SpaceX (general discussion)

SpaceX Starship Launch Animation from the Cape. Really nice. I like the landing of the booster. But I think the "chopsticks" are too long, because afaik they are shorter on LC-39A than in Boca Chica.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
View: https://www.youtube.com/embed/t0Ob6DaMM2k
" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
the launch of Crew Dragon is delay do issue with engines igniter system
For the moment technician check the Falcon 9 until next launch window to ISS
 
Michel Van said:
the launch of Crew Dragon is delay do issue with engines igniter system
For the moment technician check the Falcon 9 until next launch window to ISS
Click to expand...

Is there anymore information about the problem with the Falcon 9 engine igniter system? Or are SpaceX waiting for the investigators to find out what caused the problem then release the details after.
 
FighterJock said:
Is there anymore information about the problem with the Falcon 9 engine igniter system?
Click to expand...
the system use special fluid TEA-TEB that ignites with oxygen to start the engines.
it used three time during flight - Lift off - brake burn - landing.
some times their issues with that system, mostly solve on Pad.

here was time frame of launch window a problem, that was not enough time to deal with matter.
because Crew dragon must be launch in certain time frame to reach ISS
the launch is pushed roughly 24 hours to early Tuesday
 

Michel Van said:
FighterJock said:
Is there anymore information about the problem with the Falcon 9 engine igniter system?
Click to expand...
the system use special fluid TEA-TEB that ignites with oxygen to start the engines.
it used three time during flight - Lift off - brake burn - landing.
some times their issues with that system, mostly solve on Pad.

here was time frame of launch window a problem, that was not enough time to deal with matter.
because Crew dragon must be launch in certain time frame to reach ISS
the launch is pushed roughly 24 hours to early Tuesday
Click to expand...

No, they are passing on the Tuesday window. Next opportunity is Thursday, March 2.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630128125651632129
View: https://twitter.com/commercial_crew/status/1630128125651632129
 
TomS said:

Michel Van said:
FighterJock said:
Is there anymore information about the problem with the Falcon 9 engine igniter system?
Click to expand...
the system use special fluid TEA-TEB that ignites with oxygen to start the engines.
it used three time during flight - Lift off - brake burn - landing.
some times their issues with that system, mostly solve on Pad.

here was time frame of launch window a problem, that was not enough time to deal with matter.
because Crew dragon must be launch in certain time frame to reach ISS
the launch is pushed roughly 24 hours to early Tuesday
Click to expand...

No, they are passing on the Tuesday window. Next opportunity is Thursday, March 2.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630128125651632129
View: https://twitter.com/commercial_crew/status/1630128125651632129
Click to expand...

Trust the weather to mess things up. Roll on March 2.
 
Today the 174th landing of Falcon 9

now this Starlink mission has something special.
V2 minis are equipped with new Argon Hall thrusters for on orbit maneuvering

Argon Hall thruster tech specs:
- 170 mN thrust
- 2500 s specific impulse
- 50% total efficiency
- 4.2 kW power
- 2.1 kg mass
- Center mounted cathode

According some sources in Internet is this 2.5 times more powerful of best NASA ion engine.
But real game changer is use of cheaper Argon as propellant, (instead Xenon).
0.9% of Earth atmosphere and 1.6% of Mars atmosphere is argon.

now this could be something for Starship equip with Argon Hall thrusters
It could reduce transit time or able heavy cargo transport to Mars
But real game changer is long flights to Jupiter or Saturn
with Argon Hall thrusters you could reduce transit time of 5 years down to months

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630394434847227909
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1630394434847227909
 
Michel Van said:
Today the 174th landing of Falcon 9

now this Starlink mission has something special.
V2 minis are equipped with new Argon Hall thrusters for on orbit maneuvering

Argon Hall thruster tech specs:
- 170 mN thrust
- 2500 s specific impulse
- 50% total efficiency
- 4.2 kW power
- 2.1 kg mass
- Center mounted cathode

According some sources in Internet is this 2.5 times more powerful of best NASA ion engine.
But real game changer is use of cheaper Argon as propellant, (instead Xenon).
0.9% of Earth atmosphere and 1.6% of Mars atmosphere is argon.

now this could be something for Starship equip with Argon Hall thrusters
It could reduce transit time or able heavy cargo transport to Mars
But real game changer is long flights to Jupiter or Saturn
with Argon Hall thrusters you could reduce transit time of 5 years down to months

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630394434847227909
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1630394434847227909
Click to expand...
I wonder if radon would work even better in NEPs.
 
publiusr said:
Michel Van said:
Today the 174th landing of Falcon 9

now this Starlink mission has something special.
V2 minis are equipped with new Argon Hall thrusters for on orbit maneuvering

Argon Hall thruster tech specs:
- 170 mN thrust
- 2500 s specific impulse
- 50% total efficiency
- 4.2 kW power
- 2.1 kg mass
- Center mounted cathode

According some sources in Internet is this 2.5 times more powerful of best NASA ion engine.
But real game changer is use of cheaper Argon as propellant, (instead Xenon).
0.9% of Earth atmosphere and 1.6% of Mars atmosphere is argon.

now this could be something for Starship equip with Argon Hall thrusters
It could reduce transit time or able heavy cargo transport to Mars
But real game changer is long flights to Jupiter or Saturn
with Argon Hall thrusters you could reduce transit time of 5 years down to months

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630394434847227909
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1630394434847227909
Click to expand...
I wonder if radon would work even better in NEPs.
Click to expand...
Radon, that unstable isotope that decay to Polonium in days ?
 
Radon stored near a RTG might keep longer? Might a radioactive gas have a bit more punch?
 
Ah! Here we are--Radon has been looked at:
The proposal here is to find isotopes of other elements whose decay chains reach Radon with a half life of a few years instead, launch with some intermediate isotopes already in the mix for smoother output over the mission, and constantly thrust as Radon is produced. Bonus, you'll get enough decay heat to power the ion thruster, and enough left after you arrive to be a decent RTG. I'm not sure if the proposal to divide the radioactive material into nanoparticle dust so the Radon will escape in a centrifuge rather than getting trapped in the metal is empirically supported, but it would make a lovely inhalation hazard.

More:
www.astronomicalreturns.com

Pick Any Ion You Want, As Long As It's Noble

In writing Astronomical Returns (and teaching myself about space in general), the challenge I always come up against is learning and discu...
www.astronomicalreturns.com www.astronomicalreturns.com
 
Blatant, shameless and fully-assumed self promotion. My third writting for The Space Review - after "suborbital refueling" and "the cloth of doom".

Sticky point: the Falcon 9 is presently achieving for real the 1972 Space Shuttle very high projected flight rates... you know, one flight per week, 52 a year.
Both are partially reusable, optionnaly manned (or not) with 23 tons to orbit average. Other than that, they are radically different.
 
Archibald said:
Sticky point: the Falcon 9 is presently achieving for real the 1972 Space Shuttle very high projected flight rates... you know, one flight per week, 52 a year.
Both are partially reusable, optionnaly manned (or not) with 23 tons to orbit average. Other than that, they are radically different.
Click to expand...

I made once a calculation on that:
To make work NASA need KSC Launch Pad 39 A & B und VBAFB SLC 6.
8 Orbiter + 16 SRB (with 55 day to refurbish the Orbiter)
4 Orbiter, if 26 to 17 launches are Shuttle C (2 SSME) with Centaur upper stage.
but NASA needed double annual budget during 1980s for this.
 
The biggest difference-apart from downmass-is that Musk was not interfered with. I might have put a diagram cut-away of X-37 atop Falcon with a faint shroud outline-that LV stack between STS and Dyna-Soar. I think Shuttle 2 was to get its own pad and not rely on the 39's. Roll out and stand up. Maybe similar to Alaska's smaller set up-beefier?
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
How do they manage to do all the so called recording then, they must have some very clever software to do it. I thought it was real too for a few minutes. Just need to wait for the real thing to launch instead.
Click to expand...

The audio is from an old flight. One of the Apollo missions, I think.
 
TomS said:
FighterJock said:
How do they manage to do all the so called recording then, they must have some very clever software to do it. I thought it was real too for a few minutes. Just need to wait for the real thing to launch instead.
Click to expand...

The audio is from an old flight. One of the Apollo missions, I think.
Click to expand...

I thought the audio came from the Apollo era.
 
N-1 was similar-a lot of small engines side by side makes the exhaust stream look flatter?
 
Launch overview
210th Launch is a success, with the 178th landing of Booster, that fly for 7th time.
Bring Dragon Capsule C209 for the 3th time to ISS.


Starbase
the production side get new building, they drilling foundation holes
oddly no news of Musk what is all about

FrIilbcWIAU93eq
 
View: https://youtu.be/G0lPF-O7B7U


This video is awesome (except the creepy talking head that looks even worse than Zuckerberg Meta avatar).

It allowed me to catch back with SpaceX present troubles, and why Ship 24 / booster 7 haven't flown yet - and never will in the end.

Long story short: across the no-flight year 2022, starting in March they found two major issues with Ship 24: payload dispenser door and aft structure / interstage junction.
- the payload bay door weakened Starship vertical integrity (is it curved, and very wide)
- the interstage had serious risks to fail at max-Q

So they are adding a lot of reinforcements at both places. 24 - 7 did a stellar job sacrificing itself on the ground for 25 - 9 not to snap, break up and explodes at max-Q.

Also: rapid iteration temporarily ran into a wall. After they churned 24 / 7 but before the issues began in March 2022 they churned 25 / 9 and 26 / another booster ... and all three ended marred with the above issues, one way or another. So corrections to 24 had to be applied to 25 and perhaps to 26. That explains the ongoing delay: they are catching up with 24 issues and have to fix them on 25 & 26 starships.

Overall, some kind of train wreck reverberating from 24 across 25 and 26, with an immediate consequence: PEZ dispenser & Starlinks sats have been put on the backburner.

en.wikipedia.org

SpaceX Starship development - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Very interesting.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if a case could be make that present troubles with Starship 24 are a bit like the YF-102 misery back in 1953.

Cook–Craigie plan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Can SpaceX rapid iteration process be compared to Cook-Craigie in any way ? And so they got a brief and temporary YF-102 moment ?

(I like discussing the matter HERE rather than at NASAspaceflight, if only because the hysterical SpaceX fanboys, led by Robotbitch, are so annoying)
 
Last edited:
New building constructed at Starbase
from size of fundament another high bay ?
Oddly no info by Elon Musk about this

FsFWFqhXoAEH3Xy
 
Surprised that Elon Musk did not talk about the new building at Starbase. I would have thought that he would give more info about it.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom