SpaceX (general discussion)

Starship 24 has been moved to the Rocket Garden... now what? @NASASpaceflight
Click to expand...

Two possibility
24 get resting place in Rocket Garden and 25 undergoes testing to be launch on Superheavy 7

24 is stored temporal for Superheavy 7 test fire of it 33 engines and return, do lack space in Mid bay with 26 & 27
 
publiusr said:
FighterJock said:
Archibald said:
Shuttle took 1981 to 2011 to launch 135 times - 30 years. With two horrible failures along the way and 14 astronauts dead.
Click to expand...

And I remember both the Challenger and Columbia disasters as if it were yesterday. But the Columbia disaster was the worst one for me as I can remember the first flight back in 1981.
Click to expand...
That’s why I wanted a Buran shuttle 2.
No SRBs…no oxygen ramp…ride heads up.

We’ll see if Starship can do better.
No glider that.
Click to expand...
Find it hard to believe how Starship will ever be human rated withoud a proper escape capsule.
Cannot see this will happen before the 2030's and many many unmanned flights to prove itself and to add an escape capsule to it.
 
abheiden said:
publiusr said:
FighterJock said:
Archibald said:
Shuttle took 1981 to 2011 to launch 135 times - 30 years. With two horrible failures along the way and 14 astronauts dead.
Click to expand...

And I remember both the Challenger and Columbia disasters as if it were yesterday. But the Columbia disaster was the worst one for me as I can remember the first flight back in 1981.
Click to expand...
That’s why I wanted a Buran shuttle 2.
No SRBs…no oxygen ramp…ride heads up.

We’ll see if Starship can do better.
No glider that.
Click to expand...
Find it hard to believe how Starship will ever be human rated withoud a proper escape capsule.
Cannot see this will happen before the 2030's and many many unmanned flights to prove itself and to add an escape capsule to it.
Click to expand...
The Shuttle didn't have one.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1619521628265926656
View: https://twitter.com/RingWatchers/status/1619521628265926656?s=20&t=5DTCoYICaUyoijWJLg6ikQ


FnmxhZBXEAAQF7w
 
SpaceX just successful made there 200th launch of Falcon 9 rocket
and 169th successful landing of first stage...
and if everything goes to plan will spaceX make the 300th launch end this year

Congratulation SpaceX
 
Very cool to make it to 200 flights. I wonder how high it be in the end. Perhaps even passing the Soyuz?

Michel Van said:
and if everything goes to plan will spaceX make the 300th launch end this year
Click to expand...

I would be extremely surprised if they reach 300 flights this year. As far as I can tell, "only" 60 flights are currently planned for the rest of the year and the actual number of flights is almost always less than planned because stuff gets delayed for any number of reasons. I would expect them to end the year somewhere around 250-260 total Falcon flights.
 
NCQ said:
Very cool to make it to 200 flights. I wonder how high it be in the end. Perhaps even passing the Soyuz?

Michel Van said:
and if everything goes to plan will spaceX make the 300th launch end this year
Click to expand...

I would be extremely surprised if they reach 300 flights this year. As far as I can tell, "only" 60 flights are currently planned for the rest of the year and the actual number of flights is almost always less than planned because stuff gets delayed for any number of reasons. I would expect them to end the year somewhere around 250-260 total Falcon flights.
Click to expand...
1675190780712.png
 
I wonder what Elon Musk will do regarding a mission to Mars. DARPA and NASA are developing a nuclear thermal rocket engine for the trip to Mars.

www.nasa.gov

NASA, DARPA Will Test Nuclear Engine for Future Mars Missions

NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) announced Tuesday a collaboration to demonstrate a nuclear thermal rocket engine in space, an enabling capability for NASA crewed missions to Mars.
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
 
edwest3 said:
I wonder what Elon Musk will do regarding a mission to Mars. DARPA and NASA are developing a nuclear thermal rocket engine for the trip to Mars.
Click to expand...
i think that Musk will not take that thing for Two reason:

Musk use Lox/Methan in Starship to refuel the Rocket at destination Mars.

You not want to use Methan inside nuclear reactor.
Methan brake up in various carbon compound who deposit inside cooling tubes
until they blocked and Nerva engine goes Chernobyl in space...
 
sferrin said:
NCQ said:
Very cool to make it to 200 flights. I wonder how high it be in the end. Perhaps even passing the Soyuz?

Michel Van said:
and if everything goes to plan will spaceX make the 300th launch end this year
Click to expand...

I would be extremely surprised if they reach 300 flights this year. As far as I can tell, "only" 60 flights are currently planned for the rest of the year and the actual number of flights is almost always less than planned because stuff gets delayed for any number of reasons. I would expect them to end the year somewhere around 250-260 total Falcon flights.
Click to expand...
View attachment 692349
Click to expand...
Michel Van said:
NCQ said:
I would be extremely surprised if they reach 300 flights this year.
Click to expand...
They planned 100 flight this year, mostly Starlinks
also up to five Falcon Heavy launches also
Click to expand...

Musk says a lot of stuff, and it is often wrong. Especially about flight rates. They've had flight rate goals like this for years and most years they don't meet them. If we go off the payloads that we actually know about rather than just stated asperations, which is likely to more accurate (it was roughly correct in 2022 for example), it's unlikely they fly over 100 times this year.
 
TomcatViP said:
@NCQ : You mean there is not enough payload for them to launch?
Click to expand...
Yes. There aren't enough known 2023 payloads to get to 100 flights, and new payloads basically never just appear and then get launched on a timeline of less than a year. The only way I think it would be even at all possible is that they add a huge number of Starlink flights that boost numbers, but non-Starlink flights will also almost certainly be much less than initially expected (as they are every year). In fact, Starlink is really the only reason Falcon is seeing these crazy flight rates. They're still yet to fly even 30 non-Starlink flights in a single year, so they're still below the stated pre-Starlink goal they gave of 30 to 40 flights a year. But in the context of this discussion (total Falcon flights) a Starlink flight is just as good as a non-Starlink flight.
 
Interesting stuff. Thank you.

It's also alarming for other nations and launching services: arithmetically, their share of the market can only diminish, hence investors are going to channel money away from the industry.
 
NCQ said:
Yes. There aren't enough known 2023 payloads to get to 100 flights, and new payloads basically never just appear and then get launched on a timeline of less than a year. The only way I think it would be even at all possible is that they add a huge number of Starlink flights that boost numbers, but non-Starlink flights will also almost certainly be much less than initially expected (as they are every year). In fact, Starlink is really the only reason Falcon is seeing these crazy flight rates. They're still yet to fly even 30 non-Starlink flights in a single year, so they're still below the stated pre-Starlink goal they gave of 30 to 40 flights a year. But in the context of this discussion (total Falcon flights) a Starlink flight is just as good as a non-Starlink flight.
Click to expand...

This is simply incorrect. They have 50 external (non-starlink) payloads planned for 2023. Of course, a few (or more than a few) will always slip to next year, so the won't actually launch that many. But they will also launch as many Starlink flights as they can. Starship is late, and FCC has given SpaceX deadlines they have to launch parts of their constellation by. Because of this, Falcon 9 will soon start launching the larger v 2.0 satellites, which they cannot fit as many of in a Falcon 9.

For 2023, SpaceX is launch rate limited, not payload limited, and will launch exactly as many Falcon 9:s as they possibly can.
 
Tuna said:
NCQ said:
Yes. There aren't enough known 2023 payloads to get to 100 flights, and new payloads basically never just appear and then get launched on a timeline of less than a year. The only way I think it would be even at all possible is that they add a huge number of Starlink flights that boost numbers, but non-Starlink flights will also almost certainly be much less than initially expected (as they are every year). In fact, Starlink is really the only reason Falcon is seeing these crazy flight rates. They're still yet to fly even 30 non-Starlink flights in a single year, so they're still below the stated pre-Starlink goal they gave of 30 to 40 flights a year. But in the context of this discussion (total Falcon flights) a Starlink flight is just as good as a non-Starlink flight.
Click to expand...

This is simply incorrect. They have 50 external (non-starlink) payloads planned for 2023. Of course, a few (or more than a few) will always slip to next year, so the won't actually launch that many. But they will also launch as many Starlink flights as they can. Starship is late, and FCC has given SpaceX deadlines they have to launch parts of their constellation by. Because of this, Falcon 9 will soon start launching the larger v 2.0 satellites, which they cannot fit as many of in a Falcon 9.

For 2023, SpaceX is launch rate limited, not payload limited, and will launch exactly as many Falcon 9:s as they possibly can.
Click to expand...

It's true that they have 50 non-Starlink flights planned for this year, but a good chunk of those won't fly this year. For example, at the beginning of 2022 there were almost 40 non-Starlink flights planned. In the end 27 actually flew in 2022. So roughly 1/3 didn't fly. The same will likely be true this year, so I'd expect around 35 or so actual non-Starlink flights in total. With Starlink I'd expect probably around 70 to maybe 80 max flights total. That's still a huge amount, don't get me wrong, and a lot more than any other rocket family except if you count all Long March rockets together (which I don't think makes sense personally). But it's also not over 100, which was my main contention.
 
The concept of the hygrometer is familiar, how it fits in this thread is mildly abstruse.
 
My aversion of Twitter put me on the back foot here, so I had not fully divined what your 'hygrometer' comment referred to. So very kind of you to clarify :)
 
According RGVaerialPhotography

Start SpaceX on ground works at Brownsville-Port Isabel High way, near E14th street
That Opposite of Starbase Factory with Boca Chica wildlife refuge and Harbor channel in between.
Why/What is unclear for moment, Speculation its for LNG Terminal for refueling Starship launch complex.

Source: RGVaerialPhotography live stream on Youtube.
 
Michel Van said:
edwest3 said:
I wonder what Elon Musk will do regarding a mission to Mars. DARPA and NASA are developing a nuclear thermal rocket engine for the trip to Mars.
Click to expand...
i think that Musk will not take that thing for Two reason:

Musk use Lox/Methan in Starship to refuel the Rocket at destination Mars.

You not want to use Methan inside nuclear reactor.
Methan brake up in various carbon compound who deposit inside cooling tubes
until they blocked and Nerva engine goes Chernobyl in space...
Click to expand...
You want hydrogen for those. Starship for Mars ascent/return. SuperHeavy launched Biconic cargo…SLS launched NTRs.
 
jeffb said:
But you deleted it anyway? We'd all appreciate a heads up if you're going to delete posts that we put up in good faith.

And we've no evidence it's NOT the culture at the company except that in Sferrin's opinion, it isn't. Sferrin has dismissed it as just a disgruntled employees opinion, that doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...yet SpaceX is either the #1 or #2 destination for engineers. Every young engineer I've spoken with has applied. If the culture was toxic the word would be out. These things have a way of being known.
 
Archibald said:
@overscan: see my above post. It is quite revealing about Musk deeply flawed personality, now clearly revealed by the Twitter disaster.
Click to expand...

Or one might make the case that Twitter was a disaster.

EM's business and engineering prowess has a remarkable track record. He's entered two disparite industries and the current success in both is consequential.

You are welcome to your opinion regarding his personality. It has little relevance. Perhaps you regard his ownership of Twitter as a personal disaster? If you're suggesting his involvement in Twitter is a disaster for the company then perhaps it would be better to wait, and see. Regardless, he and his investors own it. They will decide what success looks like.

With his track record in full view through this topic, it seems short-sighted to bet against this man's perseverance.

Like everything else, we shall see.
 
Well, it has been an open secret for quite some time now that Gwynne Shotwell has been the one actually keeping SpaceX running. She has been doing the bulk of the work behind the scenes while Musk gets the publicity.
 
publiusr said:
Archibald said:
He actually was against Falcon Heavy—that was Shotwell by all accounts. Crazy doesn’t always mean wrong…but it can.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
To clarify, as I understand it, he wanted to skip FH and go straight to Starship. GS, perhaps, made the case that they had commitments and customers for FH. He listened to her. Seems like that turned out to be a wise choice.
 
Whopper said:
Well, it has been an open secret for quite some time now that Gwynne Shotwell has been the one actually keeping SpaceX running. She has been doing the bulk of the work behind the scenes while Musk gets the publicity.
Click to expand...
I thought he was the chief design engineer? Is that not so?
 
NeilChapman said:
jeffb said:
But you deleted it anyway? We'd all appreciate a heads up if you're going to delete posts that we put up in good faith.

And we've no evidence it's NOT the culture at the company except that in Sferrin's opinion, it isn't. Sferrin has dismissed it as just a disgruntled employees opinion, that doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...yet SpaceX is either the #1 or #2 destination for engineers. Every young engineer I've spoken with has applied. If the culture was toxic the word would be out. These things have a way of being known.
Click to expand...

The post didnt say the culture was toxic, just that it had adapted to handle a sometimes toxic, frequently loose cannon boss, and that wouldn't matter to most young engineers anyway. Hell I'd leap at the chance to work at SpaceX, even if there was a non-zero chance that Elon came in regularly and put teams on obvious goose chases.
 
NeilChapman said:
Whopper said:
Well, it has been an open secret for quite some time now that Gwynne Shotwell has been the one actually keeping SpaceX running. She has been doing the bulk of the work behind the scenes while Musk gets the publicity.
Click to expand...
I thought he was the chief design engineer? Is that not so?
Click to expand...
Musk's greatest ability was his publicity skills in garnering public attention and exciting investors rather than any design or engineering work.

He owns SpaceX and likes to inject his ideas ever now and then, but it is Shotwell managing departments, communicating with suppliers and customers, and doing damage control when Musk exaggerates optimistic deadlines and promised performance numbers.

(For context, I suspected something was up ever since I heard about his feud with Jeremy Clarkson.)
 
Whopper said:
NeilChapman said:
Whopper said:
Well, it has been an open secret for quite some time now that Gwynne Shotwell has been the one actually keeping SpaceX running. She has been doing the bulk of the work behind the scenes while Musk gets the publicity.
Click to expand...
I thought he was the chief design engineer? Is that not so?
Click to expand...
Musk's greatest ability was his publicity skills in garnering public attention and exciting investors rather than any design or engineering work.

He owns SpaceX and likes to inject his ideas ever now and then, but it is Shotwell managing departments, communicating with suppliers and customers, and doing damage control when Musk exaggerates optimistic deadlines and promised performance numbers.

(For context, I suspected something was up ever since I heard about his feud with Jeremy Clarkson.)
Click to expand...

That's interesting. What brought you to the conclusion that he is not the primary design engineer?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom