SpaceX (general discussion)

Last edited:
Byeman said:
again, incomplete statements and assumptions. Who is Carson and Gene Meyers ?
Click to expand...
Gene Meyers is a retired industrial engineer who wrote a paper about using SLS cores as space stations to manufacture solar power satellites. You can draw your own conclusions.
 
publiusr said:
Now you see that as a waste--but if I were to put a voice in the materials, they might prefer the Gene Meyers approach over the Elon Musk approach.
Click to expand...
no, they wouldn't. Again, the voice is in your head. Very few think like that and they are not in roles that matter. There won't be enough SLS to matter either. Less than the number of Saturn Vs.
 
They start drainage other part of Site
Once that strip filled up and drain, they start work there.

GKRG36aW8AEOP4b
 
Update at SpaceX KSP operations
and some trivial info about Blue Origin and Relativity...

SpaceX demolish the OLM at Launch Pad 39A
Either it get replace by redesign OLM based on IFT-1 to 3
My theory is that they shut down Starship launch site at 39A and move the Tower to new site
once SpaceX get old Delta IV launch Pad 37 in there hands

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn2TPylGUAc
 
Last edited:
Based on how it slowed when it hit clean air I think it was something fairly big and light, like a sheet cover or a tarp or something.
 
Cross posting from NASAspaceflight.

Elon Starship Update presentation - April 2024

Elon Starship Update presentation - April 2024
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776669097490776563
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1776669097490776563


19:09: 2.7M Starlink customers.

21:33: Starship in final form over 200 tonnes to orbit with full reuse, able to fly multiple times per day.

22:50: 80-90% chance catch booster with mechzilla this year.

23:27: want 2 successful ship landings in ocean before trying on land because they don't want to dump debris on land. Probably this year Starship will land in ocean, next year land on land and reuse.

24:25: will build 2 launch towers at starbase, 2 at cape, by sometime next year.

25:15: development launches at starbase, most operational launches from cape, presumably because they can access more inclinations from there

25:58: on Mars use starship as raw materials, not return them to earth usually

26:40: want to build multiple ships per day eventually for Mars. Next year demonstrate ship to ship prop transfer.

27:25: 5-6 refuel flights for every 1 flight to Mars

28:41: thrust for Raptor, 2 and 3. Raptor 3 is 280 tf sea level, 306 tf vaccum.

32:31: flight 3 40-50 tonnes payload to orbit, Starship 2 over 100 tonnes, Starship 3 over 200 tonnes. Starship 3 4050 tonnes booster prop load, 2300 tonnes ship prop load, 3 sea level raptors, 6 vacuum raptors (vs 3 vacuum engines previously).

34:07 Starship cost to LEO goal 2-3M$.

35:18: thousands of ships to Mars every 26 months

36:10: 200+ tonnes to Mars per ship

37:40: Mars landing site criteria: 2 km below "sea level", not too close to poles for better solar power

38:45: listed Mars surface things needed, not developing those yet, don't do cart before horse, starship is first.

39:40: self sustaining needs order 1M people, millions of tonnes

40:25: 10 launches per day, 1.5M tonnes to LEO per opportunity, 250k tonnes to Mars per opportunity

41:26: build ~1000 starships per year

42:04: offshore launch sites
Click to expand...
 
Archibald said:
Cross posting from NASAspaceflight.

Elon Starship Update presentation - April 2024

Elon Starship Update presentation - April 2024
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776669097490776563
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1776669097490776563
Click to expand...
"40-50 tons of [reusable] payload" for the current design certainly highlights how difficult and subject to mass-creep Fully reusable LVs are, even TSTO, even using the best hydrocarbon engines ever made.

In hindsight the SSTO of the 90s never would have had a chance to have any useful payloads, and the fully reusable TSTO NASA wanted as the shuttle would probably have failed to even approach its target payload on its first version.

Michel Van said:
Edit version better audio and shorter
https://twitter.com/x/status/1776782268465545240
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1776782268465545240


My prediction:
Construction of Starship launch complexes at KSC on LC-34 up to LC-40 (far away from SLC-39A)
Next year landing and recovery test of Booster and Starship at Texas.
Maybe a manned flight End of 2025 / Begin 2026 under Polaris 3 (Hubble repair ?)
Click to expand...
The pauses and hesitations are what makes the appeal in Musk's speech... Removing them is heresy!
 
Michel Van said:
My prediction:
Construction of Starship launch complexes at KSC on LC-34 up to LC-40 (far away from SLC-39A)
Next year landing and recovery test of Booster and Starship at Texas.
Maybe a manned flight End of 2025 / Begin 2026 under Polaris 3 (Hubble repair ?)
Click to expand...
No, only 37. Not 34 and no room for any before 40
 
Byeman said:
No, only 37. Not 34 and no room for any before 40
Click to expand...
Dam i forgot
Pad 34 is memorial site for Apollo 1 !

LC 37 is Delta IV pad with last Delta ready to launch.
LC 47 is Launch site for Sounding Rocket, but last launch was way back in 2010
LC 40 is SpaceX Falcon 9 pad
 
Michel Van said:
Dam i forgot
Pad 34 is memorial site for Apollo 1 !

LC 37 is Delta IV pad with last Delta ready to launch.
LC 47 is Launch site for Sounding Rocket, but last launch was way back in 2010
LC 40 is SpaceX Falcon 9 pad
Click to expand...
no room at 47 to put a large pad
 
The Space Bucket has just put out a video about SpaceX's Starship upgrade variant:


As SpaceX prepares for flight 4 of Starship, they are also busy designing and planning additional vehicle variants that are even larger than the current rocket. While in the past few months, we received a few updates and hints from the company, a new update from Musk provided some specific measurements and insights into Starship V3. This included specific heights for both the booster and upper stage, additional Raptor engines, and propellant needs, just to name a few.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but they are also hinting at plans to catch the booster with the launch tower chopsticks as soon as a few more test flights. Here I will go more in-depth into the new update, Starship’s upgraded variant, upcoming plans, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/a-closer-l...
Click to expand...
 
The Biden Administration has problem to finance the FAA
Special with increase in rocket launches by 48% push the FAA to Limits.
The Solution of Biden Administration: SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Rocket Lab & co. has to pay.
Not new since commercial US Airlines pay into Fund ($18 Billion) for FAA operations.

Source in German:
www.heise.de

Flugsicherheit: Biden will SpaceX & Co. mit Startgebühren zur Kasse bitten

Die US-Regierung will Unternehmen, die den US-Luftraum für Raketenstarts nutzen, Abgaben auferlegen, um die Arbeit von Fluglotsen dauerhaft zu finanzieren.
www.heise.de www.heise.de
 
One element in Musk speech is a bit puzzling. That present flights (theoretical) payload to orbit is a mere 40 to 50 mt to orbit. When their targets are 100 mt even for V.1.
Maybe they just build those test Starships as strong as crowbars - steel crowbars. Screw the propellant and payload mass fractions, after all they are test prototypes. What matters is to hit orbit, even with zero payload.

The point I'm trying to make: must take one hell of mass-fraction drop to half the payload. I mean, not even sure 0.75 in place of 0.90 can do it. Do these Starship have mass fractions as low as 0.60 or 0.70 ?
 
Archibald said:
One element in Musk speech is a bit puzzling. That present flights (theoretical) payload to orbit is a mere 40 to 50 mt to orbit. When their targets are 100 mt even for V.1.
Maybe they just build those test Starships as strong as crowbars - steel crowbars. Screw the propellant and payload mass fractions, after all they are test prototypes. What matters is to hit orbit, even with zero payload.

The point I'm trying to make: must take one hell of mass-fraction drop to half the payload. I mean, not even sure 0.75 in place of 0.90 can do it. Do these Starship have mass fractions as low as 0.60 or 0.70 ?
Click to expand...
I think a good part of the performance drop comes from higher S2 gravity losses: Just look at the angle Starship was after separation!

With its 3 vac 3 sl engines, ideal would be to only run the vac raptors, Musk said some time ago they only want to use the 3 SL engines at the start of the S2 burn, but evidently they run them all the way through, he also said they really want to add additional engines.

Mass ratio is necessarily above 0.8 to even get to orbit and back with any payload

Personally, napkin math based on flight telemetry gave me Dry mass in the 130-160 tons range (0.88-0.9 ratio), not far from the one figure Musk gave years ago (120 tons) and the one DLR paper that estimated SS's mass (130 tons), but performances are extremely sensitive to the slightest change in TWR, dry mass, isp and staging speed. I really believe SX/NASA when they say they don't have enough data to tell how many tanker launches will be needed for Artemis.
 
Last edited:
Good points. 1200 mt divided per 40 mt would be 30 tanker flights (!). And 50 mt: 24 flights. A 100 mt payload would take 12 tankers...
 
Archibald said:
That present flights (theoretical) payload to orbit is a mere 40 to 50 mt to orbit.
Click to expand...
TheKutKu said:
I think a good part of the performance drop comes from higher S2 gravity losses
Click to expand...

The mass of Starship is 1330 tons (1200t prop + 130t empty) Vs thrust of 1250 tons.
The 3 sea level Raptors are inefficiency in vacuum.
Raptor 3 provide higher trust what compensated the gravity losses.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom