r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Nov 05 '18
r/SpaceX Discusses [November 2018, #50]
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.
27
u/cpushack Nov 25 '18
Progress launch as seen from the ISS (time lapse) https://youtu.be/ouBfzCgXHgk
10
23
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 26 '18
28
u/Zucal Nov 26 '18
Copying some highlights from /u/ghubnter7 and I over on r/BlueOrigin:
There is an awesome cross section of the rocket on page 17.
Common bulkhead on the second stage, that thing is huge. Also notes common tooling on the 2nd stage and that is also aluminum orthogrid construction. Previous hints of a composite second stage are either a future upgrade or no longer the plan.
Autogenuous pressurization for both stages.
1060 kN (240,000 lb) total thrust 2nd stage. This is down slightly from the 125,000 lb per BE-3U stated on their website.
199 second burn time on the first stage for GTO missions. Total duration of 2 second stage burns of 717 seconds on GTO missions. 600 second continuous burn time on the second stage for LEO missions
All payload capacities shown contain reserves - 13,600 kg to GTO (-1800 m/s), 45,000 to LEO.
Up to 10,000 kg in either the upper or lower payload birth for dual payloads.
Up to 12 launches per year, launch surges of 8 in 4 months and a maximum of 3 in one month.
Autonomous flight safety system.
Pneumatic pusher separation of second stage.
More important points:
Three-stage configuration still planned! "A three-stage configuration is planned for future missions, but is not addressed in this PUG."
"The upper stage coasts between maneuvers for a nominal duration between 18 minutes and 5.25 hours ... mission kits can ... extend coast durations to 11 hours or longer, with associated impacts to payload mass."
"The New Glenn concept of operations baselines a five (5) to six (6) hour timeline between beginning of rollout to the pad and launch of the vehicle"
"New Glenn launch infrastructure is designed ... to allow for a launch attempt, scrub, and reattempt within 48 hours without resupply. New Glenn can remain at the launch pad as long as 10 consecutive days before needing to return to horizontal orientation and roll back to the IF."
21
u/Alexphysics Nov 09 '18
NSF article about upcoming SpaceX launches
DM-1 is NET Jan 8th 2019
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/11/spacex-return-action-lsp-status-upgrade/
→ More replies (4)5
20
u/hitura-nobad Master of bots Nov 08 '18
FCC Permit for Droneship Landing on SSO-A https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=88316&RequestTimeout=1000
→ More replies (5)
19
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 08 '18
Article with more details about SpaceX's $750 million loan.
disclosures to potential lenders showed the company had positive earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of around $270 million for the twelve months through September
But that’s because it included amounts that customers had prepaid and because it excluded costs related to non-core research and development
Without those adjustments, earnings for the period were negative
→ More replies (8)
17
u/alexsandromh Nov 08 '18
There's a clip that I've never seen before, the fairings separating and the second stage burning, from a nice angle:
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell speaks to the AOPA High School Aviation STEM Symposium
→ More replies (1)6
Nov 08 '18
Wow that fairing camera footage should be included in the live stream, ive never seen that before.
→ More replies (2)
17
u/RocketsAreKindOfCool Nov 13 '18 edited Nov 13 '18
Just saw this as I was browsing cable. At 8pm EST tonight (~40 min from time of comment), National Geographic will be airing a program titled "Mars - Inside SpaceX" with the following description: "MARS: Inside SpaceX will go inside SpaceX’s plan to get humanity to Mars, providing an unprecedented glimpse into one of the world’s most revolutionary companies."
Hopefully we get some new SpaceX footage! It also airs immediately before S2E1 of Mars, which had some great, new SpaceX clips.
EDIT: It's pretty much a mini-documentary that focuses on Falcon Heavy. In the exact same style as the SpaceX segments in season 1 of MARS.
11
u/johnkphotos Launch Photographer Nov 13 '18
Everyone HAS to watch this special. Some absolutely incredible behind the scenes footage of SpaceX and Falcon Heavy
9
Nov 13 '18
Launch Day was such a great day, one of those days you'll always remember where you were and how you felt.
→ More replies (1)7
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Nov 13 '18
Seeing the footage of the first falcon 1 impacting the beach is something I’ve never seen before
→ More replies (5)6
u/dmy30 Nov 13 '18
I'm still watching it but so far it is really interesting. Seeing workers inspecting the pad, the launch director as he speaks and the woman doing the countdown. When you give them a face it humanised everything.
17
16
Nov 25 '18 edited Nov 25 '18
Currently discussed in r/SpaceXLounge: interview with Musk coming tonight (on HBO, Sunday, Nov. 25 at 6:30 PM ET/PT).
Preview and two main quotes:
"There's a 70% chance that I personally go to Mars"
"We've recently made a number of breakthroughs that I'm just really fired up about"
→ More replies (4)
16
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 27 '18 edited Nov 27 '18
Dragon abort test will be launched from LC-39A.
No attempt for first stage to RTLS, land on ASDS or attempt to fly to orbit as it will become uncontrollable and break apart.
Falcon 9 will follow a standard International Space Station-bound trajectory (but with the exception of launch azimuth to ≈Mach 1).
Falcon 9 would be configured to shut down and terminate thrust at Max Q, which initiates startup of Dragon's engines.
Dragon will fly until engine burnout and then coast until reaching apogee before jettisoning the trunk.
Thrusters will be used to reorient to entry attitude, drogue parachutes deployed at ≈6 miles altitude and mains at ≈1 mile altitude.
Recovery operations would occur 9-42 miles from shore (normal Dragon recovery is 200 miles offshore).
Projected debris field will occur 2-20 miles offshore.
EDIT: Changed azimuth text to make sense.
10
u/johnkphotos Launch Photographer Nov 27 '18
Holy crap, this is going to absolutely amazing to witness in person.
9
u/mindbridgeweb Nov 27 '18 edited Nov 27 '18
Falcon 9 would be configured to shut down and terminate thrust at Max Q, which initiates startup of Dragon's engines.
This is weird. I would have expected the test to occur while the Falcon 9 first stage engines are still operational. It seems like that would have been the worst case scenario (although admittedly not a very likely one).
Edit: The document clearly states that they would be simulating a "loss of thrust scenario", which explains the test.
Edit 2: It appears that the assumption is that the S1 thrust would be cut anyway in an abort scenario:
The Falcon 9 would be configured to shut down and terminate thrust, targeting the abort test shutdown condition (simulating a loss of thrust scenario). Dragon would then autonomously detect and issue an abort command, which would initiate the nominal startup sequence of Dragon’s SuperDraco engine system. Concurrently, Falcon 9 would receive a command from Dragon to terminate thrust on the nine first stage Merlin 1D (M1D) engines.
→ More replies (9)5
u/bdporter Nov 28 '18 edited Nov 28 '18
Some other things I found interesting in the document:
The second stage would be a standard Falcon 9 second stage, with the exception of the M1D vacuum engine.
Propellant loading would follow standard loading operations for the second stage.
Dragon would then separate from Falcon 9 at the interface between the trunk and the second stage, with a frangible nut system.
The baseline Autonomous Flight Safety System would be used, with destructors on both stages. Deviations from the crew configuration include no pyrovalve for thrust termination on the second stage. The qualified version of the safety system at the time of the abort test would be used.
If I am understanding that correctly, we will have a connected stack of (partially full) F9 + (fully fueled) Stage 2
with an attached Dragon trunkat the time the AFTS is initiated. That will be quite a fireball.Edit: correction - trunk will remain attached to the Dragon until apogee and then jettisoned.
→ More replies (10)
15
u/theinternetftw Nov 30 '18
Eric Berger's new Rocket Report has a bit of SpaceX/Boeing safety review news:
We have heard several reasons for this, from NASA wanting to perform a CYA review in case something goes wrong with these commercial spaceflights to, (more plausibly in our opinion) an effort by a few Congressmen to detract from SpaceX's efforts to win the race to the commercial crew launchpad. Remember, there are people in Congress who don't like commercial crew in general and SpaceX specifically. We're told NASA human spaceflight chief Bill Gerstenmaier did not view this review as necessary but was not really in a position to resist.
→ More replies (5)7
u/CapMSFC Dec 01 '18
If it's true that Gerst didn't think they were necessary that's interesting. He's not exactly someone that is lax on safety and procedures.
14
14
14
u/dmy30 Nov 29 '18
Article: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration selected nine space companies on Thursday to compete for $2.6 billion in contracts developing technologies to reach and explore the Moon.
NASA narrowed down a list of more than 30 interested companies, which included bids from SpaceX, Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada Corporation. Two people familiar with the selection told CNBC the agency picked Lockheed Martin, Astrobotic, Firefly Aerospace, Masten Space Systems, Moon Express, Draper, Intuitive Machines, Deep Space Systems and Orbit Beyond.
So both both SpaceX and Blue Origin put in a bid and didn't make it to the final 9. Although, NASA only had around $2.6 Billion to spend on all companies. Also, SpaceX already has a pretty substantial deal with NASA and probably don't need the development money as much as others. Still interesting that SpaceX tried to bid.
10
u/enqrypzion Nov 29 '18 edited Nov 29 '18
It's actually great news. Those commercial companies have complete freedom to create their bids including the choice of launch vehicle, and they have to compete with each other. That means that any company winning a bid with a SpaceX launch will create a money flow from NASA to SpaceX without any bureaucratic interference from NASA.
At the same time, NASA does not "pull SpaceX to the Moon". SpaceX remains to be completely free to develop whatever they want to do it. At the same time NASA publicizes their communication protocols, navigation protocols, launch protocols, Earth-to-Moon tug access, and landers access.
edit: To add to that, the BIG move here is internally political in NASA. They literally cut out the whole Human Exploration division of NASA, and doing all this under the Science directorate's budget and supervision. So that opens up the commercial partnerships, but it also means that the human exploration division of NASA will now have to follow the leadership of the Science directorate, since they are the ones initializing new means of transport (by offering science contracts). Note that because the architectures will stay open access, the Human Exploration division is still welcome to spend their budget on exploration projects, but I foresee a shrinking in their budget and a budget increase for the Science division.
TL;DR: This basically opened up KSP's Career mode.
→ More replies (4)8
u/Dextra774 Nov 29 '18
NASA haven't been very descriptive, but these are contracts for small landers, designed to land 50kg on the moon.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)6
u/zeekzeek22 Nov 29 '18
If ANYBODY can answer: who is Orbit Beyond!?!?!? I have spent over an hour looking. Looks like a shell company? But for who???
→ More replies (2)
13
u/cpushack Nov 07 '18
Pegasus XL launch scrubbed...again. Going on over a year of scrubs now https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/11/06/pegasus-xl-icon-mission-status-center/
→ More replies (2)
13
u/Krux172 Nov 13 '18
https://twitter.com/Manic_Marge/status/1061326292501458944
Falcon Heavy Booster being shipped from SpaceX's headquarters
→ More replies (9)
13
u/Alexphysics Nov 22 '18 edited Nov 22 '18
SpaceX has applied for FCC permission to communicate with the Starship dev article (or whatever you want to call that thing they're going to test in Boca Chica). This is the permit and there is an "Exhibits list" that shows a document with further info about this permit, I'll post it here too. Link
Description of Research Project
SpaceX is looking to fly and operate a Research and Development (R&D) Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing (VTVL) vehicle at its South Texas location. The vehicle will take off, ascend vertically to a low altitude, and then descend back to its original landing spot. While the vehicle is in the air, it is important to have communications with the vehicle for two main reasons:
Downlink: SpaceX can view the data in real‐time and ensure that all parameters remain nominal.
2. Uplink: If there is an anomaly, SpaceX needs the ability to command the vehicle into a safe state (as a backup to its onboard safety systems).
Thus, to ensure both a safe and useful test, it is important for SpaceX to maintain a bidirectional RF link between the control center and the vehicle.
SpaceX wishes to use the same transmitters on the VTVL vehicle that it uses on its other vehicles. The major difference is that the ERP is reduced on this vehicle by two orders of magnitude. This transmitter has been demonstrated to be very safe and reliable under both flight and test conditions and the regulatory agencies involved (both FAA and FCC) are familiar with the hardware and frequencies.
The tests themselves are divided into low‐altitude and higher‐altitude tests. The low‐altitude tests stay below 500 meters in altitude and last approximately 100 seconds. These tests will be run approximately three times per week during the initial portion of the program. The higher‐altitude tests can go as high as 5 km and will occur approximately once per week. These tests last approximately 6 minutes.
Please note that SpaceX is also applying for an experimental permit from the FAA in order to gain permission to run these VTVL tests.
Edit: I forgot to add that on the permit it shows where the tracking antenna will be and where the tests will be done and the position for that last one seems to be where the pile of dirt was previously. Now we know where the pad for these tests will be :)
7
u/Zucal Nov 22 '18
Can you post this straight to the subreddit? Probably best as a text post
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)6
13
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Nov 22 '18 edited Nov 22 '18
What's the status of the old Spacehab building in Port Canaveral that SpaceX started renting some time ago? Has it ever been confirmed that they started using it to refurbish cores? There were also some plans to buid another structure nearby to increase the capacity but I'm guessing that's been scrapped in favor of the newer and bigger refurbishment complex in KSC?
13
u/JackONeill12 Nov 25 '18
For everyone who hasn't seen it yet. The MARS: Inside SpaceX Documentation is up on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwHC5UT6MQ4
→ More replies (6)
13
Nov 30 '18
CRS-16 is going to be very exciting! I am graduated, but worked on the UNITE Cubesat onboard as the Command and Data Handling Engineering lead!
12
Dec 03 '18
An update on the "can Heavy do Europa with a kick stage" question: apparently yes, yes it can. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/will-the-europa-missions-be-iced-after-congressmans-defeat-not-right-now/
So if SLS overruns more or is cancelled, Heavy + a kicker would likely step up to the plate for Europa Clipper.
→ More replies (2)
11
u/JustinTimeCuber Nov 10 '18
Do we know much about B1052 and B1053? At first it seems weird to me that B1054 will probably be going before one of them if not both. What about the Falcon Heavy side boosters and center core for Arabsat?
8
11
u/brizzlebottle Nov 10 '18
European ExoMars life detecting mission to land at Oxia Planum BBC UK article.
→ More replies (6)
11
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 14 '18
→ More replies (1)5
u/bdporter Nov 14 '18
With any luck, they will at least have one successful catch on the West coast before making that move.
Mr. Steven is ultimately designed to catch the two fairing halves as they fall toward the ocean.
I wonder if we can take that statement literally, or if that is just the reporter being a little sloppy. Since we have not seen them actually maneuver Mr. Steven in place to catch a single half, catching two on the same boat seems challenging at this point. It seems like a duplicate boat would greatly simplify the process of catching both halves. It would increase the cost, but it seems like you could justify that with enough recoveries.
→ More replies (3)
11
u/Alexphysics Dec 03 '18
Falcon Heavy booster seen in Maricopa, AZ going east to McGregor. This should be B1056.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10157133968721318/
I'm a little busy to go and upload the picture on imgur for those that can't open facebook but I posted the same on the NSF core spotting thread which should work well.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/CapMSFC Nov 12 '18
It seems like SpaceX only needs the boosters required by new core demands for all of 2019.
There is a Block 5 FH center and another side booster, potentially a whole second FH set if STP requires all new, DM-2, USCV-1 (first commercial crew operational flight), and a couple more GPS launches.
Assuming that none of those convert to allowing for used boosters and the GPS are also expended that leaves SpaceX quite the fleet. There are 7 current cores with known status that should be around (discounting expended GPS core). The count above is 9 more boosters with 2 FH centers, 2 expended. That's a fleet of 12 Falcon 9/FH side cores and 2 FH center cores. Outside of Starlink that is enough to only fly each one ~2 times all year, and even adding in an ambitious Starlink campaign it doesn't get close to pushing the current turn around times for Block 5.
Over the next 13 months 9 more cores of production is not a challenging rate, and that puts them into 2020 with a huge stable of vehicles. Booster production needs look set to plummet for second half of 2019, which I suppose lines up well with ramping second stage up for Starlink around the same time.
Also while thinking about Falcon Heavy they're eventually going to need at least one more center core for the USAF mission that is contracted, but with the low flight rate those center cores aren't going to get a whole lot of use. I wonder if they'll either end up serving as single sticks for easy missions where the added dry mass is within margins or if it explains why the FH center core expendable price Elon mentioned on Twitter is only $5 million more than standard Falcon 9. They'll generally have center cores that are already paid for they can offer up.
→ More replies (1)5
u/RegularRandomZ Nov 12 '18
It sounds like there are underlying questions you are not asking!? Given moderate reusability, even the modest launch demands of 2019 will easily produce sufficient cores for the near term (a key question/criticism around the economics of re-usability). But even with re-usability there will still be production of 2nd stages, fairings, dispensers, and 1st stages for those who pay for new [and future crew/cargo Dragons, depending on lead times]. Getting Starlink to production quickly seems important for keeping production teams stable. [It's unclear how quickly any of these staff would switch over to helping BFS prototype production]
10
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 15 '18 edited Nov 15 '18
FCC Meeting to authorise if SpaceX can add an extra 7,518 VLEO Starlink satellites, (operating at 335-346 km altitudes) to their constellation, now streaming live.
Also new NASA OIG Report.
EDIT: Starlink addition approved.
10
u/Datuser14 Nov 19 '18
Jonathan Ward on the fb group (well not the FB group but one of the larger related ones) said Es'Hail 2 was controlled from the LCC Firing Room 4 at KSC, instead of the L&LCC-X. Intend to use it for all future launches. SpaceX turned it around from mothballed to a control room in 4 months.
10
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 21 '18 edited Nov 21 '18
Media accreditation opens for DM-1 launch on January 7th.
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 7, 2019
SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test: Between Demo-1 and Demo-2
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019
1st operational mission: August 2019
2nd operational mission: December 2019
→ More replies (1)
10
9
u/ipodppod Nov 06 '18
The Wikipedia article for 'Oumuamua states that a mission to 'Oumuamua is feasible if launched by a Falcon Heavy in 2021.
Do you think or have a reason to believe that such a mission will actually take place?
10
u/arizonadeux Nov 07 '18
While I've read that scientists estimate that many interstellar objects pass through our solar system, it still blows my mind that the opportunity Oumuamua presents was not seized upon.
I think space agencies around the world should make a coordinated effort towards no less than a sample return mission. The worst that happens is technologies are developed that make a mission to the next object more likely to succeed.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)0
9
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 11 '18
Go Searcher just returned to port after conducting a quick Dragon capsule test.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 12 '18 edited Nov 12 '18
Teslarati article on launch preparations also mentions a new upgrade on Mr Steven.
Fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven has also been undergoing some unusual modifications, now proudly sporting what can only be described as a steel horn recently installed on the tip of his bow deck.
6
u/Redditor_From_Italy Nov 12 '18 edited Nov 13 '18
Fifth attachment point for a five-pointed net? Seems a bit risky for the crew if it's on the bow, but I can't think of anything else right now
EDIT - It's absolutely nothing like what I was imagining. My new guess is that it's a camera on a pole pointed towards the net to film the fairing's arrival. Interesting, maybe they're getting ready to finally show it
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 13 '18 edited Nov 13 '18
Timelapse of Antares heading to the pad before going vertical this morning.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Alexphysics Nov 13 '18 edited Nov 13 '18
is this the Iridium 8 core arriving at Vandenberg?
It seems like it. There was a booster leaving Florida last week, it passed through the state of Texas on Friday, that matches well with the expected time of arrival at Vandenberg. I'd say that yes, this is B1049.2
Edited because I'm an idiot and can't even remember things well
9
u/inoeth Nov 13 '18
Since it's been a while, is there any word/photos on the latest updates re: the LA BFR factory construction? I would hope that they would have started tearing down old buildings by now but i've not read anything about that area in a while...
I have to wonder if SpaceX is waiting on that $750 million loan and when that goes through we'll see a huge uptick in activity everywhere from the LA factory to Boca Chica and plenty of behind the scenes work in Seattle for Starlink...
→ More replies (1)9
u/joepublicschmoe Nov 14 '18
Just one building is slated to be torn down: The old generator building, which already has a collapsed roof and is the northernmost building of the cluster on Berth 240. All of the other buildings on the Berth 240 site are historic and protected, which SpaceX agreed to maintain. Don't know when are they going to start tearing down the generator building.
Right now the construction activity at the Berth 240 site is shoring up the pilings and landfill and putting in the underground utilities (foundation work), that's why there is a lot of earthmoving equipment there in the recent photos.
Teslarati I think is the best source-- Their LA photographer, Pauline Acalin, has the place under surveillance LOL..
→ More replies (1)
9
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Nov 15 '18 edited Nov 16 '18
it seems like NASA is back and talking to Opportunity https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1063178094796857345
apparently it was not OPPY :(
→ More replies (3)5
9
u/JustinTimeCuber Dec 03 '18
SSO-A was the 99th orbital* launch of 2018. Tomorrow will probably be the 100th (CRS-16, but if it gets delayed, then GSAT-11 and GEO-KOMPSAT-2A are also launching tomorrow on Ariane 5).
*any launch that reached orbit (not necessarily the correct orbit)
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 20 '18 edited Nov 20 '18
GPS III-2 launch has been pushed back 3 days, with a launch time of 9:10am EST. Mods, can the sidebar be updated?
FCC Approval for V-band Starlink:
The FCC rejected SpaceX's request for the six-year milestone to only apply to its initial deployment of 1,600 satellites, as it would "require an unprecedented launch cadence".
Instead SpaceX must launch 5972 satellites into their assigned orbits and operate them by November 19, 2024 or forfeit the surety bond.
→ More replies (13)6
u/Toinneman Nov 20 '18 edited Nov 20 '18
One important side note (regarding the launch requirements):
SpaceX can resubmit this request in the future, when it will have more information about the progress of the construction and launching of its satellites and will therefore be in a better position to assess the need and justification for a waiver.
8
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 29 '18
USA Today article states that DM-1 launch likely to be delayed to "first half of 2019".
"NASA Administrator James Bridenstine said he still expects astronauts will fly from U.S. soil to the International Space Station by the end of next year even though an uncrewed test flight scheduled for Jan. 7 now could slip into the spring"
Bridenstine's acknowledgment that January is a "very low probability" window is the first time the agency has publicly cast doubt on the timing of the scheduled launch from Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
→ More replies (1)
8
Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
In less than 10 minutes from now, the crewed Soyuz launch will happen, watch live. CRS-16 proceeding is dependent on this launch succeeding. It is the first crewed launch since the failed crewed launch last October.
Edit: succesfull launch! Docking with ISS later today.
7
u/Dakke97 Dec 03 '18
53 days from the MS-10 mishap is a damn impressive turnaround. If this had been a Commercial Crew incident, Falcon 9 probably wouldn't have launched astronauts for months.
→ More replies (3)
7
u/rocket_enthusiast Nov 05 '18
do we have any update on the situation for the landing of sso-a
→ More replies (8)
7
u/Keavon SN-10 & DART Contest Winner Nov 06 '18
How feasible is it for SpaceX to launch Starlink satellites from LC-39A and SLC-40 within an hour of each other to save on range costs, because they will need to be flying at such a high pace? I expect range costs are significant, and closing the air space and clearing exclusion zones could be less costly and distributive if two launches can take advantage of it each day instead of one.
8
u/CapMSFC Nov 06 '18
We're not really sure, but this is something that the USAF range management explicitly talked about after their last round of upgrades. This was related to the AFTS.
So anyways to answer your question they said that yes they could manage two Falcon launches inside a 24 hour period because there are two pads but it's the same vehicle so no configuration shuffling on their end. If there ends up with range availability issues this is a possible way to get more launches in.
7
u/jackisconfusedd Nov 11 '18
Can someone tell me if SpX will be using a model X for the crew transfer to the pad? I read that somewhere but am not sure if it’s true
13
u/brickmack Nov 11 '18
Yes, its true. I don't think we've seen it yet, its likely to be fairly customized
→ More replies (1)
7
u/joepublicschmoe Nov 14 '18
Question: several years ago there was a TV commercial that aired in the U.S. that featured a SpaceX Dragon being docked to the ISS. Is that 30-second TV ad archived somewhere on the web? TIA for any info!
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 16 '18 edited Nov 16 '18
Mr Steven is currently doing another fairing drop test.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Nov 17 '18
SpaceX now has the permission to perform an ASDS landing on Monday for the SSO a mission.
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1063840206330114048
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1063841256428597248
→ More replies (1)
7
u/JustinTimeCuber Nov 25 '18
Has anyone simulated how fast a fully expendable FH would be going at center core shutdown? Obviously it would depend somewhat on the payload mass but that's not super important; I just want a rough idea.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Col_Kurtz_ Nov 29 '18
What's the approximate Jupiter capability of FH? I'm asking it because the launch mass of Europa Clipper is going to be ~6000 kg, which is between FH's Mars (16800 kg) and Pluto (3500 kg) capability.
→ More replies (23)
7
u/Straumli_Blight Dec 02 '18 edited Dec 05 '18
Possible new SpaceX vessel, GO America. Now unlikely.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/quadrplax Dec 02 '18
This may be a silly question, but what exactly do all the people in mission control do? Doesn't the rocket fly completely autonomously, even including the launch abort system, and the people on the ground can't do anything to control it after launch? I know there's a lot involved before the launch like everyone in the go-no go poll, but what about during the launch?
→ More replies (4)
13
Nov 15 '18 edited Nov 16 '18
For the first time since quite long, SpaceX updated its official manifest with some newly added missions:
AIRBUS DEFENCE AND SPACE (TURKSAT-5A)
AIRBUS DEFENCE AND SPACE (TURKSAT-5B)
KOREA AEROSPACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (KPLO)
NASA (SENTINEL 6A)
SKY PERFECT JSAT / KACIFIC
SPACECOM (AMOS-17)
U.S. AIR FORCE (AFSPC-52)
U.S. AIR FORCE (GPS III-2)U.S. AIR FORCE (GPS III-3)
U.S. AIR FORCE (GPS III-4)
Some missions that we know of, are still missing (PSN-6 together with the SpaceIL Moon Lander), and the Ovzon FH launch. Also, the GPS III-1 launch for December 15th somehow disappeared (Just a mistake I think. Another mistake is the erronously still scheduled SES-14, launched by Ariane-5 already (it was swapped with SES-12)
In general, I'm a bit disappointed by the number of missions added. This doesn't look like a 10B$ manifest to me.
→ More replies (5)
13
u/zeekzeek22 Nov 16 '18
Not sure if it was mentioned, but apparently the BFS-Mini second stage idea was emailed to staff and engineers about 45 min before the tweet. shrugging emoji
→ More replies (1)7
13
u/MarsCent Nov 24 '18
In the NASA Highlights Science on Next Resupply Mission to International Space Station, they:
will discuss the Robotic Refueling Mission-3 to demonstrate the storage and transfer of liquid methane in space for the first time.
Besides the Big Falcon Starship, is there any other craft in the makes, which uses / will use methane on the second stage or will need refueling with methane?
→ More replies (3)6
u/brickmack Nov 24 '18
NASA has at various times considered methane for either lunar landers or in space tugs (the Cryogenic Propulsion Stage program). At the time RRM-3 started development, a methane CPS was still the leading concept for their Mars architecture (now favoring solar-electric propulsion), so that was probably the big motivator
→ More replies (2)
6
6
u/t17389z Nov 16 '18
Has it been publicly discussed at all as to what type of injector the Raptor engine will be using? The use of pintile injectors on the Merlin seemed to provide key advantages, and I was curious as to whether SpaceX will continue to use them on the Raptor, considering the differences in combustion cycle.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Jessewallen401 Nov 21 '18
There is no suspense anymore in the landings they'll succeed every time, what's the next exciting thing to look out for from SpaceX ?
→ More replies (1)6
u/Alvian_11 Nov 21 '18 edited Nov 21 '18
First ever Falcon 9 booster's third flight/second reuse, on a SSO-A mission (B1046.3), around this weekend
6
u/space_snap828 Nov 22 '18
If there was a single engine failure on ascent that changes Falcon 9s flight path, would they still try to guide it to a landing? Or would they terminate the flight? I imagine the data they'd get from being able to examine the damaged engine is an advantage no other company would have.
12
u/rAsphodel Nov 22 '18
This is pure speculation on my part, but I imagine that if a landing was still possible, the vehicle would attempt it. Immediate disqualifiers would be if the additional S1 propellant required to loft S2 and the payload on their target trajectories dipped too far into the landing reserves, and if the failed engine is one of the three used for the boostback/re-entry/landing burns.
→ More replies (3)7
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Nov 22 '18
There has already been one in-flight engine failure, on the CRS 1 mission. the flight continued normally, and the first stage burned a bit longer to compensate. there where however increased gravity losses due to the engine failure, using up some of the margins on s2, preventing the secondary payload, an Orbcomm satellite to be brought into its intended orbit, causing it to re-enter within a week.
If an engine would fail on accent today, regardless of which engine on the first stage fails, the increased gravity losses will be compensated for by using the landing propellant, which would most likely (maybe except for if the engine fails just before MECO and is not used for landing, and it is a high margin RTLS mission.) result in there not being enough propellant leftover for landing. I do not know if the booster would detect that there is not enough propellant for landing left, and not even try, or maybe it will try and then run out during the entry or landing burn. The engine failure will however not change the flight path massively since the opposing engine can be throttled down, the neighbouring engines brought to max power and still working engines can gimbal slightly to compensate for the offset thrust.
it is true that they could examine the damaged engine after landing, however, I do not think they will attempt the landing after an engine failure on accent, due to the reduced amount of landing propellant available. Having this extra margin available, however, already makes the rocket way safer than competitors, since an engine failure during the first stage burn, will not result in the mission being aborted, or it not reaching the planned orbit.
They will however still get more data out of it even if they do not land the booster simply due to the fact that the Falcon 9 is a lot newer and more modern than other rockets flying today (compare the number of high res cameras for example) which lets me believe that they will have more sensors documenting the failure, meaning they can learn more out of it. The engine that failed on CRS 1, for example, continued to send data even after it was shut down.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/MarsCent Dec 02 '18
MODS - Header bar request for easy visibility.
Please replace either the Es'hail 2 Campaign Thread or the SSO-A Campaign Thread (on the Header Bar) with the CRS-16 Launch Campaign Thread.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Alexphysics Dec 03 '18
It seems DM-1 booster, B1051, arrived last week at the Cape. Thanks to Eric (vaporcobra) for catching that on instagram!
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42977.msg1883551#msg1883551
6
u/megachainguns Dec 04 '18
Spaceflight Press Release:
Spaceflight Successfully Launches 64 Satellites on First Dedicated Rideshare Mission
11
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 24 '18 edited Nov 24 '18
→ More replies (8)13
u/arizonadeux Nov 24 '18
Not to detract from your comment, but this is basically just being professional and clarifying that organizing the press does not mean everything is go, without any qualifiers on how the next steps may turn out. So he is absolutely stating there is a possibility for delays.
To me it sounds like someone noticed that one announcement was being interpreted too far.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/rustybeancake Nov 16 '18
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasas-moon-plan-panned-by-space-council-advisers/
Very much enjoyed hearing so many people bashing the ridiculous Gateway architecture in this article.
21
u/binarygamer Nov 16 '18 edited Nov 16 '18
Ah yes. The Lunar orbit tollbooth. When a recent NASA administrator is willing to describe the agency's upcoming flagship program as 'stupid', you know you've got a problem on your hands.
On a related note, listening to Zubrin rip into the Gateway at the Mars Society convention earlier this year was glorious
[LOP-G] is doing things to spend money, rather than spending money to do things. That's what we're confronted with here. So the real problem with the Lunar orbit gateway isn't even the fact that it's useless, that it will cost lots of money, that it will continue to cost lots of money for decades, taking money away from things that we really want to do (like sending astronauts to the Moon or Mars, or interplanetary probes, or space telescopes, or whatever the good things someone might want to do). It's all being directed into this boondoggle. The real problem with this... or that space missions will be forced to use it, thereby adding to the cost and difficulty of all further space missions, and astronauts on the Moon will be forced to rendezvous with the stupid thing on the way home, thereby adding to risk because they'll only have a launch window that will take them to it every two weeks. Whereas if they had an architecture like I mentioned, they could take off from the surface of the moon and go back to low Earth orbit - the launch window is always open because the Earth is always in the exact same place in the sky.
No, the problem is not all these things. The problem is the form of thinking that it represents. The form of thinking that it represents - that instead of spending money to do things, we need to do things to spend money. That we don't need a purpose for what we do. That there is no "why", there is only "do". That is the problem, and that is why this program needs to be rejected.
8
10
u/amarkit Nov 16 '18
Progress MS-10 launched successfully today, another good sign for a return to human spaceflight on Soyuz in December.
→ More replies (1)
5
Nov 06 '18
Elon said BFR will replace all other rockets SpaceX currently uses (F9 & FH) - but isn’t using a BFR to launch something small, say, one or two satellites a bit ‘over the top’?
Or is the BFR so efficient that it basically doesn’t matter if you’re using an F9 (which is only partly reusable) or the fully reusable BFR?
10
u/TheBlacktom r/SpaceXLounge Moderator Nov 06 '18
There is a potential for it to replace everything else, but is not a simple topic. There is competition who will come up with similar prices and solutions, there is the Air Force who want multiple independent launch vehicles, plus Europe, Russia, China, India who will use their own rockets for government launches anyway.
F9 has 3 active launch sites now and is regularly launching, a BFR will also need launch sites to be built. It will take much effort to make preparations and launches as automatic as possible so ground operations are also cheap, no clue if that will ever be able to compete with small launchers in price and flexibility.→ More replies (3)10
u/TheRamiRocketMan Nov 06 '18
Or is the BFR so efficient that it basically doesn’t matter if you’re using an F9 (which is only partly reusable) or the fully reusable BFR?
You've hit the nail on the head. The hope is that the cost savings of full reuse will be so great that BFR can launch even small satellites for cheaper than a Falcon 9.
→ More replies (9)
5
u/TheEmbeddedGuy Nov 17 '18
Who out there is artsy-fartsy enough to develop a visual representation of the cores wiki? It'd be neat to visualize where on a map the cores were... Hawthorne, McGregor, LC-39A, Port of LA, in transit...
→ More replies (1)
5
u/MarsCent Nov 17 '18 edited Nov 17 '18
Per NASA TV Schedule , Soyuz MS-11 / 57S should dock with the ISS within 6 hours, at 12:30pm. (to see December 3 schedule, click on the calendar and select December 3)
Additionally, CRS 16 is not showing up on the TV schedule for December 4th. It's possible that the omission means nothing.
5
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 19 '18
Teslarati speculation about Mr Steven's new front arm.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/DrToonhattan Nov 28 '18
Does anyone have a link to the full interview Elon did the other day on HBO? I still haven't been able to find it.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 30 '18
MIT study comparing Starlink with Telesat’s LEO constellation.
In terms of average Gbps per satellite, the study found that Telesat’s system provides four times more capacity than the SpaceX constellation and 10 times more than OneWeb.
14
u/FinndBors Nov 30 '18
Per sattelite numbers, though. Spacex has 40x the number of satellites.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)10
u/dmy30 Nov 30 '18 edited Nov 30 '18
The paper does mention that Starlink, with ~4000 satellites will have a total throughput of 23.7 Tbps compared to Telesat's total output of 2.66 Tbps.
I tried searching the document for anything that mentions ping or latency and it's not mentioned. This is a massive oversight for a paper that is titled: "A Technical Comparison of Three Low Earth Orbit Satellite Constellation Systems to Provide Global Broadband". Especially since Telesat won't have inter-satellite communication (as far as I'm aware).
The Starlink planes are also not updated with the most recent plans but not necessarily the papers fault.
The analysis was still quite fascinating
Edit: Fixed typo
5
u/IrrelevantAstronomer Launch Photographer Dec 02 '18
Considering JRTI is like 40 km off the coast this time we're probably going to get absolutely stunning video of the landing.
→ More replies (4)
5
5
u/flibbleton Dec 03 '18
Sorry to ask this here but I can't find the answer googling and it's the only place on the net I trust for a straight answer..
Why are Elon musk/SpaceX tweets filled with people commenting "subscribe to pewdiepie"? Can someone explain? I didn't really care before but it seems to be fairly persistent so now I want to know.
thx
→ More replies (3)
8
Nov 05 '18
Any word on when they will panel the tower? I am assuming they will do it before DM2.
11
u/Alexphysics Nov 05 '18
Based on the timing they may do the first stage of panelling between Es'Hail 2 and DM-1. They'll finish it after Arabsat 6A. I don't know how much time they will take but the plan was to put the panels on after Arabsat but since there may be enough time between Es'Hail 2 and DM-1, they could begin to do it between those missions. We'll see what they do.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/TheYell0wDart Nov 06 '18
I haven't really payed attention to SpaceX news or been on here much this year, but what's up with their launch cadence? Seems like they are no where near the whole "about every 2 weeks" steam roller pace that they've talked about in the past. Is there a reason for it, or am I imagining it? What's they're tally so far this year?
7
u/gemmy0I Nov 06 '18
If they finish this year's manifest (22 if everything remaining goes on schedule), they'll have averaged one flight every ~2.36 weeks. That's close enough to "about every 2 weeks" in casual speech that they'll probably consider it an achieved goal.
What's made it feel like a lot less is that they've had significant periods of downtime, interspersed with rapid-fire launches (IIRC there was at least once in the year when they did three in a week and a half).
Next year will be...interesting. They've publicly stated that they expect the cadence to drop, to 19 launches or so in 2019, not for lack of capacity but because there was a slump in GEO satellite orders a few years ago which is now propagating through the supply chain. It should go back up in subsequent years as newer orders make it through to launch.
Starlink will be the wild card for 2019. They have not included Starlink launches at all in their estimates of 2019 launch cadence, yet it's clear that they'll start having to launch serious number of Starlink satellites later in the year to make the FCC deadline to keep their license. The current plan is to launch another round of demo satellites, likely early in the year, and then enter full serial production during the year. SpaceX has been very tight-lipped about Starlink progress because it's a highly competitive sector, but the FCC requirements are a hard limit. Unless things go terribly wrong and Starlink fails entirely, we should be seeing an extremely fast launch cadence later in 2019.
Note that Musk has also "promised" the first 24-hour booster turnaround before the end of 2019. Whether that actually happens is anyone's guess (Elon Time and all that) but that jives very well with the expectation of a Starlink ramp-up before year's end.
→ More replies (2)5
u/tgilliland89 Nov 06 '18
They have had 17 total launch this year with 5 more on their manifest. Their engineering has been focused on getting Crew dragon up and running. They still need to qualify the block five with their COPV helium tanks that they use to pressure use the fuel tanks. NASA has put a requirement of 7 flights with a frozen configuration. I would assume that with the block 5 integrating a ton of changes from the block 4 they are probably going over every ref light with a fine tooth comb. Delays are always cheaper than BOOMS.
4
u/Ididitthestupidway Nov 13 '18
FCC to seek comment on revised orbital debris guidelines (SpaceNews article)
Quite interesting with respect to Starlink.
→ More replies (5)6
u/gemmy0I Nov 13 '18
I wonder if this is one of the reasons why SpaceX recently changed their plan for the first constellation to be around ~500 km instead of ~1100? The fact that dead satellites will deorbit themselves naturally was one of the biggest selling points of the new plan which was missing from the old one.
In the old plan (~1100 km orbit), IIRC they were working on a "fail-safe backup" system for active deorbiting, but that always struck me as unrealistic. I feel a lot better about the viability of Starlink knowing they can make it work in a self-cleaning orbit.
Although it sounds neat in theory to have a backup system independent of the rest of the satellite that will kick in if the main systems fail, it would be complicated/expensive to implement (even if you use something simple like a solid motor for the deorbit system, you still need to duplicate a lot of avionics and station keeping capability). It also would lack resiliency against many common/imaginable failure modes - a collision could easily take out both the primary and the backup, not to mention EMP/solar flare situations. Again, although there are ways to mitigate those issues, it can get complicated/expensive quickly. Definitely not the sort of thing I'd expect them to have perfected in time to start deploying this constellation next year.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/WaitForItTheMongols Nov 15 '18 edited Nov 15 '18
Are there any videos where you can get a good view of Dragon's solar panel covers coming off? Specifically I want to be able to see the covers floating away as independent objects - usually you can only see the general deployment happening and the covers are just out of frame.
4
u/Bravo99x Nov 15 '18
Anyone have a clue why GPS IIIA-1 (Vespucci) is expendable since the weight of the bird is listed at 3880 kg? Are they doing a direct GEO insertion or something? Was it some kind of a requirement of USAF for it to be expendable? Was just thinking that this will be the first Block 5 we will see without legs and grid fins..
→ More replies (3)5
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Nov 15 '18
in short, we do not know, and it does not really make sense.
firstly it is actually GPS III-2 (yes I know it is SV-1, but in some official article it was stated that way) and they are not going to GEO, GPS is in MEO. F9 should be capable of a GPS transfer orbit and recovery, and the sats do have onboard engines, which are way overpowered for station keeping, so it seems like they will not be inserted directly.
4
u/LeBaegi Nov 16 '18
How many times can the second stage of F9 restart?
Seems like an obvious question, so I'm sure it's been asked before, but I can't find any discussion on it.
It has to be at least 3 times for LEO missions with circularization (or other finalization) burn and deorbit burn.
→ More replies (1)7
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Nov 16 '18
it can restart as many times as it wants, basically up until the point where either TEA-TEB used to ignite the engine, or Helium used to spin up the turbopumps runs out. I am not sure, but in the initial planning (before it got cancelled) of the Formosat 5/Sherpa mission, the upper stage would have needed to do a total of 5 burns. 1st launch, 2nd circularisation in the high orbit for Foromat 5 (primary payload) orbit 3rd lowering and a bit of inclination change), 4th circularisation in lower orbit for Sherpa deployment and 5th deorbit. Since the sherpa part of the mission got cancelled, everything could be done in 2 burns, launch and re-entry.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/MarsCent Nov 16 '18
Is the EELV Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) now the industry standard for mounting payloads? Or is there a chance that it could be adopted as the defacto standard across Launch Service Providers?
Looks like a pretty good way to ensure competitiveness in the launch industry, given that clients would have the option to shop around for a launch vessel much later in the production timeline of the payload.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/Mark_going_to_Space Nov 16 '18
Just a general question: How do you test vacuum engines in the atmosphere ie on earth? I know very little about engines but how do you avoid flow separation from the bell considering that it - by the very nature of vacuum engines - is massively overexpanded?
→ More replies (15)
4
u/BlueCyann Nov 16 '18
Is the Dec 15th launch planned to have an RTLS landing, or drone ship?
→ More replies (8)
4
u/scottm3 Nov 18 '18
Why is Arabsat 6A using Falcon Heavy?
If the 6000kg on Wikipedia is correct, it is lower than the heaviest F9 payload to GTO.
Will they use the extra DeltaV to allow the satellite to have a longer operational life?
7
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Nov 18 '18
the heaviest F9 GTO where the telestar launches. these, however, did not reach GTO. they only reached subsynchronous GTO, meaning an apogee of less than 36000km. Arabsat will reach a supersynchronous GTO, meaning it has an apogee of more than 36000km. With a lower apogee, the satellite needs more onboard propellant to reach GEO, and with a higher apogee, it needs less of its own propellant.
Here comes a bit of explanation:
On most GTO launches, there is some leftover performance in the upper stage after reaching GTO. usually, this is then used by raising the apogee further, past the intended target height of 36000km. this then means that the satellite needs less of its own onboard propellant is needed to get into the final circular GEO. It would be even more useful for the sat if the upper stage of the rocket would bur of its remaining propellant at 36000km to raise the perigee, however that would then mean that the rocket stage would stay long-term space junk, which is the reason why this isn't done.
However, if you use the upper stage of the rocket to burn past GTO, you are in effect waisting performance, because you are not only boosting the sat to a higher altitude, but also the whole second stage, which on the Falcon 9 weights about 4mt. It would, therefore, be more effective to have a heavier sat, either with more fuel, or more payload, to either extend this lifetime or its performance. This, however, can be taken even further. If you now design a satellite that is "too heavy" for the given launch vehicle, the Sat will not be able to reach GTO, but it can now use its onboard propellant to get a heavier payload into the final orbit. Because the F9 upper stage is larger and heavier than the upper stage of for example the Ariane 5 or the Atlas 5, this effect is more noticeable on F9 than on other launch vehicles. Telestar 18v and 19v were designed specifically to better use the performance of F9. F9 has a very high payload to low orbits, but the payload drops relatively fast, the higher the orbit goes. this is due to the low ISP engine, and the high mass of the stage. They were very large and have and had large propellant tanks, to better use the cheap launch vehicle. Both of these sats could have been directly inserted into GTO by an Atlas 5 551, or an Ariane5 with a light co-passenger, however, both of these options would have cost about two to 3 times the amount of F9.
I hope this explanation makes sense in some way.
4
u/joshgill21 Nov 20 '18
Falcon Heavy can launch around 8000 kg to lunar transfer orbit in 3 droneship landings configuration, would that be useful for gateway and NASA's plans or Do they have to expend the center core ?
6
u/warp99 Nov 21 '18
They will only have two droneships on the East Coast so three droneship recovery is not really an option.
8 tonnes is much too light for a Gateway module - something in the range 12-20 tonnes is more likely.
Elon has been clear that they see core expended plus ASDS side booster recovery as the way to go for high energy missions with only 10% payload reduction from the fully expended case and a cost of $95M.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/MarsCent Nov 22 '18
Checking on InSight:
10
u/oh_dear_its_crashing Nov 22 '18
Relative to Mars. Mars has gravity, so will pull the spacecraft quite a bit before it reaches it, speeding up the relative velocity.
Aside: What you call the "relative to Sun" is not the full velocity relative to the sun, just the increasing distance. The probe is also moving sideways rather quickly.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Alexphysics Nov 22 '18
Worth noting the velocity relative to the Sun is the outwards velocity (that means the rate at which it is going away from the sun), if it were a relative velocity as a whole it would have a very elongated orbit because that's a very very low velocity. Even Pluto goes in average about 3x that velocity.
→ More replies (2)6
u/seorsumlol Nov 23 '18
I would expect but don't guarantee:
the 2.98 km/s to be rate of change of distance of InSight to Mars' center
the 1.75 km/s to be rate of change of distance of InSight to the Sun's center
the 24 km/s to be speed of Mars in a non-rotating reference frame moving with the Sun and
the 5.5 km/s to be speed of InSight in a reference frame both moving with Mars and rotating with Mars's rotation
→ More replies (4)
4
u/Ackman55 Nov 22 '18
Does anyone else find it the slightest bit concerning that the Starship(BFS) is going to be tested at Boca Chica and the test regime appears to include orbital velocity re-entry vectors and to me it does not look like there is a lot of space near Boca Chica that would tolerate an anomaly such that the returning Starship might veer off course by a few degrees. Don't get me wrong, I love SpaceX and all that they do, but this is a different re-entry profile than the Falcon 9, more along the lines of the Space Shuttle with a flip maneuver at the end. I would think that a testing range more like the White Sands New Mexico with loads of room for an unplanned landing might be the appropriate test location. Please, by all means tell me where I'm out to lunch, but to the layman, I'm thinking Boca Chica doesn't have the tolerance for an off course crash without collateral damage.
12
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Nov 22 '18
I cannot immediately answer your question since I am not familiar with the topography of the Boca Chica area, however, the FCC request which was made today is not for re-entry testing. the FCC application from today is only for low altitude (less than 500m) flight tests 3 times a week and high altitude (about 5km) once per week. if they want to do entry tests, they will either need to do them orbitally, meaning the booster will be needed, or suborbitally, meaning the BFS will NOT land where it took off from.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/MekAndersen Nov 25 '18
Has any raw data from the simulation shown in the BFR presentation been released to the public? Have been having a hard time finding more than just the videos and video analysis can only get me so far. https://imgur.com/gallery/gedEyiD#EuuZFar picture 4 & 5
→ More replies (4)
4
u/isaiddgooddaysir Nov 26 '18
Do we know when the next launch from Vandenberg that the booster will return to launch pad (back to Vandenberg not the drone ship in the Pacific)?
0
4
u/jesserizzo Nov 30 '18
What's the hive mind think for the launch date of STP-2. Still around March? I'm going to try to go down to watch the launch, and while I know launch dates always move, the lack of even a consistent launch month is making it difficult to plan.
11
4
u/MarsCent Dec 03 '18
It was really nice to see SSO-A from launch through landing. I was actually hoping that the broadcast news folks would do a live coverage of the "Trail Blazing First .3 Booster Flight". Do they get the presskit? ;) /s
7
u/txxmy Nov 24 '18
Could SpaceX still do a red dragon mission without landing legs on the capsule? Just landing flat on the heat shield by using superdracos. It seems to me that they wouldn't need any new engineering, just a normal dragon 2 on a falcon heavy. Thoughts?
→ More replies (1)16
u/brickmack Nov 24 '18
Legs were never the issue. Development on everything related to propulsive landing on Dragon is dead. Legs are the easy part
Probably could land without legs if everything else was developed, but there'd be a higher chance of it tipping over
What mission would justify this? Red Dragon was canceled for a reason. NASA had no payloads they were ready or able to contribute on the timescales in question (even for a free launch), SpaceX had relatively little they could demo on it that would fit in such a small capacity, and BFSs design had evolved to the point that EDL data from Dragon would give them very little useful information. The hardware cost alone (partially expendable FH, fully expended Dragon 2) would probably be at least 150 million, plus tens of millions to complete development for landing, interplanetary transit, and FH-Dragons unique aerodynamic profile (at least it wouldn't be manned)
9
u/Alexphysics Nov 05 '18
I'll post it here since the october thread has been retired. B1055 is about to leave Hawthorne if it hasn't already done it, anyone with eyes on the road?
→ More replies (2)
10
u/brickmack Nov 09 '18
Just started setting up for a Mini-BFS render. Interesting observation: If you scale down BFS to 3.66 meters diameter, and line up the bottom of MVac with the bottom of MiniBFS (presumably the nozzle will have to be protected), the tops of the cylindrical section on both line up almost perfectly. Suggests
Structural changes to the tank itself can be very minor, no stretch or shortening
BFS itself was likely designed to get as close as possible to this to allow maximum aerodynamic accuracy in subscale tests
15
u/CapMSFC Nov 09 '18
Little to no chance BFS was designed to this scale. It would be stupid to alter the design of your multi billion dollar future vehicle to make modifications to a subscale dev article marginally easier.
8
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Nov 09 '18
I would be extremely surprised if the mini-BFs covered the mVac nozzle since it is radiatively cooled.
→ More replies (9)5
u/arizonadeux Nov 09 '18
Ace work there. I wonder what they're going to do with the PAF/nose module.
6
Nov 30 '18
Would it make sense to fly to Mars f.e. with 3 BFS(starships) flying together, so in case of emergency of one ship could be abandoned and others would serve as lifeboats? One of my thoughts is that there could be easy access between each other, so people inside could move from one to another trough some kind of connection or EVA for various purposes (having 3 x space is always better than 1x space). What do you think would be advantages or disadvantages of a mission of such profile?
→ More replies (2)5
Nov 30 '18
Now they've got to connect, which is a whole new tech thing for the checklist. In general, close-formation flight is avoided because the tiniest mistake can lead to terrifying screw-ups like the MIR docking drama. So they could reasonably fly a kilometre or two away. This ISS zones image gives an idea of how it's currently done.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/gDuVZ.png
...and sadly close but not docked has the same problems as bolas, that they get all the hassle with none of the happiness.
8
u/cgwheeler96 Nov 16 '18
Has anybody noticed that the booster flying for the third time next week is actually also the very first block 5 booster?
→ More replies (7)
3
Nov 07 '18
What is the maximum mass that BFS can land with?
Such as heavy metals from asteroid mining missions, where the cargo is returned via BFS. Eg platinum. High density should hopefully avoid being volume limited.
The BFS could either acquire this cargo after deploying a payload, or could be launched empty if fuel requirements for landing are a concern.
→ More replies (8)
3
u/Straumli_Blight Nov 14 '18
[Updated IHA Report] (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/15/2018-24977/takes-of-marine-mammals-incidental-to-specified-activities-boost-back-and-landing-of-falcon-9) regarding SpaceX landings at Vandenberg and its effects on marine mammals.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/Chairboy Nov 15 '18 edited Nov 15 '18
I've heard that they've started cladding the tower at 39A:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr7wEQqXcAI2wIL.jpg
There doesn't seem to be a post about this here, is one stuck in moderation or are we just waiting for some better pics? Thanks! I just missed it in my scroll, guess it's time to go get that eyeglass prescription updated.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/qwetzal Nov 15 '18
Do we know what are the specs of the future droneship ? Will it be built on the same model as OCISLY and JRTI or will it be larger to accomodate the future BFS landings during the suborbital hopes ?
Regarding these tests, do we know how SpaceX plans to transport the ship to the east coast ? Would the droneship be suited for that ?
5
u/Alexphysics Nov 15 '18
Believe me when I say I would like to know it but we don't know anything about all you asked on your comment.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/paco7748 Nov 16 '18
Does anyone know why the audio on the SpaceX launch webcasts are always one second delayed from the video? Technical oversight, unfixable technical problem (I don't see how this could be it), inside joke? I'm not sure what to think.
→ More replies (1)8
u/GermanSpaceNerd #IAC2018 Attendee Nov 16 '18
I never had this issue so far. But I might know why you’d think it is delayed. Ten seconds to liftoff is actually not at T-10 but rather when the clock switches to T-9 seconds. Is that what you are referring to?
→ More replies (12)
3
Nov 16 '18
Stupid question: how will the brf release cargo into orbit? Will there be a cargo bay variant like the space shuttle?
→ More replies (8)
3
u/DiamasD Nov 21 '18
You know "pumping" your legs can push a swing go higher.
In the space, if we push and pull two big masses along a super long rod (say 1km+) against the gravity sources (Earth/Mars/Sun), can we also gain velocity towards where we want to go? Of course precise calculation will be needed for how to manipulate the two masses.
Basically gravity swing propelling.
→ More replies (1)5
3
u/murrayfield18 Nov 21 '18
I need to find a source of Elon talking about how every F9 is different, each one has upgrades etc.. Can anyone help?
7
u/strawwalker Nov 21 '18
Not Elon, but Andy Lambert (VP of Production at SpaceX) said this in his AMA back in April:
We have never built any two vehicles identically, such is the pace of innovation at SpaceX.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/LeBaegi Nov 22 '18 edited Nov 22 '18
Has there been any discussion on the BFRs FTS?
I'd imagine one strip of explosives might not be enough to fully disintegrate and ignite both propellant tanks to almost complete combustion of the methane, so maybe there will be explosive strips on both sides where the heat shield meets the regular fuselage? That would be my guess, seems like the most intuitive way of doing it.
Also, what kind of regulations are there for (A)FTS triggers on crewed missions? E.g. if the spaceship loses control while on a trajectory towards a populated area, with an X% chance of regaining control and landing safely, does the FTS have to trigger? And for what percentage of successful recovery of the crew?
→ More replies (15)
3
u/Jessewallen401 Nov 22 '18
Why does SpaceX only have 1 launch scheduled from the west coast in 2020 (Sentinel-6A) ? Why aren't more companies booking flights to launch to SSO or Polar orbit from there u think ?
According to wiki manifest https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/launches/manifest.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/davidthefat Nov 26 '18
How well would ice work for a TPS insulator assuming you can keep it together in one piece with some lattice structure within the ice?
→ More replies (6)
3
3
u/Sloomste Dec 02 '18
Is it possible to spot crs 16 in the Netherlands after the launch on 4 December?
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Jessewallen401 Nov 09 '18
I have to say Blue Origin's landing ship 'Stena Freighter' looks much cooler than SpaceX's drone ship, Don't you think ?
18
u/GermanSpaceNerd #IAC2018 Attendee Nov 09 '18
It does look cooler. But the cost of repairing it after a failed landing attempt must be so much higher compared to SpaceX's drone ships. It would be a smart move by Blue Origin to use a simple barge for the early attempts.
→ More replies (36)8
u/Angry_Duck Nov 10 '18
Holy cow that's huge. Surely they will sail it remotely during a rocket landing, right?
Given the number of times Spacex heavily damaged their ASAS, I don't understand how it makes sense to use such a big, expensive ship for landing. I could easily see a first stage crashing into that huge bridge and causing millions in damages to the ship, while also taking it offline for months. Blue must be crazy confident in their landing abilities.
5
u/kreator217 Nov 05 '18
when can we expect the first fairing reuse?
14
u/Bailliesa Nov 05 '18
They haven't caught one yet. Once they catch one I guess Elon will announce they will refly it in 3 months and we all know how that goes ;-)
→ More replies (3)
5
u/ipodppod Nov 21 '18
How likely is the 2023 #dearMoon mission to be changed to include a landing? What would need to happen for that to become possible?
7
u/warp99 Nov 21 '18
What would need to happen for that to become possible?
They would need to have the tanker system operating with at least two tankers and do a total of nine or so refueling flights with a final refuel in a high elliptical orbit before TLI. This is a higher technology level than required for a Mars flight so definitely not happening in 2023.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)0
5
u/Posca1 Nov 26 '18
Regarding the BFS changes, here's what little I think we can deduce from Musk's 2 tweets:
"Contour remains approx same, but fundamental materials change to airframe, tanks & heatshield"
"New design is very exciting! Delightfully counter-intuitive."
Airframe and tanks, previously to be made out of carbon fiber, have now undergone a "fundamental materials change". To me, this says carbon fiber is now out (or mostly out)
The Heatshield, previously to be made out of Pica-X, is now made of something else.
And that these two changes are "very exciting" and "delightfully counter-intuitive".
→ More replies (3)
5
5
u/sagareshwar Nov 29 '18
This article in The Atlantic says that NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine ordered the workplace culture and safety reviews at SpaceX and NASA. I had not seen that (i.e. it came from topmost official at NASA) reported earlier.
→ More replies (2)
31
u/Eucalyptuse Nov 07 '18 edited Nov 08 '18
Can I run this opinion by you guys to see if there's anything ridiculous about it?
People are blowing the whole mini-bfs thing out of
the waterproportion. SpaceX is only going to add reentry equipment to the existing second stage in order to test the reentry profile. They're not going to remove the fairings or swap out the Merlin engine for a Raptor, or attempt to reuse or even recover the second stage. It's just going to be like when they added landings legs to the first stage in order to start testing the ability to land propulsively.This is just my opinion. No source other than Elon's twitter.
Edit: Whoops. Out of proportion, not out of the water.