RealKerbal3x Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 10 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Is it stretched? It looks stretched. Same height as a regular vehicle as far as I know, I suspect it's the lack of flaps that makes it look taller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: Same height as a regular vehicle as far as I know, I suspect it's the lack of flaps that makes it look taller. That seems right from this pic: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 21 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Is it stretched? It looks stretched. ~20 rings before nose cone. Same as regular I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 Checked in PS, it's the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 34 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Is it stretched? It looks stretched. Don't believe it is. Looking at the NSF livestream and it's mounted slightly higher. The lack of fins and tiles also makes it look longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) this is either a lunar starship prototype or a tanker prototype. in either case it kind of makes sense you would omit the sea level engines. since it doesn't need to land it doesn't make sense to take those engines. on the other hand i doubt that this will be the initial test article. unless it could also be a dummy starship for super heavy testing. if they wanted to test without the added cost and complexity of having an actual starship in tow. anyone get a shot under its skirt, to see what kind of equipment it has? erm. Edited February 12, 2023 by Nuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 13 minutes ago, Nuke said: this is either a lunar starship prototype or a tanker prototype. in either case it kind of makes sense you would omit the sea level engines. since it doesn't need to land it doesn't make sense to take those engines. on the other hand i doubt that this will be the initial test article. unless it could also be a dummy starship for super heavy testing. if they wanted to test without the added cost and complexity of having an actual starship in tow. anyone get a shot under its skirt, to see what kind of equipment it has? erm. One thought is that the nose might have prop tanks, and in LEO it could attempt transfer within the vehicle with ullage burns as proof of concept before attempting vehicle to vehicle transfers. Might also result in checking off some LSS milestones ($$$). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 7 minutes ago, tater said: One thought is that the nose might have prop tanks, and in LEO it could attempt transfer within the vehicle with ullage burns as proof of concept before attempting vehicle to vehicle transfers. Might also result in checking off some LSS milestones ($$$). That is one of the tests NASA explicitly said was tracking, tank-to-tank transfer in the same ship. Seems pretty likely S26 or 27 will be the one to test it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 5 minutes ago, Beccab said: That is one of the tests NASA explicitly said was tracking, tank-to-tank transfer in the same ship. Seems pretty likely S26 or 27 will be the one to test it So they throw that honking big thing up into space - move fuel from one part to another and then deorbit for the check in the box? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said: So they throw that honking big thing up into space - move fuel from one part to another and then deorbit for the check in the box? Something like that, yeah. The last part isn't required, they have intertank cameras and sensors to check that, but it would be a bonus for sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, Beccab said: Something like that, yeah. The last part isn't required, they have intertank cameras and sensors to check that, but it would be a bonus for sure If they don't deorbit... I'd like for them to say that it is remaining up there as a fuel depot and they have the ability to test ship to ship with it... otherwise you have a LOT of steel that could survive reentry just floating around. Seems the responsible thing to do - if they aren't using it and don't want Chinese levels of PR problems. Either have a purpose or toss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 36 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: If they don't deorbit... I'd like for them to say that it is remaining up there as a fuel depot and they have the ability to test ship to ship with it... otherwise you have a LOT of steel that could survive reentry just floating around. Seems the responsible thing to do - if they aren't using it and don't want Chinese levels of PR problems. Either have a purpose or toss it. Oh it's definitely coming down yeah, it'd be a procedure like with F9 S2 stages. Deorbit burn, then straight to Point Nemo. I meant that I'm not sure if they want to do the test on a recoverable ship or not, since we don't have direct confirmation yet of exactly *what* S26/27 will do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 42 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: So they throw that honking big thing up into space - move fuel from one part to another and then deorbit for the check in the box? With an expended SH (the norm for some time I would imagine) they can send it to TLI with ~1.1km/s to spare. S26, that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 1 minute ago, tater said: With an expended SH (the norm for some time I would imagine) they can send it to TLI with ~1.1km/s to spare. S26, that is. You know... that is an interesting point. I've been laser focused on them trying to do the propulsive landing testing and proving the big boys can do it (or be caught) that I've not even given a moments thought about them sending stuff deeper into space. I'd guess from a $$ standpoint that if the client is ready for them to toss a rock at the moon for grins, and Booster performs as advertised (lift-wise)... nothing would hold them back from commissioning a Booster as a traditional expendable. The being able to land/catch and reuse isn't really a client-focused thing (when client is conditioned to expect expendable pricing)... but it is a cost-benefit to the company to be able to save money and then out-compete the competition on price. Will be interesting to see what the next few years brings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 They could put it in a lunar orbit with a small (several tonnes, lol) payload of starlinks to set up a lunar comms network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Beccab said: Oh it's definitely coming down yeah, it'd be a procedure like with F9 S2 stages. Deorbit burn, then straight to Point Nemo. I meant that I'm not sure if they want to do the test on a recoverable ship or not, since we don't have direct confirmation yet of exactly *what* S26/27 will do Hmm, I feel like this is tricky. I have the feeling they will want to do prop transfer tests in a reasonably high orbit. If something goes wrong and they lose power, they don't want the thing making an uncontrolled re-entry before they can send up another ship to fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 54 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: If they don't deorbit... I'd like for them to say that it is remaining up there as a fuel depot and they have the ability to test ship to ship with it... otherwise you have a LOT of steel that could survive reentry just floating around. Seems the responsible thing to do - if they aren't using it and don't want Chinese levels of PR problems. Either have a purpose or toss it. I don't think its ready as an propellant depot. I need to have have an inverted quick disconnect connector so other ships can dock, I suspect also an upper docking point would be smart so all forces is not on the QD but should be possible without, but it has to be set up for docking. I would also expect it to be foamed for better insulation. But why not also use it to deploy starlink 2, yes they need to get the dispenser working. Or simply test it on an ship who also try to reenter? is an contracted time restrain on the test, or is the propellant to be pumped to much to allow for reentry equipment? If you have ullage, moving liquid between two tanks just require that its an pressure difference. Yes you have to deal with cryogenic propellant who makes this harder like how the hotter target tank will generate more gas so you want to went this gas as ullage or pump it to to the source tank. I see pumping between to ships as harder because the connection and you need to balance ullage between the this including the torque because of fuel transfer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 2 hours ago, Nuke said: this is either a lunar starship prototype or a tanker prototype. in either case it kind of makes sense you would omit the sea level engines. since it doesn't need to land it doesn't make sense to take those engines. on the other hand i doubt that this will be the initial test article. unless it could also be a dummy starship for super heavy testing. if they wanted to test without the added cost and complexity of having an actual starship in tow. anyone get a shot under its skirt, to see what kind of equipment it has? erm. The sea level engines has other uses than landing, first it add extra trust after separation increasing TWR, second and more important if one of the three vacuum engines fail you get out of center trust, an surface engine can gimbal and fire up to compensate. Yes if you don't need the extra TWR and don't care of an engine fail equal mission fail you can drop them but they will be on lunar starship for safety reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 I've heard mention that with a fairing, the Superheavy could be a single-stage-to-orbit. Probably expendable in this mode, but how much could it lift? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 (edited) Both Superheavy and Starship individually could theoretically SSTO, we think, with the right tank and engine configurations. So could F9 stage 1. But the exact payload depends very heavily on the dry mass which isn't precisely known outside SpaceX at this point in development. If superheavy masses 160t, then it's payload SSTO with all sea level engines could be somewhere 5-40t range. No rocket can SSTO and be recovered though, which is what makes it kind of pointless. It will almost always be cheaper to recover the 1st stage and expend a smaller 2nd stage, even for the same payload. Then consider that by expending a 2nd stage you can either massively reduce the size of the first stage needed for the same payload, or loft much more mass at once, and the economics of SSTO are very poor indeed. Edited February 13, 2023 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 I suppose SH as a reusable Neutron-style smallsat launcher (RTLS first stage, very light second stage) would be too out-there. Even if it would be funny. When's SH supposed to stage-separate? How far could it push this in terms of altitude and velocity before it was required to land at a downrange site (maybe that floating oil rig that we haven't heard of for a while)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 1 hour ago, AckSed said: I've heard mention that with a fairing, the Superheavy could be a single-stage-to-orbit. Probably expendable in this mode, but how much could it lift? We have a whole thread for that exact question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Geonovast said: We have a whole thread for that exact question. *reads* Much as I actually want to talk about it in the correct thread... I will not be sticking my face in to that crossfire of dogma. Then they moved on to just comparing SS/SH with other approaches. I'll be good. Edited February 13, 2023 by AckSed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 14, 2023 Share Posted February 14, 2023 Oil rigs sold. Still interested, but want to fly SS first before committing to particular rigs. 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.