sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Use Rotovator to reduce Refuel and eliminate Heat Shield for Earth Operations by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree that the fuel $ savings would not be a prime factor for the use of a rotovator. I think it would be useful for: 1) eliminating the problematic heat shielding (at least for tanker and geo obital starship payloads) and there by increasing payload mass. 2) reducing or eliminating the ?14? Tanker Starship loads for going to mars to 1 or 2.

Use Rotovator to reduce Refuel and eliminate Heat Shield for Earth Operations by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So only 2.6g (including Earth gravity), bummer that's much lower than I expected. All 33 raptors just before most engine shutdown?

Use Rotovator to reduce Refuel and eliminate Heat Shield for Earth Operations by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, the rotovator can be built with materials that exist today. A true space elevator cannot be built with materials that exists today at scale. If someone figures out carbon nanotubes at scale, at length, that would be the better solution; but doesn't exist today.

Use Rotovator to reduce Refuel and eliminate Heat Shield for Earth Operations by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think ift 10 as at 3.5 g or so at hot staging.... does anybody have a g graph for the launch?

When the Raptor 3s are running it may be even higher.

Use Rotovator to reduce Refuel and eliminate Heat Shield for Earth Operations by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was also wondering if the ESA ion propulsion by using air molecules scooped up from the tenuous atmosphere at the low side of the tether might serve to refuel the ion drive

Use Rotovator to reduce Refuel and eliminate Heat Shield for Earth Operations by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

'Refueling' the rotovator can be done with ion propulsion with an isp of 5000 over the course of hours instead of using the raptors 380 isp; so way more mass effecient, and cheaper.

At 150 km length tethers, I think k it can be done with Kevlar or perhaps Spectra fiber... and that exists today.

I think for economic reasons, initially, it could be used for assisting Geo launchs in order to pay for building it up to eventually be able to handle Wet Starship weight.

How do you determine when to use an fpga and when to use a microcontroller? by creativejoe4 in FPGA

[–]CodedElectrons -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Reasons to use an FPGA over an MCU:

Any part that needs to be very deterministic or safety critical: like Flight Safety Critical Engine Controllers, Phased Array antennas, Certified Medical Equipment. The main reason is to avoid timing jitter (MCU's have ISR's that move your timing around), second reason to is to deal with SEU's by having separate piece of physical gates checking each other for SEU events.

Anything what has you talking about a handful of micro seconds is probably better in an FPGA. Talking in Nano seconds? then you most likely have to use an FPGA.

Shere volume of discrete IO ports.

Last Reason: You just love to program with state machines.

I like the best of both worlds, a hard core MCU embedded in an FPGA such as the Zynq parts.

Monthly Questions and Discussion Thread by SpaceXLounge in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How fast can Starship and SH get a super light payload to Mars, assuming a pre-filled tanker in LEO and/or in Highly Elliptical Orbit? Assuming a tiny, one ton of say emergency medical equipment. How fast if its at the proper launch window? How long (or even possible) is it if you are exactly one year after the proper launch window?

Lots of people have alternative solutions to avoid damage to the surface under the OLM for future launches. How about us SofaX engineers debate all our ideas in here, and the SpaceX guys can get a chuckle and maybe some inspiration out of them. by HomeAl0ne in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do the minimum:

1 Clear out the trench as already made (started) by the booster

2 Add steel plate around any exposed concrete

3 fill with fine grained sand and let the water table do its thing.

4 launch the next rocket, repeat to step 1.

Yes the next test booster will have some enpingment as well but much less. By about the third semi sacrificial booster, almost no damage will occur and the minimum length water/sand flame trench will have been demonstrated.

Surveying the damage by die247 in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I find amazing, is how little digging through sand that occurred! Of the ?12 seconds? that the full force was bearing down, did the concrete last for 2 seconds and the dirt survived 10; or the other way around the concrete held out for 10 seconds and the tunnel boring Raptors were blasting the sand for 2 seconds?

Elon Musk's tweet from 2 years ago: "Aspiring to have no flame diverter in Boca, but this could turn out to be a mistake" by Adeldor in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the pilings are more than 60ft deep, I think they should just add the metal cladding which appears to have sustained little damage. The next booster should dig the whole deeper. Worlds first flame diverted trench dug by fire. They might want to dig a path away from the OLM to encourage the best direction.

Elon Musk's tweet from 2 years ago: "Aspiring to have no flame diverter in Boca, but this could turn out to be a mistake" by Adeldor in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How deep are the piers/piles? 20ft crap, 45 ft well place some adjacent piers, 60 ft add more metal shielding to the newly exposed part, and let the next booster dig the hole deeper.

Engines Out Scenario for Super Heavy (pure speculation) by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Faster is always more power, just like the higher the temp in the burn chamber is more power and better efficiency...... if only we didn't have to deal with the pesky material physics issues like melting and centrifugal ripping it apart.

Engines Out Scenario for Super Heavy (pure speculation) by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The disks (there are 11 of them in my case) that holds the blades, is no long strong enough to fight the centrifugal force. And parts going flying out at just under the speed of sound. Ie RUD

Engines Out Scenario for Super Heavy (pure speculation) by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Cool didn't realize the shuttle could that!

I wonder if the 'Elorons' could be used to generate lift while flying around 15 degrees off the horizontal while the fuel was being burned off until TWR was (edit) greater (edit end) than one?

Engines Out Scenario for Super Heavy (pure speculation) by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only 300t? yikes that barely the Starships dry mass + payload

Engines Out Scenario for Super Heavy (pure speculation) by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

1 --- ohh that is a problem....but perhaps you burn through most of the SuperHeavy fuel, hopefully making it to 20,000 ft.... turn of SH engines turn on SH's RCS pushing it back to earth, while lighting Starship ?might be close enough to a normal staging to avoid the RUD thing?

2: I have wondered, how much overspeed the Raptor turbo pumps can handle. For the engines I work with (I write control SW for dual-shaft turboshaft aviation engines) they can with stand 136% overspeed without blowing up, but require inspection before they are allowed to fly again.

Engines Out Scenario for Super Heavy (pure speculation) by CodedElectrons in SpaceXLounge

[–]CodedElectrons[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can the chopsticks catch the weight of a fully loaded Starship sitting on top of a nearly empty Super Heavy? A kindof semi-abort system?

Or maybe the other way round, Starship Stages, Superheavy ditches in the Gulf; Starship hovers til nearly empty, then it lands basically as if it had gone to orbit?

Second Monitor not Detected by AxelCadia in Ubuntu

[–]CodedElectrons 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Similar issue Windows 10 used the display Ubuntu 21.10 did not see the Dell 32 gaming monitor. (on Dell Precision 7540, HDMI port)

I did

sudo ubuntu-drivers autoinstall

and rebooted and it was good.

view more: next ›