General > General Technical Chat
Your pet peeve, technical or otherwise.
PlainName:
Don't have 44 minutes to not find the info - the second link didn't say why it didn't get to fly and just provided a cgi. Perhaps you could do a one-sentence synopsis? Give the timestamp in the video? C'mon, it's you making the argument and providing Youtube rabbit-hole time sinks isn't doing that.
jonovid:
--- Quote from: PlainName on April 30, 2023, 10:35:56 am ---Don't have 44 minutes to not find the info - the second link didn't say why it didn't get to fly and just provided a cgi. Perhaps you could do a one-sentence synopsis? Give the timestamp in the video? C'mon, it's you making the argument and providing Youtube rabbit-hole time sinks isn't doing that.
--- End quote ---
starts at 23:00 on the video by Common Sense Skeptic entitled [Of Rockets, Shuttles and Planes] on youtube.
Star-Raker design uses 3 types of rocket engine.
10 air breathing rocket/jet engines for takeoff and landing.
and 3 stored oxidizer liquid-fuel cryogenic rocket engines for getting into orbit. as the space shuttle did so.
with third type is the steering thrusters.
Star-Raker design has much in common with the space shuttle's aerodynamics.
with a cargo capacity of 100,000 kg more then the space shuttle's 29,000 kg.
Star-Raker's internal tanks held all propellants needed unlike the space shuttle.
largest technical challenge for Star-Raker IMO would be venting the fuel tanks without explosion.
between the modes of flight. such as starting and re-starting engine procedures.
the Star-Raker has a side-swing flip-out flight crew cabin design type nose cone.
the landing gear of Star-Raker is also retractable but must also have a set of jettisoned or drop-off super-heavy
runway takeoff gear bogies.
IMO starship's super heavy vertical design has failed to capitalize on the experience learned from the space shuttle.
levs open the possibility of horizontal Star-Raker using super heavy rocket sled takeoffs from rails beside the space-port/airport runways.
the design can also have booster rockets to assistance takeoff. with the crew cabin/nose cone acting as an escape pod if something goes wrong. So then successful the same Star-Raker landing back on earth's runways with rubber tyre's like an aircraft or space shuttle did.
Star-Raker concept was to be the super heavy space shuttle for a Space-based solar power
concept for collecting solar power in outer space. and then using microwave power transmission
to get it back to earth.
why Star-Raker sized space shuttle was no longer needed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
The project was cancelled with the change in administrations after the 1980 United States elections.
so the Star-Raker horizontal takeoff super heavy space shuttle design A single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle.
was also was not continued. funding was stopped and the project cancelled
you will find Star-Raker mentioned here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit
end of this rabbit hole..........
PlainName:
OK, thanks.
--- Quote ---why Star-Raker sized space shuttle was no longer needed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
--- End quote ---
I am failing to see why that made it no longer needed, particularly since SBSP is still a pipedream.
Isn't the Virgin effort partway to doing this? At least they leave the bulk of the thing behind so the main mission and return isn't lumbered with a big rocket-sized vehicle to maneuver around.
RJSV:
Having to be IP EXPERT to use on-line news radio.
Yes I know, I've been reputed in the past, for whining and complaining too much, but, LOL call it like I see it.
Security concerns bring a personal limit, on those APPs, necessary to, well, to even function decently.
Technology measured there could say:
'Measured by 1923 standards (I was -50 y.o. then), a simple flick of switch, and maybe fiddle with tuner, and that was it.'. Of course the offerings in today's (2023) media world are much richer.
Like, for instance, a news radio show in OHIO (U.S.) couldn't be received in San Francisco...But not able to listen, or dropouts every couple minutes....what's the difference if that rich scene of broadcast media options is virtually unlistenable.
Couldn't listen to radio news, from Ohio, in 1923.
Can't really listen to radio news, from Ohio, 2023.
Yeah, point of pride, there...(RJ sarcasm).
thanks
EDIT: Please also see:
'The glorious return of humble car feature'
was posted by Black Phoenix.
SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: RJHayward on May 02, 2023, 06:13:22 pm ---Having to be IP EXPERT to use on-line news radio.
Yes I know, I've been reputed in the past, for whining and complaining too much, but, LOL call it like I see it.
Security concerns bring a personal limit, on those APPs, necessary to, well, to even function decently.
Technology measured there could say:
'Measured by 1923 standards (I was -50 y.o. then), a simple flick of switch, and maybe fiddle with tuner, and that was it.'. Of course the offerings in today's (2023) media world are much richer.
Like, for instance, a news radio show in OHIO (U.S.) couldn't be received in San Francisco...But not able to listen, or dropouts every couple minutes....what's the difference if that rich scene of broadcast media options is virtually unlistenable.
Couldn't listen to radio news, from Ohio, in 1923.
Can't really listen to radio news, from Ohio, 2023.
Yeah, point of pride, there...(RJ sarcasm).
thanks
--- End quote ---
Are you talking about satellite drop-outs?
Don't you have an AM radio in your car?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version