SpaceX (general discussion)

snne said:
But nobody would actually want to finance an expended Starship launch when they have the F9/FH as an option. Only a few NASA and DOD outsized payloads would make Starship a necessity and I don't think we can come up with truly viable Starship use cases for at least a decade though. Until that point, it doesn't matter whatever Starship could actually do, Falcon 9 simply does it better (cheaper/more reliable). Simply said, you don't need a beast of a rocket for most missions.
Click to expand...

Starlink V2 satellites will probably keep Starship busy, in much the same way the original v1 satellites were used to validate F9 reuse.
 
Last edited:
Firefinder said:
Honestly as is You can use Starship as productive launcher.

Both made it to orbital velocity with only the flight plan being made so that it came down in a safe spot. They could have set it down in the Gulf if they wanted too but didn't due to safety reasons.

That basically ALL you need to yeet 100 plus tons of Satellite into orbit.

And use the cash from that to run prototyping til they get it fixed like they did with the Falcon 9. Especially Since most of the kinks are seemly removed from the main booster Which can toss like 90 tons to orbit with a faring, double that on a expandable flight, irc.

Then you can get it human rated.
Click to expand...
I wonder what a lighter/disposable second stage would look like payload-wise and demand-wise. Presumably demand for larger payload will eventually follow increases in capabilities. Is there enough demand currently to justify that path?
 
sferrin said:
Thunderf00t is a bit of a twat, who doesn't seem near as smart as he thinks he is.
Click to expand...
Thunderf00t is a lot like Adam Conover. At first glance with their polished stuff they seem both entertaining and informative, but the more you watch them, specially unscripted, the dumber they come off. Thunderf00t is great when he's debunking crap products like sham underwater artificial lungs and moisture vaporators and even Hyperloop, but his Elon-Hate overrides his rationality.
 
For low earth orbit missions, I think Starship would be limited to mega constellation projects. It’s just too much rocket for much else.
 
Byeman said:
No, they don't need stop gap measures. That is negative work.
Click to expand...
Perhaps inflatable LOFTID materials at the fin joins?

Also could serve as water wings for ditching.

Now, it looked as if the burn-throughs happened at the sternward join and propagated forward-- the opposite of nose-first melt which occurs mostly at the forward wing root/shoulder.

I know you want a permanent fix--but I wonder if ablatives might play a role along the lower section of the fins to carry heat from the metal.

Ablatives might be slid on from the side...shuttle may have used snap on ablatives if I remember Portree's Beyond Apollo article for WIRED correctly.
 
Last edited:
That's right---maybe LOFTID materials at the join... bellows configuration?

The shuttle had a flap of sorts beneath the SSME's... anything applicable here?
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Did these debris came from Starship or were there environmental? Hard to say at this stage.
Click to expand...
Starship. There is nothing substantial enough to spark like that at such altitudes. Note that having a few sparks is not fatal, and can result from things like not finishing all the corners of tiles smoothly, which at such pressures and temperatures is a self-fixing problem (so why spend the time and money to do it yourself). An analogous situation is that the first engine startup of all SpaceX engines is a bit green, because the chamber and throat start a bit rough, because machining it all away would add cost and you can just let the engine smooth itself out instead.
TomcatViP said:
*I am on the opinion that Starship came down too fast and should have pitched-up to cool down the structure before re-initiating the descent.
Click to expand...

This is not always available. While a gentler re-entry is possible when returning from a very low LEO, the vehicle is supposed to be able to do high-energy re-entries, where you do not have the ability to reduce the heat load. So you cannot do that for a test program, you have to select a heating regime that adequately represents real-world loads and stick to it.

Most of the heat shield seems to have made it just fine, the big problem were the flap joints, and my 15 minute take is it was not because they were overwhelmed by the heating, but because very hot gas ingressed into the hinges and went past the heatshield, melting the structure below. You can see some glowing hot plasma exiting the leeward side even before it burns through.
 
The Space Bucket has put a video about the IFT-4 test-flight:


Early this morning SpaceX launched Starship for the fourth time and it was easily the most impressive one yet. The last flight was back in March earlier this year and ended a bit early with both the booster and upper stage being destroyed.
Click to expand...
This time around, however, the company made a few key changes and upgrades to the entire vehicle and mission plan that helped Starship reach a couple of significant new milestones. Here I will go more in-depth into the fourth flight, exactly what happened, what to expect in the near future, and more.
Click to expand...
For more space-related content check out - https://thespacebucket.com/https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...Q&q=https://thespacebucket.com/&v=J5HBZpWrE1g
Click to expand...
Credit: SpaceX - https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceXhttps://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceX
Click to expand...
Chapters:
Click to expand...
0:00 - Intro
Click to expand...
0:28 - Fourth Launch Attempt
Click to expand...
 
Maybe a stupid question and I may have missed the answer, but is there any other imagery of the two "landings" (splash-downs) available besides the "on-board" camera settings or were there no ships (or whatever) nearby?
 
Deino said:
but is there any other imagery of the two "landings" (splash-downs) available besides the "on-board" camera settings or were there no ships (or whatever) nearby?
Click to expand...

That is a good question.

On another note I wonder when IFT-5 is going to fly?
 
Deino said:
Maybe a stupid question and I may have missed the answer, but is there any other imagery of the two "landings" (splash-downs) available besides the "on-board" camera settings or were there no ships (or whatever) nearby?
Click to expand...
I’d hazard a guess at “No”.

Having ships near enough to the landing zone to record the landings means putting the ships at risk of damage in the event of an unexpected or unplanned event.
 
starviking said:
I’d hazard a guess at “No”.

Having ships near enough to the landing zone to record the landings means putting the ships at risk of damage in the event of an unexpected or unplanned event.
Click to expand...


Thanks, but that‘s the point. But they will - surely later (albeit Elon posted today, maybe even already next time) - to catch it with the grips on the launch tower, so they must more than precisely know where it re-enters and at least which area outside should be safe.
 
Regarding the flap burn through on Starship.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1798846199635869945
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1798846199635869945


Not a difficult prediction! We will have this nailed for next flight.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1798848426895200567
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1798848426895200567


Note, a newer version of Starship has the forward flaps shifted leeward. This will help improve reliability, ease of manufacturing and payload to orbit.
Click to expand...
 
publiusr said:
That's right---maybe LOFTID materials at the join... bellows configuration?

The shuttle had a flap of sorts beneath the SSME's... anything applicable here?
Click to expand...
No, LOFID was expendable. No need for water wings, there will be no ditching.
No ablatives, no temp fixes

No need to throw stuff at the wall and see what will stick. It isn't a hard problem. There are lots of ways to fix it that will be reusable. They don't need help.
 
Last edited:
_Del_ said:
I wonder what a lighter/disposable second stage would look like payload-wise and demand-wise. Presumably demand for larger payload will eventually follow increases in capabilities. Is there enough demand currently to justify that path?
Click to expand...
no demand because it increases costs. Increase in demand comes from the lower cost, not from increased payload capability.
 
Deino said:
Thanks, but that‘s the point. But they will - surely later (albeit Elon posted today, maybe even already next time) - to catch it with the grips on the launch tower, so they must more than precisely know where it re-enters and at least which area outside should be safe.
Click to expand...
not for this mission. It wasn't "safe" until they demonstrated a successful water landing
 
Do the fins have more in common with the shuttle control surfaces, or that body flap under the SSMEs?
 
Josh_TN said:
For low earth orbit missions, I think Starship would be limited to mega constellation projects. It’s just too much rocket for much else.
Click to expand...
Why not habitats large enough to rotate for artificial gravity, factories, propellant depots, or delivery of things such as solar power satellites (with the proviso of any/all of these being sufficiently profitable to be practical)? Or 'steerage to the stars' as it were if you want to fit a large number of people into a single flight to orbit (whether that's to a hotel, a factory, a ship headed for Mars, whatever - again, with the proviso of assuming profitability). Or are you assuming such things likely won't happen, and future space operations will be broadly similar to the present day?
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Why not habitats large enough to rotate for artificial gravity, factories, propellant depots, or delivery of things such as solar power satellites (with the proviso of any/all of these being sufficiently profitable to be practical)? Or 'steerage to the stars' as it were if you want to fit a large number of people into a single flight to orbit (whether that's to a hotel, a factory, a ship headed for Mars, whatever - again, with the proviso of assuming profitability). Or are you assuming such things likely won't happen, and future space operations will be broadly similar to the present day?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, long term, depending on the costs.

ETA: short term there is not a market for large structures in orbit, outside one time government projects. SpaceX owe needs however could likely easily drive Starships development for years. I expect once its proven numerous other large constellations would be interested, in addition to some unique heavy lift requirements for NASA and such.
 
Last edited:
BlueAbyssal said:
Why not habitats large enough to rotate for artificial gravity, factories, propellant depots, or delivery of things such as solar power satellites (with the proviso of any/all of these being sufficiently profitable to be practical)? Or 'steerage to the stars' as it were if you want to fit a large number of people into a single flight to orbit (whether that's to a hotel, a factory, a ship headed for Mars, whatever - again, with the proviso of assuming profitability). Or are you assuming such things likely won't happen, and future space operations will be broadly similar to the present day?
Click to expand...
See SP-413 for a gander at what we could have had. (Or could still with the right people.)
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Why not habitats large enough to rotate for artificial gravity, factories, propellant depots, or delivery of things such as solar power satellites (with the proviso of any/all of these being sufficiently profitable to be practical)? Or 'steerage to the stars' as it were if you want to fit a large number of people into a single flight to orbit (whether that's to a hotel, a factory, a ship headed for Mars, whatever - again, with the proviso of assuming profitability). Or are you assuming such things likely won't happen, and future space operations will be broadly similar to the present day?
Click to expand...

it is the "proviso"s
 
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps, long term, depending on the costs.

ETA: short term there is not a market for large structures in orbit, outside one time government projects. SpaceX owe needs however could likely easily drive Starships development for years. I expect once its proven numerous other large constellations would be interested, in addition to some unique heavy lift requirements for NASA and such.
Click to expand...
So it’s less of a what, and more of when. Fair. I’m not assuming anything I mentioned will happen soon, though the beginnings of all of them are there. I would also note that our perceptions of cost will need to shift if Starship is flying at the scale multiple large constellations need, what seems preposterous now won’t be the case if enough Starships are flying to put thousands of V2 Starlinks into orbit every year.
sferrin said:
See SP-413 for a gander at what we could have had. (Or could still with the right people.)
Click to expand...
I read SP-413 a long time ago (and many of the other studies from that era). I’d have much preferred to be born after the large-scale settlement of space.
Byeman said:
it is the "proviso"s
Click to expand...
Yes. Of everything that I wrote, I’d be surprised to see any of it on a scale that demands Starship before the 2040s. Probably later. There are small-scale efforts in all of those arenas now, so a couple of decades of development can see significant changes. Back in 2004 SpaceX was the scrappy upstart working on Falcon 1.
 
The Space Bucket has just put out a video concerning how SpaceX will flap-hinge burn through issue:


Early yesterday morning SpaceX launched Starship again for the vehicle’s fourth integrated flight test. Here we saw the booster return to Earth and complete a landing burn with minor complications. We also saw a hard-fought reentry of the upper stage that eventually ended with a splashdown in the ocean albeit not quite a fully intact Starship.
Click to expand...
For a while now SpaceX has been working on the vehicle’s heat shield with the goal of creating a lightweight, easily manufacturable, and heat-resistant tile. That’s much easier said than done, however, and it seems they have a bit more work to do. Here I will go more in-depth into the current state of the heat shield, relevant testing of tiles, Starship’s steel construction, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/is-there-a...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...h-spacexs-starship-heat-shield/&v=LAIQw5TNGAI
Click to expand...
For more space-related content check out - https://thespacebucket.com/https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...Q&q=https://thespacebucket.com/&v=LAIQw5TNGAI
Click to expand...
Credit:
Click to expand...
SpaceX - https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceXhttps://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceX
Click to expand...
Chapters:
Click to expand...
0:00 - Intro
Click to expand...
0:36 - Starship's Heat Shield
Click to expand...
3:23 - A Steel Rocket
Click to expand...
 
Orionblamblam said:
You may think you hate the professional media. but do you hate them *enough*? Probably not. Certainly not as much as they hate you.

View attachment 731219
Click to expand...
Oh funny. It's not even competently written. Do they mean that this is the fourth flight without exploding? (Not true). Or do they mean that this, the fourth flight, was completed without exploding. (True).

For want of a comma, the meaning is different ... kinda like: "Panda eats shoots and leaves." versus "Panda eats, shoots, and leaves."

Headline writing isn't rocketbrainsurgury but it ain't always easy, either.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom