2 ms·
"Doomed" is probably an overstatement. "Way more expensive than originally planned" will probably be closer to the truth.
by vannevar 1y ago
"Doomed" is probably an overstatement. "Way more expensive than originally planned" will probably be closer to the truth.
- LorenPechtel 1y agoI think "doomed" is quite reasonable. Fundamentally, that energy must go somewhere. You plunge in steeper and you get a higher peak but lower total, but no matter what you do it's an awful lot of heat that you have to keep away from the cargo. Belly flop is good for increasing drag, "works" quite well with Kerbals (just don't look at the core temperature of the capsule!), but Kerbin is an awful lot more forgiving about the fire than Earth is. I had thought they would have considered the basic numbers long before now, but apparently they did not. However, the booster seems to work. Scrap Starship, build an upsized version of the Falcon 9 upper stage and put it on top of the booster. Still better in the heavy lift department than anything out there.
- vannevar 1y agoIt's a multi-variate optimization problem for sure, where mass, specific impulse, thermal protection, structural load, aerodynamics, and entry profile all interact. The author may be right. But I'm not yet convinced there is no solution. I am convinced that, if there is, it will cost much more than originally projected.