Russian Space Program: News & Discussion #3

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Talking about Trampoline Man's Musk-wannabe Twitter fantasies makes as much sense as talking about Klipper spaceship

Waste of bandwidth

Thanks for your daily 2-minutes of Rogozin-Hate. Where would we all be without it..

Big_Gazza wrote: He's just a clever con man who knows how to play the dumb Murikan herd.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Hole wrote:With a winged landing the rocket needs a landing gear = more weight.

Thats the usual response of the Muskian groupies, nonsense about wings not being "scalable", but its BS.  Solid boosters of the sort that were used on US shuttle are heavy and very inefficient with an appallingy low ISP, but it doesn't matter. Their job is simply to get the stack to a height above the thickest part of the atmosphere where the more efficient propulsion can be engaged (or more accurately, its thurst ramped up to max). If they carry extra weight you compensate with more fuel.  

The advantage of winged boosters over vertical blow-torches is one of refurbisment costs. A vertical lander must fly thru its own rocket wash and the propulsion section and lower structure must be thermally protected against the greatly increased temperatures.  You think the scorching of Falcon returned cores is good for the metallurgy? Refurbishment to flight standard is far more expensive than Musk is prepared to admit, and his costs savings are hugely exagerated (his operation relies on cunningly hidden subsidies from the US gov).

Winged boosters will directly benefit from recent advances in UAV technology.  Flying the boosters back to a strip will present no technical or operational difficulties, cross-range performance will be greatly increased, and the cost of refurb will be minimal compared to Musks heat affected returnees. Additionally, the number of boosters can be tailored to the payload weight so you only need to fly the mass you need, rather than the Falcon where you must launch the entire stack, even for a light-weight satellite.

Musk is no genius.  He's just a clever con man who knows how to play the dumb Murikan herd.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote: He's just a clever con man who knows how to play the dumb Murikan herd.

Not even that. A clever conman would have revived more plausible projects that are actually interesting and most likely also be consulting with competent experts rather than deluding themselves into trying to "invent" some scifi bullshit.

kvs wrote:... But not one peep from the resident Balkan loser who was
horribly injured psychologically by Rogozin's trampoline comment. Must have hit just the right sore spot. The truth hurts.

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Hole wrote:With a winged landing the rocket needs a landing gear = more weight.

Thats the usual response of the Muskian groupies, nonsense about wings not being "scalable", but its BS.  Solid boosters of the sort that were used on US shuttle are heavy and very inefficient with an appallingy low ISP, but it doesn't matter. Their job is simply to get the stack to a height above the thickest part of the atmosphere where the more efficient propulsion can be engaged (or more accurately, its thurst ramped up to max). If they carry extra weight you compensate with more fuel.  

The advantage of winged boosters over vertical blow-torches is one of refurbisment costs. A vertical lander must fly thru its own rocket wash and the propulsion section and lower structure must be thermally protected against the greatly increased temperatures.  You think the scorching of Falcon returned cores is good for the metallurgy? Refurbishment to flight standard is far more expensive than Musk is prepared to admit, and his costs savings are hugely exagerated (his operation relies on cunningly hidden subsidies from the US gov).

Winged boosters will directly benefit from recent advances in UAV technology.  Flying the boosters back to a strip will present no technical or operational difficulties, cross-range performance will be greatly increased, and the cost of refurb will be minimal compared to Musks heat affected returnees. Additionally, the number of boosters can be tailored to the payload weight so you only need to fly the mass you need, rather than the Falcon where you must launch the entire stack, even for a light-weight satellite.

Musk is no genius.  He's just a clever con man who knows how to play the dumb Murikan herd.

This is exactly it.   Instead of carrying fuel for a photo-op landing tailored to the ignorant masses, a winged return uses the atmosphere
to do the heavy lifting, literally.    There is enough lift in the lower stratosphere and troposphere that even the central cores of
rockets could return and not just some small boosters.  

The dream of a winged spaceplane taking off from a runway and leaving for the stars is a long term challenge.   But applying the
situation in reverse is achievable with current technology and uses gravity instead of fighting it.   As noted already here are
the advantages:

1) empty tanks with no extra fuel and weight for return

2) no need for more weight to install heat shielding

3) no high risk balancing a pencil on its tip landings

4) can actually return orbiting platforms back to Earth for servicing with the right
wing layout

So the only real cost is adding wings which adds weight.   But there is no free lunch, if you want to have reusable systems, then
you will have to pay for it.   But the price is sane as opposed to insane with a glider return instead of vertical lander.

Hole wrote:

You also need a landing gear.