This is true, but the level of anti-AI, anti-data centre sentiment is beyond logic now. There's no conceivable reason why you would want to build one unless you personally wanted to make the sacred blue tree sloth extinct and suck all the water from the ground with your personal straw.
In that environment, someone selling you the ability to still build your product and avoid the results of this negative sentiment is someone who will make a lot of money.
They are expected to explode when they land on the water and fall over. It would be really funny if there was an FAA mishap investigation because it didn't explode.
the buran had four engines bolted onto it to do atmospheric tests, it was still boosted into space by a multi stage rocket. the biggest issue with space planes is that the entire structure of the aircraft is a parasitic drain on delta-V that serves no purpose during the launch phase and nobody has even begun to figure out how trans-atmosphereic jet propulsion even works beyond scale technology demonstrators. space planes are an insane engineering challenge that we do not really have the technology for
I could have swore I watched doc on it back in the day that said it had a jet engine as well for powered landings.
With that said I mean a lifting body design for ferrying 5-10 people, not a general purpose lifter. The ability to land at a regular airstrip seems like it would be a massive advantage compared to splashing down in the ocean and the associated logistics involved with that.
the space shuttle was a total piece of shit and one of the worst engineering failures of the 20th century and was a perfect example of how to fuck yourself in the ass with "risk management" instead of even attempting to reducing risk. they used it for so long that people just got used to doing expensive, retarded, pointless shit out of sheer inertia and when they shut it down after it killed a SECOND set of astronauts boomers were still upset about it because it mattered more to them as a rotten symbol of american exceptionalism than anything it actually stood for in real life. Because everything it actually stands for as a physical symbol is embarrassing hubris and shocking mismanagement
I whole heartedly agree. The set back from canceling the Saturn v to develop the shuttle is incalculable. That has genuinely set us back 50+ years in space development.
As with a lot of that time, you end up having to rely on much later sources, but I also remember that as an 'advantage' it was supposed to have to be able to do a go-around. The test launch did not have those engines, and I'm not sure how they'd work even. They've have to have been in the internal space where the US shuttles engines would've been. I think it was mostly just 'possible upgrade' level. In Russian:
Maybe they had some side-of-the-tail ideas, but it never would've happened anyway. Think the 'go around powered re-entry' was just typical Soviet hype.
Kiwi Gang, would you join the Kiwi Gym to go sneak into the Buran + Energia complex at Baikonur?
Like if this is the last of the Energia-M rockets, and if Starliner actually flies all of its bought Atlas flights then in some ways, it is the last of its kind. Atlas-V was built off the same core stage engines, even if Atlas has SRBs and Energia-M has Zenits
Did a minor update to the OP. I feel that now this thread has done a years long existence, its going to need a better front page. Minor update will be replaced in the coming weeks with a better OP. I feel it should require a full write up. Going into SpaceX, the various governments, and the Shenanigans. Will take recommendations and input for what should go in.
Did a minor update to the OP. I feel that now this thread has done a years long existence, its going to need a better front page. Minor update will be replaced in the coming weeks with a better OP. I feel it should require a full write up. Going into SpaceX, the various governments, and the Shenanigans. Will take recommendations and input for what should go in.
I’d say add an advisory to not politisperg as that always seems to start happening when something cool is happening and it not only derails the thread but also takes the fun out of it
Kiwi Gang, would you join the Kiwi Gym to go sneak into the Buran + Energia complex at Baikonur?
Like if this is the last of the Energia-M rockets, and if Starliner actually flies all of its bought Atlas flights then in some ways, it is the last of its kind. Atlas-V was built off the same core stage engines, even if Atlas has SRBs and Energia-M has Zenits
IIRC that's just a mock up. It's been a while since I've watched videos of people sneaking in. I wonder if there's any new ones.
Which also reminds me that going to Biakanor to watch a Soyuz launch is on my bucket list but I've never looked up what is involved. Cost, etc. The briefest of looks now, 5500 Euros, damn.
Which also reminds me that going to Biakanor to watch a Soyuz launch is on my bucket list but I've never looked up what is involved. Cost, etc. The briefest of looks now, 5500 Euros, damn.
One thing that confuses me: why hasn't Russia built reusable boosters like SpaceX has? Russians are good at spying on American rocket tech and they're smart enough to understand what is and isn't a good idea. So why didn't they build their own version of a reusable Falcon 9? Is SpaceX just really good at rooting out Russian spies or is Roscosmos run by incompetent leaders living off of Soviet technology?
And before anyone mentions the invasion of Ukraine, the reusable Falcon 9 proved itself before 2022.
One thing that confuses me: why hasn't Russia built reusable boosters like SpaceX has? Russians are good at spying on American rocket tech and they're smart enough to understand what is and isn't a good idea. So why didn't they build their own version of a reusable Falcon 9? Is SpaceX just really good at rooting out Russian spies or is Roscosmos run by incompetent leaders living off of Soviet technology?
And before anyone mentions the invasion of Ukraine, the reusable Falcon 9 proved itself before 2022.
One thing that confuses me: why hasn't Russia built reusable boosters like SpaceX has? Russians are good at spying on American rocket tech and they're smart enough to understand what is and isn't a good idea. So why didn't they build their own version of a reusable Falcon 9? Is SpaceX just really good at rooting out Russian spies or is Roscosmos run by incompetent leaders living off of Soviet technology?
And before anyone mentions the invasion of Ukraine, the reusable Falcon 9 proved itself before 2022.
My understanding is that they have limited resources and so the focus is on maintaining and iterating the capabilities they have. So the development of new capabilities is much lower on the list of priorities, and just slowly happens in the background, constantly getting delayed.
Unironically Ukraine is actually the most important factor as to why Russia's inability to develop space flight expertise. A lot of the fundamental work done regarding the Falcon 9, and its reusability, was pioneered in previous programs and the expertise from programs such as Delta Clipper were carried over. SpaceX had the benefit of NASA and other institutional factors wanting to push for the commercialisation of space.
By contrast, Russia was in a completely different camp. If you wanted a cheap launch vehicle, you went to Russia. Cheap heavy lift was done by Proton, a very capable launch vehicle [though unreliable] and could compete with Falcon in its price range. Soyuz is Soyuz, and everybody loves it. Even ESA, they built a launch site for it in French Guyana. They were content with their launch capability, and reusability was still a contentious topic even going into the mid 2015s as you needed a launch market that did not exist at the time [1]1. The same factors are in play with Europe, whilst Russia by contrast was investing in the Soyuz-5 and Angara launch systems.
This basically happened because of the fall of the Soviet Union, as a lot of the rocket industry was located in Ukraine. No surprises there, most of they key personnel were Ukrainian. The last great soviet program was Energia, and that could have carried on into the post Soviet era but most of the production was in Ukraine. This is why they could continue to build Zenit rockets, and why they were able to produce engines for the initial versions of the Antares rocket. This is why with the invasion of Ukraine, Northrop needed a new rocket for the first stage and to ensure other contracts were maintained they would contract other launch vehicles for Cygnus.
Energia-M was, on paper, a fully capable rocket. It was essentially in the same territory as Atlas-V [Atlas uses a modified version of the engine] with a similar payload, being meant to replace the Proton. The Zenit was meant to replace the Soyuz. Hence, with the collapse of the Soviet Union the Russians were essentially stuck with the capable 60d era rockets.
And because they had no one like Korolev or Glushko, they didn't have a figure head. There was also the financial issues at that time, meaning there wasn't much to invest. There was money, Russia is now engrossed in a military campaign.
1: And still doesn't really, there have only been 13 none ISS missions or internal SpaceX flights this year so far, and quite a few of them are small sats and glow force missions, Starlink and small satellite launches inflate SpaceX's launch count significantly, and is why SpaceX is wanting to stop offering falcon 9 flights to other companies to continue to support the Starlink network. There is not much room left as Falcon-9 is reaching a maximum reusability capability [I've noticed this before] with the reusability infrastructure. Doesn't mean that such a network isn't important. Ukraine has made Russia realise the strategic importance of such a satellite network, and has invested in their own network.
I have a pretty optimistic view of the TPS after last flight, it seems that it almost entirely held up with the exception of the center just above the aft flaps. Let me explain why I am optimistic.
The heat tiles themselves are actually white material and painted with a very thin black coating:
When looking at the footage post splashdown, 99% of the tiles are still black with white residue over the black. If you see black on a tile that means there was no ablation at all in that area. Here is a screenshot showing what the vast majority of the tiles looked like:
The while residue is what instantly sticks out to the eye, but if you follow the streaks you can see at the point of origin it is not coming from the tiles (since they are still black) but from the filler material in between the tiles. They call that filler crunch wrap, and its a foam material installed around each tile:
When this crunch wrap is installed it sticks out above the tile and is trimmed by hand. We know exactly what it looks like because Mr. Beast installed a tile in this video (This tile will file on flight 14). What we can see is that it isn't always evenly trimmed, if you look at the tiles in the bottom right side of the below screenshot you can see where some of the crunch wrap is still sticking above the tile and will ablate off on reentry and leave a white streak.
The white is simply residue on top of the perfectly good tiles. I believe that on a second flight the crunch wrap will have already been smoothed out and won't leave nearly as much residue. In the below screenshot you can see where a flap has been cleaned by the ocean and looks flight ready. It's safe to say that almost the entire ship would look this good after being cleaned too.
Now for the part that needs work. Right in the center of the ship just above the aft flaps we got to see where some tiles were broken and have clearly burned through some. If you look closely, it looks like the crunch wrap burned through and let plasma in between the tiles.
If I were to guess, they will probably need to do some additional reinforcing of the crunch wrap in that section of the ship, maybe even have to apply a coating (could even be the proven coating that's on the tiles) before every flight in this area to protect the crunch wrap.
As it stands, the ship is currently reusable with refurbishment of 10% or less of the heat shield, not ideal, but way better than an expendable second stage. In real terms, saying that starship will ever be "rapidly reusable" like a plane does not make sense. A spacecraft has to have payload integrated, which takes serious time. If they get the TPS to be able to be refurbished in the same amount of time it takes for them to load it with satellites (8 hours or so), then to me, it is fully rapidly reusable.
