avmich

39 ms·

571.
by avmich 2y ago
I strongly disagree. > iterative engineering approach to something and complex and full of hard dependencies as Starship will achieve rapid reusability sometime between much later than promised and never To the opposite, you can't h
572.
by avmich 2y ago
So, no substantial arguments? Case closed? Or Musk is still the universal villain, even when the talk is about something else?
573.
by avmich 2y ago
You'd think that, but on Mir space station that kind of radiator showed some good results, and the liquid was gathered back with negligible losses.
574.
by avmich 2y ago
My comment was more of an agreement, I do think that good points can come from various sides, not only "certified by the upper levels of government". Starship is in testing, which was chosen to be done with test flights. Those tes
575.
by avmich 2y ago
When a child remarks about an emperor's clothes, that child doesn't need to be a tailor.
576.
by avmich 2y ago
> It's like asking, who, Miss Universe what her opinion on the US Space Program is. I wonder what would happen if this Hollywood star - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr - would be asked about, say, spr
577.
by avmich 2y ago
Space radiators, I believe, are still having some space to evolve, particularly liquid droplet radiators.
578.
by avmich 2y ago
I was probably too terse. Those missions are above some level of complexity. Robots - even today's ones - scale rather poorly with the complexity required, while for humans a lot of what's needed comes "for free". So, if
579.
by avmich 2y ago
Thanks for the link!
580.
by avmich 2y ago
I'd definitely prefer to decouple the carrying fuel to the orbital depot and the refueling at the said depot, when it already does have the fuel amount needed. As for spinning two Starships of significantly different mass... that shoul
581.
by avmich 2y ago
> I believe the plan is to impart a gentle spin. That would be something new. And for a partially refueled stage, that's a lot of mass to spin. How fast? the speed of spinning could be important too.
582.
by avmich 2y ago
But still not GDP, right? :)
583.
by avmich 2y ago
> It should be, but we haven't done it yet [1]. Yes, but there were some calculations for this - http://astronautix.com/n/n1blocksr.html - which hints on boiling off to be manageable for large stages.
584.
by avmich 2y ago
> How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. And now loosing 3 rockets and still not orbiting is an amazing achievement? Well :) Saturns were simpler, and more m
585.
by avmich 2y ago
> I dont understand how people can eat anything up Musk wildly claims and forget all BS the moment it turns out it was BS. All Musk weirdness aside - SpaceX revolutionized the launch business for the planet, and for quite some time alrea
586.
by avmich 2y ago
I get it, and still would comment on many points. Well, it's probably wrong place to have the discussion here :) .
587.
by avmich 2y ago
I want to remind here that, according to some professional space roboticists, humans in space can run certain missions cheaper than automata. Maybe it's somewhat outdated point of view - it's about 10 years old. But, if you think
588.
by avmich 2y ago
Not sure if it's too similar to pressure-fed engine, that one works with a clear acceleration direction, which really helps to keep fuel at the local bottom. > A separate, expendable gas supply pressurises the donor tank to force th
589.
by avmich 2y ago
> You’d expect at least some evidence that it can lift that much weight by this point "By this point". Well, we have testing program here (which to me looks pretty successful so far), the capabilities of the system - demonstrat
590.
by avmich 2y ago
Thanks. I'd assume the boil-off should be insignificant, in a sense, or - alternatively - some active cooling systems can be used, they don't need to be big or complex.
591.
by avmich 2y ago
> Fuelling, They pump tons of fuel per second, obviously automated. Connecting/disconnecting pipes are with that movable platform. Granted, today it's different, and some more operations might be needed, like, say, more careful
592.
by avmich 2y ago
At this point I'd be afraid more about skepticism. What's the problem here which is going to stop the progress on the Starship program?
593.
by avmich 2y ago
> Except there isn't any data to back that up. There's seemingly no physical - or economical, for that matter - reason for this to be impossible, so why not? Starship definitely didn't complete testing at this point, many
594.
by avmich 2y ago
> The timeline for the first propellant-transfer test is three to four weeks. 14 launches over 30 days comes to a launch every other day. Not sure I understand your numbers here in relation to the quoted part?
595.
by avmich 2y ago
Less than aviation?
596.
by avmich 2y ago
No, I'm confused between "free flow", "no pumps" and "pressure difference", which to me a sort of a pump - in some sense, active forces applied to propellants. So I was thinking about flowing from a point
597.
by avmich 2y ago
> It also cost 25% of the US's yearly GDP in total. Well, peak ~4% of US budget, not GDP, in 1966. A lot, but not that much.
598.
by avmich 2y ago
So, on that recent presentation Musk talked about around 250,000 tons to Mars in one launch window - every 2 years - which's gonna take ~1000 Starship flights to Mars. So if every flight to Mars needs 10, nah, 15 refueling flights, tha
599.
by avmich 2y ago
What kind of ground operations are expected for Starships? The rocket is reusable, the fueling is automated, the in-between flight checks are, what, how do they do that in practice? What are intermediate actions which need to happen in a se
600.
by avmich 2y ago
Do they describe somewhere how they achieved the apparently successful propellant transfer in microgravity in flight 3? Having pressure difference might not be enough if the fuel is a mix of liquid and gaseous phases. Edit: aha, found - &qu

More ›