You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Space

The Emerging Space Technology

Everything that is sub-orbital or beyond.
 

bearnard95 24 Feb 21, 09:30Post
In the modern world, science and technology are fast-growing things, and as we can see a lot of new space technologies are about to be produced or invented. Which one do you expect the most and which one do you think might be the most useful for humans or for space exploration?
Mark 24 Feb 21, 15:27Post
I'm interested in which space technology has crossed over into the medical area. Unfortunately, the media rarely reports on space science or technology, so the general public has no clue of the advances made or how it applies to them. The only way I can learn about the space science that has crossed over into the medical realm is to spend quite a bit of time Googling specific words and phrases.
Commercial aircraft flown in: B712 B722 B732 B734 B737 B738 B741 B742 B744 B752 B753 B762 B772 A310 A318 A319 A320 A321 DC91 DC93 DC94 DC1030 DC1040 F100 MD82 MD83 A223 CR2 CR7 E175
bearnard95 25 Feb 21, 08:37Post
I liked the way how microsatellites are developing and how they partialy substitute ordinary sats. This is a cheaper and easier way for some missions ordinary sats used to do. Also, we may use microsats bigger number of fields that only emphasis their competence. Satellite technology take part in our everyday live, so we cannot imagine our precent world without sat technology
JacobCooper 14 May 21, 08:42Post
I'm not sure if it's possible to call it technology. Still, I advocate for sustainability in aerospace engineering, and it's great to see that many space agencies take action to become eco-friendly.
bhmbaglock 14 May 21, 10:49Post
True reusable equipment with no/minimal refurbishment between flights without a doubt. SpaceX is unquestionably the leader in this and the best thing is that it's pushing others into the tech as well.
bhmbaglock 14 May 21, 11:03Post
JacobCooper wrote:I'm not sure if it's possible to call it technology. Still, I advocate for sustainability in aerospace engineering, and it's great to see that many space agencies take action to become eco-friendly.


The only truly non-polluting option for launch is H2/O2 which also happens to be the most efficient chemical option as measured by specific impulse. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to work with H2 vs other fuel options and the low density of it imposes substantial mass penalties due to required added structure to contain the fuel.

The only major systems I can think of using this for first stage lift are Space Shuttle and Delta 4. Both were ruinously expensive and shuttle required horribly polluting solids on top of the main engines to get off the ground.

The good news is that we're seeing a big move away from hypergolics for anything other than maneuvering even by the Russians and Chinese who have stayed with them much longer than the US. We're even starting to see some designs like F9 and Starship that use cold gas thrusters or methalox for maneuvering rather than hypergolics. For those who don't know, hypergolic fuels are horribly toxic.

Going back to H2/O2, it is very well suited for second stages where the added volume of H2 vs other propellants imposes a much lower structural penalty allowing the high Isp to work for you. That said, there is a lot of added complexity for logistics adding a third propellant to handle at the launch site. In addition to this, engines are very expensive to develop so we're seeing more and more instances where the second stage uses the same engine as the first but with a different bell/nozzle optimized for performance in vacuum. It minimizes development costs and maximizes production efficiency. SpaceX Merlin and Raptor engines as well as Rocket Lab Rutherford engines are examples of this.
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT