SpaceX (general discussion)

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:
Archibald said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
The 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)
 
Michel Van said:
The 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)
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
found on X

GRAXOBAacAAxAjY
 
Byeman said:
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
Click to expand...

With 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.

Once every 2 months or so is great entertainment and great for tourism, multiple times per day?

Do they need to reserve the Cape for everyone else and find somewhere else that SpaceX can expand? not sure Boca has enough space or would be allowed??

I get that there's ITAR restriction, but is there any place on earth that this could work from?
 
bob225 said:
With 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.
Click to expand...
The FAA licence for KSC say 48 launch /year = every 8 days one Launch of Starship

I had chance to talk with US Farmer in 1980s, he has his farm opposite KSC
he and hs wife were not very fun about Apollo program:

Each time those dam [Saturn V] took off, the house was shaking, and dishes fell out cupboard in kitchen.
Click to expand...

Also He was not very fun about Shuttle program, he consider even louder as Saturn V
and now SpaceX want to launch a rocket that even Louder...
 
Michel Van said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Flyaway said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1806118806064169308
View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1806118806064169308


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.
Click to expand...
 
www.independent.co.uk

SpaceX lands lucrative Nasa contract to destroy ISS after 2030

Nasa has noted signs of wear and tear on space station and intends to deorbit it after 2030
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

https://twitter.com/x/status/1806103752450908375
View: https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1806103752450908375


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"
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
SpaceX will launch modified Falcon 9 second stage with Falcon Heavy to ISS

This stage will habe the docking system of Crew Dragon and dock automatic with ISS
start series of de orbit burns to bring the Station controlled down in pacific
 
Michel Van said:
From ESA director of space transportation Toni Tolker-Nielsen

Good luck ESA, you need it...

GRAKAGXWsAAa8Li
Click to expand...
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.
 
Byeman said:
Based on what? Can't use the Merlin and can't use RP-1 and LOX. Are you saying stage 2 tankage?
Click to expand...
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
 
Michel Van said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Byeman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
sferrin said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
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.
Click to expand...

From the NASA doc posted earlier by @Archibald :

1719524441099.png

So not 30k lb but 20k lb (9000kg)

Personally, I think that there is much more here than deorbit a station right after it was deemed non-operational as if it was an anonymous piece of industrial junk. The ISS is a symbol of international cooperation and shows the hard work we've put into our space endeavour.
Using it as a demo for a responsible sustainable space would be a great occasion.

Then 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*.


hence, 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"

The picture around orbit congestion, debits etc.. can only change regarding the situation we know today. What best that an epic international gigantic space station to empower the forces and endeavour to make near-earth orbit sustainable*?

*Is that really exaggerated?
(Edited)
 
Last edited:
A lot of the ISS is past its sell by date. If you’re looking for a symbolic international effort, the lunar gateway is all the same players minus Russia.
 
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?


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.


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.


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.
 
TomcatViP said:
So not 30k lb but 20k lb (9000kg)
Click to expand...
That isn't the official amount either
TomcatViP said:
Using it as a demo for a responsible sustainable space would be a great occasion.
Click to expand...
It already has done that.

TomcatViP said:
Then 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
Click to expand...
a. it is not risky
b. there is a hell of amount risk waiting for that and it is years away
c. ISS operations cost many times more per year to sustain it than this contract.
d. Can't "save" a budget. See congress and US law about that.
e. As stated, the ISS can not be left unmanned to be able to control and sustain it.
f. It requires regular Russian tanker flights for propellant to keep it in orbit.
 
TomcatViP said:
hence, 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"
Click to expand...
not rational
1. What is going to bring down a piece of the ISS?
2. there is nobody going to do that. There is no such business case. Nobody wants to take it over as it is.
3. with what money?
4. Not feasible, see document you quoted.

ISS costs NASA $3 billion per year in operations costs. Not including Russian, ESA and Japan costs.
 
_Del_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
b. It will be several months of burns as it is. Just don't want the added risk of additional launches and docking. They want the ability to maintain control through the critical altitudes without having to switch out vehicles.
c. Drag is part of the equation. The issue is the final burns and being able to target the entry.
d. there is no common connection, especially with Russian vehicles and see number 1 and the NASA document.
 
Michel Van said:
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
Click to expand...

Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...

dark sidius said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom