SpaceX (general discussion)

[Byeman]

At any rate, here is an article on potential problems in tankage draining:

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A35553

Here is where cluster tankage might have advantages?

No. Cluster tanks are too heavy. Saturn I/IB was an aberration.

For too long, there was this idea that no one “needed” anything more than a rocket that could put 20 tons up there.

A failure of vision.

Wrong. The idea is still applicable. Need drives requirements. Why you don't understand this time after time that it has been demonstrated.
Musk has a need, he wants to go to Mars. This is not a vanity or "vision" project. It is not "built and they will come",

 

[Byeman]

Starship has yet to successfully prove itself.

Whether it flies or not, it still is an "SLS killer". Earlier Artemis is dependent on it. There is no reason for SLS without the Starship lander. Artemis 3 has no reason to fly without Starship. And once Starship is proven, then also SLS has no reason to fly,

 

[Archibald]

Whether it flies or not, it still is an "SLS killer". Earlier Artemis is dependent on it. There is no reason for SLS without the Starship lander. Artemis 3 has no reason to fly without Starship. And once Starship is proven, then also SLS has no reason to fly,

Jim: you should run for Congress. I think you would be ideal to clean that huge Pork Barrel SLS mess. Never interested in (space) politics ?

 

[bobbymike]

until IFT-2 happen, let's look what happen at TESLA:
( and another Falcon 9 B1058.17 made it 17th launch and landing)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1706152105638027515

View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1706152105638027515

It’s so hard not to humanize robots. When the technician was trying to confuse it you are expecting the robot to react like a human would. “Hey buddy wanna stop messing with my blocks” followed by a punch to the face lol.

In reality it would just keep doing what it’s doing without complaining until the battery ran out.

 

[Flyaway]

Polaris Dawn is no longer launching this year it is now NET Q1 2024. The pacing item is the development of the EVA suit.

Polaris Dawn is looking like Q1-2024. It is a development program and new technology takes time to implement. The EVA suits being a big driver of the timeline.

No updates from NASA on Polaris II, but we are still hopeful we can help out Hubble. We have a great plan to extend the life and capability of the exploration platform at really no cost to the government.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1702303458844455060

View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1702303458844455060

 

[NMaude]

Cluster tanks are too heavy.

True.

Saturn I/IB was an aberration

It wasn't an aberration it was a result of a directive for developing a heavy launch rocket as fast as possible using as much existing off-the-shelf hardware possible to get it operational ASAP. If the production of Saturn rockets hadn't been short-sightedly curtailed then a second production run of Saturn Its would've meant a new S-IB (Call it the S-ID) using just one LOX tank and one RP-1 tank (Most likely constructed by McDonnell-Douglas based on using modified S-IVB LH2 tanks separated by an intertank section) using a single Rocketdyne F-1A rocket-motor (Likely with two LR-101 vernier rocket-motors for roll-control).

Artemis 3 has no reason to fly without Starship.

Since the hardware has already been built it will fly regardless of the status of the Moon-lander.

 

[sferrin]

True.



It wasn't an aberration it was a result of a directive for developing a heavy launch rocket as fast as possible using as much existing off-the-shelf hardware possible to get it operational ASAP. If the production of Saturn rockets hadn't been short-sightedly curtailed then a second production run of Saturn Its would've meant a new S-IB (Call it the S-ID) using just one LOX tank and one RP-1 tank (Most likely constructed by McDonnell-Douglas based on using modified S-IVB LH2 tanks separated by an intertank section) using a single Rocketdyne F-1A rocket-motor (Likely with two LR-101 vernier rocket-motors for roll-control).


Since the hardware has already been built it will fly regardless of the status of the Moon-lander.

If only because, "it's cheaper to throw it in the ocean than to scrap it". The pinnacle of government efficiency.

 

[NMaude]

If only because, "it's cheaper to throw it in the ocean than to scrap it". The pinnacle of government efficiency.

View attachment 708471

Aside from that it would also produce a LOT of data too which engineers always love to have.

 

[sferrin]

Aside from that it would also produce a LOT of data too which engineers always love to have.

If it's useful. I don't know what applicable data they might have acquired throwing the Ares I-X in the drink.

 

[Michel Van]

No. Cluster tanks are too heavy. Saturn I/IB was an aberration.

The Saturn I/IB were very important step in History of Rockets.
It was first large multi engines booster, build from existing hardware and tested.
The results were used to a build bigger rocket: The Saturn V !

in a way, it was first step toward Starship...

 

[NMaude]

If it's useful. I don't know what applicable data they might have acquired throwing the Ares I-X in the drink.

The Ares I-X should've been followed by the Ares I-Y which would've been a flight-test of the five-segment along with a live second-stage (With a dummy J-2X engine) call it the S-IVC and high altitude abort test of the Orion LAS with a live Orion CM IIRC followed by the Orion 1 unmanned suborbital flight test. This would've provided more useful data for the future SLS programme even if the Aries I was cancelled.

 

[Byeman]

It wasn't an aberration it was a result of a directive for developing a heavy launch rocket as fast as possible using as much existing off-the-shelf hardware possible to get it operational ASAP. If the production of Saturn rockets hadn't been short-sightedly curtailed then a second production run of Saturn Its would've meant a new S-IB (Call it the S-ID) using just one LOX tank and one RP-1 tank (Most likely constructed by McDonnell-Douglas based on using modified S-IVB LH2 tanks separated by an intertank section) using a single Rocketdyne F-1A rocket-motor (Likely with two LR-101 vernier rocket-motors for roll-control).

a. Yes, it is. it is one of the only cluster tank launch vehicles.
b. And wrong about "operational". It just was the quickest way to produce a test vehicle. It was never used operationally.
c. wrong, there never was a second production run of Saturn IB planned. They never even finished the first run.
d. No such stage. Show sources and they can't be any later than 1970.

Since the hardware has already been built it will fly regardless of the status of the Moon-lander

And do what?

 

[Byeman]

The Ares I-X should've been followed by the Ares I-Y which would've been a flight-test of the five-segment along with a live second-stage (With a dummy J-2X engine) call it the S-IVC and high altitude abort test of the Orion LAS with a live Orion CM IIRC followed by the Orion 1 unmanned suborbital flight test. This would've provided more useful data for the future SLS programme even if the Aries I was cancelled.

not really. AA-2 was a better used for the money. And a it would not be a "live" stage with a dummy engine. Calling it that would denigrate the MD S-IV stages.

Ares I-X provided no legitimate data that justified its existence. the money could have funded a Discovery class science mission.

 

[NMaude]

Ares I-X provided no legitimate data that justified its existence. the money could have funded a Discovery class science mission.

When Obama was sworn all of the hardware for the Ares I-X had already been built cancelling it would've saved very little money so there was no reason not to launch it.

And do what?

Fly around the Moon, take photographs and perhaps instead of a Moon-lander some sort of science-instrument package for Artemis II to dock to and do some science observations of Moon plus a long duration trip along the lines of Apollo 7 to test out the spacecraft's capabilities.

 

[publiusr]

Had Falcon Heavy not usurped one of the shuttle pads, two SLS lunar missions could do LOR.

One with Alpaca.

But this is a SpaceX thread.

SLS employees a lot of folk--so that is outreach. If Starship does work, Musk may use a lot of those workers at some point.

If he swallows his pride, send up a slew of Starlinks stop SLS.

 

[Tuna]

If he swallows his pride, send up a slew of Starlinks stop SLS.

Huh? Do you understand the concept of cost?

A single SLS flight, even if one were available, can send up only maybe 3-5 times as many starlinks as a reusable F9 (fairing volume/shape limited, not mass limited). It would cost >100 times as much. There are unlikely to ever be any missions where starlinks could ride along another payload, because of different orbit requirements.

 

[Byeman]

Fly around the Moon, take photographs and perhaps instead of a Moon-lander some sort of science-instrument package for Artemis II to dock to and do some science observations of Moon plus a long duration trip along the lines of Apollo 7 to test out the spacecraft's capabilities.

Artemis II does that. No need to repeat it. Photos wouldn't be worth the effort. No money for a science package.

 

[Byeman]

Had Falcon Heavy not usurped one of the shuttle pads, two SLS lunar missions could do LOR.

One with Alpaca.

But this is a SpaceX thread.

SLS employees a lot of folk--so that is outreach. If Starship does work, Musk may use a lot of those workers at some point.

If he swallows his pride, send up a slew of Starlinks stop SLS.

Falcon did not upsurped, NASA gave it away. Plus it is a Starship pad.
There is no money to fly to two SLS that close.
There is no Alpaca
SpaceX has no need for SLS workers. Plus they won't like SpaceX work ethnic
SLS can not be used for Starlink

 

[NMaude]

Artemis II does that.

I'm aware of that.

No need to repeat it. Photos wouldn't be worth the effort.

If there's no lander available in time they'll still fly so why not do extensive photography also in that case NASA could do a long-duration deep-space flight ala Apollo 7 to test the Orion spacecraft's endurance.

No money for a science package.

Nothing new just cobble together something from spare off-the-shelf sensors leftover from other space-probes (This is how the Magellan Venus-probe was built for example).

 

[Byeman]

If there's no lander available in time they'll still fly so why not do extensive photography also in that case NASA could do a long-duration deep-space flight ala Apollo 7 to test the Orion spacecraft's endurance.

a. Because it is not worth the cost. No sense in throwing more money at bad money
b. Artemis 2 is already 10 days, no need to test the duration
c. LRO has already done and doing the photography. Handhelds are not going to provide any better

Nothing new just cobble together something from spare off-the-shelf sensors leftover from other space-probes (This is how the Magellan Venus-probe was built for example).

No such instruments exist. That was from days of building and flying multiple spacecraft to the same destination in the same launch period. Nobody makes spare parts, especially instrument or has the money for it. Magellan was an exception because there was no instruments, just a radar which is a radio and it used a spare antenna.
also, there is no spare human rated structure for such a platform.

You can't win this one. I see the waste in person. SLS is millstone on NASA's neck and a money pit. Anything to try to make it better is just lipstick on a pig.

 

[TomcatViP]

SpaceX has no need for SLS workers. Plus they won't like SpaceX work ethnic

Typo?

 

[publiusr]

Longhorns beat Bama once--not enough for Jim.

 

[NMaude]

b. Artemis 2 is already 10 days, no need to test the duration

There is actually something useful you can gather from another long duration mission - medical data. While in the decades starting in the early 1970s there has been a LOT of long term medical data concerning the long-term effects of weightlessness (And elevated background radiation) on the human-body courtesy of Skylab, the Salyut space-stations, Mir and the ISS by the Soviet space=programme, NASA, ESA and Roscosmos but that information deals with the relatively benign LEO environment deep inside Earth's magnetosphere which blocks out a lot of the more damaging radiation. The data subset dealing with prolonged exposure to the deep-space environment (Well outside of Earth's magnetosphere where the astronauts got exposed to all of the Sun's ionising radiation place galactic background radiation and cosmic-rays) is much more limited, it consists solely of the medical obtained from NASA astronaut from the Apollo 8,10-17 missions. Artemis II of course will add to that but then so would Artemis III.

Handhelds are not going to provide any better

If an Artemis CSM is being sent why waste the opportunity.

No such instruments exist.

Maybe there are no spare off-the-shelf scientific instruments leftover from previous science-probes there are of course off-the-shelf designs which additional copies could be made and suitably adapted.

also, there is no spare human rated structure for such a platform.

Who said anything about a human-rated platform? A modified Comsat bus could be used but if you do need a human-rated platform that can be used with suitable modifications there's the Northrop-Griumman Cygnus spacecraft and of course there's the Lunar Gateway variant which would with modifications could be used.

 

[Byeman]

1. There is actually something useful you can gather from another long duration mission - medical data. While in the decades starting in the early 1970s there has been a LOT of long term medical data concerning the long-term effects of weightlessness (And elevated background radiation) on the human-body courtesy of Skylab, the Salyut space-stations, Mir and the ISS by the Soviet space=programme, NASA, ESA and Roscosmos but that information deals with the relatively benign LEO environment deep inside Earth's magnetosphere which blocks out a lot of the more damaging radiation. The data subset dealing with prolonged exposure to the deep-space environment (Well outside of Earth's magnetosphere where the astronauts got exposed to all of the Sun's ionising radiation place galactic background radiation and cosmic-rays) is much more limited, it consists solely of the medical obtained from NASA astronaut from the Apollo 8,10-17 missions. Artemis II of course will add to that but then so would Artemis III.



2. If an Artemis CSM is being sent why waste the opportunity.



3. Maybe there are no spare off-the-shelf scientific instruments leftover from previous science-probes there are of course off-the-shelf designs which additional copies could be made and suitably adapted.



4. Who said anything about a human-rated platform? A modified Comsat bus could be used but if you do need a human-rated platform that can be used with

5. suitable modifications there's the Northrop-Griumman Cygnus spacecraft

6.and of course there's the Lunar Gateway variant which would with modifications could be used.

1. Just no. Instruments have been gathering that data for decades. No need for human guinea pigs.
2. There is no launch if there is no lander.
3. Again, no money. And not human rated.
4. It has to be, if it is flying on SLS with Orion.
5. That is a inhabitable module and not an instrument platform,
6. That far from being available. If won't even be ready in time for its current launch date.

again, you won't win this one. You really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Byeman]

Longhorns beat Bama once--not enough for Jim.

They have beat them 7 times. But Tuscaloosa doesn't matter. The waste is in Huntsville.

 

[Flyaway]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1707041617561924069

View: https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1707041617561924069

SpaceX positioned Ship 25 for stacking as they prep for Starship's second integrated test flight. The hot stage ring was also installed again after crews completed work on the upper section of the booster.

Link:

View: https://youtu.be/7B-FACcslHg

 

[NMaude]

SpaceX is apparently highly confident about the success of the Starship test-launch, from TheSpaceBucket:

The first integrated test flight of Starship lasted just under 4 minutes before the flight termination system activated and destroyed both the booster and upper stage. This cut the flight test short, however, the vehicle had managed to clear the pad and provide minutes of invaluable flight data to teams at SpaceX. It also revealed a few problems that would need to be addressed before the next attempt.

This leads us to today as a new booster and upper stage are stacked on the launch pad patiently waiting for FAA approval. This being said, in the time since the last flight, changes have been made to every aspect of the launch process. This includes Stage 0 infrastructure, physical test article upgrades, new hardware, and even alterations to the flight profile.

On that first flight, one of the biggest mission objectives was successfully completing stage separation. While the vehicle couldn’t complete that mission event, SpaceX is confident this time around things will be different. Here I will go more in-depth into all these changes, what SpaceX learned between the first flight and now, how much longer until FAA approval, and more.

Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/why-spacex...

 

[publiusr]

Something I was wondering about.

Let's say you stretched SuperHeavy out and put heat shields on it.

Would the weight of TPS on one side counterbalance a Buran type Shuttle 2 on the other?

Tankage and engines land separate from the spaceplane...several of which could be left in orbit?

 

[Byeman]

Something I was wondering about.

Let's say you stretched SuperHeavy out and put heat shields on it.

Would the weight of TPS on one side counterbalance a Buran type Shuttle 2 on the other?

Tankage and engines land separate from the spaceplane...several of which could be left in orbit?

No. Why? There is no reason for it.
A. There is no such thing as a "Buran type" descriptor. Shuttle 2 was a vehicle that included an orbiter, boosters and maybe tanks.
It would be side mounting a larger X-37 or Dreamchaser type vehicle. This is more relevant.
b. Starship is not designed for side load
c. There is no need for spaceplane in orbit. Starship can leave something in orbit and retrieve it to return.

 

[publiusr]

We will call it Dreamchaser then.

You say there is no need of a spaceplane in orbit.

Still, if the bulk of a launch vehicle (tankage and what-not) lands on its own...the orbiter is more agile, yes?

I'm not saying don't use Starship.
For Moon and Mars that's fine.

For LEO...just maybe a stretch SuperHeavy with a compact piggyback package offers passengers a little less risk.

I like orbiters that aren't eggshell tanks.

 

[Michel Van]

update by Elon Musk

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm7TyQs5Adc

 

[Byeman]

We will call it Dreamchaser then.

You say there is no need of a spaceplane in orbit.

Still, if the bulk of a launch vehicle (tankage and what-not) lands on its own...the orbiter is more agile, yes?

I'm not saying don't use Starship.
For Moon and Mars that's fine.

For LEO...just maybe a stretch SuperHeavy with a compact piggyback package offers passengers a little less risk.

I like orbiters that aren't eggshell tanks.

No need for a spaceplane and a Starship
What is the point of agility? Anyways, don't need wings for that.
Adding another spacecraft doesn't reduce risk. It increases it by adding more systems.
Regardless, side mount is not the way and it adds more risk.
put in the fairing if you want to fly an X-37, but it is not needed for passengers>

and if you don't like "eggshell" tanks, then you shouldn't riding them to orbit. That is a worse load case than entry and landing.
Anyways, passengers aren't going to be returning on Starship until it has done dozens, scores or even hundreds of landings.

 

[publiusr]

What is the point of agility?
Anyways, passengers aren't going to be returning on Starship until it has done dozens, scores or even hundreds of landings.

Getting people flying early is what a spaceplane can get you.

Now, how did Falcon iterate as fast as it did?

Thanks to engine-out (which I recall you pooh-poohed at NSF), the payload on Falcons got where it needed to go…leaving SpaceX to fool around with the cores on return.

That’s the path I’m advocating.

Top-mount, side mount…whatever

Just make sure a known thing like an orbiter gets up there, with a TPS equipped stretch SuperHeavy doing all the risky stunts on return.

STS didn’t need its ET to get back, Jim…that’s the point.

 

[Byeman]

1. Getting people flying early is what a spaceplane can get you.

Now, how did Falcon iterate as fast as it did?

2. Thanks to engine-out (which I recall you pooh-poohed at NSF), the payload on Falcons got where it needed to go…leaving SpaceX to fool around with the cores on return.

That’s the path I’m advocating.

Top-mount, side mount…whatever

3. Just make sure a known thing like an orbiter gets up there, with a TPS equipped stretch SuperHeavy doing all the risky stunts on return.

4. STS didn’t need its ET to get back, Jim…that’s the point.

1. No need to get people flying "early" on Starship, they have Dragon
2. Wrong again, your reality is not shared with the rest of us. Low cost is what got SpaceX to fool around with cores. They could fly small payloads and have excess performance to work on reusability. It has nothing to do with engine out. And nor I did poo-poo engine out.
3. No need for a thing like an "orbiter".
4. That is one of the reasons the STS is no longer around. Reusability.

You still don't get it. The driver is cost. Not "coolness", looks, thrust, or size. Just the cost to put payload into orbit is what is driving Starship.

 

[publiusr]

I never said a bloody thing about “coolness”

I’ll leave that up to these guys

SpaceXVision Renders Mars Spaceship With Rotating Gravity | NextBigFuture.com

SpaceXVision has published renderings of a Mars Spaceship concept for an artificial gravity Mars/Earth cycler.

www.nextbigfuture.com

Since you go on and on about costs, I’ll remind you that the F-35 program has a lot more to be spent on it than SLS, or a simpler spaceplane that has jets but no SSMEs for that matter..1.5 trillion dollar total life cycle cost for something that can no more shoot down a Nork ICBM than my pellet rifle. Go critique that for a change.

Someone might do a less costly orbiter.
Dream Chaser for now—maybe something more substantial down the road. Don’t you work for Boeing?

 

[Archibald]

1. No need to get people flying "early" on Starship, they have Dragon
2. Wrong again, your reality is not shared with the rest of us. Low cost is what got SpaceX to fool around with cores. They could fly small payloads and have excess performance to work on reusability. It has nothing to do with engine out. And nor I did poo-poo engine out.
3. No need for a thing like an "orbiter".
4. That is one of the reasons the STS is no longer around. Reusability.

You still don't get it. The driver is cost. Not "coolness", looks, thrust, or size. Just the cost to put payload into orbit is what is driving Starship.

It has been at least 25 years he doesn't get it... with you two arguing in circles.

 

[Byeman]

Since you go on and on about costs, I’ll remind you that the F-35 program has a lot more to be spent on it than SLS, or a simpler spaceplane that has jets but no SSMEs for that matter..1.5 trillion dollar total life cycle cost for something that can no more shoot down a Nork ICBM than my pellet rifle. Go critique that for a change.

Someone might do a less costly orbiter.
Dream Chaser for now—maybe something more substantial down the road. Don’t you work for Boeing?

You still don't get it. Costs are everything when it comes to spaceflight other than that which is gov't funded. If costs aren't reduced, nobody is going to spend money on going beyond earth orbit.
Additionally, there isn't going to be any more large government managed spaceflight programs like Apollo, Space Shuttle or ISS anymore.

1. F-35 is still not and never was relevant to this or any discussion about spaceflight.
2. NASA and Defense funding come from different pots and don't compete against each other. Cutting the F-35 at anytime during the last 20 years would not have increased NASA's funding.
3. F-35 is even more irrelevant when it comes to SpaceX. SpaceX does what they want.
4. I don't care about the F-35 as it relates to spaceflight or ballistic missile defense. That is not the discussion here.
5. The orbiter concept is dead as a launch vehicle or large cargo. Only small spaceplanes, nothing substantially large because of costs
6. I haven't worked for Boeing in this century. I work for NASA.

 

[Michel Van]

What has F-35 to do with SpaceX ?
F-35 is DoD program with changing objective and political meddling,
SLS is NASA program run from Capitol Hill.

Back to topic

SpaceX is private company that finance it self and run by Elon Musk.
What SpaceX created is amazing !
Falcon 9, Crew Dragon and Starship, are fast build, low cost programs.
That changes drastic the Space industry with reuse!
Now they build the biggest Rocket ever...

 

[publiusr]

Now it seems they're in a tiff' with the FAA about the risk of one or two being killed by space debris--Space News.

 

[NMaude]

Now it seems they're in a tiff' with the FAA about the risk of one or two being killed by space debris--Space News.

Which outfit are you referring to?