Darwinbots Forum
General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Botsareus on September 01, 2014, 01:30:34 PM
-
Anyone seen the vid. for the third launch of Virgin Galactic? They put hd cameras on both launch components. Looks beast.
-
Well where's the link Botsareus? Don't leave us hanging man!
Just kidding here ya go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwm3leZu-O0
This is apparently the third test, I remember seeing the first a few years back, it was pretty amazing.
The video quality sure has come a long way in recent years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ovETzGtMc
And of course, all designed by the legendary Burt Rutan. The guy comes up with some great designs, I really like his jet, but the audio for the clip was terrible, so I'll show ya this one instead.
https://www.ted.com/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space
Thanks for the word though Botsareus, wasn't aware they'd done the 3rd test.
-
Is it meant to be able to achieve a proper LEO? Or does it just use a parabolic trajectory to get above the Karman line?
-
Just checked there website. Apparently they have something called 'LauncherOne' that does go into LEO. Do not know if it makes it back from LEO safely.
The original design was meant to get you as close to the feeling of being in outer space as possible. But you also get all the gforces of going to outer space as a bonus.
But in general, it is just cool. 8)
-
Is it meant to be able to achieve a proper LEO? Or does it just use a parabolic trajectory to get above the Karman line?
Ya as far as I know they're just using a parabolic trajectory to get to the Karman line. First flight hit the Karman line mark of 100km to get the X-Prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne#Development_and_winning_the_X_Prize
-
Looks like they want 110km on average. Not too shabby.
-
hohum, the LOE one is just a stupid two stager. The fins got me thinking it had a return plan for a sec.
-
Is it meant to be able to achieve a proper LEO? Or does it just use a parabolic trajectory to get above the Karman line?
Ya as far as I know they're just using a parabolic trajectory to get to the Karman line. First flight hit the Karman line mark of 100km to get the X-Prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne#Development_and_winning_the_X_Prize
Ah, that makes sense. I've been playing a lot of Kerbal lately, and I feel like I have at least some intuitive sense of what a ship that can reach orbit looks like. And that isn't it :)
Still, very cool.
-
Kerbal is a fantastic game, and ya that could definitely not reach LEO looking like that.
Maybe if they scale it up to 10x the size, slap another booster on it.
Always another booster.
-
Too much boosters can be a bad thing too. Just look where the N1 (http://jalopnik.com/this-insane-rocket-is-why-the-soviet-union-never-made-i-1448356326) ended up.
-
It's true, that 20 engine design was a little insane.
Do you know about the replacement engines that were never flown, the Nk-33s? Well at least never flown until the fall of the USSR, and that wonderful 90s sell off period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLg1QUq5GQM
There's a good documentary on it.
I've actually been wondering if Putin won't go back and charge someone for selling these engines, but I'm pretty sure it's the same people running his space program now, so he may want to keep the engineers happy.
Elon Musks latest engine;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)#Merlin_1D
Is said to use that same technology developed through the painful soviet test programs.
-
Thank you for the link Vrukt. Good stuff. :)
Why can't they build a couple N1s and build a moon base? They still got the blue prints, don't they? Or did they burn them? It is looking like they can also even have 1.5x original mass on the top of this things now. Build a moon base!
-
I was always gov't. neutral, I do not care who does it. Can Americans hack some blue prints plz?
-
Sounds like there were some problems with the design...
-
According to the vid, they where flushed out right before they cut the program off.
-
edit: Kinda like the story on your picy, if I am interpreting it correctly. Am I?
The question of the meaning of your picy has been hunting me for a while now. I know you sport this picy all over the web, so it is not a one time deal.
-
Numsgil, you probably have more experience with this stuff the I do at this point (I am considering kerbal for Christmas now)
Do you envision any other problems in design then faulty engines? Given the state of technology of today's engines?
-
I couldn't care much about the politics either, in the end it's usually criminals on each side trying to make cash while invoking the flag, and peoples love of staying comfortable. I just don't like it when people write off soviet designs for just being soviet.
The moon base thing is what Putin is saying he wants to do right now. Right at the kick-off of Crimea tensions he announced it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/russia-plans-colonize-moon-permanent-lunar-base-report-article-1.1785673
It's kind of like the cold-war lite. Cold war with crippled ideologies and techno!
Now SpaceX just had a failure, and it will be interesting to see why. I'd guess the electronics, and guidance somehow screwed up on it, but I think engines still have a freeze up problem because they use the oxygen to cool the combustion chamber, to prevent the combustion from melting through the combustion vessel.
If a pump fails, or a tube gets clogged, you can have your engine melt.
Engine design hasn't moved that much either. Those soviet engine are #2 most efficient after that SpaceX Merlin engine, which is made from the soviet engines technology, which is from the 70s.
Good question though, I want to go look more into the causes of failures now, as I've just been searching it seems the Russians have had a ton lately, which is odd considering they had some solid designs.
I expect to see a few more SpaceX designs explode though, as anyone doing rocket research is bound to produce some impressive explosions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfUOJ1uYJUo
-
It's interesting how almost all other technologies we have today have followed something like Moore's law, from computers to agriculture to vehicles to all kinds of crazy things. But rocket technology is basically the same today as it was in the 60s. I think in a lot of ways the Apollo project was a good half century or more ahead of its time. A combination of German know how and American money and political one-ups-man-ship.
Not to besmirch the soviet program. But landing on the moon with a manned craft and bringing everyone back 6 different times is quite different from landing unmanned probes on the moon.
Of course the cost for the whole Apollo project was staggering. More than $100 billion adjusted for inflation. It would be hard for anyone to justify that cost today, and the price hasn't really changed. If Russia wants to consider it, they're talking about ~5% of their GDP for a year. Or .5% over 10 years. That's just... a lot of money. It turns out that going Mach 20 200km above the Earth is hard. And then trying to get from there to somewhere else is even harder.
-
It is very true, but after the initial development they really didn't expand too much towards engines.
Also for the soviet program, I think first ICBM, satellite, space station, and man in orbit is a pretty good accomplishment.
They also were first to physically touch the moon when they crashed a probe into it.
If you look at the moon landings, they were really playing catch-up, and had they been delayed, USSR would have made that first as well.