Starship has yet to successfully prove itself.
SpaceX (general discussion)
- Thread starter FutureSpaceTourist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- spacex
Starship has yet to successfully prove itself.
No. Cluster tanks are too heavy. Saturn I/IB was an aberration.
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",
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 ?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,340
- Reaction score
- 6,436
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.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 10,992
- Reaction score
- 13,126
Polaris Dawn is no longer launching this year it is now NET Q1 2024. The pacing item is the development of the EVA suit.
View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1702303458844455060
View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1702303458844455060
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.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,612
- Reaction score
- 9,770
If only because, "it's cheaper to throw it in the ocean than to scrap it". The pinnacle of government efficiency.
Aside from that it would also produce a LOT of data too which engineers always love to have.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,612
- Reaction score
- 9,770
If it's useful. I don't know what applicable data they might have acquired throwing the Ares I-X in the drink.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,363
- Reaction score
- 7,202
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...
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.
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.
And do what?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Artemis II does that. No need to repeat it. Photos wouldn't be worth the effort. No money for a science package.
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
I'm aware of that.
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.
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).
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
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.
Typo?
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.
If an Artemis CSM is being sent why waste the opportunity.
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.
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.
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.
They have beat them 7 times. But Tuscaloosa doesn't matter. The waste is in Huntsville.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 10,992
- Reaction score
- 13,126
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?
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,363
- Reaction score
- 7,202
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
I never said a bloody thing about “coolness”
I’ll leave that up to these guys
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?
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?
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,363
- Reaction score
- 7,202
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...
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...
Similar threads
-
-
-
McDonnell Douglas X-33 SSTO Reusable Launch Vehicle- Started by athpilot
- Replies: 0
-
Breitbart, other conservative outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign
- Started by Flyaway
- Replies: 5
-
