SpaceX (general discussion)

Bad News

First
NASA budget is not raised this mean Artemis program is underfunded

Second
Seven environmentalist groups demand that FAA make new full-scale environmental assessment on Boca Chica Site
there argumentation is that Testing rocket and Explosion disrupt the Wildlife around Boca Chica

source

Environmental Groups Want SpaceX Test Site Studied

Environmental groups are asking the FAA to do a full-scale environmental assessment on SpaceX’s explosion-prone facility in Texas. Seven organizations have jointly signed a letter to three FAA administrators to...
www.avweb.com
 
The Falcon 9 slated to launch the 10th batch of Starlink + BlackSky rideshares has gone horizontal at pad 39A. As for the other Falcon 9 at LC-40, still waiting for confirmation that Anasis is still on for tomorrow (hearing it's not, but hold for more).
Click to expand...

Looks the Starlink launch may have hit the 5 reuse issue that others have seen.
 
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1282737907531264000

View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1282800078000803840


We’re being extra paranoid. Maximizing probability of successful launch is paramount.
Click to expand...
 

Starship SN5 set for a static fire followed shortly by a 150-meter hop attempt - NASASpaceFlight.com

Starship SN5 is finally set to begin Raptor engine testing this weekend after a successful…
www.nasaspaceflight.com

- By Michael Baylor.


View: https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1283453405999050753


View: https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1283460077962309632
 
While Starship SN5 continues to wait for its Static Fire test and soon-to-follow Hop, the expansion of Spaceport Boca Chica continues and future Starships get in line. Video includes fin power washing!

Video and Pictures from Mary (@BocaChicaGal). Edited by Jack Beyer (@TheJackBeyer).

View: https://youtu.be/h4QkP3kCJTw
 
View: https://twitter.com/RGVaerialphotos/status/1284235756261855234


View: https://twitter.com/RGVaerialphotos/status/1283940001424609280


View: https://twitter.com/RGVaerialphotos/status/1284131210202157061
 
Michel Van said:
Nose cone stacking (for SN6?)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaSsO689d3w
Click to expand...


Wow, I still can't over the size of this puppy. And that's just the fairing!

Has anyone figured out what Space Force would move with this thing? Heck, or even what AMC would move with this thing?

East coast to Tokyo in 40 minutes. West coast to RAAF Tindal in 40 minutes. It's got to be close to the same to Singapore and the PI. That's transformational. Or perhaps one would forward deploy material in orbiting Starships. Ready to land anywhere in the world at a moments notice. The world will become a very small place.
 
NeilChapman said:
Has anyone figured out what Space Force would move with this thing? Heck, or even what AMC would move with this thing?
Click to expand...

Ten thousand small communication satellite in Low orbit
Several NRO big Spysat at once
One Big Zenit Laser prototype
or install US Space Force Base on Moon.

if Capitol Hill give them the Money...
 
Imagine a Grenada like event where we need ground-pounders on site, NOW.

We station about fifty Starships in LEO with troops embarked (one-week patrols so they don't atrophy too much in zero-g), like we used to keep a sizable fraction of the B-52's on station at any one time during the Cold War.

Some ass-hole regional government takes some American students hostage, and 'wham' three starships show up, unannounced, doing only what can be described as the 'Adama maneuver', land, disgorge the troops, who proceed to stomp said regional government thugs into the ground.

View: https://youtu.be/2enjkVJb4Mw


Space Force, indeed!

David
Honorary Space Cadet
 
I have to admit that in an Iran ambassy hostage case, Starships landing in the infamous Teheran stadium would have solved it!
 
Michel Van said:
NeilChapman said:
Has anyone figured out what Space Force would move with this thing? Heck, or even what AMC would move with this thing?
Click to expand...

Ten thousand small communication satellite in Low orbit
Several NRO big Spysat at once
One Big Zenit Laser prototype
or install US Space Force Base on Moon.

if Capitol Hill give them the Money...
Click to expand...


SpaceX is already building the satellite system.

Let's shoot for the moon then, shall we?
 
NeilChapman said:
Has anyone figured out what Space Force would move with this thing? Heck, or even what AMC would move with this thing?
Click to expand...
Enough EO/IR sensors to CEC air combat
Enough orbital firepower to neutralize anti-space capability of 2nd tier powers before significant damage is taken.
"Remove this ship" and "Remove this base" within hours, anywhere.
 
merriman said:
Imagine a Grenada like event where we need ground-pounders on site, NOW.

We station about fifty Starships in LEO with troops embarked (one-week patrols so they don't atrophy too much in zero-g), like we used to keep a sizable fraction of the B-52's on station at any one time during the Cold War.

Some ass-hole regional government takes some American students hostage, and 'wham' three starships show up, unannounced, doing only what can be described as the 'Adama maneuver', land, disgorge the troops, who proceed to stomp said regional government thugs into the ground.

View: https://youtu.be/2enjkVJb4Mw


Space Force, indeed!

David
Honorary Space Cadet
Click to expand...

Why in orbit? Starship is supposed to be a suborbital transport as well. Counter-intuitively, it's actually faster to launch on a direct suborbital flight than to deorbit to a specific destination from orbit. When you're in orbit, you either have to do a very expensive plane-change burn first, or wait until the destination shows up under your orbital path.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0


Of course, this circles around to the old Project Ithacus idea, and makes about as much sense, IMO: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/douglas-rombus.4577/post-159450

PS: You know the students in Grenada were never actually taken hostage, right? The possibility that they could become hostages in the future was offered as one of several justifications for the invasion. The Marxist takeover of the island and the possibility that it could become a base for Soviet military forces was a more serious one. For the cynical, the fact that the US Marine barracks in Beirut has just been bombed, killing 241 Marines, might also have been a factor.
 
TomS said:
merriman said:
Imagine a Grenada like event where we need ground-pounders on site, NOW.

We station about fifty Starships in LEO with troops embarked (one-week patrols so they don't atrophy too much in zero-g), like we used to keep a sizable fraction of the B-52's on station at any one time during the Cold War.

Some ass-hole regional government takes some American students hostage, and 'wham' three starships show up, unannounced, doing only what can be described as the 'Adama maneuver', land, disgorge the troops, who proceed to stomp said regional government thugs into the ground.

View: https://youtu.be/2enjkVJb4Mw


Space Force, indeed!

David
Honorary Space Cadet
Click to expand...

Why in orbit? Starship is supposed to be a suborbital transport as well. Counter-intuitively, it's actually faster to launch on a direct suborbital flight than to deorbit to a specific destination from orbit. When you're in orbit, you either have to do a very expensive plane-change burn first, or wait until the destination shows up under your orbital path.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0


Of course, this circles around to the old Project Ithacus idea, and makes about as much sense, IMO: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/douglas-rombus.4577/post-159450

PS: You know the students in Grenada were never actually taken hostage, right? The possibility that they could become hostages in the future was offered as one of several justifications for the invasion. The Marxist takeover of the island and the possibility that it could become a base for Soviet military forces was a more serious one. For the cynical, the fact that the US Marine barracks in Beirut has just been bombed, killing 241 Marines, might also have been a factor.
Click to expand...

Points well taken. Particularly your observation that our action in Grenada was more Monroe Doctrine than immediate aid to endangered Americans. The Soviets were at least in the survey stage of erecting a submarine base there. My parents were summer residents and reported back-channel to State months ahead of that little nations leader going off-island to attend a UFO conference, which is the moment our CIC sent in Clint Eastwood... ah, the Marines.

Re-thinking how we deploy the troops in light of your observation. Yes, station these guys at dirt-side Expeditionary Bases, and send them off from there when the curtain goes up -- makes much mores sense than my Starship Troopers fantasy. Thirty minutes from here-to-there, and no fancy orbital mechanics involved, just point it in the right direction and go ballistic. And troopies arrive well rested, physically fit, and better equipped and briefed for the job at hand.

David
 
NeilChapman said:
Michel Van said:
Nose cone stacking (for SN6?)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaSsO689d3w
Click to expand...


Wow, I still can't over the size of this puppy. And that's just the fairing!

Has anyone figured out what Space Force would move with this thing? Heck, or even what AMC would move with this thing?
Click to expand...

What-ever they contracted through SpaceX to move of course :) Unless I missed a significant change in planned operations SpaceX is the only ones that will be flying Starship/Super-Heavy. There's a lot less incentive for SpaceX to 'sell' Starships, specifically to the Space Force and there's not many reasons for them to buy them either.

East coast to Tokyo in 40 minutes. West coast to RAAF Tindal in 40 minutes. It's got to be close to the same to Singapore and the PI. That's transformational. Or perhaps one would forward deploy material in orbiting Starships. Ready to land anywhere in the world at a moments notice. The world will become a very small place.
Click to expand...

You forgot to put the "off-the-coast-of-..." in those origins and destinations :) The word more better suited to such operations is "disruptive" unless it's well outside standard transportation zones of the places going to/from. Such disruptions are taken-in-stride if once a month, annoying if once a week, intolerably any more often. Point-to-Point suborbital travel has been studied quite often and the biggest sticking point

merriman said:
Imagine a Grenada like event where we need ground-pounders on site, NOW.
Click to expand...

For starters there are very few events where we need them "there" specifically "now" and if that's the case then if they are NOT "there" specifically "now" then even 40 minutes is likely to be too late. Worse they won't BE there in only 40 minutes. They could launch, (in theory) within a few hours but more likely it would take 12 to 24 hours just to get everything in place and ready to go. (This is where 'parking' in orbit has advantages as long as you have enough orbital infrastructure to keep the 'standby' vehicles in ready-to-go order with either 'generic' troop loads or someplace like an orbital depot you can pull from)

Of course they STILL don't 'go' till someone else, (Navy/Marines or Air Force) gets there with enough air-and-local power to suppress any air defense assets and frankly down to making sure a jeep or technically mounted HMG can't get within two miles of the landing site, (also securing/marking/prepping those landing sites) AND all that support has to pull out before the Starships come down so the utility of landing the Starships anywhere NEAR the combat zone are essentially nil. (Yes this was a major issue they never resolved with Ithacus and Ithacus Jr., and yes they did come up with a use but it wasn't what most people think :) )

Some ass-hole regional government takes some American students hostage, and 'wham' three starships show up, unannounced, doing only what can be described as the 'Adama maneuver', land, disgorge the troops, who proceed to stomp said regional government thugs into the ground.

Space Force, indeed!

David
Honorary Space Cadet
Click to expand...

1) Why would you assume they were 'unannounced'?
They'd be visible on any space tracking radar, IR tracker and frankly air traffic radar so you're assuming those on the receiving end have no 'friends' that can pass on information and locally lack any means of seeing them coming? Then there is the prep time to launch and the likely possibility that's can't be hidden very well if said "friends" assets extend to something/one around the launch site. (Again here's where orbital standby has some advantages if you're willing to spend the money too do it) Oh and since we'd have to announce we were launching, (while the Cold War may be over there is still a lot of missiles out there just waiting) it's not like it will remain a secret for very long and with communications as they are the "reciever" may know before our own in-place forces do.

2) Landing WHERE exactly? These things are not going to be able to set down in a parking lot, (or sports stadium really) so they won't be near any urban area. Neither are air or sea ports really a viable landing site given the usual amount of volatilizes that tend to be around those places. So it's likely to be somewhere out in the middle of nowhere, with little pre-landing survey and far less support than landing at a spaceport. Possible? Of course, they are planning such for the Mars and maybe the Moon BUT there are a lot of factors that THOSE landings won't be dealing with that these likely will...

3) "Disgorging" troops? Opening the payload by and having them base-jump out? (In full kit?) Taking the elevator a squad or two at a time? (Not like THAT is an invitation to get raked with rifle and MG fire) And speaking of which, two guys and portable motor or RPG load out and the entire vehicle is toast. As it is a squad of Op-For with rifles can render you vehicle so much junk with a couple a mags each. (Of course the landing vehicles are likely scrap anyway, how do you service them and get them back to base considering you likely had to land in the middle of nowhere in the first place?) And you'll be spending most of the time simply securing the landing zone so you CAN unload your equipment such as heavy weapons and ammunition.. If you strip THAT down you nothing but light infantry and likely outgunned and out-numbered and you're tied to you LZ(s) which can't be all that close due to the size and power of the Starship's. Which means you can be surrounded and isolated unless you move quickly after landing which you can't do given the size and complexity of loading and unloading a Starship sized, vertical vehicle.

There's more really, a LOT more. I'd suggest reading some of the Hot Eagle stuff on here and other forums to get an idea of how complicated and likely un-workable the concept is. Specifically using a Starship as a lander. As has been noted the concept isn't new and has been studied extensively and to be perfectly honest the most LIKELY use of a ballistic transport such as this is NOT as a first in transport but a 'fast-package' transport and most concepts end up being expendable simply because "turn-around" capability is near nil..

Point-to-Point passenger and cargo service at the very least has some possible utility and justification, (and even then not as much as many think due to how it would operate and what restrictions it would face) as an alternative use for Starship's that would normally be sitting idle between more dedicated space and orbital missions. Delivering troops and equipment to a combat zone does not.

Randy
 
SpaceX just conducted there 57th successful landing with Falcon 9
 
Last edited:
Both fairings caught but video only showed one---separate video shows other. Both shown on this merged video.

It used to be that embedding Twitter videos would show up but doesn't seem to anymore.


 
TomcatViP said:
I have to admit that in an Iran ambassy hostage case, Starships landing in the infamous Teheran stadium would have solved it!
Click to expand...

As long as they don't "credible sport" themselves into the ground - as did the rocketing Hercules tasked with the job...
 
Elon claimed today that they're going to attempt to fly (aka do a 150m hop with) Starship SN5 "later this week":
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1285617982970961921


I'm skeptical based on how many delays we've seen to the planned static fires of SN5, but they've been doing minimal work on SN5 itself, so it could be that they've been delaying testing to allow for nearby work to be completed (eg: a new bunker-like launch control building near the pad, concrete work at the Super Heavy launch pad, etc). I'm expecting that we're at least a week away from a hop, but time will tell (quite soon) whether my skepticism is correct.
 
Dragon029 said:
Elon claimed today that they're going to attempt to fly (aka do a 150m hop with) Starship SN5 "later this week":
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1285617982970961921


I'm skeptical based on how many delays we've seen to the planned static fires of SN5, but they've been doing minimal work on SN5 itself, so it could be that they've been delaying testing to allow for nearby work to be completed (eg: a new bunker-like launch control building near the pad, concrete work at the Super Heavy launch pad, etc). I'm expecting that we're at least a week away from a hop, but time will tell (quite soon) whether my skepticism is correct.
Click to expand...
Actually the reason you haven’t seen much work on the SN5 itself is because it is the GSE they’ve been working on. I imagine that’s what’s holding things up.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Flyaway said:
We’re rapidly changing alloy constituents & forming methods, so traditional names like 304L will become more of an approximation
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That sounds like a potential recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

not necessary
304L is a alloy better adapted for requirement on Starship and Superheavy construction and operation as now used 301 stainless steel
Could be that on SN09 they build them from 304L and advance successor alloys

https://twitter.com/x/status/1272608382554439680
View: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1272608382554439680
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom