Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by Dragon029 on Today at 08:33:18 am »
It's definitely a risk doing this kind of work out in the open, but at least it's ultimately just relatively cheap steel and can be built again from scratch in a couple of weeks.
Aerospace / Re: N400 Swift Scaled Composites
« Last post by NUSNA_Moebius on Today at 08:31:39 am »
I wonder why the move to a wider span swept wing (trailing edge included) instead of the N156's trapezoidal type.  Higher aspect ratio and wing area for the same leading edge sweep angle and wing root area?  Seems like they wanted a boost in lift efficiency without having to rely on such large drag inducing LERX.
More informations about this italian bird are welcome!!!
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by TomS on Today at 08:29:10 am »
NASA would be folding up the tent by now.

Or they wouldn't have built it out in the open in the first place...

Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 08:27:35 am »
NASA would be folding up the tent by now.
Missile Projects / Re: Sea Slug
« Last post by CJGibson on Today at 08:21:27 am »
There may be a number of reasons for using wrap-around boosts.

1) No single boost rocket motor with sufficient power, so need more than one. (see early test vehicles with up to eight BRMs)

2) With wrap-around boosts your missile can be as big as you like, just add BRMS,

3) Asymmetric thrust if one BRM fails? No problem, cant the nozzles so the thrust lines pass through the missile CoG. This may also make the missile easier to control in the boost phase, should you want to.

Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by Flyaway on Today at 08:19:54 am »
The nosecone of the starship hopper has blown over in strong winds & been damaged. Mr Musk states it will take a few weeks to repair. However, the business end of the hopper is fine.
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by Dragon029 on Today at 08:15:40 am »
Unfortunately a storm has toppled the (separated) top-half of Starhopper, damaging it quite a bit. On the plus side it's not as important as the bottom half of the rocket, but this will obviously set things back probably a couple of weeks, unless they decide to omit certain test objectives and just carry on with a half-sized Starhopper.

Photos courtesy of bocachicagal at the NASA Spaceflight Forum.

Edit: Also a couple of tweets from Elon about it:
I just heard. 50 mph winds broke the mooring blocks late last night & fairing was blown over. Will take a few weeks to repair.
Actual tanks are fine

Talk about an omen:
How long until the first hopper test. What do you think?
Aiming for 4 weeks, which probably means 8 weeks, due to unforeseen issues
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Curtiss-Wright CW-32
« Last post by hesham on Today at 08:09:57 am »
From Decollage 6/1947.
Designation Systems / Re: August Euler Aircraft
« Last post by richard B on Today at 08:09:36 am »
This one is puzzling  : it looks something like a shoulder wing Mark R III with inline engine . The young man aboard is certainly not August Euler ... Probably an early twenties design .
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10