inclusive? Dead cert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 7 hours ago, magnemoe said: unless your point was to break earth crust or something. If you know how the Orion propulsion pulse modules worked, that's more likely than you might think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 Cryo ICBM were a thing in early 1960s. No chances for Starship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 On 5/21/2021 at 12:30 PM, tater said: Say a house on your street sells for $2M! Is your house then worth $2M? Is your house worth $6M? Your house is worth whatever someone will pay for it. (It also has utility value in that it provides you a place to live.) In the same sense, a launch is worth whatever a customer is willing to pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Your house is worth whatever someone will pay for it. (It also has utility value in that it provides you a place to live.) In the same sense, a launch is worth whatever a customer is willing to pay for it. Certainly true. We're talking about buying secondary spacecraft (not launches) to have options when we know that the "giant mansion" of a spacecraft costs $2.9B. It is odd to think someone buying extra/redundant capability would spend 2-3X as much on something objectively far less capable. Obviously if Congress wants to spend too much money on something worse, then poof, we have a comp in the neighborhood where a huge house is $2M, and also a potting shed is $2M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 I know that the HLS contract to Spacex is now secured, but is the payment for it too? As in, can congress still say "take two landers but we won't give you more money, split what you already have"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanRising Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 48 minutes ago, Beccab said: I know that the HLS contract to Spacex is now secured, but is the payment for it too? As in, can congress still say "take two landers but we won't give you more money, split what you already have"? Payment is part of the contract, but of course the contract is under protest by the two providers not selected at the moment. However, as I understand it Congress can do whatever they darn well please to NASA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 If NASA can't make the payment milestones because of funding not released by Congress, progress will slow down. Some in Congress would then seek to pin the delay on SpaceX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 2 hours ago, RCgothic said: If NASA can't make the payment milestones because of funding not released by Congress, progress will slow down. Some in Congress would then seek to pin the delay on SpaceX. Except SpaceX's progress likely wouldn't be slowed by any change in the contract. The only thing that might happen is an unrelated, coincidental delay caused by some other factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 Well they may not seek to demonstrate the next milestone if they haven't been paid for the last. It'll make no difference to Starship's general development, agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 And oldish tweet, but thought I'd leave this here so as not to further derail the blue origin thread with discussion of starship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 I wonder if we'll ever see a fully expended Starship launch. It would be cool to see but I don't think anyone is going to need a 300t payload put in LEO anytime soon. A thing we're more likely to see is an expendable upper stage config for high-energy interplanetary launches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceFace545 Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 Just now, RealKerbal3x said: I wonder if we'll ever see a fully expended Starship launch. It would be cool to see but I don't think anyone is going to need a 300t payload put in LEO anytime soon. A thing we're more likely to see is an expendable upper stage config for high-energy interplanetary launches. I think the latter is possible, raptor vacs only. I’ve seen a deep space starship image floating around the internet so that could be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 Just now, SpaceFace545 said: I think the latter is possible, raptor vacs only. I’ve seen a deep space starship image floating around the internet so that could be it. Technically it would still need SL Raptors for control during ascent as RVacs don't have gimbal. (I don't think RCS would provide enough authority) Also, this might be the image you were thinking of, from an Everyday Astronaut video: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceFace545 Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 23 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: Technically it would still need SL Raptors for control during ascent as RVacs don't have gimbal. (I don't think RCS would provide enough authority) Also, this might be the image you were thinking of, from an Everyday Astronaut video: Yep that’s it, I saw it from Stanley creatives new video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 (edited) I wonder if the skirt could also be dumped on an expendable version as an interstage Saturn S-II style. ... And immediately I've talked myself out of that idea because for best effect it'll still need refuelling in LEO or higher and that's where the gear's kept. Edited May 23, 2021 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said: I think the latter is possible, raptor vacs only. I’ve seen a deep space starship image floating around the internet so that could be it. It should be doable, however then they need more vacuum engines, 6 I guess as they will use the sea level ones after separation. Could probably to with less but 6 makes its a bit easier to shut down engines to reduce g load and better engine out performance. An fairing who could be steel or composite, I guess steel as its dropped soon after separation so not much penalty, its easier to make and you will refuel in orbit anyway. 1 hour ago, RCgothic said: I wonder if the skirt could also be dumped on an expendable version as an interstage Saturn S-II style. ... And immediately I've talked myself or of that idea because for best effect it'll still need refuelling in LEO or higher and that's where the gear's kept. Yes both the engines and the refueling system is mounted to the skirt, the skirt also protect engines and other stuff during the rear to rear docking. You could probably use an lightweight internal frame for this and drop the skirt but this adds complexity so probably not worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, magnemoe said: It should be doable, however then they need more vacuum engines, 6 I guess as they will use the sea level ones after separation. Could probably to with less but 6 makes its a bit easier to shut down engines to reduce g load and better engine out performance. Does the skirt even have space for 6 vacuum raptors given that they have a much bigger nozzle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 12 hours ago, tater said: we have a comp in the neighborhood where a huge house is $2M, and also a potting shed is $2M. Welcome to Seattle, here’s your umbrella. 7 minutes ago, Beccab said: Does the skirt even have space for 6 vacuum raptors given that they have a much bigger nozzle? If they don’t gimbal, I think so, could swear I’ve seen a diagram somewhere. Also, can Rvacs throttle? If so, there’s your control right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 11 minutes ago, Beccab said: Does the skirt even have space for 6 vacuum raptors given that they have a much bigger nozzle? Looks like it, remove the bottom cargo bays and the surface engines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 The math only BARELY works for this, I think.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceFace545 Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: The math only BARELY works for this, I think.... They probably will refuel it, even if it’s light enough the extra fuel would serve as a safety measure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said: They probably will refuel it, even if it’s light enough the extra fuel would serve as a safety measure That's the flight plan posted on the #dearMoon site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFUN Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 12 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: The math only BARELY works for this, I think.... Starship can also work as a submarine!? 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.