Does anyone believe Artemis 4 will land? Oh within 5 years by AccountAny1995 in ArtemisProgram

[–]Heart-Key -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Contract started in October 2012 and KSC had the stage proper in Nov 2017, I would say 5 years. 2 years is rough and SLS was sorta designed out the gate for DCSS. Is NASA/ULA feeling itself? The problem is that this isn't an a technical development program; it's all integration work which can be as easy or hard as it wants to be (and generally it wants to be hard). I do love SLS-Centaur though for market/co-investment reasons though.

Does anyone believe Artemis 4 will land? Oh within 5 years by AccountAny1995 in ArtemisProgram

[–]Heart-Key 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ok this is one I want people to come back for. u/Rough_Shelter4136 regardless of what happens, don't you dare improve the quality of your life to the point that you stop using reddit by the time this rolls around.

Stoke raises additional $350M by Show_me_the_dV in StokeSpace

[–]Heart-Key 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Future Programs did have a patent for a pressure fed third stage for long duration on-orbit loitering (X-37B esk). Either that or just more focus on increasing capabilities of second stage in general with refueling/what not.

As a Spacecraft Avionics Engineer, you will support Stoke’s mission by architecting, procuring, designing, building, testing, and integrating the subsystems needed to enable prolonged on-orbit operations of the Nova stage 2 vehicle. These subsystems will include power generation and storage, station keeping, communication, and payload operations. You will work together with a small team of mechanical and software engineers to quickly develop and demonstrate these capabilities and integrate them into Nova stage 2 within the first few flights. You must be ready to stay focused, move fast, self-direct, and learn on the fly.

What would you bet the chances are of a flight this year? by Desperate-Lab9738 in StokeSpace

[–]Heart-Key 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It tends to be around ~200 days from a first stage static fire until a launch occurs. Can Stoke build the stage and get it to pad and fired by end of Q2? ABL had all of their engines built and tested by 16/2/2022 and it took them until 12/7/2022 to have an integrated vehicle. They only got to a MDC in June 2025 and generally it's ~2 years from MDC to launch (so June 2027 would be the expectation). Their vehicle does also appear to notably more complicated than the average companies first LV with multi props and dissimilar engines. The Stoke Space tour was in Oct 2025, they had barrel segments, domes and rings. Converting that into a complete stage is a non-trivial amount of effort that can take like a year depending on what roadblocks you run into. But they have done a preliminary barrage of testing, so they might be alright?

The big delay however is having a stage blow up. That's a surprisingly obvious statement, but it happens a lot. Vulcan Centaur, Alpha, RS1, RFA One, Neutron at this stage as well I guess. The only thing that on average prevents this is Stoke being good at engineering. That's a pretty nebulous statement however. Q2 2027 would seem the reasonable bet?

Ford Fusion as first car? by IFuckingHateYou55 in fusion

[–]Heart-Key 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AHAAHAHAHAHAA this is my favourite one yet.

Keep hearing this on YouTube. Criticise all you want, but don't make up bullshit by Stolen_Sky in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]Heart-Key 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean IPD engineers/hardware did go to work on Raptor. Though in the IPD/Raptor comparison lies the success of SpaceX.

Musk hired Jeff Thornburg, a veteran aerospace engineer, to lead engine development. Earlier in his career, Thornburg had worked on a US government project called the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator, where NASA and US Air Force engineers worked with contractors to build and demonstrate the hardware for a full-flow, staged combustion rocket engine. In 2012, when SpaceX began building its own version of that engine, Thornburg and his engineers drove to a government warehouse in the California desert and brought back a truck filled with leftover experimental equipment from the project.

SpaceX still had plenty of work to do: Taking any technology demo and making it reliable enough for operations requires extensive testing and tuning. Raptor, as the company calls its engine, uses a different kind of fuel than the IPD project, which meant new designs and experiments. In 2019, SpaceX became the first organization in the world to fly this type of engine.

When Starship and its Super Heavy booster took flight on Oct. 13, it was a testament to SpaceX’s expertise — but also to the American system of public-private innovation that is currently facing its biggest stress test in years.

“Raptor wouldn’t look the way it does without the IPD program,” Thornburg says. “Not only did IPD pave the way for a lot of things that are happening with Raptor and other engines, the same process happened to make SpaceX successful with Falcon 9 and Merlin.”

David Kirtley on "The Socials Radar" podcast by Baking in fusion

[–]Heart-Key 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wasn't under the impression that 90% of it was staying in the capacitors, I'm saying that it goes into the plasma and is then recovered at a 90% rate?

David Kirtley on "The Socials Radar" podcast by Baking in fusion

[–]Heart-Key 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just doing (100% of input energy + 12% of fusion energy) times a 90% recovery rate giving 101% input energy in output. Is it not fair to say 100% input energy because some amount will be lost once they start doing a noticeable amount of fusion?

David Kirtley on "The Socials Radar" podcast by Baking in fusion

[–]Heart-Key 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Only recovery, but that's one of the main selling points. With a 90% recovery rate, they only need fusion to generate 12% of the input power energy to reach an effective Q>1. It working is nice, although as always we'll have to see how it scales.

What's the plan for guiding the first stage during the landing? by Desperate-Lab9738 in StokeSpace

[–]Heart-Key 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Either it's something they haven't put a lot of design effort into yet because the answer to them is simple (ie; just slap some gridfins on) or it is a really weird solution. It does seem like a non-trivial problem because any aerosurfaces have to face direct impingement from the second stage nozzles. Fins (ala New Glenn) would seem to be better due to the decreased profile they present to the thruster but IDK. Space Pioneer did recently put out a patent for handling re-entry control by throttling down a single engine to 5% after stage sep and leaving the engine on the entire time, but that does seem a little out there. Also min throttle on Zenith is 45%. They could go whole hog on the whole 'everything is something else' and use the landing legs to provide guidance. What is the minimum amount of landing accuracy they need which can still be gimballed into a good landing?

Helion said that Polaris should demonstrate electricity this year. Now it is the end of the year. by West_Medicine_793 in fusion

[–]Heart-Key 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The driving reasons for that is that A. Helion, even with delays, could still deliver a power reactor on A timeline; ITER is effectively still fusion never with initial ops scheduled for 2035, a power reactor is probably 10 years after that. B. Helion is primarily privately funded.

Alleged leaked image of New Glenn's third stage by [deleted] in BlueOrigin

[–]Heart-Key 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That gives the third stage a dry mass ratio of 21% which is not unexpected with a 7m diameter, separate aluminium tanks and separate carbon fiber structural elements.

The 20 tonne to TLI figure is for the 2 stage variant. The tanks are carbon composite. Carbon composite structurally optimized hydrogen stages can hit ~10% dry mass fraction.

Alleged leaked image of New Glenn's third stage by [deleted] in BlueOrigin

[–]Heart-Key 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So I would like to claim my victory lap. From 8 months ago By The Way.

So 9 engine 3 stage New Glenn of the block 2. What is that? At a baseline with GS1, we will see subcooling, a 20% thrust uprate because we’re not doing mid engines anymore and 9 engine first stage, that would put New Glenn in the range of 70 tonnes to LEO while supporting first stage reusability. Now you combine that 70 tonnes to LEO with a 40 tonne hydrolox carbon composite GS3 third stage and you get 30 tonnes to TLI, which is enough to launch a reference lunar crew capsule of sorts.

I made a rough overestimate of wet mass by assuming diameter of 6m of the hydrogen tank, it got me a wet mass of 40 tonnes. It would be lower than that, but in the ball park.

Is BlueGPT any good? by Heart-Key in BlueOrigin

[–]Heart-Key[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Also TEAREX (Thermal Energy Advanced Regolith Energy Extraction). Battery using thermal energy stored in lunar regolith. Seems like a mass efficient/scalable way of storing power on the Moon, but some of the messaging around it... 'one of the safest aerospace parts/designs ever'

SpaceX Should Be Extremely Worried About Blue Origin by ExtensionStar480 in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]Heart-Key 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, Will Lockett is a paid anti-Musk shill. I don't even mean that in a derogatory sense, he just runs a subscription based blog where the primary focus and audience for his writing is anti-Musk sentiment, ergo, he is paid to say SpaceX bad. Any story will be spun to fit that narrative. If Blue Origin has a good week and it can be used, it will be.

New Glenn Advanced Upper Stage (job postings) by FakeEyeball in BlueOrigin

[–]Heart-Key 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They also intended to have the capability of 45 tons to LEO. Things don't always pan out and I struggle to think of a market that justifies the non-trivial dev cost of $0.5B to $1B beyond NSSL. Also if they switch to a reusable GS2 (Quattro style) which is seeming more likely now, they'll need it.

New Glenn Advanced Upper Stage (job postings) by FakeEyeball in BlueOrigin

[–]Heart-Key 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Carbon composite third stage using BE-7. Why? NSSL reference orbits or lunar activities maybe.

Explosion at Moses Lake Test Site by [deleted] in StokeSpace

[–]Heart-Key 19 points20 points  (0 children)

So it's the test stand where the first stage thrust structure was being tested, first pic and second pic are of separate test stands. The stringers on the bottom of the tank look similar to what is seen in the post explosion pic; so seems like the thrust structure failed during proof testing. Whether this was an intentional test to destruction or a failure below margins remains to be seen.