Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 8,225
- Reaction score
- 13,915
The former Titan area is now LC-40 ULA and LC-41 SpaceXAnother 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 ?
It did (4,500mi range vs 4,150/3,950mi distance for CdG and Heathrow), but a <10% reserve might be considered too low for commercial travel.Concorde did not had the range to fly to Chicago, at least from CDG and Heathrow.
that is the LC-49 studyGiven how in the next year or two Starship is going to become operational I wonder if NASA will dust of its' old 1960s plans and commission LC-39C, LC-39D and LC-39E?
LC-14 is Stoke SpaceThe former Titan area is now LC-40 ULA and LC-41 SpaceX
The former Saturn IB area that around LC-37 of Delta Heavy (out of order)
LC-34 is memorial site for Apollo one
ICBM row:
LC-20 used by Firefly Alpha,
LC-19 monument for Gemini missions,
LC-16 used by Relativity
LC-15 not used
LC-14 monument for Mercury missions
LC-13 used as landing zone 1&2 by SpaceX
beyond that is Jeff Bezos territory with LC-36 (and 16 km away from LC-39A Starship OLM)
No large launch facilities south of Central Control Road.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 ?
-Delta LC-17
LC-14 is Stoke Space
LC-13 is Phantom Space and Vaya Space
LC-15 is in limbo but ABL Space systems
LC-16 is Relativity
Lc-20 is Firefly
LC-36 and LC-11 is BO
LC-37 is likely SpaceX
The FAA licence for KSC say 48 launch /year = every 8 days one Launch of StarshipWith the launch cadence that Elon is proposing is there really anywhere in the the US that would put up with multiple Starship launches per day?
It's going to get annoying for locals, probably very noisy for many miles.
Each time those dam [Saturn V] took off, the house was shaking, and dishes fell out cupboard in kitchen.
ESA will not be pushed out if the market as part of its purpose is to allow to be independent of the US and not reliant on it. Once it’s up and running Ariane 6 will provide to all ESA backed payloads. By the way I’m utterly baffled why you would think allowing Space X to occupy a monopoly position in the launcher market is in anyway a good thing for anybody.SpaceX pushed Russia out market, now its ESA turn follow by BO & co...
Musk Mantra on that:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RpnMFlqP8
i'm baffled how easy SpaceX manage thatBy the way I’m utterly baffled why you would think allowing Space X to occupy a monopoly position in the launcher market is in anyway a good thing for anybody.
SpaceX pushed Russia out market, now its ESA turn follow by BO & co...
Musk Mantra on that:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RpnMFlqP8
You don't believe Jared has a tilt towards SpaceX? I appreciate the large amount of charity he does, but to say he doesn't have a bias is ridiculous. He did seem not happy when NASA said no to attempt to move Hubble as if if they don't have a right to determine what to do.
You misinterpreted Hubble.. as did a lot of people who only read an article & not an official report. I participated in and have seen the real NASA/SX/Polaris study. That is very different than an article with email quotes from individuals & not actually NASA. I’m actually reasonably optimistic about the future of Hubble. In any case, I love NASA and all they have accomplished. There would never have been an Inspiration4 or Polaris Program without NASA creating commercial crew program. I do lean SpaceX on a lot of issues especially when it comes to government or defense/aerospace industry waste and stagnation. But not a blind follower. On the flip side it’s clear many others will blindly take the anti-SpaceX position simply because of Elon or other nonsensical reasons.
NASA analyzed boosting the ISS to a higher orbit, an option that considered SpaceX's Starship as a factor, but:
1. ISS operations require a full-time crew
2. Starship boost could destroy the ISS' aging truss structures
3. Chance of orbital debris strikes "increases drastically"
ESA is out of the game they don't want to invest in new technology they are old bureaucracy people with no futur vision, Europe is out of the game in manned spaceflight and out in reusable launcher , soon China will have the reusable capacity too. ESA says bullshit about the reusable economic because they are unable to build a reusable launcher.From ESA director of space transportation Toni Tolker-Nielsen
Good luck ESA, you need it...
The control center of Sue Origin. About what I'd expect.found on X
Based on what? Can't use the Merlin and can't use RP-1 and LOX. Are you saying stage 2 tankage?SpaceX will launch modified Falcon 9 second stage with Falcon Heavy to ISS
The Falcon 9 second stage has restart capacity and RCS thruster (SpaceX deorbit the second stage after its mission)Based on what? Can't use the Merlin and can't use RP-1 and LOX. Are you saying stage 2 tankage?
It is unusable for this role.The Falcon 9 second stage has restart capacity and RCS thruster (SpaceX deorbit the second stage after its mission)
This version will be modified with Crew capsule docking system
and launch either by Falcon Heavy or Starship to ISS in 2030
Does a suitable upper stage exist? If Dragon 2 can carry 7,000lb payload what if they just expanded the tanks on a Dragon 2 capsule? Would 7,000lbs be enough? Would it even be able to dock in a suitable location?It is unusable for this role.
a. The Merlin engine has too much thrust
b. The deorbit vehicle has to be able to docked to the ISS for up to one year or so. The Falcon 9 second stage can not hold LOX for that long.
c. The 2nd stage RCS system is only for attitude control. It can not provide translation control for rendezvous and docking. Plus it is a just a small amount of GN2
d. The Merlin can not restart (more than 5) as many times as needed for deorbit.
It is going to need around 30klb of biprop. It needs to be more than an upperstage: a spacecraft with a large amount of propellant.Does a suitable upper stage exist? If Dragon 2 can carry 7,000lb payload what if they just expanded the tanks on a Dragon 2 capsule? Would 7,000lbs be enough? Would it even be able to dock in a suitable location?
It is going to need around 30klb of biprop. It needs to be more than an upperstage: a spacecraft with a large amount of propellant.
This is more than twice Delta II second stage load and more than 5klb of the shuttle OMS load.
Some thoughts on the big contract NASA just gave SpaceX to deorbit the space station, and how I think they'll do it.
Program office. Was looking into facilities for fueling it last year.Where does the 30,000 lb figure come from?
That isn't the official amount eitherSo not 30k lb but 20k lb (9000kg)
It already has done that.Using it as a demo for a responsible sustainable space would be a great occasion.
a. it is not riskyThen there is the timing. Why would you spend such amount of money now with a risky technical project when you can expect future Space operations to be able to tackle that problem much more easily, and at a bargain. Raise a budget and save it for the next generations to be able to do it (see it as a time capsule). In 100 year, we will have mass transfer in and out of orbit on a massive scale regarding today and the ISS would be seen as not much but an average daily load to move
not rationalhence, IMOHO, what would be more rational should be:
1. Demo a process (deorbit a piece of ISS valuable for preservation)
2. Do that as a multi-national competition/challenge to nurture an economy around it
3. Raise the rest on a holding orbit step by step (1000 year is too costly in term of fuel? Well, raise it for 20/50 year and wait to see what kind of actors and tech emerge meanwhile).
4. Contain it in space for long "on-orbit storage"
A. the amount of EVA's required and time. Also, systems were redistributed and reconfigured where it is not easy just to cut off a segment.A. Is there a reason they can't decouple segments and bring them down a couple at a time? I can think of a lot of reasons to want to avoid it, but what prevents it if that becomes easier than designing a new vehicle?
b.Same question regarding the 9k lbs of fuel for deorbit. What prevents them from breaking up the 57 dV into several burns? If necessary over several missions/capsules. If you can boost with a Cygnus/whatever capsule, it should be possible to (very slowly) deorbit doing the same thing.
c. How much/long can they milk out atmospheric drag if they are losing 2km a month? That figure is going to rise as it drops.
d. If you can break the mass into more manageable chunks, this should be much easier. And it's already been done. Pirs was deorbited along with a Progress mission. Maximize tankage on a modified vehicle that already exists (Progress, Dragon, Cygnus, whatever) and take the modules down a couple at a time.
i'm baffled how easy SpaceX manage that
As they lower the Launch price, what push the Russians out launch market (long before today embargo).
Then lure customer of Arianespace away, toward cheaper falcon 9 flights.
currently ESA use SpaceX to launch there hardware into Space because Ariane 6 and Vega-C are not ready...
For Moment is SpaceX the company that launch most rockets in world, follow by China on place 2
follow in far distance US firms, India, ESA russia,
defacto they have a monopoly on launch numbers
DoD is eager to diversify its rocket portfolio and will likely throw money at BO, since it is another large most reusable rocket outside the F9 near monopoly.
You are all forgetting their some commercial payloads which will never fly on Space X. For example the many, many launches generated by Amazon Kuiper, first operational flight of which is later this year on Atlas 551. None of them will ever be given to Space X.ESA is out of the game they don't want to invest in new technology they are old bureaucracy people with no futur vision, Europe is out of the game in manned spaceflight and out in reusable launcher , soon China will have the reusable capacity too. ESA says bullshit about the reusable economic because they are unable to build a reusable launcher.
That would be wrong.You are all forgetting their some commercial payloads which will never fly on Space X. For example the many, many launches generated by Amazon Kuiper, first operational flight of which is later this year on Atlas 551. None of them will ever be given to Space X.