SpaceX (general discussion)

The height of the old vertical tanks help with feeding? Gravity is less a help with horizontal tanks...

On big Mars landers
phys.org

Planning for a smooth landing on Mars

A U.S. mission to land astronauts on the surface of Mars will be unlike any other extraterrestrial landing ever undertaken by NASA.
phys.org phys.org
 
Last edited:
More on this Launch sites investigation
SpaceX show interest in Space Launch Complex-37, currently use by ULA for last Delta rocket this years.
After that SLC-37 is abandon by ULA and vacant.
Also study for new SLC-50 for SpaceX on Cape
were lies SLC-50 ? between SLC-37 and Launch complex 39a 40
This mean if USSF say: yes, SpaceX can build long row of Starship Launch towers at long coast

like this
Cape_Canaveral_Air_Force_Station.jpg
 
Last edited:
Michel Van said:
More on this Launch sites investigation
SpaceX show interest in Space Launch Complex-37, currently use by ULA for last Delta rocket this years.
After that SLC-37 is abandon by ULA and vacant.
Also study for new SLC-50 for SpaceX on Cape
were lies SLC-50 ? between SLC-37 and Launch complex 39a
This mean if USSF say: yes, SpaceX can build long row of Starship Launch towers at long coast

like this
Click to expand...
No. Only one complex, SLC-50 is between 37 and 40. Not going to put any in front and between 40 and 41. 40 is the last spot on the Cape; 41 is past the KSC border and is an easement into KSC property. NASA already has 48 between 39 and 41.
 
Most of the pads have been sized for past and present ELVs no larger than a Saturn IB, Titan III or Delta IV. Now, a Starship is larger than a Saturn V, so its "KABOOM safety zone" must accordingly be larger.

So, if a Starship ever launch from, say, LC-37, will the safety zone be large enough ? or will it "encroach" on other pads ?

The area south of Merritt / LC-39, north of the tip of ICBM road, is somewhat densely packed in pads and launch complexes. Can a Starship fits there ?
 
FighterJock said:
Where is ULAs launchpad for the Vulcan rocket for comparison
Click to expand...
That lies north of SLC-40 used by SpaceX
SLC-40 & 41 was used 1965-2005 for Titan III, 34D and IV.
In 2002 SLC-41 is used for Atlas V and now Vulcan.
In 2010 SLC-40 is used by SpaceX.

SLC-37 A/B was for Saturn IB during Apollo program
From 1998 until 2024 used for Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy.

SLC-43 was a launch complex used by American sounding rockets between 1962 and 1984. Demolish for SLC-46.
SLC-45 lies south near Lighthouse
SLC-46 was last used by Astra for rocket 3.3 launches in 2022
SLC-47 used by American sounding rockets.
SLC-48 is NASA Pad but vacant since 2020

300px-Canaveral.png


en.wikipedia.org

List of Cape Canaveral and Merritt Island launch sites - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Most of the pads have been sized for past and present ELVs no larger than a Saturn IB, Titan III or Delta IV. Now, a Starship is larger than a Saturn V, so its "KABOOM safety zone" must accordingly be larger.

So, if a Starship ever launch from, say, LC-37, will the safety zone be large enough ? or will it "encroach" on other pads ?

The area south of Merritt / LC-39, north of the tip of ICBM road, is somewhat densely packed in pads and launch complexes. Can a Starship fits there ?
Click to expand...
Pad perimeters are not defined vehicle size. Pad perimeters are for security. Pad spacing is determined by vehicle size.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1759947827126353973
View: https://twitter.com/starshipgazer/status/1759947827126353973


A shipment of Starship FTS explosives has arrived at the launch complex this morning. Always a good sign that a launch is approaching.

2/20/24
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1760016809594630315
View: https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1760016809594630315


B10 is leaving the launch site and is rolling back to the production facility.

Link: http://nsf.live/starbase
Click to expand...
 
There's a new video out about the installation of the FTS for IFT3 from the Space Bucket:


With the third Starship flight attempt just weeks away, almost every day a new development is taking place as preparations for the launch ramp up. One of the final steps that in the past has always been a good indicator of launch readiness has to do the flight terminations system. This system uses explosives planted on the vehicle to ensure SpaceX can detonate Starship safely if necessary during the test.
Click to expand...
This being said, it’s only ever seen and installed when the company is just about ready to lift off. In addition, new comments from Musk along with progress on the launch site suggest the third flight is very soon. Here I will go more in-depth into the flight termination system and explosives, final launch prep, what to expect in the coming weeks, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/spacex-is-...
Click to expand...
 
Good Day All -

We'll be do
Archibald said:
No bad news, they just mate-demate, stack-destack many times. To bring small improvements or repair small things on the BFR-Starship stack.
Click to expand...
We will be down there March 6th on our last "Spring Break Road Trip" as my son will graduiate from college in May. We have done road trips over his Spring Break since he was 8 and visited Boca Chica in March '22. Asked him a while back what he wanted to do for this finale and of course, it was to go back to Boca Chica. We are going to go down via the west side of TX from Amarillo south to get there and visit places we have never been to before. Leaving late next week so hope to at least see Starship/Booster stacked and all the new construction done since '22. Hell of a lot of miles to pull this trip off but will be worth it. Once he is a working man and has vacation, we'll do northern trips, something we don't do in March!

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
NMaude said:
The explosives mean that they're getting ready to install the FTS.
Click to expand...
They're not that close. SN28 still needs static firing after the replacement of it's engines, and Booster 10 has rolled back to production to get work on it. I'll be surprised if they hit the March 8th date.
 
Archibald said:
I thought the official SpaceX accronym was RUD - Rapid, Unplanned Disassembly ?
Click to expand...
RUD existed before SpaceX and was used mostly to describe engines/turbopumps coming apart vs whole rockets.
Then the unwashed masses came and started to apply it to everything and credit SpaceX for coming up with it.
 
I look into construction and Launch cost of large Rocket.
part of this study https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/next-lunar-colonisation-program.42456/

SpaceX made impressive work
To compare Starship/Superheavy with Saturn V.
one Saturn V cost in today price $1.15 billion, were Construction cost of $683 million.
i can only made estimation on Starship/Superheavy Construction cost,
but its mostly build from 304L Steel who cost $1,5/kg compare to $2.6/kg of Alu 2014 T6 used on Saturn V.
This Imply the Starship/Superheavy tanks Construction cost only 57% of that of Saturn V tanks.
The Saturn V use 5xF-1 6xJ-2 Engines, the Starship/Superheavy 39x Raptor engines.
The use of one engine for first and second stage is cost reduction compare to Saturn V different Engines.

Next to that SpaceX trow everything out, they not need in Starship/Superheavy.
No third stage, no disposable interstage or Auxiliary Propulsion system or retro rockets.

On Propellants Saturn V use Lox, PR-1 and Liquid Hydrogen, total cost is $1708856 in today prise.
Starship/Superheavy use only Lox and Liquid Methane, total cost is $1586080.

Since i don't have certain information on Starship/Superheavy Construction cost and Raptor price
i estimate that Starship/Superheavy build cost lies far under $380 million.
biggest issue is launch cost and refurbish cost for the Launch Pad.
if that labour intensive with allot personal, this will be very expensive.
if SpaceX manage to automate the launches and refurbish the pad, it will save allot money.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom