SpaceX (general discussion)

None has been announced. I believe the idea is to fly it dozens (potentially hundreds) of times before putting humans aboard, in lieu of trusting an escape system.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Depends on how you define ‘develop.’ Vast, Gravitics, TransAstra, K2Space, and Virtus Solis are all either baselining Starship directly, or proposing payloads to take advantage of its (and New Glenn’s) volume. That runs the gamut from asteroid mining spacecraft and solar power satellites, to habitats and more general-purpose satellites.
Click to expand...
It means producing more than vaporware (in the past, it was paper studies). Developing means spending money with the intent of cutting metal. (doing the actual design and not conceptual studies).

And with what money?
 
Tina Deines wrote an infuriating article for TCD--carried by Yahoo!Tech called:

"Experts slam SpaceX after company's second test flight results in damaging explosion that 'incinerated' a local area."

Now, you all know full well that the cato was aloft--but the average Joe who just reads a news blurb before going back to his porn/political site won't.

Unlike some who got mad at cute little Amy S.T. for not having footnotes or whatever---this article is far worse in that it conflates the explosion of the second test with the damage of the first.

Greens have no trouble lying.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
What are the odds that SpaceX will sue her for defamation?
Click to expand...
I hope Elon doesn't bite.

The more I think about this, the more I suspect this is a trap (boo-hoo, Mean Elon beating up on a journalist...while Gonzalo Lira died in prison for being one--propagandist or no.)

Shotwell needs this duty. Of course fighting this amounts to chumming the water as other journalists will no doubt be in defense mode---this being a way to keep photos of damage done (in the first test) in circulation---even though the deluge plate makes everything moot.

Same old song...the lie goes on the first page---the retraction on the last...or not at all.

I hope someone here more tech savvy than me gets a screen grab/print of the article before it is disappeared, just in case.

Starship stretched
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
It means producing more than vaporware (in the past, it was paper studies). Developing means spending money with the intent of cutting metal. (doing the actual design and not conceptual studies).

And with what money?
Click to expand...
Vast has a billionaire supporting it, Gravitics is supported by something, enough to start cutting metal, TransAstra is nowhere near building Starship-sized payloads but has contracts, and the last two are wild cards.
 
According to Gravitics they’re currently working on hardware for the 7.6m-diameter StarMax. Perhaps they should be taken with a massive grain of salt, but I don’t have sufficient insight into the company to say one way or the other.
 
In regards to the next Starship launch the SpaceBucket has a video about it:


Just two months after Starship’s second test flight, SpaceX is already closing in on the next attempt. New insights from SpaceX along with the company’s progress suggest they are planning to receive a launch license next month. If so, they intend to attempt a third flight with improved hardware just days after.
Click to expand...
Thanks to improvements on the pad among other upgrades, the time between the 2nd and third flight is setting up to be much shorter than the last attempt. In the time since the second flight, SpaceX has continued to investigate what went wrong and how to fix it. By now the company is confident in determining the anomaly on the last flight and working to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Click to expand...
If successful, this could be the first flight where the upper stage makes it across the globe before attempting to reenter the atmosphere. So far on each flight the company has made progress and gotten further than the prior attempt. Here I will go more in-depth into the new launch date reports, the final steps before a second flight, some of the changes made, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/spacex-is-...
Click to expand...
 
Here's an interesting new video concerning Starship's propellant distribution system:


Inside Starship Propellant Distribution System | SpaceX Is Launching Starship To Orbit In February
Click to expand...
SpaceX is planning the third test flight of their Starship in February. According toSpaceNews, they've been hustling to get an updated launch license from theFederal Aviation Administration.
Click to expand...
But SpaceX is not just sitting around waiting. They've been doing these static-firetests of both the Super Heavy booster and the Starship upper stage. Last time,the Super Heavy booster was doing fine until it suddenly exploded right afterseparating from the upper stage. The upper stage, realizing things were goingsouth, activated its flight termination system during the late burn.
Click to expand...
But now things have been drastically modified.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, everyone's eyes then turned to Ship 28, the upper stage of the thirdStarship. It got lifted onto a transport stand, and workers started doing theirmagic – like removing squid attachment points and sealing stuff with heat tiles.This means Ship 28's only going up by the ports beneath its flaps. It won't hit thetest pad again. After all this, it zipped over to the high bay for more work.
Click to expand...
As for the launch site, it's getting some final touches, like a new coat of paint onthe orbital launch mount. SpaceX's plans are a bit unpredictable, but the nextsteps usually involve stacking the vehicle, final pre-flight checks, and maybe awet dress rehearsal.
Click to expand...
 
The Boeing Space Freighter being glide-back would not have this problem?

Stage-and-a-half, burn-to-depletion likely would not this problem either.

I wouldn't mind losing SLS if Elon and Boeing were to work together on Space Freighter.

Thirty engines? Nice

Now do fifty.
 
publiusr said:
The Boeing Space Freighter being glide-back would not have this problem?

Stage-and-a-half, burn-to-depletion likely would not this problem either.

I wouldn't mind losing SLS if Elon and Boeing were to work together on Space Freighter.

Thirty engines? Nice

Now do fifty.
Click to expand...
Slosh will be fixed. Just like it was for Jupiter and Redstone.
Just get use to losing SLS. There is no need for it.
Boeing doesn't have what it takes anymore.
SpaceX is not going work with Boeing. Can't force two companies to work together.
Space Freighter is too big
And what says it burns to depletion? How does it turnaround and get back to the launch site.
 
And another two billion dollars goes into the drink. Previous expansions of our capabilities and wealth were always accompanied by either better transport, cheaper transport, or both. The SLS offers no unique capabilities, and is much too expensive to serve as cheap transport, so companies like SpaceX will be far more valuable to the US than Boeing is capable of being.
 
publiusr said:
SLS doesn't have to do the violent maneuvers...steady burn--then done.
Click to expand...

Neither does Starship to achieve the same goal. The reason NASA is willing to consider SH/SS is that all the weird risky stuff is not necessary for mission success. SpaceX is going to build enough rockets to do the full mission without a single successful booster/ship return.

And it will still be much cheaper than the SLS.
 
Worst thing with SLS: can't even make itself useful to loft methalox fuel depots (propellant pods or tanks) for Starship-Moon or Starship-Mars.

The reason ?

Not only insanely expansive, but the core production line at Michoud (ex- Shuttle E.T) has been dimensionned for 1 - 2 launch per year. Producing more cores annually would cost an arm and a leg. For the record, not only the SLS core was supposed to be derived from Shuttle external tank (it is not !) but the same Michoud plant supported in 1996 eight Shuttle launches in a year. Same for the SRBs and ATK, ex Morton Thiokol.

I asked former DIRECT team at NASAspaceflight whether the 1996 record of annual shuttle launches (8) would have been DIRECT similar limit. They told me they could have done better than that, 10 or a bit more. Which is hardly surprising, considering that pre- STS-51L NASA was pushing for 24 annual launches by 1988.

So we have two examples of the basic Shuttle industrial base annual launch rates. And remember the 2010 NASA act, SLS was to get into the Shuttle "shoes" to preserve the (congresssional) workforce... sorry, I meant saving some money by deriving a HLV straight out Shuttle building blocks.

Yeah. Shuttle cost $1.5 billion a launch yet launched 8 times in 1996 (and 10 times in 1985-1986, but - STS-51L horror).

Nowaday SLS cost (at least) $2.5 billion a launch... a launch every single year or worse, kinda 18 months.

SLS is a political and budgetary obscenity.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
And another two billion dollars goes into the drink. Previous expansions of our capabilities and wealth were always accompanied by either better transport, cheaper transport, or both. The SLS offers no unique capabilities, and is much too expensive to serve as cheap transport, so companies like SpaceX will be far more valuable to the US than Boeing is capable of being.
Click to expand...
It's not called the "Senate Launch System" for nothing. It's all about the votes.
 
Archibald said:
Nowaday SLS cost (at least) $2.5 billion a launch... a launch every single year or worse, kinda 18 months.

SLS is a political and budgetary obscenity.
Click to expand...
TomcatViP said:
Any cost comparison should be done with the same year dollars.
Click to expand...

In 2022 right before inflation took off, the NASA IG told Congress it was $4.1 Billion per flight if they ignored development costs.

That would buy a lot of Falcon Heavy launches, not to mention Super Heavy or Starship should they sort out.


www.cnbc.com

NASA's massive moon rocket will cost taxpayers billions more than projected, auditor warns Congress

The cost per mission of NASA's lunar program Artemis has climbed to more than $4 billion, the agency's auditor told Congress.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

The Shuttle number was derived immediately post-mortem in 2011. Adjusting to 2022, gives us $1.95 per launch.

Adjusting both numbers to 2024 dollar figures would run, $2.05 billion per Shuttle launch and $4.3 billion per launch for SLS.

The shuttle post-mortem figure is negatively affected by the fact that all the operations facilities and personnel were kept open during the three years of operational pauses following accidents, but is interesting nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
That’s what gets me. Given that Artemis has to rely on distributed launch anyway, why not maximize its use? It doesn’t have to be just SpaceX either, four billion dollars per mission buys a lot of hardware sent Moonward if spent on payloads instead of rockets. SpaceX presently has more launch capacity and experience than everyone else, and so should see the lion’s share of launch deals, but it would make sense to take an approach similar to NSSL 3, and gradually on-ramp new providers.

More directly SpaceX-related: assuming the company’s revenue from Starlink continues to grow, if you the reader could whisper something into Musk’s ear and get him to build it, what would you propose? Ground rules: no expendable launch vehicles, no spaceplanes. Otherwise have at it. I’d ask him to purchase Tethers Unlimited from ARKA, fully fund SpiderFab development, and start orbital testing of construction techniques for pressure vessels, sunshades, dishes, antennas, and truss structure.
 
Confirms like Inspiration 4 there will be a documentary series.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1751011519658107147
View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1751011519658107147


Very solid @PolarisProgram training week. In addition to the sims, we spent a lot of time pressurized in the EVA suits working contingencies. Lots to get done, but it feels like momentum is building. Very grateful to the engineers & training team @SpaceX
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751093210045128728
View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1751093210045128728


Good questions:
1. No airlock. Dragon will vent to vacuum and then cabin will repressurize post-EVA. As a result, all 4 crew members are technically performing an EVA.
2. Suit pics will be released before the mission.
3. Throughout development & training, we simulate microgravity through an offload system. Though, as a crew, we do love SCUBA.
4. Yes, there is a documentary. Same doc crew as Inspiration4. I am hoping its really captures the story of all the badass SpaceX engineers that are developing the capabilities to make these objectives possible (very high apogee, EVA suit & operations, Starlink laserlink, science & research, etc).
5. I am feeling more confident by the day on launch timing, but we will provide more updates soon.
Click to expand...

How much can you feel the difference between the IVA and EVA suits?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751096384713859453
View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1751096384713859453


Very noticeable. Heavier and bulkier than the IVA suits, but they serve a much different purpose.
Click to expand...
 
Before launch there is a test done on the hatch seal. Sometimes it requires the hatch being opened and seal cleaned and retest. How is this not a problem if doing an EVA?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751290599624294650
View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1751290599624294650


The forward hatch has been exercised extensively in space (ISS missions, Inspiration4 accessing the cupola). Standard hatch has redundant seals, for Polaris Dawn additional modifications were made for safety.
Click to expand...

@rookisaacman What still needs to be done before a launch date is chosen?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751293467488039327
View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1751293467488039327


We have a target date, but still a lot to get through with dev and training. Qualification & acceptance tests on hardware w/ probably the biggest milestone the EVA suit ATP's. We are getting much closer.
Click to expand...
 
Adjusting both numbers to 2024 dollar figures would run, $2.05 billion per Shuttle launch and $4.3 billion per launch for SLS.
Click to expand...
Oh crap, this is even worse than I thought. I knew I had red somewhere one SLS launch could be $4 billion, but couldn't remember where: so thanks for that source.
 
martinbayer said:
What's your justification for this kind of stipulation? Seems to me that you only look at nails because all you have is a hammer.
Click to expand...
Why does it matter? Even with said stipulation it's an extremely broad starting point. I've read many of your posts, you're smart enough that you can think outside the launch box (though notice that I didn't stipulate launch as a whole, only certain kinds of launch). But if you insist, Musk doesn't like expendable vehicles, and practical spaceplanes really benefit from hydrogen, which would detract from SpaceX's focus on methane. Ergo, while it might be a fun thought experiment under other circumstances, it's extremely unlikely that he could be persuaded of either.

Edit: I’ll note that I’m a big fan of spaceplanes, so this isn’t me being unfairly biased against them.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom