SpaceX (general discussion)

For ITAR to come into play you would need to have items classified as being on the United States Munitions List and for the technology involved to be released to non-US citizens. Now Launch vehicles and related may well come under Category IVof this but the second criteria still has to come into play. Moreover, this can be worked around through appropriate licensing.
 
Folks, let's not start down arguments re space development vs ecological or related issues please. Both are important and if people take the time to think through things carefully and taking due consideration of things in a holistic manner society can achieve a good outcome for all.
 
GTX said:
For ITAR to come into play you would need to have items classified as being on the United States Munitions List and for the technology involved to be released to non-US citizens. Now Launch vehicles and related may well come under Category IVof this but the second criteria still has to come into play. Moreover, this can be worked around through appropriate licensing.
Click to expand...
The US Space Force has their eye on Starship. I'm sure that's enough for them to throw ITAR at it if they really needed an excuse.
 
hagaricus said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is what prevents him from operating outside the U.S.?
Click to expand...
Depends who he operates with outside US surely?

sferrin said:
The US Space Force has their eye on Starship. I'm sure that's enough for them to throw ITAR at it if they really needed an excuse.
Click to expand...
It could certainly launch some interesting satellites.
 
Last edited:
TheSpaceBucket has just posted a video about the use of steel-plates in dealing with Starship's launchpad issues:


Since the first launch of Starship just a few days ago, quite a few things have changed at both the site itself and regarding the future of the program. One of the bigger topics of interest for the company is the launch site itself and the damage it sustained due to the power of the Raptor engines. As teams at SpaceX start to return to the pad, they will begin determining the scale of the damage and exactly what the next steps are.
Click to expand...
However, even before this, we know that SpaceX's main solution to the issue will be a massive water-cooled steel plate. This brings up the question of what exactly do they mean and how will a water cooled steel plate deal with both the strength and sound waves produced by 33 Raptor engines. Not to mention the additional damage to the surrounding Stage 0 infrastructure.
Click to expand...
We also learned more about the damage to the orbital launch mount itself and SpaceX's hopes for the pad going forward. Here I will go more in-depth into the application of a steel plate, the high water table and possible solutions, what to expect in the coming months, and more.
Click to expand...
 
Michel Van said:
How Boeing design their launch Lad for MLLV.
Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicles - Volume III sep 15 1969.
Click to expand...
I have seen some huge sinkholes with vertical walls open up here and there.

Have there been any investigations into adapting them for space launch?

Dragon Hole - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

If I were Bezos, I would have reached out to Elon and supported a winged version of SuperHeavy to launch horizontally. The payload would have been less…and piggyback…but the engines could breathe.

I would ask Musk to help me test an engine block horizontally as is done with SRBs…fly the test article…so when Elon was ready to stand one up minus the wings…the bugs would have been worked out by-and-large.

If nothing else, slide some engines over one of these:
www.theguardian.com

Sinkholes around the world - in pictures

From St Albans to Guatemala to China, sinkholes come in all shapes and sizes
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
************************
If stand-alone Merlins were placed in an asterisk pattern around the existing pad and fired pointing away from it…might they form a “low” under the pad and help give SuperHeavy exhaust products some directionality?

I would think that might help the flame diverter.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
TheSpaceBucket has just posted a video about the use of steel-plates in dealing with Starship's launchpad issues:


Since the first launch of Starship just a few days ago, quite a few things have changed at both the site itself and regarding the future of the program. One of the bigger topics of interest for the company is the launch site itself and the damage it sustained due to the power of the Raptor engines. As teams at SpaceX start to return to the pad, they will begin determining the scale of the damage and exactly what the next steps are.
Click to expand...
However, even before this, we know that SpaceX's main solution to the issue will be a massive water-cooled steel plate. This brings up the question of what exactly do they mean and how will a water cooled steel plate deal with both the strength and sound waves produced by 33 Raptor engines. Not to mention the additional damage to the surrounding Stage 0 infrastructure.
Click to expand...
We also learned more about the damage to the orbital launch mount itself and SpaceX's hopes for the pad going forward. Here I will go more in-depth into the application of a steel plate, the high water table and possible solutions, what to expect in the coming months, and more.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This has already been solved hasn't it?

Saturn1-FlameDiverter.jpg
 
It strikes me to wonder what they were thinking when it comes to "Stage 0".
Elon admitted it might be a mistake early on, but we have to assume these people aren't stupid, they have, after all revolutionised the space launch business.

I seem to recall a theory somewhere that the booster taking off would be gone so fast as to avoid significant damage, there was also the "if it lands on mars there won't be a launch pad" reasoning. There has also been talk of expense and closeness to the water table. Anyone have any insights into why they would choose to attempt a launch in this way?
 
publiusr said:
If I were Bezos, I would have reached out to Elon and supported a winged version of SuperHeavy to launch horizontally. The payload would have been less…and piggyback…but the engines could breathe.

I would ask Musk to help me test an engine block horizontally as is done with SRBs…fly the test article…so when Elon was ready to stand one up minus the wings…the bugs would have been worked out by-and-large.

If nothing else, slide some engines over one of these:
www.theguardian.com

Sinkholes around the world - in pictures

From St Albans to Guatemala to China, sinkholes come in all shapes and sizes
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Air-breathing, conventional take-off/landing space launchers are still waaay into the future.
They're certainly the future(vertical VTOL by definition isn't, it's simply inconvenient), but it requires more efficiency than what we can currently lay a claim to.
 
jeffb said:
Sure, one built to withstand a Block II S-I wouldn't be sufficient, but I wasn't suggesting that.
Click to expand...

It would not only need to be bigger it would need to be in flame-trench with a powerful sound-suppression system.
 
NMaude said:
jeffb said:
Sure, one built to withstand a Block II S-I wouldn't be sufficient, but I wasn't suggesting that.
Click to expand...

It would not only need to be bigger it would need to be in flame-trench with a powerful sound-suppression system.
Click to expand...

Does it need a flame pit and a sound suppression system though? The damage I've seen so far was all caused by debris dug out of the ground around the OLMs foundations rather than sound damage, although the damage to the (very) nearby tank complex might be sound related, a simple diverter like the one above to protect the ground under the engines would have probably done the trick.

This comes back to that point I made a while back when they did an engine test burn with half the engines at half thrust that some people were calling a full duration test burn. If they'd run it longer/harder/with more engines, doubtless these issues would have arisen and could have been addressed. There's a very real chance (I think) that the first flight could have been a nearly complete success if only they'd not skimped on the OLM/testing.
 
Let's remember that the liftoff was probably slower than anticipated, with less fully functional engines than planned. Ground erosion might then have been more severe, aggravating the generation of flying debris.
 
hagaricus said:
It strikes me to wonder what they were thinking when it comes to "Stage 0".
Elon admitted it might be a mistake early on, but we have to assume these people aren't stupid, they have, after all revolutionised the space launch business.

I seem to recall a theory somewhere that the booster taking off would be gone so fast as to avoid significant damage, there was also the "if it lands on mars there won't be a launch pad" reasoning. There has also been talk of expense and closeness to the water table. Anyone have any insights into why they would choose to attempt a launch in this way?
Click to expand...
"What they were thinking" is they already had a water-cooled blast plate in production but that the last static firing test results led them to believe it would survive one launch without it. That's, "what they were thinking". :rolleyes:
 
if anything they were more focused on getting the thing off the pad than the pad surviving. they knew how powerful it was. but actually achieving flight was more important to them. the pad was an afterthought.
And i'm sure Elon already paid out the poor minivan.
the point is they are developing something more adequate for this particular monster. don't want a massive wedge shaped piece of steel being slammed with millions of lbs/kg of force and being thrown at Mach Jesus into an unsuspecting structure.
i would imagine they could have it anchored down with steel rods or something in to the ground.
and this is if they don't go with the flame trench idea.
couple different methods on the table here.
 
Tuna said:
Conspirator said:
was there any news on the next launch window?
Click to expand...

They could have a rocket ready fairly soon, as in a few weeks.

The pad will not be ready in few weeks.

This wasn't a disaster. They got a lot of good data, and the ultimate cause for failure seems to be a system that they are already phasing out.

But this also wasn't a good outcome. They can weather the loss of the vehicle without any issues, this is not so for the launchpad. I suspect will will find out very soon exactly how quickly can you build a launchpad with some kind of actual flame diverter. I think that time will still be disappointingly long.
Click to expand...
not sure Elon understands that there is a finite amount of money.......
 
Conspirator said:
Tuna said:
Conspirator said:
was there any news on the next launch window?
Click to expand...

They could have a rocket ready fairly soon, as in a few weeks.

The pad will not be ready in few weeks.

This wasn't a disaster. They got a lot of good data, and the ultimate cause for failure seems to be a system that they are already phasing out.

But this also wasn't a good outcome. They can weather the loss of the vehicle without any issues, this is not so for the launchpad. I suspect will will find out very soon exactly how quickly can you build a launchpad with some kind of actual flame diverter. I think that time will still be disappointingly long.
Click to expand...
not sure Elon understands that there is a finite amount of money.......
Click to expand...
Because if there's one thing Elon doesn't understand it's money.
 
sferrin said:
Conspirator said:
Tuna said:
Conspirator said:
was there any news on the next launch window?
Click to expand...

They could have a rocket ready fairly soon, as in a few weeks.

The pad will not be ready in few weeks.

This wasn't a disaster. They got a lot of good data, and the ultimate cause for failure seems to be a system that they are already phasing out.

But this also wasn't a good outcome. They can weather the loss of the vehicle without any issues, this is not so for the launchpad. I suspect will will find out very soon exactly how quickly can you build a launchpad with some kind of actual flame diverter. I think that time will still be disappointingly long.
Click to expand...
not sure Elon understands that there is a finite amount of money.......
Click to expand...
Because if there's one thing Elon doesn't understand it's money.
Click to expand...
being that he doesn't he's sure got a lot of it.
he did lose BILLIONS after this incident though. might put things into perspective for him.
 
Conspirator said:
sferrin said:
Conspirator said:
Tuna said:
Conspirator said:
was there any news on the next launch window?
Click to expand...

They could have a rocket ready fairly soon, as in a few weeks.

The pad will not be ready in few weeks.

This wasn't a disaster. They got a lot of good data, and the ultimate cause for failure seems to be a system that they are already phasing out.

But this also wasn't a good outcome. They can weather the loss of the vehicle without any issues, this is not so for the launchpad. I suspect will will find out very soon exactly how quickly can you build a launchpad with some kind of actual flame diverter. I think that time will still be disappointingly long.
Click to expand...
not sure Elon understands that there is a finite amount of money.......
Click to expand...
Because if there's one thing Elon doesn't understand it's money.
Click to expand...
being that he doesn't he's sure got a lot of it.
he did lose BILLIONS after this incident though. might put things into perspective for him.
Click to expand...
Doubling down on Elon Musk doesn't understand money, eh? Gotta spend money to make money. Let's see where he's at in a year.

PS. The billions he lost was from Tesla stock. Lot of sources are conflating that.
 
www.cnbc.com

SpaceX Starship explosion spread particulate matter for miles

SpaceX Starship explosion leaves researchers looking for answers about health and environmental impacts from debris and particulate emissions.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

I hope that this will also bring awareness to NASA and SpaceX that this will also be a problem on the moon surface where, gravity being only 1/6th of what it is on earth, the mass of lifted particulates during landing and takeoff operation will be nearly similar.
If we don't want to endanger the possibility to have, in a near future, successive heavy cargo mission to lunar outpost, it is crucial to come, today, around procedures and regulations around solutions such as the one I have offered for Short Horizontal lunar landing and oblique takeoff geometry operations.
 
TomcatViP said:
gravity being only 1/6th of what it is on earth, the mass of lifted particulates during landing and takeoff operation will be nearly similar.
Click to expand...

It actually won't be similar, not due to the Moon's weaker gravity but also because there is no meaningful atmosphere on the Moon to hold dust/dirt in suspension.
 
Here is another bonehead question from the peanut gallery. How close to the coast is Stennis? Might it be easier to convert a mammoth test-stand battleship into a launch pad?
 
NMaude said:
TomcatViP said:
gravity being only 1/6th of what it is on earth, the mass of lifted particulates during landing and takeoff operation will be nearly similar.
Click to expand...

It actually won't be similar, not due to the Moon's weaker gravity but also because there is no meaningful atmosphere on the Moon to hold dust/dirt in suspension.
Click to expand...
Recapture is a significant problem. You would have dust and particulate airborne for a significant time before being recaptured by lunar gravity.


So, yes, similar but not identical with a hashes cloud spreading at ground level. The video linked on youtube uses Apollo footage at the beginning to explicitly show the acute trajectory of lifted material. What is important to understand is the volume of dust that will end being airborne.
 
Starship HLS has smaller thrusters very high on the rocket (at the tip rather than the bottom). And it is very high / long / thin, so the downwash from these thrusters won't brutally impact the lunar surface SH style.

Still, that lunar dust issue has been acknowldged as a mjor PITA of any grand scale lunar colonization effort, whatever the lander. As mentionned, gravity is so weak the damn dust flies at any small disturbance; and then doesn't settles for a very long time.
 
The dust on the moon will simply be blown away, without any athmosphere, there is no chance of recirculation. Every bit of gas will expand supersonic, even when the initial kinetic energy from the nozzle is gone after hitting the dirt on the ground. There will never be a cloud of dust around a rocket.
 
There goes the fact that when the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon their footprints would be there forever.
 
TomcatViP said:
You would have dust and particulate airborne for a significant time before being recaptured by lunar gravity.
Click to expand...

No, you don't, the moment the LM's descent rocket-motor stopped thrusting ALL dust dropped to the Moon's surface.
 
While cleanup of launch complex continue

Starship 28 reach completion
FuiONJHWIAIY2ls


The Rumor that Starship 27 try to escape Starbase are false...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1650602438657818624
 
In terms of lunar dust problems, Byoung Jae Kim and others have a physics of fluids article highlighted in Tuesday's phys.org's piece on "Using a computational model to study how to land on a planet safely." As for the 44 bil'...that could have bought a pad that could launch the Chrysler Building...or a dozen eggs even. Exit, stage right...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom