SpaceX (general discussion)

It's a test program. They can "fix" models down the line as they build. They identified a problem. They can deal with that in future iterations. For the next test, they can bandaid a solution. Took seven flights for that issue to pop up. They'll gamble that whatever they kludge together for this next test or two will give sufficient odds while they do real engineering for the rest of the test program.

Steel is cheap, and if they keep bringing back the booster, that's it's own progress.

They are doing the same thing with the TPS, playing with it and collecting data points expecting to lose the ship either on reentry or into the drink. I don't know why this would be treated drastically differently.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1880085599522349075
View: https://twitter.com/Edward_767/status/1880085599522349075


Edward Baker
@Edward_767
One more tidbit: to see the Starship debris I had to select the lowest radar elevation. This debris was around/below 10,000' 95 miles from San Juan.

Might be worth a stroll near the beaches around Arecibo in the morning.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1880456899054715325
View: https://twitter.com/bocachicagal/status/1880456899054715325


Booster 14 flew with Raptor engine 314. Raptor engine 314 had previously flown on Booster 12 which was the first Booster to be caught by the chopsticks.

@NASASpaceflight
Click to expand...
 
Drat.

Let me throw this out here for discussion if I may-

Starship's payload has already taken a hit mass-wise---to where it carries less than FH...but I still see value in Starship.

Imagine that upper stage having nitric acid or HTP for awhile.

While the payload mass would take a further hit--it might allow for a higher payload volume for large dish antennae, sails, etc.

With oxidizers that are not as cryogenic as LOX, let a little methane leak... nothing for it to react with.

This may allow more robust test flights of the design, materials, etc.

Once that is figured out, put the LOX back in.
 
publiusr said:
Imagine that upper stage having nitric acid or HTP for awhile.

While the payload mass would take a further hit--it might allow for a higher payload volume for large dish antennae, sails, etc.

With oxidizers that are not as cryogenic as LOX, let a little methane leak... nothing for it to react with.

This may allow more robust test flights of the design, materials, etc.

Once that is figured out, put the LOX back in.
Click to expand...
again, just no. The Raptors are not designed for HTP. And Musk will not have anything to do with hyperbolas on his rockets. How many times does this have to be repeated.

They aren't launching anything big for a while anyways.
What dishes or sails? a spacecraft like that is 5 or more years away if it was started now.

There is air for methane to react with.

Would do nothing to help them but only set them back months or years.
And how would it allow for more "robust" test flights.

SLS wouldn't have any reason to fly too.
 
Smaller, admittedly—but mini shuttles were looked at with different engines:

There at least was a gradual approach at testing even if the propellant was the same. Titan went from kerolox to storable.

Let me put it a different way—methalox head-aches might mask other failure modes that would be more easily spotted in a Starship with different engines and less finicky propellants.

Elon isn’t afraid of losing airframes after all.

One more reason I like SLS… better to lose an expendable in a predictable way than lose an RLV in an unpredictable way.
 
Last edited:
Splitting hairs over Musk words "The Moon is a distraction."

"The moon is a distraction" - discuss.

"The moon is a distraction" - discuss.
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

Seriously: the ridiculousness is going out of control. It's like watching Monty Pythons Life of Brian 's shoe and gourd schism.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk

"Elon is the messiah ! We want to see the Messiah !"

"He ain't the messiah ! He's a very naughty little boy !"
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Smaller, admittedly—but mini shuttles were looked at with different engines:
Click to expand...
Paper projects don't count. I am talking real hardware. Paper projects can use unobtanium and arc reactors.

publiusr said:
There at least was a gradual approach at testing even if the propellant was the same. Titan went from kerolox to storable.
Click to expand...
wrong. It was a complete redesign. The only things in common were the number engines and first stage diameter. And it wasn't "gradual". They designed one rocket, manufactured, tested and then deployed it. Then they started over, redesigned it, manufactured, tested and then deployed the other one. There was no cross over testing of propellants or engines.
publiusr said:
Let me put it a different way—methalox head-aches might mask other failure modes that would be more easily spotted in a Starship with different engines and less finicky propellants.
Click to expand...
wrong. There are no "headaches" with methalox
a. methalox is easier than hydrolox. It is much like kerolox but where both propellants are like LOX.
b. and the failure modes would be masked by going to different propellants.
c. Other propellants would introduce new and different failure modes.
D. Violates TLYF
E. Did they fly Centaur, S-IV, S-IVB or S-II with other propellants before going to hydrolox?
F. Starship does use test stands like at Marshall and Stennis. It uses flight. Sometimes the test article doesn't survive.
G. Anyways, no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. They still testing. this isn't like they lost an operational vehicle.

publiusr said:
One more reason I like SLS… better to lose an expendable in a predictable way than lose an RLV in an unpredictable way.
Click to expand...
That is inane and illogical. The failure modes are the same for ascent (other than SRB related ones). There are no differences otherwise. SLS could have failed in the same way. Failures are all unpredicted. Starship has failure modes during recovery unlike SLS. Orion is not relevant here. Starship is still just a launch vehicle.
 
publiusr said:
Drat.

Let me throw this out here for discussion if I may-

Starship's payload has already taken a hit mass-wise---to where it carries less than FH...but I still see value in Starship.

Imagine that upper stage having nitric acid or HTP for awhile.

While the payload mass would take a further hit--it might allow for a higher payload volume for large dish antennae, sails, etc.

With oxidizers that are not as cryogenic as LOX, let a little methane leak... nothing for it to react with.

This may allow more robust test flights of the design, materials, etc.

Once that is figured out, put the LOX back in.
Click to expand...
If you had internet back in the day, you would have told NASA after Apollo 6, to replace the S-II and J-2 engines with a S-IB with H-1 engines
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1881237670934040616
View: https://twitter.com/satofishi/status/1881237670934040616


Five years ago, prior to the Crew Dragon Demo-2 mission, NASA calculated the loss-of-crew (LOC) probability for the test flight at approximately 1-in-276.

Since then, 15 crewed missions have successfully flown without any LOC events, providing to refine the LOC probability using Bayesian updating. Considering that this mission is a short 3.5-day free-flyer, it is reasonable to optimistically estimate the LOC probability as being lower than that of an ISS mission. While I don’t have access to sufficient data for a precise calculation, an informed estimate suggests the LOC probability is likely in the range of 1-in-1000 to 1-in-2000.

Some may be concerned about radiation exposure in a polar orbit. Data suggests that under normal conditions, the radiation dose for this mission would not be significantly higher than for a 51.6-degree inclination mission, with an estimated total dose of up to 5 mSv for the entire duration. However, polar orbits are more sensitive to solar events, and an unlucky encounter with a solar storm could increase the dose to as much as 50 mSv in 90-degree inclination.

A 50 mSv short-term radiation exposure could translate into a 2.5% increase in lifetime cancer risk, which further corresponds to an additional 1% increase in mortality risk. These significant solar events are estimated to occur roughly once every 10 years. Unfortunately, the probability of encountering one is higher in 2025 than it is in other years, with an estimated likelihood of 1-in-250 during this mission.

Based on above calculations, radiation exposure likely accounts for well less than 10% of the total LOC probability in this mission.

It is important to note that the above analysis represents only my personal speculation and is not associated with SpaceX.

Fram2 will be protected from the space environment through a combination of vehicle and mission design, and operations including mission duration and orbit control.

Like all previous SpaceX human spaceflight missions, the overall radiation dosage for the crew will be measured throughout the mission to ensure safe levels of exposure.
Click to expand...
 
FighterJock said:
So the million dollar question? How long will Starship be grounded? Let's see if SpaceX can get another Starship launched before June or July.
Click to expand...

Until the default is definitely identified and mitigated. Probably a few months, with half of that probably just due to FAA inertia. It’s not like we haven’t seen things blow up before in the starship program.
 
HOLD HOLD HOLD!
A bizarre incident see SpaceX scrubs Falcon 9 launch 11 secondes from countdown end.

During a Falcon 9 launch, the area around Vandenburg Space Force Base is subject to an FAA-regulated ‘Temporary Flight Restriction,’ which is a designated area in which aircraft are prohibited from flying for a certain period of time.

SpaceX launches are normally accompanied by a so-called ‘Notice to Air Missions’ or NOTAM, which informs pilots of specific flight restrictions on their intended route.

In this case, however, it is understood that the pilots of Delta flight DL480 were following instructions from Air Traffic Control. The Federal Aviation Administration is expected to open an investigation into how ATC controllers came to instruct the pilots of DL480 to fly through a TFR.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Delta Air Lines commented on the incident, saying: “The Delta crew on flight 480 continues to follow ATC instruction along its journey from Los Angeles (LAX) to Honolulu (HNL). The flight is en route to HNL with no issue.”
Click to expand...

x.com

x.com x.com

www.paddleyourownkanoo.com

SpaceX Scrubs Falcon 9 Rocket Launch With Just 11 Seconds To Go After Delta Air Jet Flies Into Restricted Airspace

SpaceX was forced to scrub the launch of its Falcon 9 rocket with just 11 seconds to go on Sunday morning after a Delta Air Lines airplane reportedly flew into an area of restricted airspace close to the launch site. The launch was being broadcast live and was in its final countdown when a voice…
www.paddleyourownkanoo.com www.paddleyourownkanoo.com
 
Titan's 369 launches : done. https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/titan.htm

Next :
-Proton's 429 launches : https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/proton.htm
-Atlas's 582 launches: https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/atlas.htm
-Thor extended family : 724 launches. https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/thor.htm

And of course R-7, which has just launched for the 2000th time.
space.skyrocket.de

R-7 Family

Gunter's Space Page - Information on Launch vehicles, Satellites, Space Shuttle and Astronautics
space.skyrocket.de space.skyrocket.de
 
Falcon has flown 1/5th the number of times as R-7...wow.

I wonder if Falcon is in some kind of structural sweet spot...larger stages more limber, smaller more prone to vibrations, etc.
 
Archibald said:
Next :
-Proton's 429 launches : https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/proton.htm
-Atlas's 582 launches: https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/atlas.htm
-Thor extended family : 724 launches. https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/thor.htm

And of course R-7, which has just launched for the 2000th time.
Click to expand...

Falcon 9 past Proton with 441 launches in January 2025.
SpaceX could reach Atlas launches around end 2025~begin 2026.
with future development for Delta Heavy launch sites SpaceX take over
they could increase even more launches for Falcon 9
(however those launch site could be reserve for Starship?)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom