Nightside Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 59 minutes ago, SuperFastJellyfish said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE Essentially, a foam-filled bag and a deorbit motor. Does crapping your pants count as regenerative cooling in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said: How long until we get a Marvel movie with Captain American surfing down from orbit on his shield? Well, we know what vibranium does to bullets fired by scorned lovers who look one of the girls from my postgrad group. But what does it do to hypersonic air? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias_the_Goat Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 29 minutes ago, Nightside said: Does crapping your pants count as regenerative cooling in this case? It is certainly an...unorthodox method. I have a hunch that it would help more with the foam production, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 1 hour ago, DDE said: Well, we know what vibranium does to bullets fired by scorned lovers who look one of the girls from my postgrad group. But what does it do to hypersonic air? Vibranium only absorbs kinetic energy, not thermal energy, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 33 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Vibranium only absorbs kinetic energy, not thermal energy, right? It's kinetic once you ho down to the molecular level. Bit of an "Aquaman can't control whales" issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Sooooo.... at what point does a Tesla actually become topical in this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Sooooo.... at what point does a Tesla actually become topical in this thread? Feb. 6, 2018. But yeah, he's mentioned this idea before briefly. It's insane, but... what else would you expect? 7 hours ago, SuperFastJellyfish said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE Essentially, a foam-filled bag and a deorbit motor. Wait, since the BFR has no abort system... could a modernized version of this actually make sense for it? I don't know if there's enough space for a bunch of these, but maybe.Perhaps it could, I don't know, double as a bed somehow and jettison out the window? Edited January 9, 2019 by ThatGuyWithALongUsername Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 37 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: But yeah, he's mentioned this idea before briefly. It's insane, but... what else would you expect? Well, until last month building a rocket apparently out of tinfoil in a field in Texas sounded like a completely ridiculous idea, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 9 hours ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: Wait, since the BFR has no abort system... could a modernized version of this actually make sense for it? Anything’s better than the complete lack of backups the BFR suffers from compared with every other architecture. Yes, I’m still insisting that the BFR is a deathtrap should almost anything go wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 This just in: No, Super Heavy won't still be CF. It's stainless too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaff Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: This just in: No, Super Heavy won't still be CF. It's stainless too. Could easily be a stainless tube full of CF fuel tanks though? all that tweet confirms is it’s all going to be shiny Edited January 10, 2019 by Jaff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinimumSky5 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 But why would they do that? Stainless is more than capable of containing LOX and LPG, why add mass to the rocket with seperate fuel tanks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I don't see them wrapping steel around CFC tanks. Defeats the purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 hours ago, DDE said: Anything’s better than the complete lack of backups the BFR suffers from compared with every other architecture. Yes, I’m still insisting that the BFR is a deathtrap should almost anything go wrong. It has plenty of redundancy in the engines, the unmanned version will also be used a lot before we get an manned mission. Takeoff would be safer than the shuttle. Reeentry, not sure how they even manage this without heat shield, Wonder if they use some? they can still operate pretty hot but its strong limits. They will also use this for return from Moon or Mars. Landing: you have engine redundancy but lots of other stuff can also go bad. MOOSE was designed for escape from orbit. This is the least relevant place as I think they just launch an new startship dock and transfer. Now my thought was having an escape pod on top. Something like the new Shepard pod but larger because the larger crew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 28 minutes ago, magnemoe said: It has plenty of redundancy in the engines, the unmanned version will also be used a lot before we get an manned mission. How would it save the passengers from ULA sniper though? (that question was only half sarcastic) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ment18 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 44 minutes ago, sh1pman said: How would it save the passengers from ULA sniper though? (that question was only half sarcastic) By not having COPVs. Shooting regular tanks simply causes fuel to slowly leak out and boil off, nothing catastrophic. They intentionally did this to safe vehicles in the past. If you are talking about sniping passengers themselves, not sure anything reasonable can be done, for any vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 19 minutes ago, ment18 said: By not having COPVs. Shooting regular tanks simply causes fuel to slowly leak out and boil off, nothing catastrophic. They intentionally did this to safe vehicles in the past. If you are talking about sniping passengers themselves, not sure anything reasonable can be done, for any vehicle. The actual ULA Sniper will just get more boolit. And yes, the space jarheads over at Novosti Kosmonavtiki forums do consider the BFR a purely military asset that needs to be very aggressively countered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 From Spaceflightnow: Quote Jan. 11Falcon 9 • Iridium Next 66-75 Launch time: 1531 GMT (10:31 a.m. EST; 7:31 a.m. PST)Launch site: SLC-4E, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, DDE said: And yes, the space jarheads over at Novosti Kosmonavtiki forums do consider the BFR a purely military asset that needs to be very aggressively countered. A military asset that got literally zero dollars of government or military funding, lol. AFAIK, only Raptor got some funding from the Air Force, but that had been way before BFR concept was even announced, in the form of ITS, which wasn’t going to go anywhere but Mars. Falcon and Dragon are closer to being military assets than BFR. Unless they find oil on Mars, that is... Edited January 10, 2019 by sh1pman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Fear not! As soon as BFR Starship proves itself to be reliable, safe and useful, Army and Air Force will be all over it like ants over picnic basket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 29 minutes ago, Scotius said: Fear not! As soon as BFR Starship proves itself to be reliable, safe and useful, Army and Air Force will be all over it like ants over picnic basket. An reliable BFR with fast turnover would have significant military capabilities. Rods from god in any orbit you want with the layout you want up to an +70 ton long rod perpetrator. yes drop more than any heavy bomber and at orbital velocity. However its an private company and then military prefer to do their own things. On the other hand in the case of an war the enemy might hit the launchpads and staging areas with some sub launched cruise missiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 For tomorrow morning. 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.