Lucky 13 Starship sends out satellites and stays intact
1–7 of 7 posts
Re: Lucky 13 Starship sends out satellites and stays intact
#2I am a big fan of SpaceX, they are amazing engineers and scientists!
But when I watch such videos I can't suppress thinking that is not the way access to space should be. I still (I am 69) think that the way forward is with planes that could take off and landing on runways.
Re: Lucky 13 Starship sends out satellites and stays intact
#3I am a big fan of SpaceX, they are amazing engineers and scientists! But when I watch such videos I can't suppress thinking that is not the way access to space should be. I still (I am 69) think that the way forward is with planes that could take off and landing on runways.
Spaceplanes have a nice visual aesthetic, but absent something much more energy-dense than chemical fuel, they'd still need to be multi-stage, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Pegasus#/medi...
My current fantasy for space access is an orbital ring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring
A fantasy for all the same reasons as putting up a million data centre satellites (it's roughly the same size project), but somewhat more useful as it turns space from one of the most expensive and difficult places to go, to a long-distance high-speed rail line.
Re: Lucky 13 Starship sends out satellites and stays intact
#4I am a big fan of SpaceX, they are amazing engineers and scientists! But when I watch such videos I can't suppress thinking that is not the way access to space should be. I still (I am 69) think that the way forward is with planes that could take off and landing on runways.
Looking at the return trajectory for the space shuttle helps you understand the difficulties in combining aero-flight with rocketry using the same control surfaces.
Re: Lucky 13 Starship sends out satellites and stays intact
#5I am a big fan of SpaceX, they are amazing engineers and scientists! But when I watch such videos I can't suppress thinking that is not the way access to space should be. I still (I am 69) think that the way forward is with planes that could take off and landing on runways.
Looking at the return trajectory for the space shuttle helps you understand the difficulties in combining aero-flight with rocketry using the same control surfaces.
I am not convinced this is a huge roadblock because the US and Chinese armies still use them.
Re: Lucky 13 Starship sends out satellites and stays intact
#6I am a big fan of SpaceX, they are amazing engineers and scientists! But when I watch such videos I can't suppress thinking that is not the way access to space should be. I still (I am 69) think that the way forward is with planes that could take off and landing on runways.
Spaceplanes have a nice visual aesthetic, but absent something much more energy-dense than chemical fuel, they'd still need to be multi-stage, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Pegasus#/medi... My current fantasy for space access is an orbital ring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring A fantasy for all the same reasons as putting up a million data centre satellites (it's roughly the same size…
> *Orbital rings*
I love megastructures, but I think it will take us a thousand years before we possess them (as a species).
> *Higher energy density than chemical fuel*
That’s true, but it’s a general problem that applies to rockets too as Tsiolkovsky recognized back in 1896!
A burning Starship in the Indian Ocean doesn't look like either as vision of the future, but rather like an ugly cyberpunk dream.
Re: Lucky 13 Starship sends out satellites and stays intact
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spaceplanes have a nice visual aesthetic, but absent something much more energy-dense than chemical fuel, they'd still need to be multi-stage, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Pegasus#/medi... My current fantasy for space access is an orbital ring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring A fantasy for all the same reasons as putting up a million data centre satellites (it's roughly the same size…
> *Orbital rings* I love megastructures, but I think it will take us a thousand years before we possess them (as a species). > *Higher energy density than chemical fuel* That’s true, but it’s a general problem that applies to rockets too as Tsiolkovsky recognized back in 1896! A burning Starship in the Indian Ocean doesn't look like either as vision of the future, but rather like an ugly cyberpunk dream.
Agreed on Starship.
Orbital rings… I think are more like a century or two. Physical possibility and affordability will I think take only 25-100 years[0], the rest being politics getting to the point nobody shoots it up.
[0] if you believe Alphabet's estimates about how fast SpaceX can reduce costs, estimated in the context of orbital data centers, it would only take 10.
I think this is overoptimistic, as the Alphabet paper assumed 370,000 tons[1] getting launched as the process for reducing costs, and I think Musk runs out of other people's money before that point.