/sci/ - Science & Math

Old thread fixed link:
>>10604438

>>10613154
>water fueled engine
Does it work? Drawbacks?

>>10613312
>>10613154
also post the youtube link

>>10613154
I still don't get how that shit will ever work. Even just as an assistance booster It's also made by a company that is known for making meme hoverboards...

>>10613312
>>10613313

It works, but inferior to normal rockets. Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV8j08mCBEs

>>10613366
thats it, the jig is up

>>10613312
Water is very dense compared to other propellants which means you can't get as high an ISP out of it, and if they mean literally it's shooting a jet of water without any combustion then your ISP will be incredibly low. Usually water is only even given a second glance when you're talking about nuclear rockets where water can be superheated to a couple thousand kelvin before it exits the bell, and even then it's only usable because it's abundant on a lot of astronomical bodies. I also just watched >>10613431 and realized these guys are hippy retards who are more interested in virtue signaling about solar panels and windmills than building a good rocket, and they understand neither the fundamentals of why volatiles are used in rockets nor why rockets are expensive. Looks to me more like an advanced level scam shitpost like self filling water bottles than aerospace engineering.

>>10613444
>Usually water is only even given a second glance when you're talking about nuclear rockets where water can be superheated to a couple thousand kelvin before it exits the bell, and even then it's only usable because it's abundant on a lot of astronomical bodies.
The heating of the water can be taken out of the reactor and moved to a microwave chamber with a nozzle at the end. This way the water can be heated far higher than what's possible if the water were just ran through a reactor like a traditional NTR. Doing it like this allows the Isp to approach that of H2 NTRs.

>>10613500

Could such electric microwave rockets actually work?

>>10613312
They use a catalyst to degrade hydrogen peroxide and eject it as fuel. It's only meant for small satellite launches.

pic from this morning

>>10613500
Sounds interesting, never heard of it though. Got any studies, papers, etc? Anybody ever built a test model or even just done the on-paper math?

>>10613513
oh wait I confused this new one with their aerospike design

>>10613504
Yes but only in space.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#metsteamer

>>10613523
There was a paper, but the link I had is dead sadly. The best I can do right now is this >>10613526

Does ARCA actually have hte rights to all that footage it used in the LAS video?

>>10613527
Oh I see, so it's sort of a water afterburning mircrowave plasma rocket. That sounds neat and probably can work from an engineering standpoint however 1000s of ISP is abysmal for any of the plasma rockets and 12kN is abysmal for NTPRs but you'll have all the mass of a 60MW powerplant plus the mass of your rocket and you're using one of the lowest ISP afterburner propellants it's possible to use. I'd say this rocket can literally be functional but it will have all of the downsides of both nuclear and plasma rockets and neither of the benefits. Nuclear rockets can get double the ISP of chemical rockets and produce raw thrust in the same range, plasma rockets can get weeks of ISP, and this engine can do neither.

>>10613548
ARCA's whole MO is to sponge off government/municipal grants and subsidies while employing a crew as skeleton as it can get away with.

>>10613548
It's an interesting engine definitely. There are some downsides to it but it does have the advantage of using a propellant that's incredibly common, is easy to store, non-toxic, and can be used for purposes other than as an engine propellant.

>>10613550
That seems so, the only people I can imagine devoting a bunch of their time to such a project are either those who want to sponge off of it or those who live in a world devoid of practical consideration for the usefulness of a conceptual design. I honestly thing this is a significant portion of the plasma rocket fanbase as well.
>>10613557
The same could be said for water-cooled NTPR rockets, since once you're in a water rich environment your maximum ISP isn't important any more because most of the water-rich bodies have trivially weak gravity. The difference is that a water cooled NTPR uses very little in the way of electrical power and so it's ship will need much less electricity generating equipment, it can be much smaller to generate the same level of thrust because there will be little in the way of cabling, there's no microwave generators, no conversion equipment to turn nuclear power into electrical power, not much in the way of heat management equipment (because when firing the reactor is cooled by propellant and when idle the reactor can be nearly shut off and so generates less heat). Also to get 60MW of usable electricity you need significantly more than 60MW of total energy developed in your reactor, so you'll also be running a bigger reactor than an equivalent NTPR which consequently means much heavier heat rejection kit and thus even more abysmal TWR, thus exacerbating the downsides of this system. So you get 1000s of ISP with thrust of .012MN, but even at 280s ISP a normal NTPR cooled by water could probably generate hundreds of kN to even MNs of raw power. Sure, you'll spend more time drifting and less time under thrust, but you'll still have higher dV because while your NTPR is only 1/5th as efficient it can easily be more than 10x as powerful.

>>10613444
They are selling it as a launch assist system. Put a falcon on top of a huge water filled booster and the falcon can carry more payload.
>>Isp incredibly low
it is. 67 seconds Isp during ascent. They are even claiming they can get 94 seconds Isp during descent which is as good as 70% H2O2 monoprop. Some of their proposed booster are only intended to operate for 23 seconds max. It's low, but it's all reusable. Seems it's a steam rocket with extra electrical heating. They super heat the water inside before launch and get an extra boost by heating the steam even more with fucking battery powered heaters. Because they aren't using the batteries to flash cold water straight to steam it isn't utterly ridiculous. Their expendable boosters are funny, they only have resistors for super heating the water before launch so it's basically an exploding water heater!
Here's their paper:
http://www.arcaspace.com/docs/ARCA_LAS_White_Paper_May_1_2019_Issue_1.pdf

>>10613517
Why are they tattooing squares on it?

>>10613517
First time ever in a /sfg/ thread. Why the FUCK does that piece of shit resemble a grain silo? Is this a fucking joke?

>>10613668
>67 Isp
into the FUCK TRASH

>>10613681
For comparison, the Sea Dragon first stage was expected to have an Isp of about 183s. I feel that would be the bare minimum.

>>10613683
Its second stage would also have been much higher at something approaching 300 seconds due to the fact it used hydrogen and oxygen rather than kerosene and oxygen.

>>10613154
Imagine. Tech from the 80s. That is a without shuttle timeline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmOngtvYrzc&t=208s

>>10613683
Yeah, and Sea Dragon made up for that low ISP by being a volcano capable of flight.

>>10613722
Well; technically it does.
It's unknown that putting moar technology into it will fly better.

>>10613668
would the extra boost you get from that be worth the extra complexity of strapping yet another weird booster to your launch vehicle?

>>10613739
no

>>10613157
... why don't they (NASA/ESA/RFSA/JAXA) just hire Bigelow Aerospace & SpaceX to build something better than LOP-G in lunar orbit for probably less than what LOP-G will cost at NASA.

>>10613739
Probably not, judging by the test stand footage the TWR is also going to be poor, in fact I'd be surprised if this version even hits 1. You can see that tests of other sea-level fired rockets shake everything, the camera, the test stand, the rocket itself all shudder from the enormous power, this thing doesn't even vibrate it's own bell.

>>10613519
This is why you launch at breakfast, far cleaner exhaust gases.

>>10613678
It's a giant metal tank nigga, what do you expect it to look like? You do know most all rockets look similar under the skin and insulation too right? Just big metal tanks and plumbing.

>>10613681
It's just booster for assisting other rockets. Just helps the rocket get up 3 km and up to mach 1. It's designed to be cheap, reusable with a fast turn around time. The propellant is just hot water and energy. Because the temperatures don't get fucking insane there's practically no engine refurbishing that needs to be done
>>10613722
>>volcano capable of flight
is actually the best way to describe this thing. The explosion mechanism in volcanos is typically caused by superheated water and gases suddenly expanding. Their proposed big reusable version uses an Olympic swimming pool of superheated water, this might be comparable to some current geysers.
>>10613739
They claim that by putting two expendable exploding water heaters on a falcon 9 they could increase payload by 24%. They also claim that they could potentially decrease the number of engines the falcon 9 uses. This might be enough to pay for the expendable boosters, which are really just water heaters with a bell nozzle. I think the reusable case makes more sense though, but they're far from that right now.

>>10613758
The point of the program is to spend a lot of money. Boeing and Lockheed are really good at spending ridiculous amounts of money.

>>10613758
Bigelow is really unproven right now, and slow to develop anything

digital and analog together.

>>10613822
But NASA keeps complaining about how they have tiny budgets, why would they go with the expensive options?

>>10613826
Bigelows modules are based off of the IHM that NASA developed, but then put the design / patent up for sale.
And hasn't Bigelow sent test inflatables into orbit yet?

>>10613864
NASA doesn't choose what they build, Congress does, and Congress wants to shovel money into their districts.

>>10613864
One on the iss now.

>>10613500
Could you heat H2 with microwaves also?

>>10613944
H2 is transparent to most EM frequencies IIRC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeNytM7JdYY
>USAF denied at the highest levels
>because petty politicians didn't want to see a project made under the previous politicians administration realized

I'm so fucking mad, politics has done more harm than good for spaceflight, we could have never had this problem of the manned human spaceflight gap post-shuttle, we never should be relying solely on fucking crew capsules and rockets for regular human spaceflight, especially to LEO, fuck.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>10614081
Lol what a dumb meme

>>10614179
They forgot t to design the solid boosters in, then thy discovered they needed em

Bam program cancelled

>>10614220
SRBs are so fucking GAY AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

>>10614179
Was this ever actually viable or possible or was it a big meme?

why was he so right about everything?

is it just me or is this one bigger than 9m

>>10614195
>100x safer
That's really not a huge accomplishment.

>>10613773
>what do you expect it to look like?
Not like a giant hunk of sheetmetal haphazardly riveted together. It looks like a fucking cartoon. What about its response to vibration? What about its shit aerodynamics? Are those fucking """fins"""? Explain this meme to me.

>>10613431
Holy fuck what a load of absolute horseshit. Yeah the other guy is right, it even has a very similar music than the music for fontus lol.
Major cost is fuel? Single stage to orbit with rockets propelled by water heated to (gasp) HUNDREDS of degrees? They also seem to think they're not going to be experiencing high temperatures as that thing goes back through the atmosphere and a layer of plasma covers the craft. I guess they might be right about that because it's never getting to space even if it gets off the ground.

>>10614288
probably viable. landing ass-first would probably have been tough to engineer back then but spacex has show it's viable. spaceplanes are still kind of a kooky idea but they're not inherently inviable. probably the biggest problem with the project was that SSTO's are just an enormous pain in the ass to design and not strictly necessary. it's more expensive in the long run to have disposable/reusable stages but it's far easier to build and design

>>10614352
>as that thing goes back through the atmosphere
look at the size of it, that thing's not making it out of the atmosphere in the first place. it'll get discarded in a minute or two in the dense part of the atmosphere and just parachute back down.

>>10613154
you store a bunch of pressure in your fusion reactor then open a vent out the back of your ship. counter thrusters go on the front. have fun larping as captain kirk.

>>10614379
Well in the video they said that the HAAS 2CA was an SSTO.

>>10614288

The X-33's biggest failing was it's mutli-lobed composite fuel tank which kept cracking. Congress refused to authorize more money for more prototypes to fix it.

Meanwhile, Lockheed did fix it because they used the exact same tech in another contract, the JSF contract of which their F-35 won. The tech developed for the X-33 is now used to bomb ragheads.

>>10614406
>Try to make composite fuel tanks for X-33
>They fail pressure tests
>Can't figure out how to fix it
>Make aluminum tanks instead
>They're stronger and lighter than the composite tanks
>Show results to NASA and Congress
>They refuse it and insist on the composite tanks
>Tell them that there's not enough money to fix the composite tanks
>They refuse to give money and still refuse aluminum tanks while insisting on composite tanks
>X-33 project falls behind and gets canceled
>NASA and Congress wonder what went wrong as they kill 7 more astronauts on the outdated bird that the X-33 was supposed to replace
>MFW

>>10614402
oh that rocket's got a different system. it's catalytically decomposing peroxides. and it might technically be SSTO but only for very small payloads.

>>10614416
sounds like tax scams for the people who have their hands in the companies that make stuff for nasa.

>>10613678
It was literally built by a water tower company that SpaceX contracted.
The shiny panels all over it were to make it look snazzy for PR purposes. The real thing will have thicker panels and won't be all crinkly looking.
It also had a big nosecone on it, but it was damaged in high winds. Rather than delaying to build another nosecone they just went ahead without it. It's the first test hopper and will never fly high enough for aerodynamics or heating to matter.

>>10614480
yep

>>10613678
it's probably only going to fly once as a prototype and it has non-zero chances of crashing, why bother making it look good?

>>10614303

>>10613678
i said the same thing a long time ago. here is the image i posted.

>>10614494

>>10614499
now that would be a fun beer farm to work on.

>>10614352
the youtube video is shit, read the paper here:
>>10613668
>>SSTO
oh fuck no. It's a booster. Only goes 3km up.
>>high temperature
They don't end up going much more than the speed of sound.
>>off the ground
TWR is like 2.

>>10614333
its just a hopper friend
did you ever see grasshopper 1?
same basic thing.

>>10614333
the shitty sheetmetal is actually just tacked onto the outside, the inside of it is massive plates, those fuckers are thicc

Memes aside, what's the best option for human transport to and from LEO? Suppose you have extensive orbital infrastructure so that any transportation in orbit would be done by other vehicles already in orbit. All your vehicle has to do is get from the surface of Earth into orbit, and then back again. It'd be used by people who would be living or working space, not just dedicated astronauts. What would be the best kind of vehicle? Capsule or space plane? Reusable or expendable? It wouldn't be used for any cargo beyond personal items of the people onboard. Cargo would be handled by other vehicles and shipped around orbit.

>>10614771
take the best parts of Starship Super Heavy and Dream Chaser and the VentureStar and mash them together
I don't know about the optimum size of the thing but some sort of reusable upper stage/spaceplane combination meme with rapid reuse and turnaround on the booster (which does RTLS)
the system is more complicated but that buys you increased margins over an actual SSTO which will make things safer and faster overall probably
the drawback of this sort of ultra-dedicated vehicle is that you're not going to be doing much else with it

>>10614789
Also add in the new Russian two-hour launch to docking time rendezvous config or whatever

>>10614791
Gemini 8, the first docking in space, only took a few hours to rendezvous as well, and they did a bunch of course corrections first
a direct ascent trajectory could get rendezvous down to under an hour, I think

CRS17 launch might be visible from the US east coast

>>10614771
A two-stage shuttle would be best.

Basically take the X-33, shrink it down a bit and give it vacuum engines, then sit the whole thing on top of a big reusable booster.

>>10614820
>A two-stage shuttle would be best.
You mean something like this?

More pictures here: https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/model-space-shuttle-lockheed-fully-reusable-concept-1200

>>10614820
I'm glad we ended up at literally the same conclusion
this design would be the biggest meme but the ideas are popular for a reason
everything goes towards minimizing costs: total reusability reduce hardware costs, spaceplane and RTLS reduces recovery costs, two stage design reduces design costs

>>10614826
Yea basically. Though I think it's better to have a vertical stack for safety, which is more plausible now that we can do vertical landing boosters.

Alternately you can go for a full Venturestar or Skylon SSTO, but then you'd have a much smaller payload capacity and possibly a more complex/expensive vehicle overall.

>>10614831
The vertical stack sounds much better, but that booster shuttle looks incredibly cool.

>>10614838
it's bad and dumb, everybody has been using vertical stack for so long for a reason
the only reason not to do vertical stack is if you're worried about the fineness of your rocket
this is only ever an issue if you're trying to deal with land transportation issues

>>10614838
On a side note, the Energia 2 booster designs were cool as heck.

>>10614789
Also electromagnetic launch assist

>>10614333
They are doing their best to keep the naive hype going.
Just like BFR Moonflyby Hyperloop, Musk uses Vapoware to stay in the news and scam investors and push the stock.

Why would a 9m rocket fly any different from a falcon diameter rocket?

Shouldn't they be able to computer model that stuff?

>>10614303
I mean the 9 meter thing originally was a constraint by the carbon tooling, so...

>>10613154
Earth is flat

>>10614288

hydrogen ssto spaceplane? that is three dumb choices in one vehicle, it was never viable, good riddance

>>10614288
Because it never actually had a change to fly retards like the ones in these threads can claim it wasnt viable as much as they want.

>>10614826
>>10614829
X-37 and SNC Dream Chaser

>>10615518
X-37 and Dreamchaser both have an expendable upper stage though. The tricky part is combining the upper stage into the orbiter itself so it becomes 100% re-usable.
You'd have to make both the booster and the orbiter larger so they can split the job of the upper stage.

That's exactly what Starship/Falcon Super Heavy is doing actually. It's a two-stage reusable. Just make a scaled down version of it if your only goal is LEO transport.

>>10614965
They can and have. You still gotta test stuff irl though.

>>10614416
>>10614406
>>10614288
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/
>All this despite interest from the Air Force in resurrecting the project, with Lockheed Martin high-flyer Cleon Lacefield in charge of the effort to re-start the program on at least one occasion. Each time the Air Force made requests to take the X-33 project as their own, they found the opportunity denied at the highest level of US government.

>Even when armed with Lacefield’s final comments on the X-33, comments which gave full support to the Al-Li, added to by support from NASA Stennis on the engines, the Air Force – now trying to have their own VentureStar flying by 2012 – found the door of the White House firmly closed shut on any possibility of resurrecting the project.

Politics not engineering, not technology, but petty politics prevented the X-33 from flying

>>10615748
No wonder China is catching up to the US. Does anyone have any idea what was the political motivation behind stopping the X-33?

>>10615748
>Politics not engineering, not technology, but petty politics prevented the X-33 from flying

Maybe the issues with propellant tanks could have been solved, but you would still end up with a fucking ssto spaceplane that has a tiny payload mass/volume and uses corrosive hydrogen as fuel. it was just not a very good design in general

>>10615748
note that x-33 was a mere suborbital test vehicle

Rockwell had the better x-33 proposal and the lockheed design would have morphed into it had it been allowed to continue, but succeeding wasn't really an option sought by anyone. To say nothing of the dc-x that ultimately got vindicated with spacex's work.

>>10615780
hydrogen is not corrosive. It embrittles things, but it is not corrosive.

>>10615793

>>10615201
there's nothing "unviable" about hydrogen it's just a bad choice, not a wrong choice
difficult, annoying, expensive, but not wrong

>>10615780
Better than X-37

>>10615780
The X-33 was a scaled prototype though, so the small payload was expected. And hydrogen isn't corrosive like how hypergolics are corrosive. It's just difficult to store for long periods of time, which for a launch vehicle that's expected to use most or all of it's fuel in a launch is not an issue.

On top of that the X-33 was using new technologies that could be proven on it's test flight and be incorporated on the Shuttle if the X-33 was somehow irredeemable. The tiles were stronger than on the Shuttle and were designed to be more easily replaced. The aerospike engine was designed to be more easily served and didn't need the extensive refurbishment of the RS-25s. And more.

>>10615803
venture star itself is the one with low payload, x-33 being suborbital has no payload at all

venture star was theoretically an improvement over the shuttle in many ways, but that is an awfully low standard to have, it was still not what i would describe as good

>>10614771
>>10614820
This, like shuttle but not the retarded launch platform, something like this original concept

Shuttles biggest mistake was the SRB and side mounted launch platform, SRB malfunction doomed one shuttle, and foam strike doomed the other, neither of these would be an issue on such a launch platform

oh my fuck this whole launch was kino

>>10615834
>Shuttle riding an even bigger shuttle.
Noice

>>10614866
And that wasnt even Energias final form.

>>10616152
This honestly seems to be one of the better ways to do it. The shuttle was too much plon, not enough rocket, especially considering that FBW+Avionics could get a brick to fly if you attached some flaps. A rocket with wings stapled to it might not be quite as elegant as a shuttle, but it's going to work better for the rocket stuff.

they're going to need more tankage

I literally have no idea what these are for

>>10616207
Pressurant perhaps, nitrogen or helium?

>>10616211
it'd be helpful if we had literally any context for these pictures

>>10616172
looks like spacex starship

Speaking of other neat Russian spaceplane concepts, here's Kliper, meant to replace Soyuz with double the crew and ten times the cargo capacity. We need more baby shuttles, they're cute.

>>10616230
is that a Soviet concept or a Russian concept?

>>10616233
Russian I'd assume, note the federation flag as opposed to the union hammer and sickle.

>>10616239
then it's just a paper capsule, the Federation doesn't want to put forth a serious effort on space

>>10616243
Well they actually did partner up with ESA and rolled it into the Aurora Programme in 2004, after which they then flipped right around and decided not to be involved anymore in 2005. They then had it set to liftoff on Energia but then funding got restricted, some officials were dismissed, and it seems to have been shelved indefinitely since 2009 in favor of the CSTS (now PPTS) which is a much more conventional capsule system. There were scale models and then full sized mockups built and presented at aerospace shows for Kliper.

>>10616256
wow that's cute

>>10615834
>t. Max Faget

>>10616257
Damn straight, but Uragan did remind me of it because just how Uragan is a mostly a core stage with wings, Kliper is mostly a capsule with wings.

>>10616285
I wonder why winged capsules (or baby space planes) don't get used more. They seem to offer some nice advantages over plain capsules. They reenter more gently, they can control where they land, and they can be more easily reused. Is it because the only two nations who could send humans to space for decades couldn't develop one? With the Soviets/Russians having funding problems and prefering to use technologies that they know work, and the United States being stuck with the Shuttle?

Some pics taken today at the launch site. -NSF

>>10616319
I wonder what they're doing inside the tank? Do we know which tank is which?

>>10616230
Soon (TM)

>>10616304
Well for the US the shuttle gap is an explanation for why a lot of promising space projects never flew when they were newly minted, I know less about Russia but a lot of it seems to be to do with serious economic constriction greatly limiting the amount of investment in brand new stuff and preference for whatever already works. It's definitely not that we can't develop one, hell the US and US companies are developing at least two currently, the X-37 and Cockheed Memetin's Dreamchaser, the Venturestar literally could have been greenlit any time in the past couple of years since it was practically done if we wanted a full sized spaceplane, Kliper as well probably could have flown already if it weren't for succession and budget constraint at Energia and Buran actually did fly in a flawless test run but was subsequently shelved and left literally to rot.

So we definitely CAN develop lifting body space vehicles, they've just had a very bad run of luck from funding to construction to politicking and on, and on, and on. Wing boyes have just been played a bad hand of cards so far. That being said, the benefits of what is essentially a tiny delta can't be understated for future designs, it allows for a much more gentle and thus safer reentry and allows the vehicle to be reused more with less refurbishment, if I had to design a modern capsule I'd probably favor a small wing.

>>10616481
Isn't it Sierra Nevada with the Dreamchaser? Lockheed is helping them or otherwise bought in

>>10616481
Dream Chaser is SNC not Cockheed baka

>>10616481
its simply embarrassing that we're going back to capsules for LEO/ISS operations when we should be using X-33 or Venture Star by now

>>10616481
That was a very nice write up, thank you.

>Well for the US the shuttle gap is an explanation for why a lot of promising space projects never flew when they were newly minted
The Shuttle seems to have severely held back US spaceflight by keeping it occupied with a labor intensive expensive and limited vehicle. Hopefully things will get back on track with newer developments. The Shuttle Gap a nice name for that era, btw.

>if I had to design a modern capsule I'd probably favor a small wing
Same, it seems like the logical next step for small "LEO hopper" spacecraft. Although the thermal protection system would still be an issue since it's exposed for the entire mission and can't be something simple yet reliable like ablative cooling.

What could have been

>>10616499
I wouldn't say embarrassing, multistage stacks are more efficient for the job than SSTO's, however it is a shame that the shuttle retired, then Venture was literally begging to take over so there wouldn't be any shuttle gap, and it got shelved anyways even though it was introducing a potentially very significant novel engine technology. The XRS-2200 was only the first of it's generation and already producing sea level and vacuum ISP's closing on those of the SSME. I want to see more aerospike/aerowedge engines.

>The goal was to replace the Space Shuttle by developing a re-usable spaceplane that could launch satellites into orbit at a fraction of the cost
>VentureStar was to be simply inspected in a hangar like an aeroplane before launch
>VentureStar would not have relied upon solid rocket boosters
>the use of linear aerospike engines that maintain thrust efficiency at all altitudes
>VentureStar would have used a new metallic thermal protection system, safer and cheaper to maintain than the ceramic protection system used on the Space Shuttle.
>VentureStar's metallic heat shield would have eliminated 17,000 maintenance hours typically required to satisfactorily check (and replace if needed) the thousands of heat-resistant ceramic tiles that compose the Shuttle exterior.[4]
>VentureStar was expected to be safer than most modern rockets.[4] Whereas most modern rockets fail catastrophically when an engine fails, VentureStar would have a thrust reserve in each engine in the event of an emergency.[4] For example, if an engine on VentureStar failed during ascent, another engine would shut off to counterbalance the failed thrust, and each of the remaining working engines could throttle up to safely continue the mission.[4]
>VentureStar's exhaust would have been composed of only water vapor, since VentureStar's main fuels would have been only liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.[4] This would have given VentureStar the benefit of being environmentally clean.[4]
>VentureStar's simpler design would have excluded hypergolic propellants
>Because of its lighter design, VentureStar would have been able to land at almost any major airport in an emergency,[4] whereas the Space Shuttle required much longer runways than available at most public airports.

We fucked up, we fucked up the moment we didn't have a fleet of Venture Stars all ready in their hangars waiting to take over the moment the last shuttle touched down.

I cannot believe the monumental scale of this fuck up.

>>10616542
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWf4iOMSPNc

AAAAAAAAAAA, I don't think there's been a single engine in the world tested so much, so extensively and yet never flown, how could we fuck up this much.

>>10616542
>VentureStar would not have relied upon solid rocket boosters
>VentureStar's metallic heat shield would have eliminated 17,000 maintenance hours typically required to satisfactorily check (and replace if needed) the thousands of heat-resistant ceramic tiles that compose the Shuttle exterior.[4]

There was lots of BS reasons why the Venturestar/X-33 was canned, but I think those might be some of the bigger reasons. The Shuttle required an extensive industry to maintain by design. This was so that the Shuttle could get funding from Congress by having lots of jobs across the country. That also meant that the Shuttle would be difficult to get rid off. This same industry is the reason why SLS was pushed over other heavy lift vehicles even after it was canceled (Constellation). A vehicle like the X-33 would disrupt that industry and thus the biggest reason why Congress supported the Shuttle. So they forced a situation on the X-33 (insistence on composite propellant tanks when aluminum was proven to be the better solution) that could give them the excuse to shut it down.

Okay, maybe that's drifting close to conspiracy land, so I'll just append that I'm open to be proven wrong on this.

>>10616545
Shit and it hits nearly the efficiency range of staged combustion cycle engines, imagine if you upgraded it to a fuel rich staged combustion cycle like SSME or even a full flow staged cycle like the Raptor, I could see it getting 380(sea)/400(vac) using methane, and low 400s(sea)/500(vac) using hydrogen, especially since computer design can lighten and simplify a lot of components and additive manufacture can create load bearing structures normal manufacture cannot, which would allow you to play with higher safe chamber pressures in individual thrust cells.

STEAM ROCKETS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457DSAxuwBY

>>10616609
>Wernher Von Braun supervises launch of a V2 rocket, 1942, colorized.

>>10615803
>which for a launch vehicle that's expected to use most or all of it's fuel in a launch is not an issue.
but for a launch vehicle that's expected to be reusable, it is definitely a problem.

>>10615943
hhhhhuh. did they film in infrared?

>>10616152
>>10616172
>Soviets could have Starship equivalent in 90s
It seems like russians have some kind of curse of their space program and every time they on the verge of greatness something goes terribly wrong.

>>10616304
desu i bet we're going to see even fewer winged designs as ass-first landing tech becomes more mature. the space shuttle had only slightly better aerodynamics than a brick; im skeptical anyone will put the effort into making a winged vehicle not fly like garbage when its easy to just land something on its butt.

same reason the aerospike isn't used more, basically. it COULD work, but we have a good enough system already

>>10616639
>Soviets could have Starship equivalent in 90s
Early 80s was when the Space Age era rivalries finally died down and the space program could actually focus on something - because everyone but Glushko had by that point died of old age.

>>10616572
You might be right on that, especially with how the USAF was later denied the go-ahead to take over the X-33 program on multiple occasions, denied from the very top (White House), that itself might have been unrelated but who knows.

Venture Star deserved better

>>10616688
>Venture Star deserved better
All of the proposals that were part of the program that the X-33 was in deserved better, including the Rockwell one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT9HBkWGg7s

Hullo thurr

>>10616542
>>VentureStar would have used a new metallic thermal protection system, safer and cheaper to maintain than the ceramic protection system used on the Space Shuttle.

Meh...and where is this thing now?

>muh hydrogen SSTO spaceplanes

Meme as fuck, you need stacked rockets to achieve non meme sized payloads. Without that space travel is going nowhere.

>Just inspect and relaunch hydrogen tanks and engines

Kaboom

>>10616841
For LEO its perfect and would have been safer than the shuttle while only reducing its payload capacity to ISS a few thousand kg

Most importantly we wouldn't have had a US manned spaceflight gap like we do now, and depend on and continue to develop and use primitive multi-stage, capsule spacecraft that splash down in ocean like its the 60's

>>10616853
>Something goes wrong with your multiple reuse hydrogen embrittled spaceplane
>Everyone dies

>Something goes wrong with rocket stack
>Launch abort and your guys don't die

>Safer

Capsules have a great safety record.

>>10616866
>Capsules have a great safety record.
What do you think about mini space planes like Klipper, Dreamchaser, or the X37?

Can somebody explain to me why the ARCA typeface looks identical to the SPACEX logo font?

>>10616918
They're not identical, look at the A's. But they do look very similar. My guess is that both companies want to come across as futuristic so they both picked a font style to reflect this. As to why that particular font style, probably because Star Trek popularized it and since Star Trek takes place in the future that style is seen as futuristic.

>>10616203
If only we could find somebody capable of manufacturing large cylindrical silos

>>10616630
yes, it was very cool

>>10613154

>>10616932
Just hire a submarine contractor. It worked for Aerojet.

>>10616930
nah they're intentionally copying Musk man for the meme magic it will bring

normies will confuse the two companies giving them legitimacy

>>10616542
>VentureStar's simpler design would have excluded hypergolic propellants
Isn't hte main advantage of hypergolics simplicity? Since you don't need an ignition system.

>>10616953
Simplicity of ignition yes, but if you're going to have hypergolics you'll need separate tanks for each propellant and presumably a pressurant tank as well, with a monopropellant you don't have to worry about two separate tanks, the tanks can be simpler if you're using a non-corrosive mono and you can just have one tank with two cells, one for the monoprop and the other for pressurant. It would be easier to determine the advantages exactly if I could find anything about the VentureStar's RCS, but I can't with a quick search. You also don't have to worry so much about accidental propellant detonations like you do with hypergols which is probably more relevant to why they avoided them, since that's also why everyone else avoids them.

Anyone still thinking about a standard way to classify launch vehicles? Raw payload to LEO is a simple and intuitive way to do it, but how would the divisions between the the various classifications be made?

I think taking the largest rocket that can be easily integrated horizontally and then lifted to vertical and using that as a baseline would be practical as that is a good division line between medium and heavy rockets. But I'm at a loss on what else can be done.

What do you think, /sfg/?

>>10617071
Launch rate to LEO. It's like DPS, but for payload. Whether or not they can carry people. Supposedly Skylon will be great for carrying people.

>>10617095
Skylon is vaporware

>>10617095
>Launch rate to LEO
What do you mean? Like how many launches per year? Or how much payload to LEO per year? I don't think that's a good way to classify launch vehicles because all sorts of factors can change the launch rate such as changes in the design, bad weather, launchpad problems, and more.

>>10614195
Only kills 1.4 astronauts over spacecraft lifetime!

>>10617153
>Only kills 1.4 astronauts
So it kills one astronaut and cuts another one into two pieces?

>>10614866
Why is the jet outtake of the starboard side? Wouldn't it need inline thrust for those wings to be of any use?

>>10617162
I think its curving down towards the bottom.

>>10617162
Like what >>10617165 said, the outtake goes to the bottom. Hopefully this drawing makes it more clear.

>>10617165
>>10617168
okay, that makes a lot more sense. Would the rocket engines still add thrust or is this basically a glider?

>>10613154
>fueled by water
>not knowing the difference between fuel and propellant
One of these things is not like the other.

>>10617178
I'm not sure of the design of this rocket in particular, but rocket engines in general don't have a wide thrust throttle range. Most can only go down to 50% of max thrust. While this sounds low, booster engines tend to have really high thrust so even a half is still pretty high. This high level of thrust may be too much to maintain level flight (or to prevent the wings from tearing off from the drag at high speeds). On top of that, rocket engines have lousy fuel efficiencies in an atmosphere compared to jet engines. Jet engines can also throttle at a wider range(even negative thrust in some designs) and are easier to control in plane-like flight than a rocket engine.

>>10617168
The Soviets designed some beautiful spacecraft, I love their aesthetic.

>>10617210
nah

I know that some people romanticize Saturn V alot, especially the F-1. But it's a shame that the F-1Bs didn't get developed upon.

(1/4)

>>10617218
I really like rocket technical drawings.

(2/4)

>>10617220
Sorry for the low image quality, it was the only one I can find.

(3/4)

>>10617224
An improvement of the Ares I. Then again the bar was set really low with that one.

(4/4)

>>10617220
Man rockets are insanely complex

>>10617231
Indeed.

>>10617231
They can be made simpler with modern technology but yeah there will always be a slightly nightmarish level of complexity whenever turbopumping equipment is involved.

>>10617237
Imagine having to design this before computer modeling and with a slide-rule.

>>10617244

WHO'S WATCHING THE FALCON HEAVY LIFT OFF RIGHT NOW?

>>10617255
lol

>>10617255
FFS, is it the Arabsat 6A one? That one was launched on April 11th.

>>10617257
QUIT LAUGHING AT ME!!

I THOUGHT I WAS WATCHING A LIVE STREAM ALRIGHT!!!

>>10617260
Unless the channel is the official SpaceX one, then you shouldn't trust the stream. There have been lots of channels setting up fake livestreams to farm likes and views lately. Just report them as misleading and move on.

>>10617251
I had to attempt to design a pump with a small team one time, and this was the book we had to use.

>>10617271
THICC

>>10617106
SABRE is going to fly in 5 years. Boeing, ESA, US airforce, BAE, and more are betting big money on it. Most recent precooler test was successful.
>>10617115
kilograms to LEO per second.
>>weather, launchpad problems
deal with it
>>10617218
>>10617220
>>10617224
>>10617228
I cry everytime
>>10617231
so is ur mum
>>10617244
>>10617251
JUST... use the tables

>>10617278
>JUST... use the tables
That entire book (>>10617271
) was mostly tables and explanations on how to use them and it was still a massive chore just to figure out what blade angle to use. Then again, all of us never did something like that before, so that might be the reason why it was so challenging.

>>10617278
A precooler test is a far cry from a whole radically new engine being developed. I doubt SABRE will fly in 5 years, given that they have no real solution for how they are going to separate the atmospheric gasses, meaning that there is a shitload of other stuff other than oxygen in the combustion chamber which is guaranteed to fuck it up. You can't just toss CO2, Nitrogen, Argon and other gasses into your rocket engine chamber and expect it to work fine.

Also

>Reusable engine
>Hydrogen powered

Lel, even if this shit does fly, it's going to need to be redesigned with Methane or Kerosene to make sure the components don't get fucked. Hydrogen meme needs to die. Even then the Skylon concept is still a joke, look at its fucking profile, that thing will shred itself on re entry. There is maybe a place for air breathing engines on stacked rockets if they can make them work, which I doubt. Spaceplanes are still a meme.

>>10617303
Look they gotta demonstrate their fucking batshit crazy heat exchanger first. Damn right it's radical, but it ain't anti-fucking-gravity.
>>separate
oxygen condenses before nitrogen does. The problem is ice, they solve that by injecting methanol:
https://www.engineering.com/3DPrinting/3DPrintingArticles/ArticleID/10407/The-Skylon-Spaceplanes-3D-Printed-Injector.aspx
>>hydrogen
>>meme
no, you need to die. Hydrogen has a larger energy density by mass than methane and kerosene. Sure, it's got a low volumetric energy density, but you can make big tanks fairly light and you can keep the hydrogen cyrogenic, at least temporarily. Hydrogen was a big part of how we beat the fucking commies to the moon.
>>components don't get fucked
get better material! Hydrogen doesn't embrittle literally everything.
>>profile
we had the space shuttle. Skylon might make sense for people and high priority payloads. Like we need to get some dude and a part to fix the microgravity ice cream machine in spess mcdonalds, cause every second it's down means losses of thousands of dollars, weather and pad delays be damned.(ice cream you eat in microgravity doesn't increase your weight) Skylon is the best chance for any of us regular people to be able to fly into orbit. But we'll see.

>>10617347
You are retarded

>>10617071
that would mean Falcon Heavy wouldn't be a Heavy rocket
Also N1 was horizontally integrated so fuck you

>>10617347
>get better material! Hydrogen doesn't embrittle literally everything.

>Be me
>Walking through a LH2 propellant plant
>See a puddle of LH2
>Try to look away but it was too late
>It immediately embrittled my bones
>Legs shatter on the next step

>>10617213
it's a tin can with some greebles on it

>>10617381
>that would mean Falcon Heavy wouldn't be a Heavy rocket
I guess I was using wrong terms. By heavy I meant something like the Saturn V.

>Also N1 was horizontally integrated
I know, that's why I said "easily horizontally integrated". The N1 was a massive challenge to integrate horizontally.

>so fuck you
Calm down there. I was just proposing ideas in a friendly manner.

>>10617387
>it's a tin can with some greebles on it

>>10617389
>easily
how do you measure that? I think the current system of payload to orbit is the best, where medium is up to 20 tons, heavy is up to 50 tons, and super heavy is more than that
you could probably draw a new line at 300 or so but we aren't there yet so there's no need

>>10617393
>how do you measure that?
I don't know, but I wanted to bring it up because I think its best to have a classification system that takes into account the engineering challenges with each size. The ease of horizontal integration seemed like a simple way of making these distinctions.

>>10617271
>>10617272
Jesus, that thing is almost as big as the Star Fleet Battles rulebook.

New Zealand about to launch Electron rocket

https://youtu.be/ahVDVWq_Ei4

T-10 min

>>10617526
How many sheep and hobbits are aboard?

>>10617244
I would rather die

>>10617526
Stream is live!

Retracting strongback...

This better be good.

Godspeed you filthy hobbitses.

What is NZ really up to?

What's Australia's excuse for a lack of a space program?

>>10617578
Spiders would get into the rocket, and then you'd have space spiders. No good.

>>10617573
Based launch kitty poster.

>>10617578
Still recovering from the Emu War.

Why is one of the guys on the comms whispering?

>>10617580
That's probably for the best. I would imagine they'e been plotting their revenge since we killed a cow with Skylab

>>10617585
Missile is actually headed for US west coast

WW3 in 30

>>10617578
the government imposes ridiculous nanny-state taxes on all rocket launches so nobody is allowed to try to go to space

>>10617578
Are you a fucking racist? Why would we spend billions of dollars on rockets when we have so many poor refugees to feed?

Also

>Implying this NZs space program
>Implying this isn't 99% American and DoD shit

The only reason they hire some kiwis and have their site there is because that was the best place that would allow the high cadence they hope to get.

Damn that rocket cam is kino as fuck

>That transition from red to blue white

>muh smallsats

>>10613444
>Water is very dense compared to other propellants
18g/mol is "very dense"??
No, it is *you* that is very dense.
>these guys are hippy retards
...and your right-wingnut leanings are even worse.

>>10617614
water is very dense compared to hydrogen, dude

>>10617384
Go home fuel tank, you're drunk.

>>10617578
The rockets point the wrong way and have to turn around to go up.

>>10617583
And the horror of the Skylab incident. Nevar forget.

>>10617634
Popcorn engine when?

>>10617577
Launching sheep into space

Is re-usability a meme in the end?

F9 is cheaper because it's made cheaper by a private company. It's ability to land has shit to do with it.

>>10617866
They've only been able to land boosters at all for 4 years now and reused boosters for 2 years now. They kept making changes to their design for more reusability until early last year, which was the first time they started using cores more than once.
This stuff is still all incredibly new so who the fuck knows how the economics look. Also SpaceX isn't disclosing their pricing policies, which sounds suspicious, but then which company actually goes out and tells you what their actual costs are exactly and how much they just add for kicks on top because they can.
Again, we don't really know.

But then there's the fact that they're currently hard at work with the Starship/Superheavy development and that design literally does not make sense if reusability didn't save them costs.

>>10618055
>more than once
*more than twice

>>10617578
government won't subsidize maybe?
aborigines whinge about their sacred land or whatever
maybe Australia is just a shit position to launch from? there is a lot of area though.

>>10617866
It hasn't produced result yet, and it's normal.
Elon said he wanted a fleet of 20 or so boosters.
See, after they retired all their old boosters last year by just throwing them away, they're now in the process of building that fleet.
Which means non-stop building of engines and tanks, grid fins, you name it at Hawthorne.
So has it stands, it's almost as if the didn't land their boosters at all.
As of right now they have 8 boosters available for re-flight, with 2 being Falcon Heavy side boosters, and one assigned to be destroyed in the Dragon 2 in-flight abort test.

I'd give it a year at least before they stop making boosters like there's no tomorrow.
But when that happens, oh boy that's where the cash just won't stop flowing in.
Expect massive layoffs/workforce re-assignments depending on demand.
Now nobody can really tell how it will play out, SpaceX could just cut workforce in half and have the remaining ones focus on refurbishment, making cores as they retire/ fail to land and making second stages. But with Starlink happening, they might just go full retard and increase launch cadence like crazy.

>>10618143
Whoomera is just a blasted pit in the middle of the desert (95% of Australia)
They tax the shit out of rockets and have some really ridiculous insurance requirements

hm

>>10618055
I'm sure there's also a matter of how fast you can build cores. It isn't just one core costs X. When you need more capacity you have to build more factory and hire more -> qualified <- workers, and at a certain point the cost per unit is going to go up, economy of scale be damned.
If you can use a core ten times, that's almost like having ten times the manufacturing capacity, especially if refurb requires a fraction of the manpower and factory space.

I've heard that the current realistic manufacturing capacity for SLS is two cores a year. Since there is no reuse, they literally would not be able to launch more than twice a year.

>>10618507
Praised be jesus

>>10615943
What did I miss?!?

>>10618648
Space Exploration Technologies (abbreviated hereafter as SpaceX) upping their camera work and rocket porn angles and views as expected of SpaceX (abbreviated hereafter as SPX).

>>10618648
Dragon resupply mission the other day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQFhX5TvP0M

>>10618507
Is that rust? Isn't the structure supposed to be made of stainless?

>>10618832
it's on the ocean, even stainless will rust, especially the high-strength structural stainless they're using for the rocket which isn't as corrosion resistant as stainless developed specifically for that
also it's just extremely light surface rust, it's been months and that's all that's happened, light rust in surface scratches

>>10613431
>heaps of bullshit and outright lies

Seems like a scam for money and some sort of virtue signalling added in for good measure.

>>10618863
solid propellant bad water good

more environmentally friendly at only 5% the efficiency and capacity!

>reusable shuttles
wat. I can get maybe if it stays in space forever it could be useful but going from space to an atmosphere is pretty brutal on machinery. The cost of fixing them would outweigh just making a solid cheap throwaway version.

>>10618863
>>10618895
The deepest irony here is the fact that water vapor is the worst of all greenhouse gases. It is also the greenhouse gas that takes up a whopping 80% of all greenhouse gas. And, these retards want to blow more of it into the atmosphere.

>>10618914
>throwaway society zoomer
Just use more fuel to enter/exit more slowly.

>>10618932
>dude why would you throw away $10,000 of metal don't you know you could spend $40,000 to keep it???

>>10618863
Hopefully that won't end up like Coolest Cooler.

>>10619022
>In June, 2017, Coolest Cooler, LLC entered into an agreement with the Oregon Department of Justice that specifies the plan for fulfilling remaining Kickstarter Backer rewards.[18]

Planning to head to the KSC one day
Do they have tours?

>>10619078
Yes they do. I took tons of tours there as a kid. Good luck, anon!

>>10618945
>and spend some 14 astronauts while we're at it
>t. NASA

>>10619281
Need Another Seven

>>10619078
It's extremely good, highly recommend

>https://youtu.be/z4dOJGY5a7I?t=156
>"Hey, how can we test to make sure that the combustion is dynamically stable in our engine?"
>"Just chuck a bomb in there and see what happens."
Absolute madmen

How many more fake falcon heavy streams will we get in this thread? What about the next one?

>>10619537
At least one on both fronts. Why are there so many of these fake streams coming up lately? I don't remember them happening when the last Falcon Heavy launched. And it's not even some obscure channels doing this, I've seen verified channels do it as well.

>>10617721
already happened:
http://www.cornell.edu/video/popcorn-powered-robot

>>10619553
That's so corny.

>>10619548
It did happen the last FH launch. I saw at least three of them

>>10619336
it's only a 50 grain bomb bro.

>>10619559
Did reporting them get them taken down? I mean, considering how anal YouTube is about copyright infringement it's surprising that they're letting it slide.

>>10619336
wow that way of making tubes looks expensive

>>10619609
From what I've heard, it is, but it's the lightest out of the various ways of making regenerative cooling chambers.

>>10613154
elon musk is a faggot

>>10619641
Shut up, Dennis. Don't you have that Senate Launch System to funnel money fr- I mean, finish?

>>10619647
Could be fucking Shelby

>>10619666
>666
Unholy trips confirms it.

>>10613500
and how exactly are you going to power the microwave chamber?

a really long extension cord?

>>10613788
>The propellant is just hot water and energy.

it's a god damned retarded system... you know why?

Because liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen rockets are already a thing, and their ISP is upwards of 400 seconds.

And the only byproduct is water.

Fucking stupid ass bullshit water heater on a launchpad.

>>10619729
A nuclear reactor. Alternatively beamed power, which is just a really long extension cord.

>>10614826
>>10614838
Lewd dolphins

>>10619779
That's just the atmospheric hopper, right? Any word on the orbital hopper?

>>10619781

>>10619787
Thanks, senpai.

>>10619792
I assume they'll stack it soon. the three pieces are all in the working radius of the bigass crane. then they'll move it to the new jig for legs and shit

>>10619798
Looks cool. Am excite.

>>10619743
>A nuclear reactor.

Good luck getting that past the nuclear test ban treaty.

>Alternatively beamed power, which is just a really long extension cord.

Ah, so basically they are going to design a multi gigawatt beam weapon?

I foresee no complications whatsoever.

>>10619753
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm going to call that dolphin porn from now on.

>>10619824
>nuclear test ban treaty
That only covers nuclear weapons. Reactors are not banned.

>>10619840
>Reactors are not banned.

try shooting one into orbit, see how that goes for you.

>>10619811
How would payload separation work with that thing? Doing it the traditional way with pushers would have the satellite collide with the tip of the Starship. So do they just release it really gently and have the Starship back up/rotate out of the way using thrusters? Or maybe the release mechanism itself could be moved to point it towards the opening?

>>10619824
>>10619840
According to UN space guidelines, which are not laws, nuclear reactors in space should only use highly enriched uranium. Low enriched uranium or literally any other fuel is not recommended. This is because the politicians writing these guidelines wanted to ban plutonium in space as it could be used as a weapon and literally didn't know shit about reactors. Once the politicians who wrote this were told years later about this they felt pretty stupid and agreed the guidelines need to be changed.
>>10619854
They aren't banned. The soviets launched a bunch. According to UN space law, reactors are alright. The laws only ban nuclear bombs.
Read it and weep faggot:
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html

>>10619854
I'm pretty sure the United States can send one into orbit if it wants. It already sent nuclear material up before, and they're developing NTRs.

>>10619865
>The soviets launched a bunch.

you are saying that the soviets launched a nuclear rocket?

or are you saying that the soviets launched a RTG into orbit?

>>10619855
I don't think anyone outside of SpaceX knows how it would work, but I guess that the most practical way of doing it would be to use a robotic arm to pull the payload out. Pic related.

>>10619874
>I'm pretty sure the United States can send one into orbit if it wants.

we could have been sending nuclear rockets to mars in the 50's....

but no one wants to risk a nuclear rocket.

>>10619882
Full blow reactors.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Nuclear_Power_In_Space_999.html

>>10619886
>we could have been sending nuclear rockets to mars in the 50's....
Except that going to Mars wasn't a political priority so no serious funding was given to Martian missions. Plus, the Shuttle was taking up most of NASA's budget and it didn't have any capability beyond LEO.

>but no one wants to risk a nuclear rocket.
Tell that to the Americans and Soviets.

>>10619882
>>RTG
oh god no, I mean whole nuclear reactors. Some of them even powered electric propulsion, so technically there have been nuclear rockets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A
The use launched a reactor too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A

>>10619896
>Full blow reactors.

but where they nuclear rockets?

>Tell that to the Americans and Soviets.

I know there were secret attempts at a nuclear airplane, but I remember nothing about actual nuclear rocket flights. (and I mean SPACE rockets)

care to share?

>>10619897
>so technically there have been nuclear rockets

you're really pushing the limit of what can be called a rocket, there... buddy.

>>10619920
What's with you and nuclear rockets? I thought this whole thing started with nuclear reactors? And besides, in terms of nuclear material sent to orbit, a nuclear reactor is roughly equivalent to a nuclear rocket, so if the Americans/Soviets are fine with sending nuclear reactors into space then they'll be fine with sending nuclear rockets.

>>10619930
>What's with you and nuclear rockets?

we are in a thread whose OP post consists of a "Water fueled rocket", which is an utterly rediculous concept, ESPECIALLY since they are deciding to use the lowest KG/KW power source of batteries to flash the water to steam.

Obviously, the only way to ACTUALLY have a "Water Powered Rocket" is to use a much more powerful, and more energy dense source of power for launching a rocket using water as propellant, i.e. a nuclear thermal rocket.

I was discussing nuclear "Rockets" (as opposed to nuclear reactors with a thrust to weight ratio of less than one), for this particular reason.

Ahem

>>10619930
here ya go dude...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket

this is what I was talking about.

>>10619937
precisely.

>>10619934
>>10619939
Ah sorry, I guess I was misunderstanding your posts. I doubt something like a NSWR would be used (at least in the near future) because it's a massive technological challenge compared to just using NTRs or using nuclear reactors as energy sources for electric engines. And while a NSWR is a powerful engine, NTRs and electric engines pretty much meet most manned missions right now.

>>10619937
Awesome website.

>>10619939
launching a nuclear reactor into orbit is one thing, spewing radioactive exhaust everywhere is another

not all nuclear rockets have radioactive exhausts like nswr

>>10619934
No, they preheat the water before launch. The batteries are just an afterburner for improving performance a bit during landing. It's mainly intended as a booster. We'll fucking see though. They initially started out trying to fly an aerospike, then their H2O2 supplier went out of business so they decided to switch to H2O(HOT!!!).
>>10619922
ion engines are still rockets.

>>10619950
>not all nuclear rockets have radioactive exhausts like nswr

ya...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb

>>10619951
>No, they preheat the water before launch.

So, it's a pressure vessel? oh lord that has it's own set of problems, this thing is literally never going to be used.

>ion engines are still rockets.

Technically, they are not. they are an electric engine, and also their thrust to weight is MUCH less than 1.

>>10619647
>Senate Launch System

>>10619970
>>pressure vessel
As are most rockets. I would call it more of a hot water heater that's designed to explode in a certain direction.
>>never going to be used
IGAF, I don't have money in it. Do you? It will be fun to watch though. Now as far as other steam rockets go there's the World Is Not Enough lander. It uses water because that shit's easy to come by. Just throw whatever you land on in the tank and boil it to steam. It could be the same type of exploding water heater, but I am not certain. And just so your nuke boner is happy, yes, it could be nuclear powered
https://www.honeybeerobotics.com/wine-the-world-is-not-enough/
>>technically they are not
they throw mass out to create thrust. That's the definition of a rocket
>>much less than 1
NERVA has TWR <1

>>10619811
The first rocket to be a Nintendo fan.

>>10619970
ordinary NTR does not have radioactive exhaust either

>>10620004
>I would call it more of a hot water heater that's designed to explode in a certain direction.

do you want to do the calculations on steam pressure due to heating vs vessel thickness necessary to maintain pressure on such heated water...

VS THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO?

is that your goal?

>>10620212
>ordinary NTR

name when one was flown.

don't worry, i'll wait.

>>10619754
Nice missile

>>10620258
NTR was not flown but that is what is usually proposed as nuclear rocket. NSWR is way more advanced and dubious concept.

this kino is now being torrented lads

>>10620422
>only 1080p
no

>>10620423
there is no 4k release, 1080 looks bretty good for now

>>10620422
magnet?

>>10620435
max quality I found

https://1337x.to/torrent/3736691/Apollo-11-2019-1080p-BluRay-x264-DRONES-EtHD/

>>10620440
Cheers friend.

>>10620440
That's not a magnet link, that's an ad-infested thing which never gave me a link because it was so busy opening up four dozen dodgy malwebs.

>>10620460
Ah, view source, find magnet link, copy, paste URL, 8.4GB.

>>10619970
>So, it's a pressure vessel? oh lord that has it's own set of problems, this thing is literally never going to be used.
Every rocket is a pressure vessel, holy shit you are retarded.

>>10620460
jesus man if you don't know how to avoid ads, popups and javascript bullcrap what are you doing on the internet.

>>10620546
My ad block was breaking some shit that it needed to work normally.

>>10620464
>>10620440
the whole point of a magnet link is so that I don't have to do that
so paste that shit in here

we need to built a launch site maybe in alaska, polar inclination launch for launch and testing nuclear rockets, desu

>>10620713
Isn't most of Alaska a nature preserve?

>>10618507
>Using 304 rusted virgin instead of 316L shiny chad
Fuck Elon

>>10620779
>Fuck Elon
As if half of the posters in this thread wouldn't try if given the chance.

>>10620779
316 will stay shiny forever, yes but isn't it not as strong as 304
it's more like hot bishie vs lumberjack in a gay porno

>>10620848
>it's more like hot bishie vs lumberjack in a gay porno
Why am I not surprised

New thread >>10621039