Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

They can move tanks around. Also, something occurred to me just now that I would do differently.

The legs still bug me for the Moon. I'd take at least the 3 legs that don't have RCS on them and keep the shape, but reimagine them as F9 booster legs. They flip out the same way as those, but have not much clearance, matching the smaller legs in that respect. That would massively increase the footprint on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Half an hour of setting time would be too fast. Do we have any concrete specialists here? What cement like vacuum resistant concoction can we pour on Moon to fix the surface?

Concrete. :D

Fast curing time could be an advantage, you’d just need a machine that creeps slowly along laying down a strip of concrete that’s set (but not fully cured) when it comes out the back end. Make multiple passes back and forth and voila, landing pad. These machines actually exist already, would just need to be modified for moon use. 
 


Precast-Hollow-Core-Slab-Forming-Machine

 

this line from that article tho...

Quote

...the application of a vacuum to the surface concrete results in a large amount of a vacuum to the surface of the concrete...

Um... <_<

Edited by CatastrophicFailure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe vacuum bag the concrete to prevent the water from evaporating into space while the concrete sets up and cures?  Except that doesn't make sense, since vacuum bagging only works if you have an atmosphere present...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes they probably keep the header tanks, they are nice for matching trajectory with gateway or other stuff. 

Header tank is for supplying Raptors, not for RCS. RCS is gas-gas, pressure-fed from boiloff and autogen press of the main tanks.

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

As cargo is lighter you might shorten the tanks for lunar SSTO operation it still need to do any sort of moon missions including polar. 

You still need full tank volume. dV for single-stage from LEO to the lunar surface and back again is immense.

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

The water has to be allowed to come out of regular concrete. It sweats as it cures.

IIRC the water doesn't come out of the concrete; it reacts with the concrete mix to create the concrete. Quite exothermically, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

IIRC the water doesn't come out of the concrete; it reacts with the concrete mix to create the concrete. Quite exothermically, I believe.

However it happens it sure is damp. For a project we had to build up a temporary concrete plinth and line it with anti-dust compound and aluminium plate to take an air-skate.

Contractor: "Don't paint this for at least two months."

Us: "Unfortunately we have to have to use this within a fortnight."

Contractor: "Well."

Six months later our aluminium liner is curling up at the edges and the anti-dust paint is still tacky from the moisture.

Us: "Well."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler

  

8 hours ago, sevenperforce said:
10 hours ago, RCgothic said:

The water has to be allowed to come out of regular concrete. It sweats as it cures.

IIRC the water doesn't come out of the concrete; it reacts with the concrete mix to create the concrete. Quite exothermically, I believe.

No water, no problem.

Spoiler

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5afsuEsp2e1MFIuLGoWy

 


 

Spoiler

Methalox... Methane... Natural gas...

Shale. They need a lunar shale.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably very wrong, but isn't the higher expansion-ratio engine bell one of the only differences between the sea-level and vacuum Raptor variants? The bell will need more propellant pumped through it for regenerative cooling because it's bigger but otherwise RVac is very similar to the SL version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, lolkekov said:

Interestingly, the situation with coronavirus can greatly slow down development? Will cut costs in nasa and space x? I think that funding for projects will not be as large as originally planned

I know we're not supposed to talk politics, but it is impossible to avoid when discussing funding priorities. This really hamstrings our ability to discuss this sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I know we're not supposed to talk politics, but it is impossible to avoid when discussing funding priorities. This really hamstrings our ability to discuss this sort of thing.

There is an official statement from the NASA administrator that he wants to get human space flight added to any post coronavirus economic stimulus spending bill. I won't get into why space flight is considered economic stimulus, to avoid the politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

So Super Heavy has been redesigned again, it seems.

'Legs similar to ship' worries me. Despite their recent redesign, they're still tiny. Won't it be really easy for Super Heavy to tip over on landing?

The tiny legs do look worrisome. I don't think there's much that can be done with this design though.

Maybe we're just used to seeing big spread out legs on F9. That things needs to be stable on a swaying barge though. As longs as SS has a stable and flat ground to land on it probably won't be a problem.

Edited by Wjolcz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

The tiny legs do look worrisome. I don't think there's much that can be done with this design though.

Maybe we're just used to seeing big spread out legs on F9. That things needs to be stable on a swaying barge though. As longs as SS has a stable and flat ground to land on it probably won't be a problem.

Stability is a function of width of the base and position of the center of mass. SS/SH looks to be much much wider per height than Falcon. What is the height of the Falcon first stage? (for some reason the web only want to tell me the height of the whole rocket ~70m).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Nightside said:

Stability is a function of width of the base and position of the center of mass. SS/SH looks to be much much wider per height than Falcon. What is the height of the Falcon first stage? (for some reason the web only want to tell me the height of the whole rocket ~70m).

 

1st stage of falcon 9: 41 meters x 3.75m of width ( finess ratio: 10.9), 1st stage of superheavy ( as of right now): 70x9 meters ( ratio 7.8)

however we have to consider the legs are 10 meters long  but enlarge the base of another 8 meters per side ( more or less) so at the end the width during landing is around 20 meters, so a landing finess ratio of 2.1:1

 

p.s. i just typed "falcon 9 first stage" and i got the answer

Edited by Flavio hc16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Flavio hc16 said:

1st stage of falcon 9: 41 meters x 3.75m of width ( finess ratio: 10.9), 1st stage of superheavy ( as of right now): 70x9 meters ( ratio 7.8)

however we have to consider the legs are 10 meters long  but enlarge the base of another 8 meters ( more or less) so at the end the width during landing is around 20 meters, so a landing finess ratio of 2.1:1

p.s. i just typed "falcon 9 first stage" and i got the answer

That's what I typed too! But I just got a lot of things claiming that the height of the 1st stage is 70m, which is wrong.

What we can probably only guess at is the height of the CoM, Falcon9's large legs are an asset here,  but SH will have 3-4x the engines, so even with puny legs the COM will be pretty low. 

I would guess that the biggest difference is how much control SpaceX thinks they will have in the terminal landing phase. They may be planning on having more throttle control,which would allow for more time to correct translation. This would reduce the need for wide legs. 

Based on the videos of F9 Landings, many of the barge landings have been pretty sketchy, with lots of horizontal movement or hard landings, but I can't think of a onshore landing that looked very bad (I'm sure I'm forgetting something). 

Legs don't get you to space, so the less leg you are carrying the better. But my guess is that the SH legs will get wider as the design progresses if they don't get the level of performance out of raptor they expect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nightside said:

SS/SH looks to be much much wider per height than Falcon.

 

Yup, but Falcon needs to stand upright only at the end of the flight, with tanks empty. SS, would need to have enough fuel to get back from wherever, so tanks will not be empty meaning higher COG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...