SpaceX (general discussion)

It looks like SpaceX may be attempting to use the "Chopsticks" in landing the Booster in IFT-5:


After the most recent integrated flight test and Super Heavy splashdown in the ocean, we started to hear about the possibility of a booster catch attempt on the next flight. This mainly came from Musk through different interviews and general comments. Just yesterday, however, the FCC revealed a permit for Flight 5 which mentioned a possible catch attempt on the next flight.
Click to expand...
Comments from Musk are one thing, but while still not confirmed, this filing is even more official and suggests the company is very serious about bringing this booster back to the launch site for a landing in the near future. Here I will go more in-depth into the new permit, the dates provided, the catch process, 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=xzUYtqGeRBA
Click to expand...
Credit:
Click to expand...
SpaceX - https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceX
Click to expand...
Chapters:
Click to expand...
0:00 - Intro
Click to expand...
0:33 - New FCC Permit
Click to expand...
3:57 - The Landing Process
Click to expand...
 
Elon Musk say in the Video

...water ice got into oxygen side and clogged [feed lines]...
...We are tapping off NOT pure O2, it's ox rich gas...
Click to expand...

This Quote make sense if you understand the Raptor engine function inside Starship
Seems they use pre-burner exhausts to pressurise the Starship tanks, not heat exchanger.
Since exhaust contain water and carbon-dioxide, it freeze to ice in tanks
That was the stuff that block the feed line on Superheavy on IFT-2 and possibly cause problem on IFT-3.
 
Last edited:
That sounds... fraught. I understand why they'd want to do that (it's one less part, reducing the complexity and weight of the whole system), but I still wouldn't be very comfortable with the decision. In the case of some kinds of malfunctions that can lead into methane ingress into the main lox tank, which, er, would not be great. I hope they put a heat exchanger there before they fly people on it.
 
Tuna said:
That sounds... fraught. I understand why they'd want to do that (it's one less part, reducing the complexity and weight of the whole system), but I still wouldn't be very comfortable with the decision. In the case of some kinds of malfunctions that can lead into methane ingress into the main lox tank, which, er, would not be great. I hope they put a heat exchanger there before they fly people on it.
Click to expand...
He said they're adding filters.
 
Blue Origin issue official complain at FAA about SpaceX licence for Starship at KSC
The issue are various: Safety, Environment, hindering other companies do high launch numbers
Blue Origin demand a tremendous reduction of Starship planned 48 launches/year

I think this again foul play by BO, to get more launches for their vaporware NewGlenn.
once Starship flies who need NewGlenn ?
however NASA & DoD have have also a word to say to FAA

More info about that
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fiZBpOrpVU
 
Michel Van said:
Blue Origin issue official complain at FAA about SpaceX licence for Starship at KSC
The issue are various: Safety, Environment, hindering other companies do high launch numbers
Blue Origin demand a tremendous reduction of Starship planned 48 launches/year

I think this again foul play by BO, to get more launches for their vaporware NewGlenn.
once Starship flies who need NewGlenn ?
however NASA & DoD have have also a word to say to FAA

More info about that
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fiZBpOrpVU
Click to expand...

Definitely seems like dirty pool, but to be fair New Glenn has been rolled out, with two launches scheduled later this year. Its engines have already been used on Vulcan. So untested sure, vaporware not so much.
 
on OB bullshit
GQ7RIGmWQAAajYn
 
More to the above.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1805618413425016983
View: https://twitter.com/spacesudoer/status/1805618413425016983


Blue Origin demands to cap the launch and landing of Starship from Cape Canaveral.

Their main concern is "impact on local environment".

@elonmusk
Click to expand...

Ss-SH operations are expected to have a greater environmental impact than any other launch system currently operating at KSC or CCSFS. Ss-SH can hold up to an unprecedented 5,200 metric tons of liquid methane for propulsion, resulting in Qualified Distances for safety margins that potentially overlap the operational sites of other companies, the Government, and the public. The data quantifying these Qualified Distances has not been published, but given the anticipated Ss-SH launch rate and vehicle impact, the impact of Ss-SH operations at KSC may be even greater than at Starbase.
Accordingly, the EIS should thoroughly evaluate the considerable risks, alternatives, mitigations, and resources listed below. The issues raised herein are reasonably foreseeable.

Mitigations

Mitigation measures not currently included in the Proposed Action should be considered, including but not limited to:
• Capping the rate of Ss-SH launch, landing, and other operations, including but not limited to test firings, transport operations, and fueling, to a number that has a minimal impact on the local environment, locally operating personnel, and the local community, in consideration of all risks and impacts, including but not limited to anomaly risks, air toxin and hazardous materials dispersion, road closures, and heat and noise generation.
• Government investment in additional launch infrastructure that would make more launchpads available to other entities in a manner that deconflicts Ss-SH operations from other launch providers at KSC and CCSFS to preserve the health and safety of their personnel and Assets.
• Government investment in additional infrastructure for KSC and CCSFS that would reduce the risk to other launch providers at KSC and CCSFS in order to preserve the health and safety of their personnel and Assets by diverting traffic from the Proposed Action area, including but not limited to improving the Roy D. Bridges Bridge to accommodate transport of large Assets.
• Limiting Ss-SH operations to particular, limited times to minimize and make predictable their impact on the local community, and allotting other launch providers the right-of-first-refusal or schedule priority for certain conflicting launch or other operational opportunities.
• Mitigating the effects of Ss-SH that would require evacuation or other operational pauses at other launch providers' launch sites through infrastructure improvements or other operational changes.
• Require SpaceX and/or the Government to indemnify third parties for any losses caused by or related to Ss-SH operations, including commercial disruption incurred due to the operation of Ss-SH.
• Institute independent mandatory penalties for SpaceX for conducting operations not included in an active EIS or other environmental restriction, violating a launch license, or any other laws, regulations, or other rules for operating.

Resources
No. 23-1204 (D. D.C. filed Dec. 15, 2023) available at
Click to expand...
 
Also ULA as well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1805649793487679678
View: https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1805649793487679678


Similar concerns raised by ULA.
Click to expand...

2. The EIS must address the current and evolving Starship design and scope of operations.

As a threshold matter, the EIS must acknowledge that Starship is still in its experimental stages and that SpaceX's planned operations at the LC-39A have evolved and continue to evolve. Starship is the largest rocket ever built, and it is currently tested at SpaceX's private base in Boca Chica, Texas. In prior test flights, SpaceX has experienced several technical accidents. In addition, SpaceX has acknowledged that the vehicle is not meeting anticipated performance levels. As a result, SpaceX has indicated that it plans to increase the size and thrust level of the vehicle stages to address this performance shortfall. This would result in environmental and safety issues greater than those witnessed at Boca Chica.

SpaceX intends to launch a larger model at LC-39A than it is currently testing in Boca Chica. In April 2024, SpaceX revealed plans to, at minimum, quadruple payload capability to make up for shortfalls in predicted performance. Starship will eventually be 492 feet tall, "roughly 20% higher than the massive system aboard the Super Heavy rocket right now." The Super Heavy booster is expected to hold up to 4100 metric tons of propellant, and Starship up to 2,600 metric tons.22 The maximum lift-off thrust is anticipated at 103 meganewtons.23 The resulting launch impacts would far exceed current impacts seen during current Boca Chica launches. Additional growth of the Starship launch vehicle may be planned if performance continues to fall below expectations. Given these changes, the EIS must perform a comparative analysis between current usage impacts and the proposed operations, with a rocket proposed to be more than double the size of any currently licensed launch vehicle and with increased frequency of launches.
Click to expand...
 
Tory Bruno of ULA defending their action.

@torybruno what is this all about… seems extremely uncompetitive if you ask me
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1805664356996464709
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1805664356996464709


Indeed it could be, but not the way you might think. The application suggests explosive arcs that force other people to evac their facilities sound levels that are impractical and beyond the Cape, which is not intended to be a single provider facility. The other providers have been asked how they are impacted. The Gov will evaluate
Click to expand...
 
ULA concern are justify
There launch complex is close to LC-39A
What ULA fear is acoustic damage by noise of Superheavy launch !
The Saturn V and Shuttle damage with their launch noise infrastructure at Cap.
And this here is Starship/Superheavy V2, what will be far more loudly as current Version.

SpaceX must ensure acoustic damping, not only with water, but also noise absorber.
 
Tuna said:
I would much prefer a heat exchanger to filters here.
Click to expand...
If the filters get the job done then
Michel Van said:
Blue Origin issue official complain at FAA about SpaceX licence for Starship at KSC
The issue are various: Safety, Environment, hindering other companies do high launch numbers
Blue Origin demand a tremendous reduction of Starship planned 48 launches/year

I think this again foul play by BO, to get more launches for their vaporware NewGlenn.
once Starship flies who need NewGlenn ?
however NASA & DoD have have also a word to say to FAA

More info about that
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fiZBpOrpVU
Click to expand...
Blue Origin's motto is, "When you can't compete, sue." Losers.
 
Michel Van said:
ULA concern are justify
There launch complex is close to LC-39A
What ULA fear is acoustic damage by noise of Superheavy launch !
The Saturn V and Shuttle damage with their launch noise infrastructure at Cap.
And this here is Starship/Superheavy V2, what will be far more loudly as current Version.

SpaceX must ensure acoustic damping, not only with water, but also noise absorber.
Click to expand...

I had not really considered that a Starship launch could be physically damaging…but it is of that kind of scale.
 
Josh_TN said:
I had not really considered that a Starship launch could be physically damaging…but it is of that kind of scale.
Click to expand...
To compare the Saturn V launch noice had in 16 km around 128 decibel !
The first launch of Shuttle damage the Launch platform by SRB noise, not it exhaust !

And Starship thrust is far higher as Saturn V or the Shuttle, so more noise
The slow mo of ITF-4 show this problem very clearly in form of shockwaves.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5FNTKmUDn4
 
Michel Van said:
To compare the Saturn V launch noice had in 16 km around 128 decibel !
Click to expand...

I read somewhere many years ago that a Saturn V could be heard at liftoff a 100 miles away.

Edit: The space Bucket recently uploaded a new video concerning SpaceX's new Raptor V3 rocket-motor.


Some of the most important parts of any launch vehicle are its engines. Both its efficiency and power among other factors can have a massive influence on a rocket’s payload capability, production time, and even reuse properties. For a while now we have been receiving the occasional update on the next generation of Raptor engines powering Starship.
Click to expand...
Earlier today however Musk shared some significant information on both upcoming production and the removal of heat shields and fire suppression in Super Heavy thanks to engine upgrades. Here I will go more in-depth into why Raptor 3 is such a big deal, some of the various improvements, the engine’s timeline, and more.
Click to expand...
For more space-related content check out - https://thespacebucket.com/https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...w&q=https://thespacebucket.com/&v=Bwhg1u7SKEg
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...
0:32 - Booster Weight Savings
Click to expand...
3:45 - Improving Raptor
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I found some data

Saturn V had at lift off a noise level of 220 decibel on pad (Shuttle 215 decibel)
at 100 meter distance its 170 decibel this would kill a human
on 500 meters, 155 db, you could survive, but with permanent hearing loss
3400 meter is distance between LC-39A and LC-40 of ULA
5 km at 135 db human get Permanent hearing damage.

After first Saturn V launch
GQTk-tyWYAEWw9F


GQTlAwyWsAAHjjO


like SpaceX NASA had to adapt the water deluge to sound suppression on Launch pads

source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/7acd6d/saturn_v_launching_from_39a_with_visible_sound
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/7acd6d/saturn_v_launching_from_39a_with_visible_sound/




another successful falcon Heavy launch bring GEOS-19 into GEO

https://twitter.com/x/status/1805804111037919520
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1805804111037919520
 
My understanding: using takeoff / landing noise as a ploy to eliminate a rival ( = USA frustrated by SST cancellation in 1971, taking revenge against Concorde 5 years later, in 1976: screwing its american trips "because it is too noisy".)

Not sure the case is very convincing. AFAIK, in Concorde case it was mostly bollocks and ended being resolved in a satisfying way for both sides: USA & New York, France and the UK on the other. Concorde was allowed to fly to New York and Washington.

As for that case - IDK. Fact is that SH-Starship is an enormous beast of a rocket, but LC-39s (and Merrit Island, NASA land) can certainly handles it. After all many more LC-39s were once planned for moar Saturn V, PLUS Nova pads somewhere north, where the wildlife park stands nowadays.

Bottom line: Merrit Island certainly has room aplenty to expand LC-39s "danger zones" if needed.

CCAFS however might be different. From memory, the former "Titan III land" (I.T.L, pad 40 and 41); and the former "Saturn IB land (Pad 34, 37A, 37B) are in the same corner of CCAFS.
Sticky point: those pads were emplaced 60 years ago for rockets far smaller than a SH-Starship.

For the record, biggest CCAFS blasts have been
- Atlas Centaur AC-5 (1965) at Pad 36
- Amos-6 (2016) at Pad 40

In the end, this begs an interesting question. How do you integrate such a huge booster as SH-Starship into a densely packed place as CCAFS, where the pads were emplaced and spaced a long time ago, for smaller rockets ?

I presume that a few SH-Starship from time to time should not be an issue. The real deal is Musk crazy whacky planned launch rates. They will need more pads but, quite inevitably, the more SH-Starship flies, the more unavoidable a failure here or there.

Wonder what @Byeman thinks about this ?
 
Another question. Considering SH-Starship very high flight rates, would Musk need to turn more and more CCAFS former ELV launch complexes into, well, Orbital Launch Mounts ?
From the top of my head (using old rocket names)
-the former Titan area
-the former Saturn IB area
-ICBM road
-Atlas LC-36
-Delta LC-17

Do you see all those places at CCAFS turned into OLMs, to support SH-Starship very high flight rates ?
 
martinbayer said:
How so (asking honestly for a very dear and close friend of mine, because Concorde is near and dear to his [my friend, that is :)] heart...)?
Click to expand...

The British & French had placed most of the profitability of Concorde in supersonic flights to Chicago. LA. etc... not just to New York City, Washington D.C., and other US east-coast cities.

At one point in the mid-1960s the consortium received orders, i.e., non-binding options, for more than 100 of the long-range versions from the major airlines of the day: Pan Am, BOAC, and Air France were the launch customers, with six Concordes each. Other airlines in the order book included Panair do Brasil, Continental Airlines, Japan Airlines, Lufthansa, American Airlines, United Airlines, Air India, Air Canada, Braniff, Singapore Airlines, Iran Air, Olympic Airways, Qantas, CAAC Airlines, Middle East Airlines, and TWA. At the time of the first flight the options list contained 74 options from 16 airlines.

The US FAA placed restrictions on Concorde's supersonic flight paths "due to the probability of broken windows etc from sonic "booms" and effects on wildlife".

Specifically, it banned Concorde from supersonic flight flight over ANY US land... so flying to inland or west-coast cities would be at subsonic speeds once the US coast or border was crossed. The longer flight times that would result would make such flights much less attractive considering the high cost of tickets and the impact on the primary draw of "short flight times" that Concorde's economic case was based on.

By 1976 the remaining buyers were from four countries: Britain, France, China, and Iran. Only Air France and British Airways (the successor to BOAC) took up their orders, eventually buying 7 each - with the two governments taking a cut of any profits made.

Very quickly Concorde only flew to NYC & DC, and nowhere else in the US.

This reduced the number of flights from early estimates, thus reducing the number of aircraft built to provide those flights... driving the individual aircraft costs up, which drove ticket costs up to cover the higher equipment costs... which further reduced ticket sales.

You see where this is going.

For British Airways and Air France the agreement was not as "satisfying" as Archibald implies.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom