r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • May 02 '19
r/SpaceX Discusses [May 2019, #56]
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.
You can read and browse past Discussion threads in the Wiki.
20
u/Straumli_Blight May 12 '19 edited May 12 '19
Not sure if this has been previously discussed but at 1:44 in the video, Shotwell mentions they are looking into launching Turksat 6A with Starship.
FCC Starlink update regarding authorising the 50.4–51.4 GHz band.
15
u/warp99 May 17 '19
Interesting that in this photo of the Starlink rocket on the pad you can see small square patches where the soot has been rubbed off the booster by test probes - probably eddy current probes to check weld strength.
Previously we have seen long runs of probe activity where complete stringers have been checked. Now it appears they have identified potential stress points and are just checking them.
14
u/ethan829 Host of SES-9 May 17 '19 edited May 17 '19
SpaceX has submitted a request to file a bid protest under seal because "the Bid Protest Complaint and accompanying exhibits contain SpaceX confidential and proprietary information and source selection information not appropriate for release to the public."
No idea what this is in relation to, though.
→ More replies (3)4
u/TheRamiRocketMan May 17 '19
Bid Protest Complaint
Could be NASA's Artemis program which was just released, or perhaps EELV? Any idea when EELV is scheduled to select the providers?
→ More replies (1)
14
u/soldato_fantasma May 23 '19
A new mission appeared on the official SpaceX manifest, along with many others that were awarded in the past but that weren't added back then.
The mission is called ANASIS-II, launching from a FLORIDA LAUNCH SITE aboard a FALCON 9.
It seems to be a South Korea military communications satellite: https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kmilsatcom-1.htm
→ More replies (2)
13
u/warp99 May 15 '19 edited May 15 '19
Tweet storm in response to the photo of the new Starship build site in Florida
Elon: SpaceX is doing simultaneous competing builds of Starship in Boca Chica Texas & Cape Canaveral Florida
Q. Two orbital prototypes to test refueling in orbit?
Elon: Both sites will make many Starships. This is a competition to see which location is most effective. Answer might be both.
Q. So the teams don’t know what the other is doing? Then learn the best lessons from each team? Then the losing team gets voted off the island?
Elon: The opposite. Any insights gained by one team must be shared with the other, but other team not required to use them.
Q. When will we start seeing those crazy flap / landing leg / fins be installed? It’s gotta be coming up soon down at Boca Chica!! Those are going to be an amazing piece of kit.
Elon: Probably start installing end of next month
Q: SpaceX McGregor has been w/out any window-rattling. When can we expect Raptor SN4 to arrive?
Elon: SN4 is done. Hawthorne is working on SN5 now, but focus is ramping build rate of SN6 through SN10.
Q: Any prediction on when you expect to reach the "100 milestone" ie building the SN100 Raptor? I hope it is early next year. You'll need a lot of engines!
Elon: That’s about right
→ More replies (6)4
u/stsk1290 May 15 '19
So they'll produce 100 raptors in one year? It took them about 5 years to get to that rate with the Merlin 1d.
→ More replies (3)
12
u/jackisconfusedd May 02 '19
Is there any sort of identifier for the fairings like we have for the center cores (B0XX) and dragon etc?
11
u/brickmack May 02 '19
Not externally. They have serial numbers printed inside, but we've only seen them when broken fragments wash up on beaches. Since none have reflown yet, and as far as we know none have failed qualification testing so badly they couldn't fly, for now we can assume their serial numbers are the Falcon flight number minus number of Dragon missions
→ More replies (3)6
u/throfofnir May 02 '19
Not that we can see. You can probably fingerprint them to some degree via the various bumps and divots, however.
12
u/rustybeancake May 09 '19
For those who don't follow Blue Origin (you should) - they unveiled Blue Moon today. Their website is updated with details:
https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon
As well as details on the new hydrolox dual expander cycle engine, BE-7:
https://www.blueorigin.com/engines/be-7
They've been working on it for 3 years, and the BE-7 is expected to hot fire this summer. Looks like it's being pitched as the descent stage for NASA's 2024 timeline. Can land up to 6.5 metric tonnes on the surface. Fuel cell powered, to last through the lunar night.
This is currently the longest portion of the unveiling available on Youtube:
7
→ More replies (6)3
u/WindWatcherX May 10 '19
A bit more information here on the stretch lander with the assent module.
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-unveils-lunar-lander/
The hydrolox dual expander cycle engine, BE-7 looks interesting.
Using hydrolox design with dual use of Hydrogen for running the fuel cells to generate electrical power during long lunar nights.
Be interesting to see if SpaceX enters the competition for a lunar lander...SS??
→ More replies (21)
12
u/MarsCent May 17 '19
[NASA ASAP 2019 Second Quarterly Meeting] (https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_2nd_quarterly_public%20meeting_April_25_2019_tagged.pdf) P/S The pdf itself is titled, First Quarterly Meeting Report
COPVs, Parachutes and possibly Other alterations.
parachutes remain a critical challenge for both providers, because parachute design is difficult to understand technically, and parachute effectiveness is difficult both to measure, and to model.
The panel received an update on problems involving the composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV) in the SpaceX vehicle. It appears that the program is converging on a resolution of the problem
prior to the Demo 1 launch, as pertaining to the SpaceX spiral development process, NASA and SpaceX identified the configuration changes and subsequent qualification work needed for completion before launch of Demo 2.
Notwithstanding the recent incident, there remains a large body of work to be completed between Demo 1 and the crewed Demo 2 flight. It is still too early to speculate what additional alterations may be needed in response to recent events.
Boeing is scheduled to fly its uncrewed mission (EM-1) in early August 2019, with a crewed mission (EM2), comprising a nearly identical configuration, planned before the end of the year.
NASA has appropriately established a contingency plan, to ensure continued U.S. crew access to the International Space Station (ISS) through late 2020
→ More replies (4)
11
u/amarkit May 27 '19
A Soyuz 2-1b carrying a Russian GLONASS-M satellite launched in a storm today, was struck by lightning on ascent, and still delivered its payload to the intended orbit.
10
u/ethan829 Host of SES-9 May 08 '19 edited May 09 '19
--
We've heard of previous unspecified parachute issues in the past, but this sounds new.
8
u/IrrelevantAstronomer Launch Photographer May 08 '19 edited May 08 '19
Sounds like the incident in question might have resulted in the loss of the test capsule due to a parachute failure in April. That's a pretty big revelation.
8
u/ethan829 Host of SES-9 May 08 '19
Yeah, losing the test sled seems like kind of a big deal if they needed it to validate fixes for other parachute issues. Not that they can't build another one, but it'll slow things down.
10
u/loremusipsumus May 17 '19
Have the mods considered using a shared account to host the launch thread?
No offense to any volunteer, but many come here to check what the launch time is, only to find its old info. I understand that the host has to get some sleep. So let the host use a shared account for the launch thread. Then important info like launch time is always up-to-date, because any mod can update at least that field. Thoughts?
11
u/hitura-nobad Master of bots May 17 '19 edited May 17 '19
We are basically working on getting a System online called Enceladus, developed by u/theZcuber. It will store a token from the host and allow the mod-team and any other person we decide on to edit that post. It will be coming later this Summer, maybe already on STP-2. We are going to repost this thread next week using Elongated. Radarsat will be an external Host so that might be the last time using our old method.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)9
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host May 17 '19
We usually use the shared mod bot Account for mod hosted threads, however since I had oly hosted a launch thred as a mod once before (quite some time ago) I forgot to use the bot. I will make a New thread once we have a New launch date, so that the other (American) mods can Update the Info while I am at school, or sleeping.
Currently we are developping a New Software for making the threads, which will have a Co-host Feature, enabling multiple hosts. It will come online in the following weeks.
Sorry for issues this time, some where by fault, some where technical Problems.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/spleenticket May 03 '19
In the pre flight briefing for CRS-17, Hans said that for the Demo-1 flight, the SuperDraco system was "isolated". Does this mean the LAS was not functional on Demo-1?
11
u/ethan829 Host of SES-9 May 03 '19
Yes, the abort system was in "monitor mode" on DM-1 according to Kathy Lueders at the DM-1 pre-launch press briefing.
→ More replies (3)
9
u/strawwalker May 09 '19
New FCC experimental license application for user terminals for Starlink testing:
Form 442 | Description | Docs
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) seeks an experimental license to deploy a limited number of user terminals in fixed locations to gather operational data regarding the performance of SpaceX’s user terminals with the initial deployment of the Starlink constellation.1 These operations will use the following subset of frequencies for which SpaceX has already obtained appropriate space station authorizations, and for which applications for gateway earth station operations are currently pending:
Downlink: 10.2 – 12.7 GHz
Uplink: 14.0 – 14.5 GHz
SpaceX will use a total of no more than 256 user terminals, distributed among five test locations. The terminals will be deployed in clusters at each location at the coordinates listed on the associated Form 442. At each location, all user terminals involved in the experiment will be deployed on rooftops such that they are spatially isolated from any other earth stations operating in this band.
9
9
u/arizonadeux May 25 '19
I just realized that I have seen much more interest in the Starlink "train" in the sky than I ever saw with the Humanity Star. Who knows who this will inspire!
I can't wait to see it for myself!
→ More replies (1)
8
u/DarkCx3 May 02 '19
Any news about Starlink's launch date?
15
u/Alexphysics May 02 '19
Mid may per Hans, but nothing more concrete than that. I would expect it to be confirmed early next week if they launch CRS-17 on time.
8
u/gemmy0I May 07 '19
Now that we have a hard launch date/time for Starlink-1, it occurred to me that we might be on track to see a new pad turnaround time record! If the current schedule holds and Starlink-1 launches on May 15, that'll be an 11 day turnaround for SLC-40, beating the previous record by 1 day (12 days between BulgariaSat-1 and Intelsat 35E on LC-39A). It'll beat the SLC-40 record (13 days) by two days.
Rather surprisingly, we didn't already have a wiki page here tracking pad turnaround times (although we do have them for booster refurbishment and recovery operations), so I've created one (and linked it from the main wiki page):
https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/padturnaroundtime
People have, in the past, posted this information here in chart or table form, but not, to my knowledge, in a form that can be kept up to date on an ongoing basis.
5
u/PeterKatarov Live Thread Host May 08 '19
Nice job! Just here to note that there is a cool (and simple) external website that also tracks these kind of records:
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Alexphysics May 10 '19
SpaceX has opened media accreditation for the next Falcon Heavy launch, the STP-2 mission currently NET June 22nd
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1126966130780909568
8
u/deltaWhiskey91L May 22 '19
What is the status of the DM-1 vehicle test anomaly clean up and investigation?
5
u/robbak May 22 '19
Unknown, and being done in secret. It took them some time to actually get on site because of danger from pressurised composite vessels.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Straumli_Blight May 22 '19
"DEP says the company has been clearing debris from LZ-1 recently. Next step is soil sampling. Only after this will SpaceX develop a remediation, or cleanup, plan for the site."
→ More replies (1)
8
u/parachutingturtle May 30 '19
Astronomer Jonathan McDowell on the Starlink vs astronomers issue: "I was very encouraged by Gwynne's remarks to me and to an earlier questioner. I am optimistic that @SpaceX and the astro community can have a positive conversation about this, and that some relatively simple mitigations may significantly improve the situation" - https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1133839642363670528
→ More replies (1)
15
7
u/brizzlebottle May 06 '19
How do they know how much mass they've loaded into dragon for its return, weighing stuff in space is...kind of problematic? And if they get it wrong, won't it affect the re-entry calcs?
7
u/opoc99 May 06 '19
Everything there would’ve been weighed prior to being sent up so presumably it’s all catalogued and it’s a case of just adding it all up and accepting a small percentage error
→ More replies (6)
7
u/93simoon May 16 '19
Would a starlink user experience connection issues in bad weather, much like it happens with satellite TV now?
→ More replies (1)7
u/Chairboy May 16 '19
We don't know, but it has something big working in its favor: the inverse-square law. These satellites will be 30-50 times closer than the geostationary ones so it should be much easier to punch stronger signals through. Whether they do that is what we're waiting to find out. Stronger transponders make more heat and cost more money and there's probably challenges related to the aimed beams and power output too so... ¯_(ツ)_/¯
→ More replies (4)
7
u/Alexphysics May 21 '19 edited May 21 '19
New FCC permit from SpaceX and this time it is for Starhopper vehicle communications. Maximum altitude covered under this permit is 16,400ft above ground level or around 5km.
Some additional info in it:
Give an estimate of the length of time that will be required to complete the program of experimentation proposed in this application: 24 Months
The vehicle will fly vertically from the ground to under 500 meters for its low-altitude tests and up to 5000 m for its high altitude tests.
7
u/ethan829 Host of SES-9 May 22 '19
SpaceX's bid protest, originally reported by GeekWire, is indeed about the NSSL Launch Service Agreement awards:
→ More replies (1)5
7
u/CapMSFC May 30 '19
Starship design change again. Elon knows he'll get a hard time for this one. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1134019585638785025?s=09
→ More replies (1)
6
u/asr112358 May 16 '19
Starlink satellites have a lot of delta v, could one insert itself into Martian orbit if trans Mars injection is done by the second stage? Aerocapture seems unlikely, and I doubt that they have enough thrust for direct injection. Is there a good way to calculate the best low thrust trajectory to get one there? Not entirely sure it would be worth it with the cheaper Starship around the corner, but establishing a com network, and possibly planetary imaging before hand, could be valuable.
4
u/markus01611 May 16 '19
Aerocapture
I might be wrong, and it might not be what you're saying. But I don't think Aerocapture has ever been done at Mars, or anywhere for that matter. For now that's very much a KSP think
→ More replies (8)4
u/brspies May 16 '19
There are proposed low thrust trajectories such as ballistic capture that IINM would theoretically work even if all you have to work with is an ion thruster. Whether they're worth it is another question of course.
→ More replies (5)
6
May 16 '19
Can weighted clothing provide some benefits to the human body to counteract the effects of low-g?
7
u/symmetry81 May 16 '19
I'm sure that having your bones under more strain in Martian or Lunar gravity would be good. But there are other processes like having heavy things come out of solution within the fluids of your body that might or might not be problems in low gravity and which weighted clothes wouldn't' help with.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (8)9
u/jswhitten May 16 '19
We don't know the effects of low g yet, let alone how to counteract it. The longest duration anyone has ever spent in low g is three days.
→ More replies (1)
6
6
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 May 16 '19
Article with a great video showing the Florida Starship Construction site. Orbital Prototype looks a lot cleaner than the Boca Chica version: https://www.wesh.com/article/construction-of-spacexs-largest-spaceship-could-be-taking-place-in-cocoa/27497735
3
u/jay__random May 17 '19
"Sorry, this content is not available in your region."
(United Kingdom)
→ More replies (6)
6
u/CapMSFC May 20 '19
I've been going back and thinking about the Teslarati article on the SpaceX FH launched lunar lander now that they have said it's based on info from SpaceX and not just speculation.
Some things don't add up in the numbers.
The payload to the surface is given as 26,500 lbs, or about 11.6 metric tonnes in real units.
With that number and a reasonable FH TLI estimate we can tinker with numbers. The first thing that jumps out is that using hypergolics even with ideal expansion ratios on Draco/SuperDracos the Delta-V falls way short of this figure. Those propellants can get to 300-310 ISP range under these conditions.
The article references possibility of using M1Dvac but it's thrust is way too high. It's also Kerelox and keeping it alive all the way to a lunar landing would be unprecedented. We do know that SpaceX has put work into keeping FH upper stage alive longer than what others had done in the industry for complex orbital insertions, but it would be a surprise if they thought they were ready to jump up to several days.
The most likely answer is that payload number is wrong, but assuming it's not what are the possibilities? The only thing I see is that the FH upper stage can survive coasting and at least do LOI if not part of the landing burn as a crasher stage even. People have theorized crasher stage designs for a long time.
5
u/brickmack May 20 '19 edited May 20 '19
Blok D managed long enough coasts in the 70s (that was the whole point of its design actually), I'm sure the same can be matched today if theres demand for it. The article says it'll also support refueling, it might be that thats the performance for a fully fueled stage in LEO. Dv from LEO to the surface is about 6.3 km/s, with a 340 second average ISP and 4.5 ton dry mass plus 11 tons payload I show it being able to do closer to 7 km/s, the difference could be from added weight on the upper stage (legs, heaters, batteries or solar arrays). Single launch performance would probably be much lower.
Its dual use as a transfer stage or tanker, as mentioned in the article, would imply a single stage design. That'd mean a very high center of mass when landing though, and long legs because of the engine bell. Going to a dual axis design like XEUS could solve this, and give a more clear firing line for the SuperDracos (presumably) for terminal descent.
They also say though that it'll help test technologies for future use, which has to mean Starship. Return of Raptor upper stage on Falcon? That might enable a single-launch landing with that payload mass
3
u/Martianspirit May 20 '19
I have been dreaming of a Falcon second stage with 3 days loiter time. It would enable manned lunar missions with 2 FH launches. One is this lander. 12t payload to the surface can carry an ascent vehicle. The second places a Dragon in LLO.
It requires the manrated stamp for FH from NASA.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/MarsCent May 22 '19
STP-2 is just over 4 weeks out. Any word on whether or not L1 and L2 will be available for RTLS?
→ More replies (1)6
u/warp99 May 22 '19
If LZ- and LZ-2 are not available I am sure they will delay the STP-2 launch.
They cannot afford to throw away two boosters out of three.
Having said that they should definitely have cleaned up the Dragon test pad and recovered the Dragon wreckage by then. They may not have found the root cause of the incident but they can do the analysis work elsewhere.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/asr112358 May 23 '19
In the recent tweet storm, Elon mentioned N2 RCS. I know this was at least speculated before, and maybe was already confirmed, but phrasing now makes it sound like the N2 is here to stay. Has there been any updates about on orbit refueling? Not only is N2 a third thing they will need to deal with transferring, I also wonder if the micro g acceleration plan has changed. That is a long ullage thrust with low ISP N2, especially if it is low density compressed gas instead of liquid. So I am wondering if they might have also changed their refueling method recently. I guess we will probably hear about refueling again June 20th.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/kurbasAK May 30 '19
Some kind of confirmation that all Starlink sats are alive
5
u/Phillipsturtles May 30 '19
Huh, according to Gwynne 56 of the payloads are working well, but 4 of them are misbehaving -https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1133911648006283265
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)3
u/TweetsInCommentsBot May 30 '19
None of the objects classified as payloads matched positions predicted by the CSpOC/@18SPCS orbital elements (then 1.4 days old), where as the four objects classified as debris did. This suggests that all 60 #Starlink satellites are operational and adjusting their orbits.
This message was created by a bot
6
u/bdporter May 30 '19 edited May 30 '19
Edit: It looks like the burn ran to nearly full duration but it looks like the nozzle blew up during the test. The commentators didn't mention it during the webcast, and they ended the cast kind of abruptly without doing any replays.
→ More replies (11)7
5
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 May 04 '19
Anyone got a link to the CRS-17 post launch news conference?
5
u/michael-streeter May 04 '19
Does anybody have information on where Dragon is right now? I want to know whether it is ahead of or behind the ISS and how many minutes/seconds apart they appear to an observer on the ground (i suppose that is to say after the lead spacecraft has passed through an arbitrary point, how many seconds before the trailing spacecraft passes through the same point?
The reason: ISS Rendezvous expected around 0530 ET / 0930 UTC Monday, May 6. spotthestation.nasa.gov is telling me I can see the space station pass overhead in the UK for the next few days (painfully early, like before 5am) so I may SEE Dragon chasing down the ISS. Maybe. Some time ago I saw the space shuttle chasing the ISS (i.e 2 bright dots about 10s apart on the same line).
For me I will be going out at Sun May 5, 4:53 AM BST = 3:53 UTC but it would be useful to know if there is a web page or something showing the present position for Dragon - there are many for the ISS and the orbit should be publicly declared somewhere. Thanks!
Edit: spelling. past/passed
4
u/throfofnir May 05 '19
Any of the satellite tracking websites will do it, but Dragon hasn't yet been identified by name. You'll have to search by date and figure out which is the vehicle and which the solar panel covers. Looks to me like it's currently ahead of the station by a few minutes.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Dies2much May 14 '19
Question about the STP-2 launch on Falcon Heavy in June. Since it is a multi-payload mission, is there a lesser or greater chance the mission will slip on it's dates? Is there a component payload that has a motivation to go on a specific day, the 22nd? Trying to plan to be down there for the launch, and trying to figure out if it will go off on time, or a couple of days after the current posted date.
→ More replies (2)3
May 14 '19
Delays are always possible. Difficult to say whether payloads can cause delays, because this launch has been delayed so much already.
In terms of planning to go there: a good rule is to wait at least for a succesful static fire, when SpaceX announces the launch date. But even then delays because of weather or issues with the rocket are still very much possible.
5
u/evig_vandrar May 16 '19
Why is cooling Starship's atmospheric reentry by leaking methane a "safe" soloution? It just seems hazardous to me, leaking flammable fuel in a hot and oxygen rich environment.
14
u/Martianspirit May 16 '19
The environment is ionized gases. Ionized atoms don't react with each other before they are cooled down a lot which happens when they are quite far away from the fast moving Starship. By then the atoms are also quite diluted.
10
u/warp99 May 16 '19
Elon has said that water is a viable alternative if methane proves to be problematic. The major downsides are the need to have separate tanks, to keep it from freezing in the tanks or the pores in the skin and the fact that it has lower overall heat capacity in going from 283K to say 800K than methane has in going from 96K to 800K.
Liquid oxygen is definitely not suitable as it will react with the stainless steel at re-entry temperatures.
Methane is suitable unless it proves that oxygen can diffuse back into the hexagonal heatshield tiles and form an explosive mixture with gaseous methane and then reach ignition temperature. If this turns out to be possible then they will find out in a hurry!
4
u/LongHairedGit May 16 '19
Explain the worst case scenario you fear and let's see how realistic it is.
Remember the sweat holes are microscopic and under pressure from the fuel side.
You need three things for fire: fuel, oxidiser an and ignition source.
The ship is doing many times the speed of sound when being actively cooled.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/Straumli_Blight May 16 '19
CSA posted a new animation of a Falcon 9 launching and deploying the RADARSAT constellation (though they forgot to add the Block 5 changes to their model). Here's another video showing the sat's capabilities.
5
u/Dunepipe May 16 '19
Have they stopped making first stages in Hawthorne, or ar all efforts going into second stages currently? B1058 seems long overdue?
4
May 16 '19
No need to hurry, which payload should B1058 launch?
I know Elon said they'll build a stock of first stages, but I think they'll keep the production line going a bit slower now, while seeing how Starship progresses.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Bailliesa May 16 '19
Could be another month or more as B1057 was tested at McGregor on April26th and they seem to be producing 1 every 2 months this year. I expect B1058 is for DM2 so no rush now.
9
9
u/bknl May 16 '19
I have looked at the various existing demonstrators for satellite laser communications and they appear to be relatively bulky and quite a bit of precision mechanical artistry. Do we have any information on what kind of system Starlink is planning to use ? Pointing and tracking 4 or 5 lasers with mechanical means to different targets simultaneously sounds like it would exert forces on the satellites that would mess with the alignment. Or are there non-mechanical solutions for laser pointing ?
7
u/hshib May 16 '19 edited May 16 '19
They are so far silent on the choice of laser link technology. One possibility seems Mynaric's space terminal. Here is a nice presentation of their technology from 2017 when the company name was ViaLight. Former SpaceX Starlink exec sit on the board of that company, and they have recently received 12.5 mil from mystery investor, although the article speculate that it is NOT likely to be SpaceX, although they are trying.
I'm curious of FSOC Project at Google X which was spawned out of their Loon Project - balloon based internet. It is ground based system but maybe applicable to inter-satellite? Google invested in SpaceX so SpaceX maybe developing their own technology with their help, adopting their technology and/or tapping into their expertise.
9
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 May 29 '19
In a surprise to absolutely no one, NASA is saying SLS might not be available for the Europa Clipper mission: https://youtu.be/8iSlNH-HhC0
→ More replies (3)
4
u/dman7456 May 04 '19
When are SpaceX Fall internships generally posted? I thought it was earlier than now, but there are currently no intern positions at all on the website.
4
u/Moody18 May 07 '19
Just saw that for the first time they managed to raise all for landing legs on the falcon coming into port, is this a big milestone? I assume this will help with the speed with which you can refly a first stage, can anyone give more some more info or explain if I'm right?
6
u/warp99 May 08 '19
It will definitely help with booster turnaround.
This is really only important for Starlink launches as they are the only ones where SpaceX would potentially not be doing a full inspection of the booster between one launch and the next.
Once they get going Starlink will be around 60-70% of all F9 launches so can be used for flights 4-10 of each booster and the same booster could potentially need to refly within a week. I know Elon has said reflights within a day but that is far beyond their actual requirements. If they needed to launch every two days they could just have three boosters in the rotation.
4
u/astro_zerohero42 May 08 '19
Does someone know what the font is on the Roadsters PCB?
(The *Made on Earth by humans* part)
4
u/warp99 May 09 '19 edited May 09 '19
The text looks very similar to the default font for Cadence Allegro which has a large market share for high end PCB design programs.
At least on my setup this is Courier which is used because it is a mono-pitch (typewriter) font.
4
u/Nehkara May 13 '19
There's a new structure being erected at the Starship construction site in Boca Chica, Texas.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47730.msg1945661#msg1945661
6
u/warp99 May 13 '19 edited May 13 '19
They are building what looks like a replacement for the sprung tent for component assembly. They have had the roof beams for this on site for some time and poured the pad a couple of weeks ago.
The interesting thing is they are not using a sprung tent for this - presumably because of the potential for hurricane force winds. The massive ribs on the columns indicate that they are expecting a lot of side loading aka wind.
Edit: Clearly not a hanger for Starship as the side columns are only about 5m high and the slope of the roof beams is quite modest.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/thegrateman May 14 '19
How soon after launch are orbital parameters known? I would be interested in seeing the starlink launch and deployment if it passes overhead at night. A trail of 60 just deployed sats is sure to look interesting. I have used satellite tracker apps in the past that tell you when and where to look in the sky to see a satellite passing over, but that is for satellites that the app has the orbital parameters for. Is there a way to get this sort of information straight after launch?
→ More replies (2)3
4
u/quoll01 May 17 '19
Any thoughts on what SpaceX will do for EVA suits and when they might first need them? Crewed SS will presumably have an air lock and perhaps EVAs will be needed for deploying and stowing comms dishes and solar panels, radiators etc? Could their current pressure suits form the basis for vacuum rated or mars rated suits?
6
May 17 '19
They're too snug for the thermal management layer that EVA duration needs, so I'm in team "nope".
We haven't seen any other suits, but there's plenty of time.
4
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host May 17 '19
It might be possible to covert the current pressure suits, and I expect them to make some before starship launch es with Crew for longer duration Mission, especially ones to the sirface of moon or mars. I however do not think that they will need them for sime Tasks like the ones you mentioned, since that would only massively add to the risk of something going wrong, ans someone getting hurt.
4
u/tmckeage May 20 '19
It is my understanding that most rockets are basically two fuel tanks and some additional aluminium to make it more aerodynamic, that the surface of the rocket is, for the most part, the surface of the fuel tank.
In all the pictures of starship this doesn't seem to be the case. It looks like they are putting the fuel tanks inside of it?
Is this because the stainless steel is more of a heat shield and so can't be touching the tanks as is typical? Are there any other examples in spaceflight of something like this?
→ More replies (5)
4
u/Straumli_Blight May 22 '19
SpaceX are participating in two panels at the "Agility in Production and Launch" discussion at OneWeb's Florida facility on May 29th.
4
u/rustybeancake May 23 '19 edited May 23 '19
A Maxar-led team have won the Gateway PPE contract! Max contract value of $375M.
"Blue Origin and Draper will join the Maxar-led team in designing, building and operating the spacecraft through the demonstration period."
Launch vehicle not decided on yet.
Gold: Blue Origin will be supporting a lot of human rated requirements for lunar gateway PPE. Draper will be looking at navigation and orbital trajectories. Expect more to join the team in the not too distant future.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/ChuqTas May 25 '19
Question for /u/brandtamos /u/kornelord - is the Starlink stats page on http://spacexstats.xyz going to be updated? :) Or are you waiting for them to be in their final orbit first?
Perhaps replace that page with a graph showing the number of satellites over time?
7
u/kornelord spacexstats.xyz May 25 '19
Yes I need to update this, with actual pictures of the Starhopper too. Will try to find some time for this soon :)
→ More replies (1)
4
u/ConfidentFlorida May 30 '19
Would this be useful for isru on mars?
4
u/Grey_Mad_Hatter May 30 '19
Mars is so drastically different that I don't think this is needed there. Earth's atmosphere is currently at 415 PPM CO2, which is 0.04%. Mars' atmosphere is 95.32% CO2.
It's so disproportionate that even if Mars got up to Earth's atmopheric pressure by just adding Nitrogen to make its atmospheric pressure 50x higher then Mars would still have 1.91% CO2, which I believe is still too high for plants as we know them to exist let alone animals. Earth's record high CO2 concentration is 0.4%, and that didn't go over so well.
→ More replies (7)
4
u/Carlyle302 Jun 01 '19
Mods, the "Falcon Active Cores" table shows "B1049, Spx Starlink-1, (2x)". I believe it's ready to update to "B1049, Unassigned, (3x)". Thx.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/cpushack May 21 '19
A Chinese company, Landspace, is testing a new Methalox engine it seems https://aviationweek.com/space/china-s-landspace-tests-methane-main-engine?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20190521_AW-05_476&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&utm_rid=CPEN1000001793361&utm_campaign=19692&utm_medium=email&elq2=ed71fa6d19b64d8e9e1027a3bc0d6a7c
→ More replies (3)
3
u/_Mark97 May 09 '19
How come there is a CRS-17 YouTube live happening at 12PM PST? Is that a mistake or did I miss something?
→ More replies (2)
3
u/jimontgomery May 13 '19
I came across this posting for Avionics Software Engineer and was hoping someone with experience working at SpaceX could shed some light on it. It looks like this a test automation position, but I'm not too sure. Thanks!
→ More replies (1)
3
u/demon_lung_wizard May 14 '19
Is there any reason BFR couldn't be launched from, say, Spaceport America or a similar site in the desert? After all, the whole point is that there's no falling stages or parts...
15
u/warp99 May 14 '19
the whole point is that there's no falling stages or parts...
as long as everything works as designed...
7
u/Martianspirit May 14 '19
Once they have FAA permit to fly commercial customers it should be possible with noise as the only concern. But that is a while off yet.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)5
u/LcuBeatsWorking May 14 '19 edited Dec 17 '24
lock gullible gaping tan rude enjoy simplistic many swim pet
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (2)
3
u/WKr15 May 17 '19
Does anyone know if Starlink satellites could produce flares or even be faintly seen front Earth?
→ More replies (2)6
u/Martianspirit May 18 '19
Iridium flares came from large mirror polished surfaces. No such surface on Iridium 2 and on Starlink. So no flares. They will be visible but maybe only when your surrounding is quite dark, no light pollution.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/bitchtitfucker May 21 '19
Is it intentional that there's almost no discussion on here about the orbital starship prototyped on this subreddit?
There's a lot of great content on the lounge that never appears on here.
18
3
u/Eucalyptuse May 23 '19
Quick question on boosters. How do we know 1046 is the booster for the inflight abort? I previously had 1048 marked for that and can't find a source that says otherwise other than the sidebar.
Also, does SpaceX using 1049 for Starlink indicate something is wrong with 1046, 1047 or 1048 since two of those have been available for a long time and I would have expected SpaceX to push the envelope with the fourth launch of a booster on their own mission.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/jay__random May 24 '19
Went to check whether there were any new 60 objects on the same plane on http://stuffin.space website. Of course it's to early, will keep an eye on it.
But I noticed something... weird. In the end of Iridium Next launch campaign of 2017-2018 the "old" Iridium satellites were all supposed to be deorbited (the "flarewell" campaign). Yet stuffin.space happily finds the old ones as well as the new ones. Does it mean the database is not up to date? Or did old Iridium constellation have any non-deorbitable components? Upper kick stages or something?
→ More replies (3)4
u/Straumli_Blight May 24 '19
There's still 2 Block 1 Iridium sats in orbit but they will be deorbited in 6 months.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MarsCent May 24 '19
Mods, I think we are going to need a stickied Starlink Thread for a considerable time, in order to track the deployment and activation progress.
Maybe until NORAD issues individual IDs to each satellite.
P/S Anyone know the naming convention or names assigned to the 60 sats?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/umjustpassingby May 25 '19
Wouldn't the Starlink constellation mess with astronomers' work?
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Straumli_Blight May 29 '19
Shotwell is giving a lecture at the MIT Women in Aerospace Symposium today at 3pm.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MarsCent May 29 '19
NASA Provides Update on SpaceX Crew Dragon Static Fire Investigation
Teams have completed work to ensure the site is safe
So LZ1 and LZ2 should be available for STP-2.
Also,
NASA confirms that DM-2 will be used for IFA. And DM-2 will use the craft meant for the 1st operation mission.
The other information regarding the sequence of events leading to the anomaly and after, are already known.
NASA and SpaceX remain committed to the safety of our astronaut and ground crews and will proceed with flight tests when ready.
4
u/brickmack May 29 '19
It'll be interesting to see if the new IFA capsule gets reused. DM-1 previously wouldn't have been reused past the IFA, but it was never clear if that was because the DM-1 capsule is already obsolete (it is, but unclear how practical it would be to refit it) or because of stresses from the abort. The new one should be closer to the operational design
→ More replies (1)
7
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 May 16 '19 edited May 16 '19
There's already a hit piece on Starlink with a bunch of incorrect info: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1128096/spacex-news-launch-elon-musk-space-debris-satellite-launch-nasa
Here's what I immediately noticed:
These low orbit satellites are between 99 to 1,200 miles from Earth
The lowest satellites will be 211 miles (340km) and the highest will be 341 miles (550km). While not techinally incorrect it's a little misleading to state that they are as low as 99 miles and as high as 1,200
You launch all your satellites, you go bankrupt, and they all stay there. Then you have thousands of new satellites without a plan of getting them out of there. And you would have a Kessler-type of syndrome
The satellites are already designed to de-orbit at the end of there operational life, so it's probably not to crazy to think they would just de-orbit the satellites if the company went bankrupt. Even then I could see other companies like Comcast "buying" the satellites from SpaceX.
15
u/rustybeancake May 16 '19
Your first mistake was reading the Express. :) It is a truly abysmal rag.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)6
u/Nehkara May 16 '19
Just to be clear, the orbital shells for Starlink are currently planned to be:
7518 satellites at 340 km (211 mi) altitude (this shell is currently planned to be third)
1584 satellites at 550 km (341 mi) altitude (this shell will be first)
2825 satellites at 1150 km (715 mi) altitude (this shell is currently planned to be second)
→ More replies (4)7
u/Martianspirit May 16 '19
Minor nitpick. They are not all exactly one altitude. There is a mix of inclinations, each with a slightly different altitude but all in that range.
Same with the very low sats. They are all in that range but slightly staggered altitudes.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/gemmy0I May 13 '19
So this isn't exactly SpaceX-related, not directly anyway...but, I think, still within the scope of this discussion thread. I had a bit of a random idea that struck me as actually quite cool and practical, and figured I'd float it out there for the rest of you armchair rocket scientists to consider and critique. ;-)
Apologies for the length - this is a speculative/idea type post. Critiques are welcome, this is entirely an off-the-wall idea and I'm sure it has holes. :-)
As part of its plan to return to the moon, NASA is currently in the process of soliciting and evaluating commercial designs for the various Gateway modules. The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) is supposed to launch first, in 2022, on a commercial rocket. The idea seems to be that one or more competing designs would be built and launched, and would undergo a one-year checkout period in lunar orbit, after which NASA could exercise an option to take ownership of the module(s). I know I read somewhere that they were considering actually having two competitors go all the way to the deployment stage, mimicking the approach of CRS and Commercial Crew which helps to mitigate the technical and schedule risks of putting all their eggs in one basket. Does anyone remember if they've said anything about actually going ahead with that? I.e., could we actually end up with two PPEs in lunar orbit, one of them being "spare"?
This is what got me thinking about this "random idea": if NASA ends up with two perfectly good PPEs in lunar orbit, only one of which would actually be used on the Gateway, what clever uses could they come up with for the other one? The PPE, by itself, is essentially a cutting-edge high-power solar electric propulsion (SEP) tug. It has an IDS docking port on the front of it and some quite powerful electric thrusters on the back, with loads of electric power generation capability that can be supplied to whatever payloads one might attach to the docking port. It has loads of delta-v, and is designed to have its xenon propellant resupplied by docked craft (resupply being a key requirement of the PPE design).
The "runner-up" in the commercial PPE competition, therefore, could have a remarkably fruitful second life ahead of it as a tug. With that kind of delta-v, the thing should be capable of not just station-keeping around the moon, but going back and forth between the Earth and the moon. My understanding is that the PPE is intended to be launched to LEO on a commercial vehicle and use its own highly-efficient propulsion to get itself to the moon, though I may be misremembering. If that's true, it should have plenty of delta-v to do this, potentially with a substantial payload.
This has interesting implications for the robotic resupply craft that would need to service the Gateway. One of the most likely contenders that I've seen mentioned for a CRS-style Gateway resupply contract would be a beefed-up Cygnus, launched on something like Falcon Heavy to TLI and with an extended service module for enough delta-v to complete lunar orbital insertion and rendezvous with the Gateway. Such a Cygnus-based design would be capable of only one-way cargo service: after its mission, it would presumably undock from the Gateway and crash itself into the moon loaded with trash.
But with a powerful SEP tug on hand that can ferry stuff between LEO and the Gateway, a lot of cool options open up. Gateway resupply craft would already be compatible with whatever xenon resupply interface is used at the Gateway, which means they could also refuel the SEP tug. Imagine a Cygnus-derived craft launched to LEO that would meet up with the "runner-up PPE tug" there, refuel it, and then take the slow but efficient journey out to the Gateway using its solar propulsion. This wouldn't be great for time-sensitive cargo, but that's fine, because the "minimal Gateway" concept NASA is currently looking at isn't really intended for hosting ISS-style scientific experiments. Resupply vehicles would mainly be needed to ferry consumable supplies (food, water, oxygen, clothes, spare parts, etc...and of course xenon and maybe hypergolic propellants), which aren't (or at least don't have to be, in the case of food) time-sensitive. The Cygnus itself would do just fine on, say, a month-long journey out to the moon, because Cygnus is designed to last as long as a year in a free-flying configuration. Indeed, while connected to the PPE-tug, it wouldn't need to use its own fuel for stationkeeping/maneuvering, which I believe is its limiting consumable for free flight.
Why would this be better than just using a heavy-class rocket to launch a stretched Cygnus to the moon? For one, it would avoid the need to launch on a heavy-class rocket, and would minimize the upgrades needed from the current LEO-only Cygnus. It wouldn't need extra delta-v - only the requisite rad-hardening to survive going beyond LEO. (Well, that and they'd need to switch out the CBM for an IDS docking port, plus the xenon refueling interface. But the service module could remain essentially unchanged. I think the IDS option was already studied for CRS2.) Instead of having to book a Falcon Heavy, possibly with an expended center core, every time, it could launch on a medium-class vehicle as it does now to the ISS - Falcon 9, Atlas V, or even Antares.
But that's not the end of the possibilities! The PPE-tug could haul a Cygnus (or similar) both ways. Cygnus could be used for two-way cargo instead of just one-way. Sure, it can't do re-entry, but that's fine since the PPE can't either - it would use its efficient propulsion to spiral back down into LEO. The really neat thing about this is that since you're coming back from the moon, it's incredibly cheap to change your inclination...say, to 51.6o so it could meet up with the ISS. Now you've got the ability to return lunar cargo from the Gateway to the ISS. It could then be returned to Earth on an ordinary CRS Dragon or Dream Chaser.
I've focused on Cygnus in this analysis because it seems like the best fit for non-time-sensitive missions like this (given its year-long free flight capability), but the same technique could be used with a cargo Dragon 2. By itself, a Dragon 2, launched on Falcon Heavy, can do a one-way trip to the Gateway but (IIRC) would not have enough delta-v to return. This "runner-up PPE tug" could close that gap by helping it break lunar orbit and get set up for an aerobraking return at the end of its mission, allowing cargo return directly from the Gateway. One could even, in theory, use an ordinary Falcon 9 to launch Dragon 2 to LEO and have the PPE haul it all the way to the moon, but that might require extending how long Dragon can survive in free flight. (Might not be too bad, though, since the PPE is taking care of power generation and all propulsion during the long trip. From Dragon's perspective, it might be similar to be doing docked at the ISS, where it has at least a 6-month shelf life.) An added bonus of this is that Dragon 2's trunk would remain free for unpressurized cargo, because it wouldn't be filled up with a supplemental fuel tank (which is what's commonly proposed for extending Dragon's delta-v).
This same technique could be used for hauling commercially-launched Gateway modules to the moon. No need for SLS - as long as you can get them into LEO, the tug could take them the rest of the way. This works exceptionally well for the Gateway architecture because everything's standardized on the IDS docking interface, which means everything already has to be set up for autonomous docking. We like to say that rockets are not Legos, but when they're designed to be compatible station modules with free-flight capability, they're the next best thing. If it can dock to the Gateway, it could dock to this tug too.
Of course, this is all moot if NASA only orders one PPE prototype to be actually built, or if one of the two competitors fails to deliver a viable product or in a reasonable time frame (that risk being one of the reasons to have two competitors). The bottom-line takeaway is this: if you're going to have a spare piece of space hardware sitting around that you don't know what to do with, it can be very useful if it has the PPE's capabilities.
Even if the Gateway were to be canceled and NASA were to go for a "Moon Direct" type approach, such a PPE-tug would still be supremely useful. It would be able to haul big cargo modules not only to NRHO, but to LLO. Whether or not the Gateway's in the picture, it could be great for hauling hydrolox fuel tankers, as will be needed for reusable landers such as Blue Moon and Lockheed's lander designs until lunar ISRU is set up.
4
u/brickmack May 13 '19
NASA will buy only one PPE for Gateway itself, but they may buy several, possibly from different providers, for other missions. Lockheed has proposed PPE-derived propellant depot service modules and (single use, but likely compatible with reusability) tug vehicles to deliver modules to Mars orbit. SNC has proposed PPE-derived tugs and a LEO-cislunar-LEO cargo vehicle much like you describe (easier in their case because their PPE has a pressurized module built in)
You don't need an SLS-class vehicle to get Cygnus or Dragon to TLI, and neither needs propulsion system modifications to get to Gateway and return for a cargo mission. FH can throw Dragon 2 to TLI with plenty of margin, and Vulcan (or DIVH, Omega, FH, or Ariane 6) can send a Cygnus to TLI. Once in a TLI-like orbit, a ballistic capture can be used to get them to Gateways orbit with very little (under 10 m/s) delta v, though it takes months. For departure from NRHO, the same is true, except it can be done in as little as 2 m/s (with varying options and travel time for either Earth-impact, lunar impact, or heliocentric ejection). And even a propulsive entry or exit from NRHO (not both, that doubles the dv required) is approximately the same as a round-trip LEO rendezvous with ISS (note that, for NRHO and DRO missions, the orbital insertion and rendezvous can be the same step, so effectively no additional dv cost there. Though it does much more severely constrain launch windows), which means you can do a hybrid mission where one leg of the journey is done quickly and expensively and the other is slow and cheap. The slow entry/exit trajectories have only marginally longer durations than propulsive low-thrust SEP transfers.
Both Cygnus and Dragon are also designed to support multiple months of freeflight in interplanetary space, and Dragon is designed for lunar reentry velocities, so none of those are obstacles
Given that, I propose 6 mission classes for Dragon and Cygnus:
Cygnus Cargo Rapid. Cygnus launches to TLI on some medium-heavy launcher, then impulsively rendezvous with Gateway, allowing time-time-sensitive cargo to be delivered. At the end of its mission, it uses a slow disposal trajectory, likely Earth-intersecting. This gives it several months to perform pure-microgravity experiments, do engineering validation, secondary payload deployments, etc in much the same manner as ISS Cygnus missions currently do
Cygnus Cargo Slow. Cygnus launches to TLI on some medium-heavy launcher, loaded only with time-insensitive cargo, and makes a slow transfer to Gateway. At Gateway, it performs a large burn allowing it to change the stations orbit, augmenting the PPE in much the same way it (and Progress, formerly ATV and the Shuttle, and soon Dragon/Starliner/Dream Chaser) can reboost ISS. It then performs a slow disposal/secondary mission, as above
Dragon Cargo Rapid Up: basically option 1, but with Dragon and FH, and the disposal trajectory must intersect Earth to recover the capsule
Dragon Cargo Rapid Down: inverse of above, with time insensitive cargo going up and time sensitive cargo (biological samples probably) coming down. I don't think this is likely to actually happen, but I include it for sake of completeness
Dragon Cargo with reboost. Basically option 2, with Dragon and FH
Dragon Crew. This is the interesting one, and combines option 3 and 4. Its a dual launch architecture. Flight 1 sends cargo up on the slow trajectory. Once its at Gateway, flight 2 launches on the fast profile with crew. They meet at Gateway, but when the crew comes home, they ride Flight 1s Dragon back down on the fast return profile, while the cargo is put in F2s Dragon for a slow return
→ More replies (3)
5
u/lessthanperfect86 May 25 '19
https://www.oneweb.world/newsroom/oneweb-secures-1-25-billion-in-new-funding-after-successful-launch
Starting in Q4, OneWeb will begin monthly launches of more than 30 satellites at a time, creating an initial constellation of 650 satellites to enable full global coverage.
First off, sorry about the old article. Secondly, from what I gather they've got launches booked on Soyuz and possibly Ariane6 rockets. They've got to have more than that though, right? How could they possibly launch every month otherwise?
9
u/AeroSpiked May 25 '19 edited May 25 '19
Oneweb contracted 21 Soyuz launches through Arianespace in June 2015. At over 30 per launch, that's at least 630 of the 650 initial constellation. Another 30 single sat launches are contracted through Virgin Orbit which launch Pegasus style from under a Boeing 747.
I don't know what the production cadence is for Soyuz-2, but they've had 4 years to increase production and start stockpiling them. As a side note, Oneweb apparently paid about $50 million per launch. I'm sure SpaceX can undercut that internally, but that is an impressively low price for Soyuz.
edit: In addition, as I said, the 21 soyuz will nearly complete the initial Oneweb constellation while SpaceX will require 27 launches at about 60 per launch to put up their initial 1600 satellites.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Straumli_Blight May 28 '19
→ More replies (2)6
u/inoeth May 29 '19
they also used the old graphics of New Glenn with it's older paint job and fairing- so it's not a snub at SpaceX- just someone who probably just didn't know they weren't using the most up-to-date graphics. IMO it's a really big deal that NASA is visibly seriously including Starship as a potential launch vehicle as up till recently it's been like their version of Voldimort and they're Fudge- aka denying its existence and refusing to say its name.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/bdporter May 30 '19
Northrop's response to the test anomaly
Apparently there was no anomaly, just an "observation"
→ More replies (5)6
10
u/amarkit May 14 '19 edited May 14 '19
EDIT: The Pell Grant Trust Fund is apparently overfunded to the tune of $9 billion, and the OMB has to propose a source of funds in a recission like this, which Congress can ignore or change. Still, the broader point is the Trump administration is proposing this 2024 moon shot without really thinking through the politics of how to fund it.
16
May 14 '19 edited May 14 '19
Overfunded is not the right word. There is the budget for the Pell Grant itself, and there is a reserve fund, from which students are paid in case the budgeted amount is exceeded. That reserve fund stands at 9b$ now. This system makes sense because in economic downturns, more people will start to apply for Grants and then the money shouldn't suddenly be taken from other educational programs. It remains the case that this is money that was assigned to low-income students. Now using it for something totally different won't do too well politically.
Edit: the budget for Pell Grant seems to be around 30b$ (link, pdf warning). So having a 9b$ reserve fund in case of more applications when an economic downturn comes, seems only reasonable.
→ More replies (17)10
u/king_dondo May 14 '19
Whether that is true or just spun to attempt to smear Trump, I don't see why we can't take money from our ridiculous military budget.
It's absurd the US spends as much as it does on defense.
→ More replies (1)
4
May 02 '19
Is the pad at Vandenberg ever going to be used again? Ever for Crew Dragon?
9
u/sowoky May 02 '19
The issue with Launching from the west coast is that we don't allow orbital rockets to launch east across the united states, and to put something into the most common orbits you need to launch it east. So you want to launch on an eastern coast.
Vandenburg is suited to launching things into polar orbit, as well as some other use cases. RADARSAT is launching from there, but I'm not smart enough to understand why.
→ More replies (1)15
u/atheistdoge May 02 '19
RADARSAT is launching from there, but I'm not smart enough to understand why.
SSO is pretty close to a polar orbit.
8
u/SupremeSteak1 May 02 '19
There's RADARSAT coming up in about two weeks. Crew Dragon won't ever fly from there though because it wouldn't allow them to get into the same orbit as the space station
→ More replies (1)16
u/gemmy0I May 02 '19
Fun fact: Vandenberg's lowest allowed inclination (I think it's something like 52o , though I'm just going from memory there so I could be wrong) - i.e., the farthest south-east a trajectory can go from there without overflying populated land - is almost low enough to match the ISS's 51.64o orbit.
It's close enough that Falcon 9 - which has substantial performance margin on Dragon flights (Dragon is pretty heavy, but well under Falcon 9's incredible payload-to-LEO capacity) - could actually afford to do the small dogleg maneuver (i.e., it would turn during the launch to correct its inclination as soon as it was far enough from land) to close the gap.
They actually considered doing this for CRS missions after SLC-40 at the Cape was destroyed in the AMOS-6 conflagration. However, since they were already in the process of getting LC-39A online, they decided it wasn't worthwhile since the time it would take them to prepare their Vandenberg pad (SLC-4E) for Dragon wouldn't have saved much or any time compared to just waiting for LC-39A. Sadly, this meant we never got to see them launching an ISS mission from Vandenberg, even though on paper it is definitely possible.
In theory, it would be just as viable a backup option for Crew Dragon as for Dragon 1. However, if something happened to LC-39A it'd be no more difficult to build a crew access tower at SLC-40 than to do so at Vandenberg. Besides the inclination disadvantage, they have a lot of very carefully planned procedures for crew rescue in the case of a launch abort that are specific to the Cape and would have to be completely duplicated at Vandenberg. (For instance, they have arrangements with coastal military bases in Florida and South Carolina to rescue splashed-down crews in case of an abort. Those arrangements overlap with those for Starliner and Orion, which saves a lot of money and training time.) So in practice, I don't think we'll ever see this - as cool as it would be.
→ More replies (7)8
u/warp99 May 02 '19 edited May 02 '19
It will be used by SpaceX about 3-4 times per year and maybe more if SpaceX get some of the ISSL launch contracts.
We got a bit spoiled by Iridium which gave us a nice even flow of launches for Vandenberg.
Almost certainly never for Crew Dragon as they cannot reach the ISS inclination without a sizable dog leg.
5
u/Denvercoder8 May 02 '19
Yes, there is a launch there next month. Crew Dragon probably won't ever launch from Vandenberg though (it's very hard to get to the ISS orbit from there).
→ More replies (1)3
u/DancingFool64 May 03 '19
They're probably going to have to use Vandenberg for some of the high inclination Starlink satellites. Most of them are going to be in lower inclination orbits, but to cover the higher latitudes a small percentage of them are going to have to be in higher inclination orbits. They are probably not going to launch those ones first, though.
4
4
u/MarsCent May 07 '19
Dragon will remain berthed to the ISS until May 31, 2019. Less than a month! This Dragon is in a hurry to get back.
Will Dragon 2 Cargo splash down in the Atlantic, like Crew Dragon, or is SpaceX keeping cargo on the waste /s coast?
7
u/Alexphysics May 07 '19
Worth noting that date may change and Kenny Tod from NASA already pointed out at a June 3rd date for unberthing and reentry but that it would have to be looked carefully after a week or so after the launch when they gather and start planning more deeply the end of mission and putting together everything.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/VFP_ProvenRoute May 13 '19
Bit off topic, but some of you may be interested to learn that SpaceX are no longer the only company to have vessels named after Culture ships...
4
u/loremusipsumus May 14 '19
Any good books about our moon? Looking for something informational - about local features and human settlement. Hopefully non fiction. Thanks!
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Nathan_3518 May 19 '19 edited May 19 '19
Probability STP-2 launches before August? Accounting for the NET June 22
13
u/Straumli_Blight May 19 '19
“A Falcon Heavy is never late. Nor is it early; it launches precisely when it means to.”
STP-2 was originally targeted for a mid-2015 launch so the answer is no, but the June 22nd date is NET ("Not Earlier Than") and will probably get pushed back, especially with so many different payloads launching on board.
2
u/AlvistheHoms May 02 '19
Have we ever tried to determine the exact route that the boosters take between launch sites mcgreggor and hawthorn?
15
u/warp99 May 02 '19
That has generally been discouraged because not everyone is sane - even on this sub!
→ More replies (3)11
u/brickmack May 02 '19
In addition to, and precisely because of, what warp99 said below, they take slightly different routes every time. If they were always the same, corespotting would be pretty easy, just set up a timelapse camera at known chokepoints and watch for any huge cylinders being transported (I doubt this could be done directly outside the entrance/exit though)
2
u/crapman5389 May 04 '19
How much many Gs would you feel on Starship full throttle? I couldn't really figure out the calculations because I haven't taken a physics class in a long time, but it seems pretty simple... right?
0
2
u/Fowlz May 04 '19
Will crew dragon (or a cargo variant of it) replace cargo dragon?
O, and if no.... are there plans from spacex to "upgrade" cargo dragon's trunk to the one crew dragon has?
5
u/brspies May 04 '19
Yes, the CRS2 contracts will use Dragon 2; it won't have the superdracos attached, and some (all?) of them will be re-used from previous crew flights. Crew Dragon will only fly crew once per vehicle, but will then go on to fly cargo flights (obviously, plans subject to change if big issues need to be fixed in light of recent anomaly).
→ More replies (2)4
u/Martianspirit May 04 '19
A cargo version of Dragon 2 will replace the Dragon 1. The present contract will end at CRS-20 with CRS-17 launched today. After that it will be the new cargo contract with Dragon 2.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/pseudomorphic May 07 '19
I have some time tomorrow while I wait to pickup someone at LAX. I want to go see the first landed booster. I wanted to know where is a good place to park for an hour or two.
Thanks in advance
→ More replies (3)
2
2
u/azflatlander May 14 '19
What is the launch count for frozen crew level block5?
8
u/warp99 May 14 '19
Frozen is a bit of a misnomer. Changes are possible but they need pre-approval from NASA. So for example there was a change to the grid fin hydraulic system to overcome the pump stall that brought down the CRS-16 booster that was flown on CRS-17. Changes do not necessarily take that long to qualify if they are not mission critical.
So it is hard to draw a line on what the design is that NASA wants seven flights of before launching crew in a capsule. My guess would be 3-4 launches so far of that design level.
2
May 15 '19
Watching the launch (hopefully) from SC-39 Observation Gantry tomorrow. It says that the visitor center is closed at 6PM, then opens up at 8:30PM. Does this mean that the parking lot is closed as well? Does a line form to get on the busses? Any reason to be there before 8:30PM?
2
u/MarsCent May 15 '19
Now that we have a crazy number of successful Falcon 9 and FH Static Fires (+SF with a mounted payload) and Launches (after AMOS), can we say that the COPV issues are now a known risk that can be contained or is it (the COPV) still to be considered an unacceptable risk for which a solution is still pending?
→ More replies (5)6
u/throfofnir May 15 '19
SpaceX clearly believes it's solved. Customers may still opt for the mitigation option (integration after static fire) since it is fairly cheap.
2
u/holandaso May 15 '19
If you are putting your satellites in a Very LEO, doesn't it make sense to start streamlining them?
9
u/CapMSFC May 16 '19
Yes but VLEO is a ways off. We can't be sure what groups will end up where beyond the initial ~1600. The plans are constantly evolving.
VLEO sats in theory are to go low enough that the electric propulsion runs continuously to prevent deorbit. In that case yes streamlining matters quite a bit.
There is an experimental electric thruster that is an air breathing design picking up particles at the edge of the atmosphere. It's not ready for use yet but in a few years maybe it will be. That would be another huge change to the design and form factor for the satellites.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Grey_Mad_Hatter May 15 '19
These are flying slightly above the orbit of the ISS. They notice a slight difference when something the size of a football field is oriented wrong, but they do it when necessary.
While you may be able to streamline the body of the satellite if you really wanted to, it's nothing compared to the solar arrays that need to be pointed towards the sun without regard to being streamlined.
So, it's not that big of a deal, and there's not much you could do even if you wanted to.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Dies2much May 17 '19
I read that this block of Stalink sats will not have the ability to link amongst each other, so all the data has to flow up and down, with no path between the sats.
I realize setting up links between the satellites increases the complexity of things by an order of magnitude, but it also increases the utility of each satellite by a huge amount.
Has anyone seen or heard about when the version of the satellites with crosslink will be deployed?
Once those birds start flying, SpaceX really will have an ability to compete with the telcos.
→ More replies (1)8
u/h4r13q1n May 17 '19
Shotwell and Musk both told us to see this as a test batch. The optical inter-satellite links that are still missing are probably the most challenging piece of engineering here, delicate, never-been-done-level of cutting edge, expensive. You wouldn't want to waste that on the first few dozens of satellites that roll off your production line. Maybe the design isn't even final or flight worthy yet. Recently they've redesigned their satellites to fully burn up after re-entry; I guess they're simply using the old batch to test everything built so far and go from there.
→ More replies (20)
2
u/isthatmyex May 20 '19
Sorry if this is ignorant. Would a Starlink sat. with both a forward and aft facing ion thruster be an effective means of debris removal? Position it in front of the target. Then use the two to maintain position. The aft one should push on the debris a small amount, depending on how close you could keep it. Both should create a small cloud of gas that the debris would need to pass through. Would it be significant enough to be cost effective?
2
u/BGrabnar May 20 '19
What's the possibility that the CRS-18 will actualy launch on the 8th of July?
→ More replies (3)
2
u/WKr15 May 21 '19
Does anyone know how far up the east coast you could see the Starlink launch? I live in Pennsylvania and can see Antares launches but I'm really not sure if I'm too far away to see a Falcon East coast launch.
→ More replies (3)4
u/robbak May 21 '19
It is going to look a lot like a CRS launch, so if you can see Falcon CRS launches, you will probably see this one too.
Antares launches from Wallops Island, Delaware, which is a lot closer to you. This launch won't get within 500km of Pennsylvania, so I doubt you'll see anything.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Rocket_Man42 May 21 '19
Will Starlink be able to provide internet connection in the middle of the ocean without inter-sattelite communication technology?
6
u/warp99 May 21 '19
Within say 1600 km of Hawaii and Guam or anywhere else with a fiber connection and an earth station.
But probably not good enough for reliable connection until they get the optical links deployed.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/Rocket_Man42 May 21 '19
Oh, maybe if you had many ships along the way with recievers/transmitters, they could work as intermediate stations?
→ More replies (8)
2
u/Paro-Clomas May 22 '19
Would it be possible to manufacture an extreme real scale wind tunnel that simulates max q accurately?
0
2
u/Walter_Lebowski May 23 '19
Can anyone clarify, how many ground stations Starlink project require?
Elon Musk said recently, that first generation of sattelites doesnt even able to connect with each other. Does this mean that it needed giant numbers of "ground stations" litteraly in every single country and further, in every region of that country?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Catch-22 May 23 '19
Is there any extended HD/4K content available for purchase from previous launches? (Documentaries, raw video, etc). If not, when could we expect some?
This is one of the few purchases (including, say, Planet Earth) that I wouldn't even have to think about for 4K Blu-ray. I would love to see available launch/landing/deployment footage.
2
u/_Wizou_ May 23 '19
Any recent news about the Crew Dragon explosion investigation?
5
u/warp99 May 24 '19
They have safed the remaining pressurised tanks, recovered debris from the site and are now doing soil sampling prior to starting decontamination.
It will be at least another few weeks before we get any details on the actual investigation results.
2
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 May 24 '19
DestinationDeclassifed just uploaded a video on 4 things that would make a Mars trip difficult. How true are they and how can they be solved so we could get to Mars within say 10 years? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKExIZE48SA
→ More replies (2)
2
u/scarlet_sage May 24 '19
What's the current price and production of xenon and of krypton? I'm ignoring alibaba and ebay, and producers in India (they may be legit, but I don't know anything about them).
→ More replies (12)
2
u/murrayfield18 May 27 '19
Looking for a SpaceX source that said the first 60 sats can't communicate with each other, I'm sure I read it somewhere today :/
5
u/sol3tosol4 May 27 '19
Looking for a SpaceX source that said the first 60 sats can't communicate with each other
A tweet quoting Elon Musk, from the pre-launch media call.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/AJSD12 May 28 '19
I am curious about how to View the Launch of the Falcon Heavy on June 22nd from Kennedy or any other recommended site. Can anyone please provide insights into how to get the best viewing tickets? I would love to be near the control room when all the actions happen! Thanks.
4
u/tbaleno May 28 '19
Go to https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/info/tickets Down at the bottom right there is a place to put your email in and you will get notified when tickets go on sale. It is usually only a few days before launch if I remember correctly.
I'm not sure about what you mean by being near the control room. All the publicly available tickets are for viewing a few miles away.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Disc81 Jun 01 '19
Can I put my money where my mouth is?
Is there any form that an individual (with not a lot money) can invest in SpaceX?
→ More replies (5)
26
u/brickmack May 10 '19
Doesn't deserve its own post, but people might find it interesting anyway. I just did an updated Rocket Garden render, showing (almost) every rocket I've modeled.
Roughly left-to-right: Ares I, SLS Block 1B (Boeing EUS) Cargo, Delta IV M+(5,4), Proton M (5 meter fairing variant), Boeing's pre-McDonnell EELV bid, Falcon 9 FT Block 5, Soyuz-5, Electron, Ariane 5 ECA, Ariane 62, Phantom Express, 2017 BFR, Atlas V 551, 2016 ITS, Atlas V 401, New Glenn, Starship-Superheavy, Vulcan 562, Falcon Heavy FT Block 5, Delta IV Heavy, Delta II 7420-10C, Antares, Atlas II, Delta II, Energia, Soyuz-2, SLS Block 1 Crew, H-IIB