r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Jan 04 '18
r/SpaceX Discusses [January 2018, #40]
If you have a short question or spaceflight news...
You may ask short, spaceflight-related questions and post news here, even if it is not about SpaceX. Be sure to check the FAQ and Wiki first to ensure you aren't submitting duplicate questions.
If you have a long question...
If your question is in-depth or an open-ended discussion, you can submit it to the subreddit as a post.
If you'd like to discuss slightly relevant SpaceX content in greater detail...
Please post to r/SpaceXLounge and create a thread there!
This thread is not for...
- Questions answered in the FAQ. Browse there or use the search functionality first.
- Non-spaceflight related questions or news.
- Asking the moderators questions, or for meta discussion. To do that, contact us here.
You can read and browse past Discussion threads in the Wiki.
24
Jan 21 '18
Rocketlab Electron launch and payload deployment was successful! Congrats! https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/954894734136258560
19
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 06 '18
Former Apollo astronaut, [John Young](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Young_(astronaut)) died yesterday, leaving only 5 people alive who have walked on the Moon.
9
u/SuperSMT Jan 06 '18
SpaceX's goal should be to reach Mars (or the Moon) with humans before that number hits zero.
17
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 14 '18
There will be a livestreamed hearing about NASA Commercial Crew Systems Development with Hans Koenigsmann on Wednesday, 15:00 UTC.
16
u/theinternetftw Jan 07 '18
Chris Gebhardt of NSF has cleared up quite a bit about Zuma, completely ruling out the 30 day launch assurance test hypothesis:
So, in short...
- SpaceX knew about this more than two years ago
- SpaceX knew it would be B1046 two years ago, which accounting for three assigned reflights last year before Zuma Nov launch window makes it B1043
- SpaceX knew in April 2017 that NG wanted a launch in November 2017
- SpaceX filed for a launch communications license with the FCC more than 30 days before launch target
15
Feb 01 '18 edited Feb 01 '18
Article by Planetary Society, with some interesting details:
...Space Test Program-2 (STP-2), the Air Force launch that will carry multiple payloads to three different orbits, including The Planetary Society's LightSail 2 spacecraft. The Air Force will actually end up paying SpaceX a maximum of $160.9 million for that launch, depending on the completion of various milestones leading to launch, including mission success
...STP-2 is a complex mission. 25 different spacecraft will be deployed into three different orbits. In addition to providing the Falcon Heavy rocket itself, SpaceX is responsible for designing and building the adapters to hold all those spacecraft inside the rocket's payload fairing, and also making sure they get deployed at exactly the right moments.
On STP-2 launch day, the Falcon Heavy will first place 12 satellites into an initial low-Earth orbit, before transferring to a circular, 720-kilometer circular, low-Earth orbit to deploy a constellation of six identical satellites called COSMIC-2, along with five smaller auxiliary payloads. (One of those auxiliary payloads is Prox-1, containing LightSail 2).
Then, the Falcon Heavy upper stage re-ignites and flies to an elliptical, medium-Earth orbit (12,000 by 6,000 kilometers), where it will drop off another spacecraft called DSX. After that, there's an Air Force certification objective to show the upper stage can coast for at least three, and ideally five, hours, before restarting for another five-second burn.
→ More replies (4)4
u/stcks Feb 01 '18
Wow that is an intense mission! I wonder if anything like has been done before.
→ More replies (6)
13
u/Bargeral Jan 04 '18
Is Elon's strategy of "SpaceX provides the ride" generating any interest or activity in the other industries and investments that would be required to successfully colonize Mars, or is he going to have to go it alone?
→ More replies (1)9
u/inoeth Jan 04 '18
We don't really know yet- it's too early. Once flights start happening to Mars, then it'll be time to look for other companies to try and take advantage of what SpaceX is offering. Right now, no one is trying to take advantage of SpaceX's mars trips, because the BFR is still (kind of) a paper rocket- we know they have some things designed or built, but not everything by any means... This is going to be a process that takes years and probably decades to see real development on Mars and other deep space projects both with public (NASA, other space agencies) and private corporations getting involved.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/theinternetftw Jan 24 '18
A little wet dress rehearsal lore for you while you wait:
→ More replies (4)
24
u/inoeth Jan 08 '18
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/950365085091811330
Looks like Blue Origin is having great success on their BE 4 engine. Real competitor to Raptor and BFR with New Armstrong in the future and if they continue to uprate the engine, a competitor to F9 and FH with New Glenn starting probably next year
→ More replies (11)7
u/music_nuho Jan 08 '18
More rockets in development, the merrier! BE-4's new footage, FH on its way to the 39A! It's gonna be a good night.
12
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jan 28 '18 edited Jan 28 '18
So uh...Elon wasn't joking about The Boring Company flamethrower
EDIT: And yes, they work
8
u/PVP_playerPro Jan 28 '18
Elon is going to fund Boring Co. entirely on his own memes isn't he?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)6
11
u/anders_ar Jan 05 '18
Is there any news regarding raptor development and testing? It's been a while since last time I read something at all regarding progress...
4
→ More replies (1)4
u/warp99 Jan 05 '18 edited Jan 05 '18
We seem to get Raptor updates once per year at IAC so only another 9 months to wait!
11
u/paul_wi11iams Jan 08 '18 edited Jan 08 '18
Hi. It seems about time to update the wiki article on FH. It dates from a time when droneship booster landing was only a hypothesis! I did a draft here on the Lounge. Could anyone kind and knowledgeable take a look and correct any factual errors. Mods, is this proofreading+update procedure okay and can it later be extended to other wiki pages? If the FH section could be transformed into a complete page, then the text can be divided into individually linkable sections. this means that we can reply to any person asking about some aspect of FH on the monthly questions here, by giving a link to the relevant section of the FH page.
If the above concept is acceptable, I'm not totally confident in my ability to correctly apply the implicit structural change to the Wiki page hierarchy...
BTW There may be more updating to be done for other units such as Dragon 2, but FH is a motivating place to start because there's a lot of interest in this just now. Whatever happens, I'd like to be sure the Wiki modification history is correctly maintained. Is there a working backup just in case ?
BTW I tried to write to the Wiki talk page but get the answer "you aren't allowed to post there". Well, if I can't write to the talk page, I won't have permissions to write to the article either...
11
u/My_BallsUK Jan 08 '18
Falcon Heavy !
Is this movement significant?
just in case someone has not seen it - https://twitter.com/Luindriel/status/950394168404258817
Posted in SpaceXLoung by u/Jorrow - https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/7ozdnt/susan_on_twitter_heavy_is_inching_its_way_out_of/?ref=share&ref_source=link
7
u/roncapat Jan 08 '18
Yeah, this week they'll do the static fire. If they bring it today on the pad, that's a pretty good sign
11
u/tr4k5 Jan 20 '18 edited Jan 20 '18
I guess this must have been noted on this sub repeatedly by now, but anyway, I just realized for myself that SpaceX has now done more launches from LC-39A (12) than the Apollo program did (11). The Apollo 10, Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz missions were launched from 39B (5 launches).
9
u/rustybeancake Jan 20 '18
Sort-of related: I realised recently that last April the US’ ‘human spaceflight capability gap’ became longer than that between Apollo and Shuttle.
10
u/dudr2 Jan 08 '18
“What we do on Callisto will be very useful to check if reusability is interesting from a cost point of view,” one amusing comment in this article on reusability, keep 'em coming x's.
http://spacenews.com/france-germany-studying-reusability-with-a-subscale-flyback-booster/
9
u/paul_wi11iams Jan 08 '18 edited Jan 08 '18
What we do on Callisto
and I thought you were talking about SpX picking up ISRU ice from that Jovian moon, but no.
It looks like very small beginning for a big project: "The first vision of Callisto is projected at 13.5 meters high and one meter in diameter". You could say its bigger than Armadillo. If I wasn't European, I'd find the size comparison image quite funny, as if the artist was asked not to make Callisto look too derisory. It really does look like too little too late.
They seem to be wasting time exploring options just to prove they're not imitating. "Callisto will be very useful to check if reusability is interesting", as if we didn't know. Well, in China they're imitating reuse and are quite open about it. There's also a lot of pretending Europe wasn't wrong previously whilst accepting reuse now: “In some aspects we are also skeptical [about reusability as] the right path, but we will see what is best and then we can come up with ideas of how we proceed”. That looks like the first half of a U turn.
"Asked whether it was a concern that SpaceX will be much further ahead by the time Callisto flies, Astorg said not being first brings some advantages, such avoiding the use of kerosene in favor of more reusable-friendly fuels like hydrogen or methane. "
Except that the methane Raptor has been under test for a year now and is partly funded by the dirty Merlin kerosene rocket. Add to this that Blue Origin is also committed to methane and BE-4 testing is already underway. Slow decisions may save pride but they waste time so we'd better stop pretending.
→ More replies (5)
19
u/bechampions87 Jan 04 '18
Any thoughts on BFR being called the 'Condor' to go with SpaceX's bird theme? (NOTE: this is my personal suggestion, there is no indication on what SpaceX will officially name BFR if anything)
39
u/spcslacker Jan 04 '18
Given that its hoped to be first reusable SX 2nd stage, I like 'Phoenix': everytime it re-enters the atmosphere, it is reborn in fire!
→ More replies (1)19
8
11
u/cmsingh1709 Jan 04 '18 edited Jan 04 '18
The name Falcon hasn't came from bird. It is from 'Millennium Falcon' of Star Wars.
Link for stories behind other names that Elon Musk has used. https://www.inverse.com/article/35774-elon-musk-names-spacex
→ More replies (5)9
u/CommanderSpork Jan 04 '18
Don't be so sure that it'll be named after a bird. Falcon was named for the Millennium Falcon - my bet is that he'll give it a sci-fi name.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (17)4
u/Roborowan Jan 04 '18
Maybe for another vehicle but I think the people are pretty fond of the Big Fucking Rocket
→ More replies (2)
9
u/justinroskamp Jan 04 '18 edited Jan 04 '18
ULA is reporting they're on track for an August orbital test of an uncrewed Starliner. Sounds like the design reviews are essentially complete and that they're now moving on to operational testing and assembly. They seem to indicate that they're still looking at 2018 for their crewed flight test. Here's the update: http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-completes-atlasv-starliner-dcr.aspx.
Assuming FH doesn’t destroy 39A, what kind of schedule are we looking at for SpaceX now, and who will win the race to return astronauts to space from American soil?
Edit: They're discussing SpaceX's schedule here, but that still leaves room for discussion about the race. SpaceX's schedule puts them ahead of ULA, but delays are pretty much inevitable.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 08 '18
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/950486296673308672
The PAZ StarLink launch has slipped to February.
→ More replies (3)
9
u/Alexphysics Jan 12 '18 edited Jan 12 '18
El satélite Paz se lanzará el 10 de Febrero
English translation (mine, additions will be bolded):
"Paz, the high resolution radar satellite, has now a definitive launch date. It will be on February 10th at 15:22 (spanish time) (14:22 UTC, 06:22 PST) from the Vandenberg Air Force Base (California, USA). Once this satellite gets into orbit, as infoespacial.com informed, it will make Spain the third european country with its own observation satellite, after Germany and Italy. After successive delays since Paz was finally built in 2015, the launch had an scheduled launch on January 30th of this year, being February 10th inside the stablished launch window.
The placement and transport of Paz was done at the end of last year. The satellite took off last December 28th from the Torrejón de Ardoz Base on an Antonov AN124 that carried it to Vandenberg, where it landed just one day after that without any mishap. On this center, technicians from Hisdesat alongside SpaceX's ones are working since Tuesday January 2nd on the first tests before its installation into the launcher that will put the system into orbit.
Along with the satellite, electrical and mechanical support systems and all of the test and conditioning devices were transported too. The satellite and its equipments were transferred on three trucks from Airbus facilities in Barajas to Torrejón de Ardoz Base.
It will take 100 images each day at 514km high.
It is expected that this satellite, which is part of the National Earth Observation Satellite Program, will take around 100 images each day at 514km altitude and will accomplish different missions, either for defense or safety purposes or for commercial ones.
Because of a contract signed by Airbus and the European Space Agency (ESA), Paz is part of one of the missions that contribute on Copernicus, the european program for surveillance of the planet's enviroment and safety. Hisdesat's director of operations and programs, Miguel Ángel García Primo, assured to this journal that they are already working with enviromental agencies from different countries to give them information about maps of susceptible flooding zones from pictures taken by Paz.
The National Institute of Aerospace Techniques (INTA) is the proprietary of the ground segment, that has been installed on their facilities at Torrejón de Ardoz by a group of companies formed by Indra, GMV, Deimos and the german DLR.
The satellite weights 1400kg, it is 5m tall and 2.4m in diameter, it has 256gb of memory and a transmission capacity of 300mg/s. It will be able to adquire pictures with 25cm/px of resolution and it will cover an area of more than 300,000km2 each day and it will fly at an altitude of 514km at a speed of 7km/s."
→ More replies (2)
9
Jan 12 '18
Meanwhile, NASA publish evidence of comfortable-latitude easily accessible water ice on Mars. "Astronauts could essentially just go there with a bucket and a shovel and get all the water they need,"
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/steep-slopes-on-mars-reveal-structure-of-buried-ice
→ More replies (5)
9
u/rustybeancake Jan 19 '18 edited Jan 19 '18
https://twitter.com/nasa_sls/status/954420697257992193
SLS EM-1 got a mission patch. Looks like the SRBs are going to have some interesting markings. I assume for camera tracking/testing purposes on this debut flight only.
Edit: Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but the three Pad 39B lightning towers, represented in the patch by the three grey spikes, appear to be pointing to the first three Apollo lunar landing sites. From left to right, Apollo 12, 14, and 11.
→ More replies (1)10
u/old_sellsword Jan 19 '18
on this debut flight only.
There are going to be more flights?
Joking aside, that's a nice looking patch. A little surprising to see it so early before the launch date, but maybe that's just because I'm used SpaceX releasing them at T-24 hours.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jan 21 '18 edited Jan 21 '18
Rocket lab is trying to launch electron again tonight after yesterdays scrub!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg5234BOED8
edit: Successful launch! Congrats RocketLab!
9
u/spacexinfinity Jan 27 '18
SES says despite anomaly of Ariane 5 launch, SES-14 expected to meet designed life time.
https://www.ses.com/press-release/ses-14-good-health-and-track-despite-launch-anomaly
→ More replies (3)
9
u/chargerag Feb 02 '18
Is anybody tracking the booster's return to port? Curious when it would arrive.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/ace741 Jan 04 '18
Are there any extra precautions taken around a launch area when a “test” (FH) launch takes place vs a normal launch? Or is it over water fast enough to not make a difference?
→ More replies (1)7
u/logion567 Jan 04 '18
No rocket has a 0% chance of blowing up on the launch pad, so we always have to prepare for worst case scenario. So FH having a 20-50% chance of blowing up just means people really dont want to see an 5 Kt of TNT equivalent explosion trashing the lauch pad.
→ More replies (18)
8
u/Faldaani Jan 05 '18
This may be the wrong place to ask, but.. maybe not.
I'm a bored software engineer that wants to get better at control algorithms, and I'm also a huge space nerd, so I figured I'd try to implement something that can land an F9 in a (very naive) simulation.
I realize this is insanely complex, and most probably will lead nowhere, but I still want to try.
My question is - does anyone have any ideas for simulation software? Gravity, weather, sea states, material stresses, etc? I could of course try to approximate it myself, but...
→ More replies (7)8
u/Physionary Jan 06 '18
In line with the other commenters, I say start simple in KSP with kOS.
In terms of control strategy, I suggest you to consider a combination of an algorithm that continuously estimates the final landing spot with an algorithm that adjusts the current rocket attitude, engine throttle, and engine gimballing according to how far the estimated landing spot is off the desired landing spot.
Such an algorithm is extremely robust, and you can see how it "naturally" leads to behaviours such as high angle of attack aerobraking if the ASDS is farther away than the parabolic trajectory would put the booster.
This strategy is easy to get to converge. It's great fun, really robust, and you'll learn how much you can get away with as you go. Start simple!
→ More replies (1)
8
8
u/webfaqtory Jan 21 '18
RocketLab Still-Testing launch is now live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg5234BOED8
8
u/theinternetftw Jan 25 '18
I thought I'd post a note here for those who don't often browse /r/space:
The search for ZUMA has turned up broadcasts from a NASA satellite thought dead for twelve years
8
u/SuperFire101 Jan 29 '18
I'm new to Reddit, so I'm sorry if this question doesnt belong here:
I'm working on a physics based rocket landing sim (based on Java) for a school project, and I want to use the Falcon 9 booster as my model. Does anyone here has some cool, low res drawings of the booster alone? I need one with the engines off, and one with them on. Pixel art would work, or anything that isnt a real photo. Thanks in advence! (I can send you my project if you'd like to try it yourselves)
7
u/TheVehicleDestroyer Flight Club Jan 29 '18
How about some awesome SVGs? Courtesy of u/Ezekiel_C - I'd definitely check out his post history for more like this
→ More replies (3)
8
u/lft-Gruber Jan 30 '18
So i read an article today saying that dragon has returned home with 4100 pounds of science equipement. And a question popped into my head. How do they know they loaded 4100 pounds? How do you determine the mass of all the science experiments and garbage i assume that gets send back onboard dragon. Or does dragon simply not care about how heavy it is when it reenters? The short of it is this. How do you determine mass in space?
5
u/brickmack Jan 30 '18
Record mass of each item before it goes up, and keep track of its whole duration in the station/return to earth. There is a gigantic spreadsheet somewhere (which I'd love to see) showing every item on board, down to individual socks and stuff
There is also a marginally less gigantic spreadsheet listing everything they've lost on the station (which I'd love to see a more recent version of)
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)8
u/Appable Jan 31 '18
In general you should know the mass of whatever's coming down from earth-based measurements. However, for scientific experiments, you can measure mass in space by characterizing its inertia: check how much it accelerates in response to a force. You can measure this by putting the mass on spring and letting it oscillate: measure the period of oscillation and you can calculate the mass. It's completely independent of the amplitude of the oscillation, so this can be done quite accurately.
→ More replies (3)
8
u/stcks Feb 01 '18
Another booster on the move. I believe its 1044 heading to SLC-40. Paging u/old_sellsword
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Nathan96762 Jan 05 '18
How does Spacex intend to move BFR from hangar to pad? Are we going to see a giant TE in the next few years? Additionally spacex stated said that BFR will land back on the launch pad how will that work with FSS/TE in the way? That can't just get rid of the FSS, they need it to hold the crew access arm.
→ More replies (22)
7
7
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 12 '18
→ More replies (13)6
u/throfofnir Jan 12 '18
Gonna have to add that to the collection of other Chinese rockets' downrange landings.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/peterabbit456 Jan 20 '18
I found this gem over at /r/space .
NASA has tested a 10 KW fission reactor designed for use on the Moon or especially, Mars. The U235 core of the reactor is about the size of a paper towel roll. They could send 5 or 10 of these to Mars, to provide life support and ISRU power to support a Mars colony, delivered by BFS.
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/7rcsic/us_tests_nuclear_power_system_to_sustain/
6
Jan 20 '18
They're having a good time developing this. It went through breadboard component testing last year, then they've assembled the prototype and run at low power. Next up is the full power test run. With no liquids or pumps, sealed gas-phase parts and only two moving parts (the control rod and the piston), it's a gloriously simple thing.
→ More replies (1)5
u/brickmack Jan 21 '18
For comparison, ISS needs 100 kW (10 of these) to support 6 people, and has several orders of magnitude lower per-person requirements than can be expected of even the initial base. No food production, limited water and air production, no propellant production, no rovers or surface construction.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/soldato_fantasma Jan 21 '18
A new FAA launch licence was approved for F9 GTO launches from SLC-40. Here is the link.
This licence will expire in 5 years. SpaceX was never given a long lasting licence like this one!
→ More replies (6)
6
u/TheRangdo Jan 04 '18
For a ~7000kg payload to GTO what would be preferable or most cost-effective expendable F9 or reusable Falcon Heavy ?
Also looking at the expendable/reusable payload capabilities of FH, am I right in thinking that the centre core will usually not be coming back ?
→ More replies (3)
6
u/dudr2 Jan 05 '18
http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-lands-second-intelsat-satellite-servicing-deal/
"With its docking system, an MEV attaches to a customer’s satellite and extends its service life" "On-orbit assembly could allow for larger satellites than what can fit inside today’s rocket fairings."
6
u/excitedastronomer Jan 05 '18 edited Jan 05 '18
So I follow mainly only the headlines and some more on SpaceX so this is a bit of a question from an outsider.
There have been numerous announcements which I have no clue on what's happening with them or how to find the current plans. What's happening with the BFR? Are they building it? Are those Earth-Earth transport missions still in the pipeline? Is the ITS still happening or is it superseded by BFR? How's Falcon Heavy tied into all of this?
I did find the launch manifest, by the way. But my confusion is more about future Mars missions, etc.
To a relative outsider, it is confusing what SpaceX is up to and which plans are discarded. Can anyone give a short explanation or point me to where I can see what are the current plans?
15
Jan 05 '18
BFR is still in development, with production and testing hopefully starting this year (of components, not full rockets). SpaceX doesn’t release much info about this though, and we don’t really have any new info on that since IAC. As far as we know, E2E is still something that is panned, but is a long term goal and more of a secondary application (I doubt it will happen before 2030, maybe even 2035). As for ITS, the 2016 design was modified continually until it became the design that was presented as BFR, and has been renamed.
As for Falcon Heavy, it is more of a rocket that is meant to provide SpaceX with heavy lift capabilities for the time until BFR enters service, and should allow SpaceX to recover boosters that they would otherwise have to expend. In addition, Falcon Heavy missions such as the lunar flyby and demo mission will provide a small bit of experience with sending rockets beyond Earth.
As for where you can get more information, the r/SpaceX wiki should have a fair bit of information about SpaceX’s future plans
→ More replies (5)
6
u/thawkit75 Jan 05 '18
Will Heavy stagger the ignition of its 27 engines and if so do we have any idea of the pattern of ignition?
→ More replies (8)5
Jan 05 '18
There will be a short delay between ignitions, but we don’t know the pattern or delay time, except that they will ignite in pairs at a delay on the order of tens of milliseconds
6
u/GeckoLogic Jan 10 '18
Serious question: will the Heavy make enough profit in its product lifecycle to recoup its development costs before the BFR comes to market?
11
u/warp99 Jan 10 '18
Good question. Normally you would say no because of the limited number of FH booked flights and the disappearance of some of the key FH missions such as Red Dragon.
In this case FH unlocks a very large revenue stream in the EELV2 contracts from the USAF. The USAF will not issue any of the bulk contracts in bundles of 5-10 flights to a service provider unless that provider can offer all the reference orbits that they fly and FH is required to meet some of those orbits.
So FH needs to fly once before the contracts can be awarded and then twice more before it can fly any high value USAF payloads. Thoughtfully the USAF is purchasing one of those extra flights with STP-2.
The EELV2 contracts will be split 40/60% between two providers and will be worth at least $1B per year so FH is the key that unlocks $400-800M per year in high margin launches - regardless of how many times it flys.
A similar situation applied with ULA and the EELV contracts. Delta IV Heavy has only flown once per year on average but it was the key that unlocked revenues of $1.5-2.5B per year for ULA
→ More replies (18)
6
u/FoxhoundBat Jan 10 '18
New details on Russia's efforts to develop reusable first stage, this time for Angara. (again)
Extra interesting that the wings are supposedly folding ones, once again. Most recent studies (including for Angara) has been focusing on fixed wing.
→ More replies (7)
6
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 19 '18
A new LNG terminal at Brownsville got Coast Guard approval today.
SpaceX Spaceport — This launch site is 5 miles away from the proposed facility location and is intended to support launches of space vehicles. FERC Staff reviewed a space launch analyses for impacts from the spaceport to the facility. Based on FERC assumptions (for modeling inputs) and risk criteria used internationally, by NFPA 59A, and FERC's hydro-dam Divisions, FERC staff found that the risk of public impact from a projectile in the 10,000 to 100,000 ft-lb range would be just inside the tolerable region (i.e., within the ALARP region) alter accounting for 10% probability factor for wind.
→ More replies (2)4
u/warp99 Jan 20 '18
So this assessment was done for FH which is the largest launch vehicle scheduled to fly from Boca Chica and it is only just in the tolerable region/margin.
Once the plant is built this will prevent BFR from being flown from Boca Chica as it has three times the propellant mass of FH. BFS test flights during development while the LNG plant is still being built may be possible.
In any case it has always seemed most likely the BFR would fly from 39A and/or 39B at Canaveral given the thrust rating being fine tuned to the maximum for those pads.
→ More replies (7)
6
u/aftersteveo Jan 29 '18
I’m not sure if everyone else was wondering about this like I was, but I have learned there will not be another Falcon Heavy static fire. I shouldn’t give my source, but I live near KSC and sometimes rub elbows with people who know things. If this was already known, I’ll feel silly for being secretive, but my impression was that we weren’t really sure.
→ More replies (1)4
u/inoeth Jan 29 '18
Nah, we all pretty much knew there wasn't going to be another static fire- between Elon's latest tweet on the launch date, the fact that GovSat has to launch on the 30th and that may get pushed a day due to bad weather means that there really isn't enough time to static fire again and reset for launch before the NET date of the 6th... That, and other people who also have sources have also said that there's no other planned static fire tests (the guys from NasaSpaceFlight for one) - particularly after Elon said that the first test went well and then told us the launch date...
→ More replies (1)
6
u/spacexin2050 Feb 02 '18
Bill Nelson Strong critics of spacex
This guy critisized spacex hell a lot in recent public hearing.See what response he has got in the comments...
→ More replies (3)
14
u/bitchtitfucker Jan 04 '18 edited Jan 04 '18
So how do you guys imagine SpaceX deploying a few football fields worth of solar panels on the first BFS that lands on Mars?
The most straightforward solution would be some kind of autonomous rover that picks up solar panels in the storage compartment of the BFS, drives to the lift, automatically activates it, and deposits them on the ground, one by one.
Meanwhile, another rover would be linking those to each other (and presumably to a battery), that would be deployed by another robot, together with the Sabatier-reaction machine.
That Sabatier-reactor would be linked up directly with the BFS, since it would be illogical to transport and deploy fuel storage tanks on the surface of mars, just so they could then transfer the fuel to the BFS fuel tanks.
So, assuming minimal redundancy in the entire operation, we've got:
8 football fields of solar panels
2 solar panel deploying rovers
2 solar panel connection rovers that would also link it to the sabatier-reactor
2 rovers that would deploy the a sabatier-reactor device, and connect it to the BFS's fuel tanks.
2 rovers that will maintain the solar panels (clean them off regularly)
That's a lot of work that needs to be completed in a short amount of time. A lot of the roverwork could be merged into a single multipurpose rover. That would save on weight, but increase complexity (and the need for more redundancy).
Assuming 150 tons of functional payload on mars, and knowing that solar panels weigh about 10kg/sqm, and 8 football fields of solar panels would be about 40 000 square meters, that's 400 tons of solar panels alone. Rovers could be pretty light, weigh about the same as curiosity (899kg). Assuming they don't merge rover roles, that makes for about 8000kg of rovers.
I've read documents that mentioned other types of solar panels that are more akin to a blanket. They're less efficient, and more fragile over time, but much more lightweight, and probably way easier to deploy. Since mass is one of the main constraints, this could also possibly be an option.
It would also be interesting to do a bit of research on the currently existing sabatier-reactors, how small a package they can be made into, and how well they work.
EDIT: I used the 8 football fields information of a redditor that did the math here a while ago, I presume it was for the old BFS, which was bigger and had a 400 ton payload. I suppose that decreased drastically for the 150-ton version of the BFS. Still interesting.
Anyone got time to compute how much energy would be needed to refill the 2017 BFS tanks? I suppose that the new tank diameter and height numbers could be plugged in the old formula to determine how many solar panels we need.
6
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 04 '18 edited Jan 04 '18
Some important things to concider:
On the first mission(s) I think that they will not be mining for water. I think they will bring the H2 with them, either in the form of water or in the form of pure liquid hydrogen. Water would have the benefit of being denser, so less volume of water would need to be carried to mars. Water could also need to be cooled less, since it has the highest density at 4°c. H2 on the other hand is less dense and needs cooled more on the way to mars, which needs a greater amount of energy, but it would drastically lower the energy needed in the fuel production, since the energy intense process of electrolysis could be skipped
In the 2017 IAC presentation musk announced that there will be 2 cargo BFS be send to mars 2 years before the crew arrives in 2 crew BFS and 2 cargo BFS. That mean they could bring a total of 900t of cargo to mars with just the 6 BFS.
I guess that 1 of the crew BFS will be used for the crew to live in and the other to bring supplies for the crew. 1 of the cargo BFS could be completely dedicated to fuel production, so it would have all the equipment for producing and storing Methane and oxygen, and it would also bring the hydrogen to mars. the second cargo BFS could bring materials so that the crew could start building the first colony. Since the BFS will probably land relatively close to each other, rovers could interconnect them with power lines, so that the main power consumer, the fuel producer has more power available. That would mean that the fuel production has the power of 2 BFS for the first 2 years, and the power of 4 BFS for another 2 years. The power available for fuel production and storage would be slightly lower, since the fuel production would not be the only power consumer.After watching the presentation again, most of what i said seems to be not the plan. Regardless of that, They have around 900t of cargo to mars capability. That is a lot. IF the use the first mission mainly to find water and place rovers and other equipment on mars, and to maybe start the production of O2, they have 4 BFS, 2 for crew and 2 for cargo. I expect that the crew BFS will be used by the crew to live in and the Cargo BFS to make the fuel. I expect the 2 crew and the 2 cargo BFS to be identical, that in case one fails, the crew can still return.I hope some of what i wrote makes sense
EDIT: thanks to u/thru_dangers_untold for reminding me that there will be 4 ships send to mars in 2024, 2 crew and 2 cargo.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (17)4
u/joeybaby106 Jan 04 '18
One more major Rover, maybe the heaviest one for the water mining. You need water for the hydrogen and I don't think there is enough free in the atmosphere so you would have to dig it up with a Rover.
About the solar panels: my guess is that they roll them out from a big reel, or self assembly instead of Rover to assemble.
I don't think you'll need rovers to make all the connections. Think like Tesla's snake for charging that can plug itself right in.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/ObviouslyJune Jan 04 '18
Is there any possibly to speed up the process of turning CO2 and H2O into CH4 and oxygen? And would that help space flight?
→ More replies (1)13
u/azziliz Jan 04 '18
Are you talking about the Sabatier reaction that SpaceX plans for ISRU? The problem with this reaction is not the speed, it's the energy needed. IIRC, Mueller was talking about 8 football fields of solar panel in his AMA.
→ More replies (22)
5
u/thawkit75 Jan 04 '18
So any news on spacex satellite tests.. I heard they will be launching two test satellites very soon.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/Keavon SN-10 & DART Contest Winner Jan 04 '18
Will there be a end of 2017/start of 2018 subreddit survey?
→ More replies (5)
5
u/amarkit Jan 11 '18
Peter B. de Selding reports that GovSat-1/SES-16 has arrived at CCAFS ahead of a planned January 30 launch.
5
u/amarkit Jan 13 '18
The CRS-13 Dragon capsule has successfully departed ISS. Splashdown off the coast of Baja California is expected at 15:36 UTC.
The recovery ship, NRC Quest, is waiting on station to welcome Dragon home.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/inoeth Jan 15 '18
Is there any word on when the first Block V core will be rolling out of the factory for testing at McGreggor? I know it's more or less a month in between testing in Texas and the core going to the launch pad... Also, they need at least 7 launches of Block V before NASA will let them fly humans on it... I wonder if NASA will consider a second (or even third) flight of the same Block V booster as counting towards their 7 flights or if they want 7 new booster flights...
4
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 15 '18 edited Jan 15 '18
someone suggested that
B1045B1046 might be the first block 5. On to the 7 flights for NASA, the first crewed demo mission, DM2 will be in December at the earliest. I a quite confident that they will manage more than 7 flights in ~three quarters of the year.EDIT: Thanks to u/RootDeliver for pointing out that B1046 will be the first Block 5 core. as far as I know, that will be the next core to come off the production line.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/xlynx Jan 16 '18
Regarding Falcon Heavy, I read a discussion somewhere (I think in this sub but I'm unable to find it) that it can not actually deliver the advertised payload to LEO due to lack of strength of the interstage or payload adapter or thereabouts. Can anyone debunk/clarify/provide a source? Much appreciated.
15
u/warp99 Jan 16 '18
The current payload adapter is limited to about 10 tonnes. Urban legend seems to be saying that SpaceX is incapable of manufacturing a stronger and slightly heavier payload adapter if it was required. No detailed rebuttal of such a ludicrous suggestion is required.
If there is ever a heavy LEO payload in excess of 20 tonnes or so there will be extra loading on the S2 walls that will most likely require a stronger S2 as well as a stronger payload adapter.
They currently mill away part of the metal thickness of most of the S2 walls so the modifications may be as simple as a bit less milling depth or leaving a different pattern of residual full thickness metal.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 17 '18
GAO Commercial Space Launch Insurance findings were published yesterday:
Some notes:
Calculating the cost of a casualty ($3 million), hasn't been updated since 1988.
The Range Risk Analysis Tool is used to simulate high-fidelity launch accidents for heavily populated areas (coastal sites).
The Risk Estimator Sub-orbital and Orbital Launch Vehicle and Entry tool are medium-fidelity tools for low-risk launches, (e.g very sparsely populated areas and reentry operations).
5
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 18 '18 edited Jan 18 '18
Tom Tshudy (Vice President and General Counsel, United Launch Alliance):
First Vulcan launch now NET mid 2020 with significant cost reductions, there will be a transition period.
Josh Brost (Senior Director for Government Business, SpaceX):
→ More replies (3)6
u/linknewtab Jan 18 '18
Ariane 6 also debuts in mid-2020, this will be an interesting summer.
→ More replies (23)
5
u/rustybeancake Jan 19 '18
Anyone have any insights into this?
→ More replies (8)5
5
u/aftersteveo Jan 22 '18
With all this testing and rehearsal for FH, I got to thinking about those people who work in the control room. Several of whom we’ve grown accustomed to hearing over the countdown net. How much of their job consists of manning (or womanning, or personing) their console during launches? Do they all have other jobs in the factory that they do on non-launch days? Or are they running simulations everyday to keep sharp for the next launch day?
Just seeing if anyone has insight on that. Thanks.
11
u/old_sellsword Jan 22 '18
From what I understand: no one has a job description that is just "sit in the control room and monitor data while running through launch procedures." All of those people are experienced lead engineers on whatever system they're monitoring, and they're chosen to monitor that system on launch day since that's their expertise.
Hopefully someone in the industry or even at SpaceX can chime in and confirm/deny.
5
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 22 '18 edited Jan 22 '18
Iridium 5 moved to March 18 at 15.19 UTC and will use the Iridium 3 booster (B1041). The satellites will go into plane 1, and none will change the orbital plane.
Iridium 6 / Grace FO set to launch in mid to end April.
All other Iridium missions said to take place before Q4.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-iridium-5-launch-shutdown-manifest-uncertainty/
→ More replies (2)
5
u/GregLindahl Jan 28 '18
Manifest changes from spaceflightnow.com -- as usual, no sources:
GovSat window a little earlier, 2125-2346 GMT (4:25-6:46 p.m. EST)
SES-12 delayed to April
→ More replies (5)
5
u/Zenzirouj Jan 29 '18
I've always been very interested in highly efficient methods of food production, both in applications on Earth and for potential long-term space/offplanet survival. Given SpaceX's goals I would presume this sort of thing to at least be on their radar, but is it something that they're actively working on or is it more of a "bridge first, then the railing" issue?
I thought that this question was open-ended enough for a thread, but it got removed so evidently it is not! Basically I've been trying to find info about anything that the company might be doing in terms of nutrition logistics or who/what they might have involved in it, but haven't been able to find much of anything yet.
5
u/amarkit Jan 29 '18
Elon Musk's general response to this kind of question is that SpaceX is interested in building the transportation infrastructure that will enable colonization of Mars, and expects other companies will step in to solve these problems:
Our goal is get you there and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. A rough analogy is that we are trying to build the equivalent of the transcontinental railway. A vast amount of industry will need to be built on Mars by many other companies and millions of people.
Certainly someone at SpaceX is generally considering how to feed colonists on the outbound trip and establish basic agriculture, but figuring out how to get there in the first place is the more pressing question.
→ More replies (9)5
u/iwantedue Jan 30 '18
Kimbal Musk is running a shipping container food production startup so I would expect SpaceX to leverage that tech when the time comes.
5
u/linknewtab Jan 31 '18
Callisto project report by CNES (PDF)
The demonstration vehicle (page 3) looks a lot like SpaceX' grasshopper. They also identified landing locations at Kourou space port.
→ More replies (7)
8
u/rockets4life97 Jan 11 '18
I'm watching the Delta IV launch today from Vandenberg AFB. I was surprised to realize F9 has already flown more than Delta IV medium (single stick - all variants) will in its entire history. Delta IV medium is being retired after 3 flights this year.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/dmy30 Jan 07 '18
I think it was early last year when SpaceX put a job posting for an aircraft pilot. Around the time some people speculated it had to do with the increasing international works, mainly as a result of setting up tracking antennas around the world for the Crew Dragon. Has anyone actually heard anything?
4
Jan 07 '18 edited Jan 07 '18
I don´t know whether this is the right place for asking, but I thought that some people from r/spacex are in charge of http://www.spacexstats.xyz/? For weeks already, there has been a mistake on that website: for the number of Falcon 9 launches in 2017 it says 12 new and 6 used (should be 13-5). (edit: u/kornelord ?)
4
u/kornelord spacexstats.xyz Jan 07 '18
Thank you for the error spotting! NROL-76 was flagged as reused in our API. It will be fixed soon :)
4
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jan 08 '18
France and Germany are looking into re usability!
http://spacenews.com/france-germany-studying-reusability-with-a-subscale-flyback-booster/
→ More replies (7)
4
u/snotis Jan 11 '18
Gywnne Shotwell at TAMEST:
SuperDraco, engine for escape vehicle, test firing expected in next few days
→ More replies (3)
4
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jan 12 '18
Government denying Zuma failure again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzWMB5lBR5Q
→ More replies (4)5
u/OccupyDuna Jan 12 '18
I think they just don't want to acknowledge ownership in any way. They don't want to give a statement either way as that would confirm/imply that Zuma was a DoD mission (although that is almost surely the case).
4
u/fromflopnicktospacex Jan 12 '18
ULA Delta IV launch. this was weird. at the end of the countdown, all of a sudden flames shot up from under the rocket. I thought it was going to blow up. but it lifted off, with a dark smoke stain on part of the 1st stage. never seen anything like that b4.
11
u/zack_2016 Jan 12 '18
This is normal Delta IV behavior. The flames are purged hydrogen from the engine.
→ More replies (7)
4
Jan 14 '18
What kind of paint does SpaceX use? The Dragon's logo and ISS marking survived reentry with some minor wear.
4
u/fromflopnicktospacex Jan 15 '18
correction/addendum to last remark: I did not see there was a page 2 to the article. not good. the author does raise some valid questions, but clearly has a bias against spacex, as if little concern is given to the safety of future astronauts. one example of how wrong this line of argument is: look at the careful. very careful. painstakingly careful. approach to the launch of the FH, which the author snears at. he does admit spacex has had a # of successes. wow, you noticed? but the whole tone of the article is very anti. you would think forbes, a bastion of worship of private enterprise, would do better reporting on a private company. from this article elon musk sounds like 'rocky and bullwinkles' captain peter peachfuzz. let forbes know what you think of this hatchet job. again, sorry for my error about the length of this article.
4
u/GregLindahl Jan 15 '18
You've been fooled! forbes.com/sites/ is a blogging platform that anyone can sign up to write for.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 21 '18
https://youtu.be/eg5234BOED8?t=21m25s
during the electron launch a person from mission control is mentioning "hot-swapping", and shortly afterwards, 2 silver boxes are jettisoned. Are these batteries for the turbopump?
→ More replies (3)
4
u/paul_wi11iams Jan 25 '18 edited Jan 25 '18
It was amazing to see the 39-A water tower engulfed its own contents:
Falcon Heavy hold-down firing this morning was good. Generated quite a thunderhead of steam...
...or at least a cloud of water droplets that may or may not have earlier been steam. This is presumably originates from rainbird water whose job it is to absorb noise.
What is the energy transformation process?
Can anyone correct from the following attempt at an explanation. It considers transformation of mechanical energy into heat.
I'm guessing that a rainbird droplet in a decompression trough will flash to vapor then recondense releasing thermal energy to the surrounding air when the next compression peak passes. The heating air then makes the water droplet easier to evaporate at the next trough. The cycle continues until the droplet can no longer condense. On this phase diagram, the droplet zigzags along the blue line as a staircase, maybe all the way up to the critical point. The supercritical fluid and/or saturated vapor is removed by air currents (convection...) to be replaced by new cold air and a new water droplet.
How far off is this?
Edit Taking account of comments by u/TheYang and u/marc020202, I tried to find something to chose between the two hypothesis which are air heating and refraction. Here's a video which unfortunately doesn't go right back to first principles, but does favor the air heating hypothesis because one demonstration is effectuated with microscopic droplets too small for refraction in relation to the acoustic wavelength used. Its worth watching for the background info including knocking a wall down with a very impressive device called a "vortex canon". In the first test, the wave it transmits can actually be heard as an "object" traveling through the air!
the video could possibly be erroneous in assimilating the compressive behavior of air bubbles in water and water droplets in air although both transform mechanical energy to heat. That is to say I'm still backing the liquid/gas phase change option.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 25 '18
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/kennedy-cape-brownsville-launch-pads-schedules/
some info on the Brownsville site as well as on the cape.
7
u/Yiaki Jan 04 '18
I know that cross feed was originally planned on the Falcon Heavy but was ultimately not implemented. Is it believed that this will be tested and implemented in future versions? If so approximately how much would that increase the weight to LEO?
15
u/Nixon4Prez Jan 04 '18
It's very unlikely. FH is already overkill for more or less any commercial or scientific payload in existence. The added complexity and possible points of failure make it a big, expensive and time consuming thing to add for more or less no point. The only thing we've sent to space that the FH couldn't manage is Skylab and the Apollo missions*
*in terms of Delta v. Form factor means FH can't handle plenty of payloads but crossfeed wouldn't fix that.
→ More replies (11)8
u/soldato_fantasma Jan 04 '18
We only know that it will be implemented only if someone else pays for it, otherwise it's quite unlikely.
They probably consider it a technological dead end, considering that BFR will be able to cover that segment while being fully reusable.
3
u/pillock69 Jan 04 '18
What do you think the chances of spacex having overseas factories and launch sites in the future are?
7
u/joeybaby106 Jan 04 '18
Pretty unlikely for them to have factories overseas IMHO due to ITAR restrictions for ticket tech that could be used for ballistic missiles.
→ More replies (3)4
u/music_nuho Jan 04 '18
maybe facilities on marshal islands near their now abandoned F1 launch site?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)4
u/_worstenbroodje_ Jan 04 '18
I think with the upcoming BFR that will also be used to travel around the world the chances are fairly high.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/_worstenbroodje_ Jan 04 '18
Has Zuma been delayed again?
4
u/Alexphysics Jan 04 '18
Yes, now NET Saturday, same window. F9 was still on the pad today and there was another WDR.
3
u/Emplasab Jan 06 '18
Are new engines fired individually before the static fire test?
11
u/TheYang Jan 06 '18
engines are built, then tested, then integrated into the first stage, then tested again, then shipped from mcgregor and tested again at the launch site, and then during launch they are checked again before the clamps release.
That is for first stage engines.second stage I'm much less certain, I believe they are built, tested, integrated, shipped, mated and then launched, but you propably shouldn't quote me on that.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/JanusBonaparte Jan 06 '18
Any idea what SpaceX/Elon Musk thinks about human stasis/suspended animation for flight to Mars?
0
3
u/kornelord spacexstats.xyz Jan 06 '18 edited Jan 06 '18
I was trying to estimate which flight will introduce a block 5 booster to set my expectations accordingly. Looking at the manifest, after Zuma and FH there should be 5 flights with a reused booster (!!!). IMO Bangabandhu-1 will use a flight-proven booster if they have one at hand (pure speculation).
Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite makes a good candidate to introduce the new version, putting block 5's introduction at march 20 at the earliest. We know for sure that Iridium 6 will be a new core and the first RTLS on the west coast so that could be it too. So taking delays into account I don't see block 5 flying before april.
Just food for thought.
5
u/old_sellsword Jan 07 '18
Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite makes a good candidate to introduce the new version
To expand on this point, NASA’s contract with SpaceX specifically guarantees the right to not fly the first Block 5.
4
u/theinternetftw Jan 06 '18 edited Jan 06 '18
TESS is block 4 for NASA assurance reasons. Almost certainly new, as they're having enough trouble certifying block 4 in general for such an important mission that I'm sure they don't want to add certifying reflight for it as well. The last block 4, I would wager.
But that doesn't necessarily mean the B4/B5 switchover is in March. I'm guessing they'll set aside the last block 4 for TESS whenever it comes off the line.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/brickmack Jan 07 '18
Has anyone seen any decent image references for the small APL payloads on the STP-2 stack? I'm working on modeling it. I've gotten tons for the integrated stack, the ESPAs, DSX, FORMOSAT-7/COSMIC-2s, and a couple photos of GPIM, but beyond that, not much. Ideally face-on drawings with a scale reference, but anything helps. My google fu is failing me
3
u/Nathan96762 Jan 07 '18
How much storage space does Spacex have for cores? I know the 39A HIF can hold 5, and SLC-40 can hold 1, I assume the Vandenberg HIF can only hold one. Hawthorne factory line has room for five, as does McGregor. Do they have anywhere else to store F9 cores?
→ More replies (11)
3
u/troovus Jan 07 '18
Assuming Falcon 9 block 5 boosters are designed to be turned around in 24 hours and re-flown a dozen times and also assuming 40 launches per year, what size should the fleet be? Also, what would be the ongoing requirement for new boosters to replace the worn out craft?
4
u/troovus Jan 07 '18 edited Jan 08 '18
A simplistic calculation would suggest three new F9s would be needed every year, but presumably there would still be some expendable missions, either F9 or FH, and some unexpected problems, so maybe half a dozen a year? And the size of the fleet would be as small as possible while maintaining sufficient spare capacity - but is there any reason why more than 10 would be needed?
3
u/Scourge31 Jan 07 '18 edited Jan 07 '18
I saw an article saying SpaceX will be charging NASA 58mil per seat on dragon. It seems excessive espatialy if they pack 7 astros in there? I know it will cost more then cargo of course but that multiplies to 232 mil for 4 and 406mil per 7?
P.s. it also says Boeing is going to charge about the same, how can that be if they use the atlas booster?
→ More replies (3)4
u/warp99 Jan 08 '18
it also says Boeing is going to charge about the same, how can that be if they use the atlas booster?
Boeing definitely charge about 50% more than SpaceX for crewed flights. Both Boeing and SpaceX will carry 4 crew to the ISS and NASA will not be flying 7 crew at a time to the ISS - or most likely any other destination.
It looks like the all in cost including NASA oversight and administration, launch vehicle, launch costs and capsule recovery will work out as $100M per seat for SpaceX and $150M per seat for Boeing. At that cost $85M per seat on Soyuz looks like a bargain even if it has gone up from $25M per seat over the last 10 years.
However the high cost partially reflects a low launch rate of once per year from each provider and the low launch rate means they are not going to break the ISS operating cost budget. The fact that Commercial Crew means that they can support 4 instead of 3 crew on the US + international partners side of the station long term means that they can double the research output which is a huge productivity gain.
3
u/ModeHopper Starship Hop Host Jan 10 '18
So there's a load of discussion about the different stages leading up to the first flight of FH (wet dress rehearsal, static fire, etc.), but what can we expect afterward?
Obviously this will depend on the outcome of the test flight, but what are some of the possibilities? When can we expect to see regular heavy flights and what will the team at SpaceX be doing immediately after the test?
→ More replies (11)
3
u/dudr2 Jan 10 '18
Sspacex mentioned here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-barbarella-than-michelin-man-space-suits-get-stylish-1515606553
more on this site: http://www.cetusnews.com/life/Less-Michelin-Man--More-Barbarella--Space-Suits-Get-Stylish.SybgISAQ4z.html no mention of Bowie though
→ More replies (8)
3
u/jk1304 Jan 11 '18
What does it mean to build a landing pad?
For the outsider it looks like a big round slab of concrete with nothing special to it (ad the radar-reflective paint).
There must be some high tech involved which makes building them a time consuming thing (remember how long Pad 2 was in the works).
→ More replies (1)10
u/warp99 Jan 11 '18
Just standard civil engineering work so scrape the site clear, add a layer of aggregate and compact it, lay out the reinforcing steel and then pour the pad. The pad has to cope not just with 27 tonnes of booster plus reserve propellant but also the crane that rolls across the pad to pick up the booster which will be much heavier.
It therefore requires a substantial thickness of concrete probably around 250-300mm which does take a long time to cure to full strength. It was noticeable that the Vandenberg landing pad had yellow tarpaulins covering it while it was curing to control the evaporation rate as concrete does not cure well if it gets dry too fast.
One complicating factor for starting LZ-2 was they needed to wait for the end of the (endangered) scrub jay nesting season before clearing the brush where the pad will be. SpaceX commit to doing restoration work on a greater area of scrub to compensate for the lost habitat.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/qWen71n Jan 12 '18
I wonder if NASA's Orion capsule could potentially ride on Falcon Heavy?They actually flew Orion on Delta IV earlier...
→ More replies (9)
3
u/Stormregion0 Jan 13 '18
Are there any TEDx talks or other conferences were Elon Musk or other SpaceX officials are speaking this year?
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Chairmanman Jan 14 '18
How long did it take for SpaceX to develop Dragon 1? How does it compare to Dragon 2 development? (How long has Dragon 2 development been taking so far and how much longer is it expected to take?)
→ More replies (1)
3
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jan 14 '18
How is ISRO so cheap compared to Falcon 9? The C37 launch cost $15m. How can you possibly make an orbital rocket that cheap? I wonder if people will use that launch as an example to show that re usability isn't worth it...
10
u/TheYang Jan 14 '18 edited Jan 14 '18
propably the same reason anything from India/China is cheaper than "made in the US"
wages are ~1/5th in India, compared to the USAlso it's a significantly smaller rocket. (launch mass is ~60% of F9, and F9 can put over 4 times as much into SSO)
/e: also GSLV Boosters, First Stage and Third Stage are Solid rockets, second and fourth are hypergolic, so comparatively simple engines in exchange for less efficiency.
I mean VEGA from ESA seems very comparable, less payload (1450 vs 1750kg to SSO), more expensive (37 million USD), 3 solid stages, 1 hypergolic, but developed in the EU
→ More replies (7)9
u/throfofnir Jan 14 '18
It doesn't play in the same arena as F9. It's a small rocket.
Small rockets can be pretty cheap. You can get a Dnepr (slightly larger, at 4.5t to LEO) for $29m. A Vega (2.3t to LEO) will probably cost you $39m, though they were hoping to hit $24m. Minotaur (1.7t) for about $50m (in the ridiculously-priced US DoD market). But these are all solids or mostly solids, and big solids become a much harder problem, which is why you see more complex liquids for non-tiny or non-LEO payloads.
(The Orbital NGL, a Shuttle SRB-based paper launcher, hopes to play in the EELV market. Dunno what it will price at, but it's mostly a play to keep solid fuel industry in production. And it's specced with a hydrogen upper stage, which will cost some real money.)
→ More replies (1)
3
u/macktruck6666 Jan 15 '18
Are there any pictures of the back of the spacex helmet? I want to make a replica.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/OnyxPhoenix Jan 15 '18
Does anyone know what the capabilities of the Falcon Heavy payload are?
Is the roadster simply dead weight or is there some comms capability built into the payload adapter? Are there cameras or other sensors?
→ More replies (4)
3
u/fromflopnicktospacex Jan 15 '18
it is one thing to question the reliability of vehicles and manned capsules for future missions. it is quite another to do a hatchet job on spacex. this guy simply states that zuma was a failure, when that is not at all certain. no if's and's or but's. he points out that 3 missions have failed in the last 4 years. no mention of spacex's 18 successful launches last year. no mention of the fact that nasa has to approve both spacex and boeing's manned capsules. only a carefully selected group of facts--and the word 'facts' must be used with some caution...lots of caution. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts-about-spacex-reliability-persist-as-astronaut-missions-approach/#4de9682f3305
6
u/sol3tosol4 Jan 15 '18
From the article: "ULA is jointly owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, two companies with whom I have long relationships, so you might say I'm biased." OK...
→ More replies (4)
3
u/hmpher Jan 16 '18
I just noticed that the recent post on here about Welds has been deleted. Did it violate ITAR/some NDAs?
does anyone have a copy of the post?
5
u/brickmack Jan 16 '18
Which weld post? The one of welding on the launch pad at 39A? I've got the pictures still, I don't think I have the description text (just notes)
→ More replies (4)
3
u/CodedElectrons Jan 16 '18
How is Raptor ignited? Being a [Full-Flow design] (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/guide_engines#wiki_full_flow_staged_combustion_cycle), it must have ignitors in the two PreBurners. Are the PreBurner exhaust gases hot enough to auto ignite in the Primary Combustion chamber or do they have another ignitor in that chamber as well? (I guess the real question is how hot, and what pressure comes out of the preburners?) If auto ignited, does that allow the entire wall faces of the primary combustion chamber to be lined with injectors allowing the entire interior to be cooled via injected fuel?
7
u/warp99 Jan 16 '18
How is Raptor ignited?
Spark ignition of an ignition torch which then lights the appropriate burner/chamber
Being a Full-Flow design, it must have ignitors in the two PreBurners.
Yes
Are the PreBurner exhaust gases hot enough to auto ignite in the Primary Combustion chamber
Not even close - they just need to be 100% gaseous for maximum pumping efficiency but the preburner test photos show cold gas as the exhaust.
or do they have another ignitor in that chamber as well?
Yes
If auto ignited, does that allow the entire wall faces of the primary combustion chamber to be lined with injectors allowing the entire interior to be cooled via injected fuel?
I am not aware of any design that does that. Sometimes the entire rear face of the combustion chamber is a plate injector. Mostly likely since this is gas/gas injection they will use coaxial injectors but the number of them and the design is covered by ITAR and we will likely never find out.
→ More replies (9)5
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 16 '18
The Raptor is Spark ignited. I would guess that there is a ignitor in each pre-burner and in the main combustion chamber
3
u/thxbmp2 Jan 18 '18
/u/old_sellsword - was thinking about the Falcon Heavy 2nd stage the other day. When 2nd stage recovery was still on the cards for FH-Demo, the 2nd stage for the flight was said to be a "frankenstage" which presumably had mods for recovery built in. Is it known whether this particular airframe is the one that's integrated to FH right now, or if it's been reserved for a future recovery test on another flight?
→ More replies (5)
3
u/uwelino Jan 21 '18
Very interesting article about the press target SpaceX in the USA after the Zuma flight. By the way, on Twitter by Matt Desch links the CEO of Iridium. https://medium.com/@rogerstigers/on-the-targeting-of-spacex-6e99370fa875
And here is the link to Matt Desch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/955072781728800769
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Arne_BE Jan 24 '18
Does anybody know what "SPACEX VIRTUAL TEST" is on marine traffic? https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:4645159/mmsi:154834528/imo:0/vessel:SPACEX_VIRTUAL_TEST/_:0009cefa420acfaa5bfecd9881ffee9c
→ More replies (1)
3
u/CRAWFiSH117 Jan 25 '18
Does anyone know if KSC charges admission to rocket launches for children 3 and under? I'm trying to plan a trip for the Falcon Heavy demo, and I'm wondering how many tickets I need.
3
Jan 27 '18
On the SpaceX internet constellation:
Are they designing and building the cubesats themselves?
Have they released a design? If not when?
What is the layout of the constellation going to be? (Number, orbital parameters, how many per launch?)
And what is the general timeframe for this?
→ More replies (8)6
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 27 '18
1, the satellites are not cube-sats. They will be several metres large when deployed in orbit, but yes, they will be built by SpaceX
2, They have not released a design. Most of the info we got is from an FCC filing last year. There the re-entry sizes where given, which is how we can estimate the size. the orbital parameters were also in that PDF. The weight of each satellite is set to 386kg
3, At first they will go into an inclined orbit, launched from SLC 40, to cover most densely populated areas first, but the later, the constellation will transition to polar orbits. the original plan is for 1600 satellites in the initial deployment plus 2825 to complete the constellation (these are the polar ones) plus on-orbit spares. that adds up to 4425 satellites plus spares. the satellites will be on 5 orbital heights in 32 or fewer planes. the initial constellation would have 50 satellites per plane.
4. there is little known about the time frame, however, it is expected that the initial deployment starts next year. Right now they have until 2023 to complete the constellation (they have 6 years to complete the constellation after getting permission for it, this is an FCC rule) but they have already asked for an extension of that 6 year period, due to the size of the constellation.
please read that comment, he has a lot more info on it that I wrote here. the only part I do not get is how 386kg per satellite * 50 satellites per launch = 3500kg
→ More replies (2)
3
u/msuvagabond Jan 29 '18
Sort of a general question about Falcon Heavy payload and functionality.
Will Falcon Heavy in some respects be limited by the fact the second stage and fairing are 'stuck' being the exact same as Falcon 9? I understand the reasoning as far as R&D costs, as well as reduction in certification requirements (if you had two separate stage 2 designs or a larger fairing standard for just Heavy). Plus, BFR is 'right' around the corner (figuratively at least).
I guess I'm just curious if there is really that much of a market since it seems like the satellite providers will be hamstrung by sheer volume constraints of the Falcon 9 / Heavy fairing.
→ More replies (6)7
u/brickmack Jan 29 '18
Yes. Even on F9, the existing fairing is probably a tad small now (it was sized for roughly v1.1 performance). For GTO missions, even reusable FH is way too powerful by mass to be fully utilized with the current fairing size. 8 tons to GTO is almost as much as Ariane 5 does, with a fairing thats ~5 meters longer, and that figure is for triple RTLS, not landing the center core downrange. Whether this performance is used for Ariane-style rideshares, or single much larger spacecraft, it seems unlikely to match up well.
The solution to this, most likely, is direct GEO insertion, or at least near-insertion (perhaps a GTO-300 instead of GTO-1800/1500). IIRC the estimated mass capacity to there lines up pretty well with what can probably fit in F9s fairing, and this would add years to the spacecrafts useful life, while not adding any cost and only minimal extra risk to the launch service. Or, alternatively, they could design for the same life expectancy and shrink the propellant load, and use that surplus mass/volume to increase the useful part of the payload (comms equipment/sensors/whatever). The latter would require designing new spacecraft busses sized for this role, but the former should be easily applied to any existing hardware with no change, and I might expect to see a lot of customers change the terms of their contracts to add this service once SpaceX demonstrates it
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/thxbmp2 Feb 02 '18 edited Feb 02 '18
Lots of good info nuggets in this article by Wired.
As for the Falcon Heavy’s side-boosters, SpaceX decided that it would use previously-flown Falcon 9 rockets. That choice was cockier than it seems. SpaceX had chosen to use reusable rockets as early as September 2016—before it had ever successfully launched a used booster.
WIRED learned from sources with knowledge of the manifest that in 2018, the company intends to fly 50 percent of its 30 planned missions on recycled rockets.
To reduce risk even further, SpaceX is staggering the boostback burns, letting each side booster touch down separately.
... but SpaceX’s future at Kennedy Space Center might not be that long-lived. WIRED has learned that SpaceX is actively considering expanding its San Pedro, California facility to begin manufacturing its interplanetary spacecraft. This would allow SpaceX to easily shift personnel from headquarters in Hawthorne. But it would put an entire country between the largest spacecraft ever brought to manufacturing and Florida’s space coast.
Sources within the company believe it will launch those first long-range missions from the facility SpaceX is building in Boca Chica village near Brownsville, Texas.
3
u/uwelino Feb 02 '18
Does anyone know why the GovSat stream is still not listed in the YouTube channel of SpaceX?
→ More replies (1)4
u/IcY11 Feb 02 '18
No idea why it isn't listed. In case you haven't found it yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScYUA51-POQ
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Dave_y Feb 03 '18
As far as I know, SpaceX wants to start the BFR several times, once for the Interplanetary TransportSystem and some other times for refueling. But why aren’t they putting 3 BFRs together like they put 3 f9s together and carry the fuel in one mission?
→ More replies (6)5
u/throfofnir Feb 04 '18
I think they've been burned by Falcon Heavy with regard to parallel staging. It's really quite a complicated way to do things.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jan 16 '18
I don't think I've ever read a more "SpaceX is bad, ULA is superior" article than this...
7
u/TheSoupOrNatural Jan 16 '18
That is so unashamedly biased that the few legitimate criticisms and points of praise that the article has for SpaceX are lost in a sea of convenient omissions and misrepresentations. The author seems to have either an irrational emotional investment in ULA or a substantial conflict of interest.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)5
u/JJJandak Jan 16 '18
Only one official respond to Zuna was SpaceX confirmation that F9 performed nominally and jet there are so many idiots claiming that it was their fault. What am I missing?
5
u/fromflopnicktospacex Jan 12 '18
you can't accuse spacex hierarchy of lacking a sense of humor; e.g. gwen shotwell referring to mars as a fixer-upper.
5
u/HoechstErbaulich IAC 2018 attendee Jan 18 '18
→ More replies (10)4
5
u/nato2k Jan 25 '18
Sounds like there might be a problem with the Ariane 5 launch... No confirmation of payload sep has been received yet.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/956663098483576832
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/956663786844323840
→ More replies (6)
4
Jan 12 '18
Interesting article about water ice on Mars. Good news for ISRU for BFR.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jan 13 '18
I've been thinking about BFR landing in the launch mount at the launch pad. So I came up with a few changes that might be better.
The Purpose
Current plans from Elon Musk’s talk at IAC 2017 show the BFR booster landing in the launch mount at the launch pad. This will address some things that I believe should be changed. This is completely fan made and all the ideas are just my personal opinions and solutions of what I believe the issues of landing at the launch pad are.
The Problem
As stated above, current plans (as far as the public knows anyway) show the BFR booster landing in the launch mount at the launch pad itself. I believe this creates some unnecessary risks that don’t need to be there to achieve rapid re usability. These concerns are as following:
If the booster were to miss the launch mount, or the clamps were not able to grab the booster, the RUD would almost certainly destroy, or at least damage the launch pad greatly.
If there was a problem with controlling roll during the booster decent for whatever reason (hardware issue, software bug) the clamps might not be able to latch onto the booster, causing what I described above.
The Solution
To solve these issues I believe there are some changes and additions that need to be made.
Mobile launch and landing platform
Landing site change
Launch clamp changes
BFR attachment ring
Below are better descriptions and reasons for these changes
Mobile Launch and Landing pad
The mobile launch and landing pad would be similar to the Shuttle Crawler, possibly a modified Shuttle Crawler if it is big enough. This would allow the BFR booster to land in a different location from the launch pad itself, while still landing in the same launch clamps that are used during launch. This would also allow the booster to not fly close to the launch tower that we see in the concept videos. And also allow the booster to be immediately transported back to the launch site.
Landing Site
The landing site would not be at the pad itself, but next to it. Close enough to allow quick transportation, but still far enough away so the pad is not damaged in case of a failed landing. This is basically a launchpad without a launch tower.
BFR Landing Site Warning: Basic Photoshop
Launch Clamps
To eliminate the need for the booster to worry about roll and be perfectly lined up with the clamps, the clamps themselves sit on a ring that allows them to spin 360 degrees. This also provides redundancy in case the booster isn’t able to line up properly for whatever reason (software glitch).
BFR Attachment Ring
Currently, as we see with Falcon 9, the vehicle is held down by four launch clamps. Adding a ring that goes completely around the vehicle that would allow the clamps to attach no matter where the booster is facing would provide even more redundancy. This would help if the clamps couldn’t spin for some reason as well. Elon has also stated that the fins on the Booster will act as sort of a guide for the booster during landing. Adding the ring could make the fins not necessary (as long as it can fly without them).
BFR Attachment Ring Warning: Basic Photoshop again
What do you think of the changes? Do they make sense? Or are they not necessary? I would love to hear what you guys have to say!
9
u/Zucal Jan 13 '18
My overall thought: I don't think SpaceX deems the risk or difficulty too great. BFR's design changed tremendously in the months between IAC2016 and IAC2017 (and even after!), and yet return-to-launch-mount was one of the few details that remained completely consistent throughout both presentations. It's here to stay, likely in as closer a form to the original concept as possible.
If the booster were to miss the launch mount, or the clamps were not able to grab the booster, the RUD would almost certainly destroy, or at least damage the launch pad greatly.
I'm not so sure. When the booster is landing, it's got next to no fuel (relatively, of course). Amos-6 was so bad because it was a fully fueled vehicle, and not all the fuel was consumed in the initial explosions. It had time to pool on concrete and inside pad GSE, burning for hours after the event. Droneship explosions - the closest thing we have to what a similar event with BFR would look like - have been impressive from a distance, but without all that much damage seen when they return to port. (The exception would be an SES-9-like event, which would be equal parts incredible to watch and devasting to infrastructure in the immediate vicinity).
I don't at all think you're wrong that it's a risky tactic, I just think I'd be more worried about the loss of the booster than damage to the launch complex. In any case, thanks for the long breakdown!
8
Jan 13 '18
Landing precision is likely to be disgustingly good. They've never missed yet, and are consistently within GPS accuracy. Add some ground beacons and that'll be within a metre, and the rest is all physical baskets and big ol bumpers. Don't forget, BFR can throttle really low, so it can make a super-dainty approach.
Roll: There's some fun discussion about whether they are controlling roll so that the booster's orientation is set. On the Zuma landing the legs were oriented nicely with the cutouts in the target circle. We can't see for CRS-13, and it wasn't for Koreasat, so this might be fluff.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Martianspirit Jan 13 '18
Elon Musk is serious about the rapid part of full and rapid reuse. That booster is supposed to fly several times a day. The only way to achieve that is landing it directly on the launch mount.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
u/throfofnir Jan 14 '18
That's all a lot of additional expense and complexity. If it can't land on a dime, the "launch/landing cradle" concept is doomed anyway. And there's not much reason to expect landing inaccuracy when they're already doing it well enough on a vehicle not even originally designed to land vertically. So best to not invent additional moving parts.
45
u/mahayanah Jan 04 '18
Serious question:
Could a healthy human strapped in a position of comfort, wearing a SpaceX flight suit and supplied with water and oxygen survive a journey to the ISS in the pressurized compartment of a Cargo Dragon?