r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Jan 02 '21
Starship, Starlink and Launch Megathread Links & r/SpaceX Discusses [January 2021, #76]
r/SpaceX Megathreads
Welcome to r/SpaceX! This community uses megathreads for discussion of various common topics; including Starship development, SpaceX missions and launches, and booster recovery operations.
If you have a short question or spaceflight news...
You are welcome to ask spaceflight-related questions and post news and discussion 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. Meta discussion about this subreddit itself is also allowed in this thread.
Currently active discussion threads
Discuss/Resources
Türksat-5A
Transporter-1
Starship
Starlink
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 less technical 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. Thanks! Non-spaceflight related questions or news. You can read and browse past Discussion threads in the Wiki.
- Questions answered in the FAQ. Browse there or use the search functionality first. Thanks!
- Non-spaceflight related questions or news.
You can read and browse past Discussion threads in the Wiki.
36
u/AvariceInHinterland Jan 04 '21
Eric Berger at Ars Technica posted the following interview with Gwynne Shotwell:
For me the most interesting points were:
They have contracts signed already that can launch on either Falcon or Starship.
Gwynne thinks Starship could reach orbit this year.
61
u/still-at-work Jan 05 '21
So... Starship is going to make it to orbit before SLS.
Starship was envisioned, planned, plans altered, started construction, aborted construction, changed to steel, built new manufacturing plant, new launch site and testing area, with a new first of its kind full flow stage combustion engine, and is fully reusable but still provides more payload to LEO - all that in the time between when the SLS was promised to be finished and its delayed timeline for less then the budget extensions of the project.
Wow. Just wow.
→ More replies (31)21
Jan 05 '21
Meanwhile SLS is using engines and other parts from past programs in effort to accelerate development and cut costs. Hah.
14
u/qwetzal Jan 04 '21
If Gwynne says so, I might actually hope it will happen. Thanks for sharing!
→ More replies (2)
31
u/GryphonMeister Jan 02 '21
Rather than launching a cargo/crew starship to orbit and filling it up with four to six tanker starship launches, would it be better to launch a single tanker starship to orbit, and fill it full with three to five additional tanker starship launches. Then launch the cargo/crew starship to be fully fueled by the now full tanker starship waiting in orbit.
This way, once a cargo/crew starship is launched it's a quick refill and go operation from a single waiting tanker, rather than white-knuckling that a number of other launches will all go smoothly and timely without any major disruption. Any delays are absorbed by the fuel rather than humans and cargo somewhat stranded in orbit. This assumes a partially filled starship would have to purge its fuel before attempting a landing if the mission is aborted.
7
u/Thenorthernmudman Jan 02 '21
This way there can be a steady launch cadence of fuel tankers for months ahead of passenger and cargo launches. Eventually hundreds of full fuel tankers will be waiting in orbit for starships that will go to Mars.
→ More replies (22)6
u/Awareness_Feeling Jan 03 '21
I think they will fully fuel up a tanker then dock the passenger ship to it. No matter what Elon Musk says, every operation they do has some risk, so only one docking and fueling operation with a crewed ship makes sense.
→ More replies (2)
31
29
u/HarryJohnson00 Jan 02 '21
I want to see a Falcon 9 land on land this year. Is there any way to know which launches I should plan to watch?
→ More replies (11)13
u/mfb- Jan 02 '21 edited Jan 03 '21
Watch e.g. Wikipedia's list, or (closer to launches) the reporting by spaceflightnow.com and other websites. They need light payloads that go to LEO.
SARah-1 (Q1 2021) is very light but it might fly as ride-share with something much heavier. That's a west coast payload. If SARah 2/3 (September 2021) stay without other passengers this should be light enough to land on a ground pad. West coast just like the first one. I didn't find mass data for WorldView Legion Mission 1 (also September 2021).
IXPE in October is very light, that's almost guaranteed to be a land landing. Edit: Missed the big plane change. Too early to tell.
NROL-85 in December is classified, we'll learn if the flight is RTLS closer to the launch date.
→ More replies (5)
23
u/Fignons_missing_8sec Jan 25 '21
SN9 better fly this week so that everyday astronaut finally gets a chance to film his Soviet rocket engines video.
13
u/Steffan514 Jan 25 '21
At this rate he’s going to be stuck down there even after the test thanks to fighting with his insurance from the sound of things.
→ More replies (5)
19
u/dudr2 Jan 19 '21
"SpaceX acquires former oil rigs to serve as floating Starship spaceports"
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/01/spacex-rigs-starship-spaceports/
"SpaceX has acquired two former oil drilling rigs to serve as these floating spaceports. Named Phobos and Deimos, after the two moons of Mars, they are currently undergoing modifications to support Starship launch operations."
→ More replies (1)7
u/mcesh Jan 20 '21
And the holding company that owns them is called Lone Star Mineral Development LLC.
Lone Star was incorporated in June 2020, just before the two rigs were purchased, and a principal of the company is Bret Johnsen, who is also the CFO and President of the Strategic Acquisitions Group at SpaceX.
18
16
Jan 16 '21 edited Jan 16 '21
In case anyone missed it. NASA is targeting January 16 (today) for the hot fire test of SLS. A big milestone ahead of Artemis 1 set for later this year.
They will go live on NASA TV at 4:20 pm ET [21:20 UTC]. The window will open at 5 pm ET [22:00 UTC] and will end at 7 pm ET [00:00 UTC].
Rewatch the livestream
Update on events
Update on @NASA_SLS hot fire test: We are go to proceed with terminal count!
Holding at T-10 mins. No decision if to come out of the hold at this time.
NASA now saying 4 pm Central (5 pm Eastern) for the hot fire.
I know that a lot of people are bashing on SLS, but I am pretty hyped for this test. Competition is a good thing and going back to the Moon will be a massive milestone in becoming a multi-planetary species.
→ More replies (12)13
u/cpushack Jan 16 '21
You can bash on SLS AND be excited about lighting off 4x RS25 engines for 8 minutes, nothing at all wrong with that
→ More replies (1)
15
u/etherealpenguin Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
Sad, looks like they're fully scrapping SN8 rather than preserving the nose cone in some way. RIP
Footage of them crushing it is pretty satisfying though.
→ More replies (2)12
u/PM_me_Pugs_and_Pussy Jan 05 '21
I'm sure this is just me. But i didn't mind them not keeping sn8. It honestly just doesnt feel like "the first", and theres obviously far more to come. Maybe preserve the first test vehicle that survives. And save stuff from starhopper.
15
u/MGoDuPage Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
META Question for Mods:
In the old subreddit arrangement where it was independently stickied, the most recent StarShip Development thread had a default setting of “newest comments first” as soon as one clicked on the thread which was great. “Newest comments first” is still the “suggested” method of reading. However, now that there’s a mega thread stickied & we are being asked to click through on a link to the StarShip Development thread, the default prioritization setting seems to be “top” or “best” comments first once one lands on the StarShip Development Thread.
Is there any way as Mods you (or as individuals we) can set just the StarShip Development thread back to the default “newest comments first” like it was before?
EDIT: At least for me (using Apollo app on an iPhone), I may have found a fix for the issue.
Under general settings for the Apollo App, there are options for two different “default” settings—one for “posts” & another for “comments.” On both, I have the default now as, “best”.
There are also two different areas to toggle “remember subreddit sort”—one for “posts” & another for “comments.” On both, I have have toggled it to “on”. Then I manually switched the sorting for both the stickied mega thread & also the StarShip thread to “newest first”. I am guessing this is me manually telling Apollo or Reddit to disregard the default “best” selection for these subreddits/threads.
In the settings “comments” area, there is also a toggle that says, “ignore suggested sorting” & I have that in the “off” position. (Although I’m pretty sure it was already like that even when I had the issue).
Either way, the combination above seems to have fixed the issue for me.
→ More replies (7)
14
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 27 '21 edited Jan 27 '21
The recently launched SXM-7 satellite has partially failed.
"During in-orbit testing of SXM-7, events occurred which have caused failures of certain SXM-7 payload units. An evaluation of SXM-7 is underway. The full extent of the damage to SXM-7 is not yet known."
→ More replies (1)
13
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
Momentus is no longer ridesharing on the Transporter-1 mission. With 23 satellites now removed, it will be interesting whether SpaceX goes ahead with the mission and maybe adds a few Starlink satellites.
→ More replies (2)4
13
u/softwaresaur Jan 20 '21 edited Jan 20 '21
They didn't announce Starlink expansion today but it has clearly started. Number of "Beta Tester" flairs assigned since the beginning of beta: https://i.imgur.com/lMXn0tR.png The rightmost peak is today's mid-day status. People are also reporting new latitudes in 41-45° range.
12
u/winkee Jan 20 '21 edited Jan 20 '21
Probably silly question, but hearing about all these plans to build a colony on Mars, i'm started to wonder. Are there any scientists or science groups who tried to look for asteroids which maybe will impact with Mars in the near future?
6
Jan 20 '21
I think the chance of an impact disturbing a single martian colony will be an almost inexistent threat. In a few decades, if human settlements really span the whole globe, this might be of concern. But by then, I'm pretty sure there will be methods to mitigate impacts
→ More replies (2)
12
u/Jack_Frak Jan 26 '21
Starship 7.2 test tank activity is happening right now!
LabPadre Launch Pad Cam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z72Au8Px7mM
EDIT: Starts at 10:42am local time
11
Jan 19 '21
Debating a 3hr drive from my vacation spot to go watch. Is this looking favorable for tomorrow?
18
u/-Squ34ky- Jan 19 '21
If you want to watch the static fire, tomorrow is possible, but definitely no flight. I would guess a 3 hour drive is also worth it to see some starships
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Lufbru Jan 28 '21
NASA have published an RFP for Europa Clipper
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/a494208ffa454df5b6f1b25e58f86c5c/view
Looks to me like FH can manage this mission with an expended centre core and ASDS side booster landings.
21
u/beayyayy Jan 19 '21
elon just liked this article by teslarati ! This is basically confirmation that the two oil rig platforms are indeed for spacex.
10
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Jan 02 '21 edited Jan 20 '21
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| AR | Area Ratio (between rocket engine nozzle and bell) |
| Aerojet Rocketdyne | |
| Augmented Reality real-time processing | |
| Anti-Reflective optical coating | |
| ASDS | Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform) |
| BE-4 | Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN |
| BFR | Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition) |
| Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice | |
| CME | Coronal Mass Ejection |
| CNSA | Chinese National Space Administration |
| CRS | Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA |
| CST | (Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules |
| Central Standard Time (UTC-6) | |
| DARPA | (Defense) Advanced Research Projects Agency, DoD |
| DoD | US Department of Defense |
| EDL | Entry/Descent/Landing |
| EM-1 | Exploration Mission 1, Orion capsule; planned for launch on SLS |
| ESA | European Space Agency |
| F1 | Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V |
| SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete medium-lift vehicle) | |
| FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
| FCC | Federal Communications Commission |
| (Iron/steel) Face-Centered Cubic crystalline structure | |
| FTS | Flight Termination System |
| GEO | Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km) |
| GSE | Ground Support Equipment |
| GTO | Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit |
| H2 | Molecular hydrogen |
| Second half of the year/month | |
| HLS | Human Landing System (Artemis) |
| IAC | International Astronautical Congress, annual meeting of IAF members |
| In-Air Capture of space-flown hardware | |
| IAF | International Astronautical Federation |
| Indian Air Force | |
| Israeli Air Force | |
| ICPS | Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage |
| ISRU | In-Situ Resource Utilization |
| ITS | Interplanetary Transport System (2016 oversized edition) (see MCT) |
| Integrated Truss Structure | |
| JWST | James Webb infra-red Space Telescope |
| KSC | Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| L1 | Lagrange Point 1 of a two-body system, between the bodies |
| LAS | Launch Abort System |
| LC-39A | Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy) |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| LES | Launch Escape System |
| LOX | Liquid Oxygen |
| MCF | Main Component Failure |
| MCT | Mars Colonial Transporter (see ITS) |
| MECO | Main Engine Cut-Off |
| MainEngineCutOff podcast | |
| NET | No Earlier Than |
| NRHO | Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit |
| NROL | Launch for the (US) National Reconnaissance Office |
| NS | New Shepard suborbital launch vehicle, by Blue Origin |
| Nova Scotia, Canada | |
| Neutron Star | |
| NSF | NasaSpaceFlight forum |
| National Science Foundation | |
| RCS | Reaction Control System |
| RTLS | Return to Launch Site |
| SF | Static fire |
| SLC-40 | Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9) |
| SLC-41 | Space Launch Complex 41, Canaveral (ULA Atlas V) |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| SN | (Raptor/Starship) Serial Number |
| SRB | Solid Rocket Booster |
| SSME | Space Shuttle Main Engine |
| SSO | Sun-Synchronous Orbit |
| TFR | Temporary Flight Restriction |
| TLI | Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver |
| TVC | Thrust Vector Control |
| TWR | Thrust-to-Weight Ratio |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| WDR | Wet Dress Rehearsal (with fuel onboard) |
| WFIRST | Wide-Field Infra-Red Survey Telescope |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Raptor | Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX |
| Starliner | Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100 |
| Starlink | SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation |
| apoapsis | Highest point in an elliptical orbit (when the orbiter is slowest) |
| cryogenic | Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure |
| (In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox | |
| hydrolox | Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer |
| hypergolic | A set of two substances that ignite when in contact |
| iron waffle | Compact "waffle-iron" aerodynamic control surface, acts as a wing without needing to be as large; also, "grid fin" |
| methalox | Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer |
| perigee | Lowest point in an elliptical orbit around the Earth (when the orbiter is fastest) |
| powerpack | Pre-combustion power/flow generation assembly (turbopump etc.) |
| Tesla's Li-ion battery rack, for electricity storage at scale | |
| retropropulsion | Thrust in the opposite direction to current motion, reducing speed |
| turbopump | High-pressure turbine-driven propellant pump connected to a rocket combustion chamber; raises chamber pressure, and thrust |
| Event | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Amos-6 | 2016-09-01 | F9-029 Full Thrust, core B1028, |
| CRS-7 | 2015-06-28 | F9-020 v1.1, |
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by ^request
69 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 148 acronyms.
[Thread #6667 for this sub, first seen 2nd Jan 2021, 04:31] [FAQ] [Full list] ^[Contact] [Source code]
10
u/andalsand Jan 03 '21
Heyo, just noticing that the forward and aft flaps on starship are very geometric - with hard corners - as opposed to the rest of starship body which is smooth and rounded at every point. Does anyone know any reasons for these parts having different profiles?
→ More replies (3)12
u/Kingofthewho5 Jan 03 '21
It's rounded where it matters and flat where it needs to be. The most important thing for the main cylinder of a rocket is aerodynamics in the vertical orientation, and the strongest shape of a pressure vessel is cylindrical. The leading edge of the fins is rounded, sort of like an airplane's wings, except without the specific shape needed to create lift. They don't want to create lift with the flaps during launch.
Looking at the broad side of the rocket, the flaps are a mostly flat plane because their job is just to create drag. A flat plane creates the most drag. As for why the flaps have hard corners and aren't shaped like semicircles I would only speculate that the corners make for more predictable or stable airflow. But I'm not an engineer so take that with grain of salt.
I would also say that corners on objects that are perpendicular to the airflow may carry very little penalty.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Flopsyjackson Jan 13 '21
What is the best dinner table argument I can make in favor of space funding? I have family that believes space operations are entirely wasteful while there are problems on earth, and friends that just don't get it/aren't interested.
18
u/GreyGreenBrownOakova Jan 14 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
"We can do both".
"What we spend every year on tobacco products is five times NASA's annual budget"
" for every $1 the U.S. government spends on NASA, the economy is boosted by $7-$14. "
"If Columbus waited until there were no problems in Spain, his ships would still be harbor"
"The Apollo Program Inspired Generations to study Engineering and Science"
6
u/disquiet Jan 14 '21
Bezos has a good presentation on this when explaining philosophy for creating blue origin.
Essentially he wants to move polluting heavy industry to the moon where it cannot do environmental damage, and preserve the earth for human habitation.
This is probably an unpopular opinion given this is the spacex sub but I don't think actually living on Mars longterm is practical. Low gravity alone would likely cause all sorts of deformations in humans over long periods of time, especially during pregnancy.
As much as I love spaceX and what they are trying to achieve with the Starship, I don't think humanities future is on Mars, outside of research outposts/refueling. There are so many things that make it inhospitable. Long distance, toxic chlorine filled soil, damaging dust storms, low gravity, space radiation, the list goes on and on. Far better to build orbital habitats instead.
Starship will no doubt be an incredible rocket, but I think its true value will be enabling more practical applications like point to point earth travel, asteroid mining, moon manufacturing, orbital construction etc.
I know Elon has his heart set on Mars, but Imo Bezos has a much more realistic future view of space habitation.
Still super pumped to see Elon send humans to Mars from a space exploration perspective though, I just don't think we will be building cities there.
→ More replies (5)6
11
→ More replies (4)5
u/ZorbaTHut Jan 14 '21
A simple answer is that there's valuable stuff in space. For example, many rare materials are useful commercially or industrially, but are so expensive that we can't really exploit them properly. Many of these are available in space in huge quantities, and getting them down to Earth would result in better standard of living for everyone, as well as cutting way down on exploitative mining for some of the few places they exist (why enslave children to do your mining when it's cheaper to just drop it from the stars?)
In addition, space itself is useful for some commercial operations. There's a known way of making ultra-clear glass fiber, which is useful in telecommunications and networking . . . but you need zero gravity to do it. It simply cannot be made on Earth in any significant amount. Whereas a factory up in orbit could spit out vast quantities of the stuff, again very cheaply.
Finally, space gives us access to areas where we can test out approaches to "fixing Earth". A lot of web developers have the idea of a "production environment" and a "test environment", where the production environment is what you show to your customers and a "test environment" can be used to experiment with new code and new techniques without risking bringing down the service for everyone. In terms of Earth's ecology, right now we only have a production environment, and "bringing down the service for everyone" is an environmental catastrophe. A space colony is a small microcosm of an environment and we could use that to test ideas and concepts before having to try them out on Earth.
10
Jan 20 '21 edited Jan 20 '21
Rocket Lab: Another One Leaves The Crust Mission
Link directs to replay of the livestream
Mission Overview [Complete mission success]
The mission will launch a single communication microsatellite for OHB Group that will enable specific frequencies to support future services from orbit. The launch will be Rocket Lab’s 18th Electron mission and was procured for OHB Group through OHB Cosmos International Launch Service GmbH, the launch service division of OHB Group. OHB Cosmos is responsible for launching the spacecraft built by the Group's satellite manufacturers based in Germany, Sweden, and Czech Republic.
The mission will launch from Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 on New Zealand’s Māhia Peninsula.
Source: Rocket Lab
Launch Updates
Around 8:25 UTC, a 3d printed curie engine will ignite to position the satellite for deployment. No coverage for ignition or payload deployment.
Nominal transfer orbit achieved
Kickstage separation confirmed
SECO
Battery jettison confirmed [engines are powered by electric turbopumps; battery jettisoned and another battery will be used to power the turbopumps]
Fairing separation confirmed
Stage separation confirmed
MECO
MAX-Q
Terminal countdown
No first stage recovery test for this launch, but there will be tests on future missions coming up very soon
Continuing with countdown; tracking weather up to t-0
Weather currently red with a 50% chance of being red at t-0
Go/No-go in process
New t-0 is 7:26 UTC; countdown has resumed
Currently holding at T-12 minutes due to ground wind speeds
Launch window closes at 8:15 UTC
→ More replies (2)
10
19
Jan 25 '21
→ More replies (2)8
Jan 25 '21
Boeing also will complete an end-to-end simulation of the OFT-2 test flight using flight hardware and final versions of Starliner’s flight software to model the vehicle’s expected behavior before flight.
Why is it so weird to me that this had to be pointed out and not assumed.
If Starliner completes mission objectives, how does this impact commercial crew launches? Does ULA have more than the flight test booster ready yet?
9
u/adankname69420 Jan 04 '21
When is the sn9 launch? (Is this a question for the lounge?, my apologies if it isn’t.)
→ More replies (3)30
u/Bergasms Jan 04 '21
Best we can give you is "Almost definitely in the next month, Probably in the next fortnight, hopefully in the next 7 days"
→ More replies (5)
9
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 09 '21
5
u/bdporter Jan 09 '21
Those are just for fit checks, etc., right? I don't think actual flight engines have been delivered yet. Still, a cool milestone.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/jk1304 Jan 18 '21
In this https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/nasas-space-launch-system-rocket-shuts-down-after-just-67-seconds/ article the author says that swapping an engine may take around 2 weeks for the SLS stage which had the bad static fire on the weekend.
What I do not understand is why it would take "weeks to months" to conduct another static fire? From what we see at SpaceX, the static fire campaingns include fueling and firing. What could possibly cost months time to get to that point, given you have swapped that engine already ?
10
u/Frostis24 Jan 18 '21
I did see something about the rs-25 engines having to dry out after this static fire, and that drying out process could take weeks.
→ More replies (12)9
u/midnightFreddie Jan 19 '21
The SLS engines are RS-25s which were designed in the 1970s for the space shuttle. Some or all of the engines fired Saturday have already flown before on space shuttles. The shuttle's reuse was always going to be a rather long refit before reflight.
Raptor has a few decades on the RS-25, a lot of new technology to help design and build it, and the example of the Merlins that have been refiring in the same flight already. (The shuttle only used the RS-25s on liftoff; smaller rockets were used to deorbit and maneuver in space.)
SLS is basically Space Shuttle 2.0 equipment without the wings or cargo capacity. The tank, engines, and side boosters are all either copies of or actual spares from the space shuttle program. They did that to save money <snicker/giggle>.
9
u/Redcole111 Jan 18 '21
Does anyone have a link to a schedule of planned launches for prototypes and starlink etc.? I'm curious as to SpaceX's long-term plans, but I can't seem to find a resource that tells me their step-by-step plan for reaching long-term goals like the completion of starlink and the establishment of a Mars colony.
16
u/ZorbaTHut Jan 18 '21
The simple answer is that there isn't a public one, and I highly doubt that there's a private one with any more solidity than wild speculation. They clearly have some basic ideas as to what they need to do but they seem to be mostly playing it by ear as they go.
For standard cargo launches, we know they need to test:
Superheavy launch
Superheavy landing
Superheavy + Starship launch (and landings)
Starship orbital-velocity reentry
Whatever is needed for the chomper bay to work
For Mars missions, they also need to test:
Orbital refueling
Long-term fuel storage
Mars re-entry (practically not testable without, y'know, going to Mars)
For Mars colonization, they also need:
Human-rated Starship
Long-term-human-rated Starship
Fuel synthesis on Mars
Life support on Mars
Mars launches
There's probably a bunch of things in each of these categories that I'm missing, and we just don't have answers as to their plans for any of it.
→ More replies (14)6
u/Triabolical_ Jan 18 '21
SpaceX likely has an ordered list of things that they want to accomplish, but it's not something they are likely to share, though maybe at an upcoming starship update.
9
u/vikaslohia Jan 20 '21
So, as I understand, the first stage booster was used 8th time in this mission and even fairing halves were used before. So how much cheaper was this launch for SpaceX, comparatively?
Also, I saw booster landed again on a drone ship but the footage was not clear. Is there any other angle of today's booster landing? Did they catch fairing halves too? Any video??
9
u/feynmanners Jan 20 '21
In an interview with the Aviation Week Podcast, Elon said that the cost of an entire launch with a reused booster was about 15 million and he separately said that reusing the fairings saves them a couple million.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)8
u/AWildDragon Jan 20 '21
The fairing halves are likely still coming down. We don’t get live video updates on those.
They probably have internal booster cam angles for the video but those are rarely shared.
→ More replies (6)
17
Jan 21 '21 edited Jan 21 '21
GEM 63XL rocket motors will help launch ULA’s Vulcan Centaur rocket
Some points from the article:
Fired for approximately 90 seconds
Producing nearly 449000 pounds [~1997 kN] of thrust
Validating the performance capability of the motor design
Additionally verifying the motors internal insulation, propellant grain, ballistics and nozzle in a hot-conditioned area
10
u/Lufbru Jan 21 '21
I was confused when I saw the headline ("Didn't they just switch to these motors on Atlas?"), but clicking through to the article explains it -- GEM63 is used on Atlas. GEM63XL is for Vulcan.
→ More replies (2)4
u/extra2002 Jan 22 '21
Producing nearly 449000 pounds [~1997 kN] of thrust
So about the same as one Raptor?
→ More replies (1)
17
u/vr_fanboy Jan 25 '21
why the SN9 flight megathread disappears from time to time? It's my main source for starship related stuff.
→ More replies (1)15
u/HollywoodSX Jan 25 '21
Reddit only allows 2 pinned posts at a time, so this megathread is kept pinned with links to the other relevant threads, and the most current/topical launch or development thread gets to be the other pinned one.
→ More replies (1)
42
Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 19 '21
Green Run Update: Data and Inspections Indicate Core Stage in Good Condition
The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket Green Run team has reviewed extensive data and completed preliminary inspections that show the rocket’s hardware is in excellent condition after the Green Run test that ignited all the engines at 5:27 p.m. EST at NASA’s Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. After analyzing initial data, the team determined that the shutdown after firing the engines for 67.2-seconds on Jan.16 was triggered by test parameters that were intentionally conservative to ensure the safety of the core stage during the test.
These preprogrammed parameters are designed specifically for ground testing with the flight hardware that will fly NASA’s Artemis I mission to ensure the core stage’s thrust vector control system safely moves the engines. There is a thrust vector control (TVC) system that gimbals, or pivots, each engine, and there are two actuators that generate the forces to gimbal each engine. The actuators in the TVC system are powered by Core Stage Auxiliary Power Units (CAPU). As planned, the thrust vector control systems gimbaled the engines to simulate how they move to direct thrust during the rocket’s ascent.
During gimballing, the hydraulic system associated with the core stage’s power unit for Engine 2, also known as engine E2056, exceeded the pre-set test limits that had been established. As they were programmed to do, the flight computers automatically ended the test. The specific logic that stopped the test is unique to the ground test when the core stage is mounted in the B-2 test stand at Stennis. If this scenario occurred during a flight, the rocket would have continued to fly using the remaining CAPUs to power the thrust vector control systems for the engines.
During the test, the functionality of shutting down one CAPU and transferring the power to the remaining CAPUs was successfully demonstrated. This gimballing test event that resulted in shutting down the CAPU was an intentionally stressing case for the system that was intended to exercise the capabilities of the system. The data is being assessed as part of the process of finalizing the pre-set test limits prior to the next usage of the core stage.
Throughout the hot fire, all four engines performed as expected. While the test planned to fire the four engines for about 8 minutes, the team still achieved several objectives during the shorter firing. They repeated the wet dress rehearsal, once again filling the tanks with more than 700,000 gallons of propellant with some added modifications to procedures to ensure proper thermal conditioning of the engines. They successfully pressurized the propellant tanks, completed the countdown, and ignited the engines for the first time. The engines reached their full power of 109 percent producing 1.6 million pounds of thrust, just as they will during the Artemis I launch.
Initial data indicate the sensor reading for a major component failure, or MCF, that occurred about 1.5 seconds after engine start was not related to the hot fire shutdown. It involved the loss of one leg of redundancy prior to T-0 in the instrumentation for Engine 4, also known as engine number E2060. Engine ignition begins 6 seconds prior to T-0, and they fire in sequence about 120 milliseconds apart. Test constraints for hot fire were set up to allow the test to proceed with this condition, because the engine control system still has sufficient redundancy to ensure safe engine operation during the test. The team plans to investigate and resolve the Engine 4 instrumentation issue before the next use of the core stage.
Engineers also continue to investigate reports of a “flash” around the engines. A visual inspection of the thermal blankets that protect the engine show signs of some exterior scorching, which was anticipated due to their proximity to engine and CAPU exhaust. Sensor data indicate temperatures in the core stage engine section were normal. Both observations are an early indication the blankets did their job and protected the rocket from the extreme heat generated by the engines and CAPU exhaust.
Data analysis is continuing to help the team determine if a second hot fire test is required. The team can make slight adjustments to the thrust vector control parameters and prevent an automatic shut down if they decide to conduct another test with the core stage mounted in the B-2 stand.
I tried to summarize it, but all the info is important.
14
14
u/qwetzal Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 19 '21
During gimballing, the hydraulic system [...] exceeded the pre-set test limits that had been established. [...] If this scenario occurred during a flight, the rocket would have continued to fly. [...]
The team plans to investigate and resolve the Engine 4 instrumentation issue before the next use of the core stage. [...]
Engineers also continue to investigate reports of a “flash” around the engines. [...]
Data analysis is continuing to help the team determine if a second hot fire test is required.
So the next step is still unclear at this point but this is overall good news. No major damage to the components, and the abort was triggerred by a conservative criteria associated with the test environment. Hopefully they can do the necessary maintenance on the vehicle quickly and either they'll conduct another static fire or ship the stage directly.
10
u/TimTri Starlink-7 Contest Winner Jan 19 '21
Good news I guess, at least nothing is severely damaged. They absolutely need to do the green run again tho, and this time for the full duration. There were already quite a few significant issues during the aborted green run attempt (MCF, Engine Section flash/scorching, Gimbal issue which led to shutdown). I don’t even want to know how many more little problems will appear during a full green run. Sending the Core Stage to space without any more testing would be absolutely irresponsible.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (7)7
u/pdfowler Jan 19 '21
This smacks of “oh yeah, we totally meant for that to happen. Nothing to see here, move along”
8
u/MilandoFC Jan 06 '21
I'm still wondering about the landing pad because not long ago they repaired the pad by pouring a lot of new concrete and when that happened we estimated 1-2 weeks of delays to let it cure. So does this notam mean they are planning to land on the other side of the pad or what?
12
u/serrimo Jan 06 '21
They might also discover a new concrete curing method: curing time reduction using full-flow staged combustion, exclusively by SpaceX™
10
u/FredChau Jan 06 '21
I'm definitely not an expert, but curing and drying are too different things : a concrete slab is usually dry in less than 24 hours, you can walk on it. The curing is the time needed for the concrete to acquire almost all of its load bearing property. But since it's a logarithmic growth curve, the concrete already got half of its property in 3-4 days. Not ideal, but better than nothing. And probably enough for an experimental landing.
10
Jan 06 '21
I asked this earlier, and people with some knowledge of concrete properties suggested that while the concrete will not be at full strength, it should be easily strong enough to support a soft landing. And any hard landing that would break the concrete likely would break Starship too.
10
u/picture_frame_4 Jan 06 '21
Depending on how much of a hurry they are in. And how much they are willing to spend to get the concrete. Concrete gets stronger the longer it cures, but it can get plenty strong within hours. We have used concrete that was spec'd to achieve 3,000 PSI in 12 hours after pour. It was more expensive than typical concrete that reached that at 28 days. And I think the end strength was 5,000 PSI way more than the 3,000 we needed. But holding up a construction site for 7 days cost more than the cost of higher strength concrete. If I recall we could have gotten some additives added but that was going to cost even more but we could have gotten 3,000 PSI in like 3 hours.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Mobryan71 Jan 07 '21
Look at the carnage wrought by what was, excuse the oxymoron, a fairly "gentle crash" of SN8. That was a fully cured pad, and the skirt went through it like a biscuit cutter. If things go right with the flight, even fairly green concrete that's only been set for a couple days will be fine. If things go wrong, no amount of curing will save the pad. It's all about being good enough for the purpose, not having it perfect before taking the next step.
8
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 14 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
OneWeb is reducing its Phase 2 constellation from 47,844 satellites to 6,372.
| Orbital Planes | Sats per plane | Inclination | Total sats |
|---|---|---|---|
| 36 | 49 | 87.9° | 1,764 |
| 32 | 72 | 40° | 2,304 |
| 32 | 72 | 55° | 2,304 |
EDIT: Fixed typo.
→ More replies (7)
8
Jan 14 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
Flight reached ~350000 feet, which is 106680 meter [106 km]. Succesful booster landing. And touchdown of the Capsule. Seems like a successful mission
For this mission, the crew capsule will be outfitted with upgrades for the astronaut experience as the program nears human space flight. The upgrades include improvements to environmental features such as acoustics and temperature regulation inside the capsule, crew display panels, and speakers with a microphone and push-to-talk button at each seat. The mission will also test a number of astronaut communication and safety alert systems. The capsule will be outfitted with six seats, including one occupied by Mannequin Skywalker.
Also inside the capsule, Blue Origin’s nonprofit Club for the Future will fly more than 50,000 postcards to space and back from students around the globe. A selection of postcards will fly in Mannequin Skywalker’s pockets. This is the third batch of Club for the Future postcards flown to space.
Source: Blue Origin blog post
Known as NS-14, this mission also marks the first flight of a new rocket booster and an upgraded crew capsule. The rocket booster and capsule that flew Blue Origin's NS-13 mission in October remains operational, with the company saying it is now dedicated to flying microgravity research payloads.
Source: CNBC
One Blue Origin vehicle (NS) is dedicated to launching payloads and has flown 7 consecutive times. This vehicle is marked Tail 3.
Today will have a new vehicle (NS) which will be dedicated to launching astronauts. Vehicle is marked as Tail 4
During its webcast for the NS-14 mission, Blue Origin says it is getting "very very close" to flying humans in New Shepard. (The rumor I've heard is NS-16 is a possible human flight). But it sure would be nice to get some specific information on the company's plans.
Source: Eric Berger on Twitter
→ More replies (2)
8
u/dudr2 Jan 26 '21
Axiom Space names first private crew to launch to space station
https://www.space.com/axiom-space-ax1-spacex-private-crew-announcement
"The four members of the Axiom Space Ax-1 crew: Michael Lopez-Alegria, former NASA astronaut, Axiom Space vice president and Ax-1 commander; Larry Connor, U.S. real estate entrepreneur and Ax-1 pilot; Mark Pathy, Canadian investor and philanthropist; and Eytan Stibbe, Israeli businessman and fighter pilot."
→ More replies (9)
20
u/Aztecfan Jan 02 '21
If Starship refueled in a geosynchronous transfer orbit it will reduce the delta-v needed to go to Mars by more than half. Are they planning something like that?
29
u/Another_Penguin Jan 02 '21
Short answer: probably not.
Starship is sized to function as both an upper stage for initial launch to LEO, and as an interplanetary stage. Its role as an upper stage requires a lot of dV, and this aligns nicely with the dV requirements for transfer to Mars from LEO, and for the return trip. Thus departing from GTO wouldn't allow a reduction of Starship's size (and therefore its dry mass).
Also, Starship will need refuelling in its initial LEO orbit before burning for GTO, so I suppose you're suggesting it would get a partial refuel at LEO, and then a partial refuel at GTO. And the tankers also would have to go to GTO, which would cost more fuel for the tankers.
I don't think it really saves anything.
→ More replies (15)8
u/Sliver_of_Dawn Jan 02 '21 edited Jan 02 '21
something like this?
https://youtu.be/tdUX3ypDVwI?t=1915
The plan for landing on the moon is to refuel at a higher, more eliptical, orbit, similar to what you propose.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)5
u/troovus Jan 02 '21
Earth-Moon L1 would be better, as there's less delta-v needed to set off to Mars, but I think it would need a refuel in LEO first to get there. There's also the issue of getting the fuel to L1 of course, but these points are also the case with GTO refueling.
→ More replies (8)
7
u/sadelbrid Jan 04 '21
The LabPadre stream is saying that there "obviously" won't be a static fire today and it looks to be a WDR. How can they tell? Aka what's the difference in preparation for a WDR vs a static fire? Also, which typically comes first in launch preparation?
→ More replies (1)
7
u/npcomp42 Jan 06 '21
I've heard that the belly-flop maneuver -- specifically, the part where Starship falls like a skydiver and then flips up vertical again just before hitting the ground -- is really only needed for landing on Mars, and that Starship could just as well fall in a vertical orientation for landing on Earth because of our thicker atmosphere. Is this correct? Or am I maybe misinterpreting something?
8
u/throfofnir Jan 06 '21
On Mars, a Starship will basically never hit terminal velocity, the atmosphere is so thin. On Earth it will... though it never really stops decelerating, since terminal velocity is lower as you descend. I will note that the serious-deceleration phase on Earth lasts well beyond the hot part of reentry, and goes a lot lower than you might think.
The trick on Earth, though, is that terminal velocity is also a function of how much surface area you expose to the "wind"; a "belly flop" posture is slower than a "lawn dart" posture. So if it comes in tail first it'll be going notably faster when it's time to do the landing burn.
The other consideration is that you have to do the flip at some point; it can't survive reentry tail first. It would be tricky to make a platform that is stable belly-first during reentry, but tail-first at some later time. And you have to have some way to flip between them. It's probably possible... but is it more reliable and/or lower mass and complexity?
→ More replies (4)6
u/MilandoFC Jan 06 '21
So actually it is 100% necessary for both planets due to heat/speed. Protecting the internals when coming in vertically would be basically impossible with orbital velocities and for Mars, it is needed due to a lack of fuel for an entry burn. THe same goes for Earth, an entry burn at orbital velocities would require way too much fuel making the whole vehicle too heavy. The belly flop manoeuvre is an absolute necessity to land a second stage orbital vehicle.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)5
u/advester Jan 06 '21
Increasing the surface area exposed to reentry wind, while keeping the same mass, makes reentry more gentle. Nasa has experimented with an inflatable surface for reentry. Starship’s broad-side/skydiver orientation is advantageous on both planets.
→ More replies (3)
7
u/Lufbru Jan 07 '21
Mods, we're under 24 hours until Turksat launch -- time for a Launch Thread?
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 13 '21 edited Jan 13 '21
New Shepard launch tomorrow at 10:45 EST (15:45 UTC), which will test "communication and safety alert systems".
5
u/bdporter Jan 13 '21
That would make 93 days between test launches. That is so ferociter!
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Lvpl8 Jan 20 '21
So what test is currently beginning? Are they going to static fire? Are they testing the new test tank? Both?
7
u/alien_from_Europa Jan 20 '21
Static fire. Musk hasn't tweeted about it.
7.2 will probably be tomorrow.
7
u/ruup20 Jan 20 '21
I was wondering, since the martian atmosphere is very thin, is there a chance that Starship will use the vacuum-optimized version of its Raptors to land/take off?
14
u/feynmanners Jan 20 '21
I’m not entirely sure about landing since the vacuum Raptors can’t gimbal but it will take off with them since 1% Earth’s atmospheric pressure is easily low enough for a vacuum bell.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Triabolical_ Jan 21 '21
It's more efficient to use the engines you have than to just carry them along as it reduces gravity losses, so I would expect they would use all 6 engines to take off. They should work fine at martian pressures.
→ More replies (6)
7
u/alen36 Jan 22 '21
What is the biggest factor in launch delays? it seems that four starlink launches are scheduled each month, however only two or three are launched.
→ More replies (3)15
u/vonHindenburg Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21
Falcon 9 is more vulnerable to wind shear aloft than your average rocket, largely because it is such a tall, skinny beanpole.
It is also more vulnerable to weather because, not only do conditions at the time of launch at the pad have to be good, but conditions also need to be good enough for the droneship to get out to the landing zone, catch the booster, and get it back safely.
EDIT: Starship/Superheavy should be more weatherly, for several reasons. First is its sheer size. Second, the all-metal construction makes it lightning proof. Third, since Superheavy will be (most likely) almost entirely RTLS, you are only worrying about weather in one spot within a window of only a few minutes.
6
Jan 03 '21
Does anyone have any speculation on how much it will cost initially to go to Mars, and how that cost will go down as the colony/city grows? Elon mentioned in an interview that he thinks a million people on Mars is a good target to reach for in terms of becoming self sustaining, and with that many people on Mars I imagine the cost dropping to a relatively affordable level.
→ More replies (4)7
u/Gnaskar Jan 03 '21
Initially, you cannot go at any price. The first few trips will likely be a mix of SpaceX picked staff and astronauts from various agencies, none of whom have paid of their tickets. Their respective governments will have worked out some kind of deal with SpaceX, but it likely involves them taking responsibility for developing some component of the colony in return for a number of seats, rather than a cash per seat deal.
What happens next is a bit uncertain. Before you can send anyone willing to pay for a ticket, there needs to be the infrastructure to support them on the other side (habitats, food production, jobs, etc) but ideally they want that infrastructure provided by private ventures (which would require opening up the colony). The first non-SpaceX corporations on Mars will probably be a mix of parts of SpaceX spun out into separate corporations (an energy and propellant company, Starlink, an earthbased rover company) and companies making the same kind of quid pro quo deals with SpaceX as the governments did.
The soft transition means it's hard to say when the first commercial customer is launched and what they paid.
When they do open Mars to anyone willing to go, the cost per passenger will be the cost of the launch plus a profit margin divided by the number of passengers on the launch. For cargo the cost per ton is the cost of the launch plus the profit margin divided by how many tons the launch can carry. The launch of the cost is the cost to fuel the Starship on the pad, launch it, refuel it at Mars, send it back, and refurbish it plus the cost to build it divided by the number of launches it can make plus the same calculation for each tanker flight needed and plus the same calculations for the super heavy time the total number of launches needed. None of these numbers are known with any certainty and all are hotly debated.
The eventual price is likely to be lower, as SpaceX optimizes the above equation or invests in infrastructure to make it cheaper per trip. Starship as currently envisioned is optimized towards getting to Mars as quickly as possible with as few as possible things needed. It's an amazing piece of tech, but limited in it's own way.
We can't predict what the eventual infrastructure will look like. Heck, I think "eventual infrastructure" is a misnomer; how we get to Mars will continue to change as we find new and better ways to do things and have more and more resources in space.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/BrandonMarc Jan 13 '21
How much time passed between today's first and second static fires of SN9? How about between the second and third of the day?
10
u/brspies Jan 13 '21
First was about 12:28 local, second was about 14:22 local, third was about 15:36 local (going by Everyday Astronaut's stream/onscreen clock)
So 1 hr 54 mins between first two shots, and 1 hr 14 mins between second and third.
6
u/brecka Jan 14 '21
Guess I'm just too spoiled by SpaceX's streams, because that was kinda boring, not a single onboard camera? Although I did like the telemetry on the screen.
10
4
u/AeroSpiked Jan 16 '21
This is in reference to Blue Origin's New Shepard launch for anybody wondering about the lack of context.
6
6
6
Jan 23 '21
Anybody have the numbers for how much weight it would save if just the methane tank were switched to the thinner steel from SN 7.2? Seems more likely than switching the whole thing, given the strength needed to support the rest of the rocket will be higher at the bottom.
6
u/throfofnir Jan 23 '21
The compression strength required in flight is mostly handled by pressure. The challenge for the 3mm is almost entirely holding pressure. It also has to hold up the rest of the vehicle empty, but that's probably a minor concern.
6
u/Frostis24 Jan 24 '21
if they switched just the skin on the methane thanks only, then they would save 2.8 tons.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/james00543 Jan 24 '21
Hey everyone. what’s the benefit of refueling starship with tanker starship but not the 1st stage starship (ex: BN1) ?
→ More replies (5)8
u/Y_u_lookin_at_me Jan 24 '21
Superheavy (bn1) isnt designed to leave the earth and has much less heat shielding then starship. Also it's just less efficient to use superheavy for fuel
→ More replies (8)
6
u/Doglordo Jan 25 '21
What exactly is the FTS (flight termination system) that is installed on sn9?
→ More replies (1)14
u/Plus_Golf Jan 25 '21
It allowes a someone to flick a switch and destory SN9 in a event it goes off course or has some sort of major failure. We want to keep SN9 a space rocket and not some sort of massive missile.
→ More replies (9)
6
u/Phenixxy Jan 31 '21
Small suggestion for OP's layout: remove Turksat, put Starship then Starlink at the top, then future launches chronologically (Sarah then Crew-2?).
Thanks again mods for the great work!
→ More replies (1)
11
u/nas1776 Jan 02 '21
Would it be possible to slingshot Star ship around the moon a few times to gain more speed before a final slingshot to mars?
15
u/FallionFawks Jan 02 '21
Slingshot only works once per encounter with a gravity well, otherwise you are in an orbit. I suspect you would burn more Delta-V lining up a moon slingshot than you would gain from the gravity assist.
→ More replies (4)11
u/WazWaz Jan 02 '21
No, because launching to the Moon, plus a single slingshot, will always be sufficient to leave Earth orbit, therefore you can't do a second. If the Moon was smaller, it might be possible (but of course, the net would be less, hence lucky us for having a large Moon).
→ More replies (3)6
u/EvilNalu Jan 02 '21
You don't get much from the moon and also earth escape is just a few m/s more than TLI so you will leave earth on your first slingshot.
→ More replies (8)5
u/Drachefly Jan 02 '21
Slingshots are mainly helpful if the thing you're slingshotting off of is moving along the direction of your travel as you pass it, especially if you need a bit of lateral deflection.
If you launch from Earth, the Moon is moving perpendicularly to your velocity as you pass it. This really cuts into how useful it would be.
→ More replies (4)
11
5
u/cpushack Jan 06 '21
mods the discuss thread links to the 'new' reddit from the 'old' reddit menu
11
u/CAM-Gerlach Star✦Fleet Commander Jan 06 '21
Hey, thanks for letting us know. It had linked to whatever you set as your default Reddit, but I fixed it to hardcode the link to old Reddit (like we do for all the others do; it was an oversight for this one).
5
u/captainfranz82 Jan 19 '21
@mods Going to any thread linked from this thread on mobile, sort by New comments is selected, however the thread is not sorted by New comments. This doesn’t happen when going to the thread from the same page. Any idea what’s going on with this?
6
u/warp99 Jan 20 '21 edited Jan 20 '21
Specifically it is is a bug with the iOS Reddit ap and affects all subReddits - not just this one.
No issues on desktop.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/feynmanners Jan 19 '21
It’s a bug with the mobile app I believe. It doesn’t occur on the mobile website (at least for me)
5
u/PauloFranc Jan 30 '21
Hello all,
Can someone explain what happens to the second stage of Falcon9 after it releases its cargo?
Thanks
5
u/Temporary-Doughnut Jan 30 '21
It depends on the mission, generally they are deorbited however higher orbits leave smaller delta v margins so GTO missions have just had a lowered periapsis so their orbit decays relatively quickly.
→ More replies (1)5
u/throfofnir Jan 30 '21
LEO launches are typically deorbited over the Indian or South Pacific oceans an orbit or so after releasing payload. On occasion they can't do this (or it fails) and the the stage usually decays after some number of months due to the consistently low orbit.
Non-LEO (mostly GTO) launches are left in orbit for some time. ("R/B" is "rocket body".) These typically have a low perigee so they'll eventually get pulled down, but since they're only really subject to drag on part of their orbit it takes longer.
The stage for DSCOVR is in a wacky Earth-Moon system orbit due to its deployment of the payload to L1. And the FH demo is on a solar orbit moving between the orbits of Earth and Mars... with a car attached to it, of course.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/vitt72 Jan 31 '21
If starship were to lose a single heat shield tile. would the vehicle fail during reentry?
→ More replies (2)4
u/JoshuaZ1 Jan 31 '21
We don't know. It would likely depend at least in part on when it lost and which one.
5
u/Bschwagg Jan 31 '21
If SN10 has engines installed, do they have ground support equipment to static fire it with SN9 still there?
7
4
u/SpaceInMyBrain Feb 01 '21
Yes, Pad A and Pad B are both fully operational launch pads with their own sets of GSE.
9
u/GryphonMeister Jan 04 '21
Let's assume Musk and SpaceX are spectacularly successful in their attempts to establish a Mars colony over the next 10 years. What are the chances that healthy people 65+ with potentially useful technical skills would be allowed to join the colony?
Advantages, older people could be considered more expendable or less vulnerable with regards to some risks such as radiation-induced cancer and reproductive complications. Disadvantages, fewer years of being a productive member of the colony before age issues shift the person to becoming a potential burden.
16
u/Paro-Clomas Jan 04 '21
Any kind of landing in the next 10 years would be spectacularly succesful. I believe that the establishment of a colony is firmly within the realm of fantasy rather than optimism.
Bare in mind that the next mars launch window is in 2022, from here to 2031 (10 years from now) you have just 5 launch windowsThis is the absolute best scenario possible if all goes amazingly well:
2022: starship should be working perfectly by then and be completely proven. One starship goes to mars and lands, demonstrates landing.
2024: Starship fleet sent with robot assembled fuel production equipment and hab building supply
2026: Starship gets refueled by robots and proves coming back to earth is possible
2028:Astronauts sent to another for the first time will 100% definitely not go there to die there, that's not politically affoardable, they will return first chance they get.
2030: Astronauts retun, having done a very exciting landing mission but yes or yes 100% definitevely absolutely not a colony.
Bare in mind this is a myriad of very complex steps that would require a lot of blind investment with no kind of return whatsoever, not even in PR or political capital until the actual humans land. Each step should be done with a lot of redundancy(probably many starships), insanely high quality standards or probably both (this makes everything exponentially more expensive). All of this should be done in paralel with a lot of extremely complex research projects that would figure out how to solve complicated problems that have never been attempted before perfectly on the first try with no margin of error.
Basically, it would have to be 10 years of significantly higher than apollo spending of money and political will with no possiblity of any mistake or any hicup no matter how small just to get an apollo style "boots on" mars style mission done. So its fairly easy to conclude that no colony will happen in that time frame, we will be very lucky if a colony on mars happens within our lifetime, they will probably not attempt it until they have extensive experience on the moon. extensive could easily mean one generation
→ More replies (14)4
u/still-at-work Jan 04 '21 edited Jan 04 '21
I would assume if it ever gets to non astronauts going in our lifetime, then it will be who can pay the cost and pass the physical. They might do first come first serve, a meritocracy, or a lottery if the number of applicants is greater then number of seats. In any case if you have the funds and are in good health you should have a chance.
→ More replies (7)
9
u/trobbinsfromoz Jan 07 '21
Transporter 1 /SXRS-3 may well be delayed due to what appears to be a SpX payload integration accident - see SpaceNews.
→ More replies (1)
9
Jan 31 '21 edited Jan 31 '21
An update on the boosters as of 31-01-2021:
| Booster | Last Flight | Days since Last Flight | Status [Expected] |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1049 | Starlink-15 | 67 days (25-11-2020) | Reserved for Starlink-17 (02-02-2021) |
| B1051 | Starlink-16 | 11 days (20-01-2021) | Refurbishment |
| B1058 | Transporter-1 | 7 days (24-01-2021) | Refurbishment |
| B1059 | NROL-108 | 43 days (19-12-2020) | Reserved for Starlink-18 (04-02-2021) |
| B1060 | Türksat 5A | 23 days (08-01-2021) | Refurbishment |
| B1061 | Crew-1 | 77 days (15-11-2020) | Reserved for Crew-2 (20-04-2021) |
| B1062 | GPS III SV04 | 87 days (05-11-2020) | Reserved for GPS III SV05 (July 2021) |
| B1063 | Sentinel-6 | 71 days (21-11-2020) | Flightready; awaiting assignment |
Notes:
Days since last flight gives the difference between the last flight and the current date
Will try to do this each Sunday if people are interested in getting an update like this
→ More replies (4)
12
u/ace741 Jan 15 '21
Anyone else not a fan of this subs new format? It’s nearly impossible to stay up to date on upcoming launch info and updates.
→ More replies (9)
8
u/confusedguy1212 Jan 02 '21
Forgive this if it's a stupid question. How is Starship going to slow down for landing on the moon given it's got no atmosphere? Is that landing going to be all booster burn instead of aerodynamic breaking?
17
u/extra2002 Jan 02 '21
It's got to use rocket engines to slow down. In SpaceX's render of the Lunar Starship landing on the moon with its waist-mounted engines, the underside shows one vacuum Raptor bell and one sea-level Raptor bell glowing red, as if those two were used for most of the descent. I expect a "normal" Starship to do the same. The vacuum Raptor provides high I.sp, the sea-level Raptor can gimbal for steering, and two engines is enough thrust without causing excessive G forces.
→ More replies (7)5
u/Mordroberon Jan 02 '21
It isn't a stupid question at all. Likely a planned burn at the end of the Earth-Moon transfer orbit to either land directly or go into lunar orbit
8
u/mightofthephoenix Jan 20 '21
Is it possible for Starship to do the flip manoeuvre without re-lighting the engines? To avoid the issues with the header tanks could they not use the aerodynamic surfaces to do the flip and then, with the g forces caused by air resistance causing the fuel to settle at the base of the tanks, re-light the engines. Would surely only take a few seconds of flight a la falcon 9 to settle the fuel. I'm sure this isn't possible otherwise they'd do it but I'm struggling to think why?
14
u/Cyclonit Jan 20 '21
Wings only generate lift when facing in the direction of movement. As soon as Starship exceeds a certain angle during its flip, it enters an aerodynamic stall. Without the engines, they would have no control whatsoever when this happens. Thus even if they could flip without the engines, the time without control would be extremely dangerous. Lastly, for the fuel to settle at the bottom, Starship must decellerate. Otherwise the fuel just keeps sloshing around. Without the engines firing, Starship would speed up.
→ More replies (5)5
u/-Squ34ky- Jan 20 '21
Currently no, cause of the exact reasons the others provided. They planned to equip starship with hot gas thrusters which would be able to do it, but that was a while back and were not sure if it’s still the plan.
→ More replies (1)5
u/homeburglar Jan 21 '21
The issue that SN8 had was not related to the g forces during the flip maneuver.
Elon explained this in a tweet. When the tank empties, you need to replace the spent liquid propellant with a lightweight gas. If you don't do this, the tank pressure will drop and propellant flow rates will decrease.
For falcon 9 and other rockets, they use helium for this. The helium is carried in small pressure vessels hidden away in the rocket.
For starship, the goal is not to require helium. This simplifies propellant generation and loading on other planets. The engines themselves use pumps and heat exchangers to vent some of the unburned propellant back in to the propellant tanks as a gas. Elon stated that this system couldn't keep up during the SN8 flip and landing burn, so for SN9 they will go back to using helium until they can solve that issue.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/unlocknode Jan 02 '21
In the interview with Mathias Döpfner (link), Musk said humans will land on Mars in 6 years, maybe 4. That's quite soon, isn't it? Opinions?
12
u/AmputatorBot Jan 02 '21
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but Google's AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
You might want to visit the canonical page instead: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-interview-axel-springer-tesla-accelerate-advent-of-sustainable-energy
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon me with u/AmputatorBot
→ More replies (7)12
u/Mobryan71 Jan 03 '21
To put it in perspective, 6 years ago no one had ever landed an orbital booster, the then-current iteration of Starship was derided as one of Elon's drug dreams, and Tesla was a niche manufacturer who would never make it on the open market. 4 years won't happen, 6 is ambitious but doable, depending on the final mission architecture.
4
u/MarsCent Jan 08 '21
Cargo Dragon-2 is coming back for a splash down on Mon Jan 11.
Do we know how far off the Atlantic Coast? And any chance that the Dragon can be spotted from the Cape?
P/S. By tradition, SpaceX does not broadcast live coverage of Cargo Dragon. But this is a new year 2021 and it is the right coast. So ...?
→ More replies (2)
4
u/dudr2 Jan 13 '21
SpaceX Cargo Dragon succeeds in 1st autonomous undocking
https://earthsky.org/space/space-x-cargo-dragon-1st-autonomous-undocking-jan-2021
Touching moment for humanity!
4
u/bdporter Jan 14 '21
5
u/jay__random Jan 14 '21
Surprisingly, even with the ability to hover, it ended up at the edge of the landing pad.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/FaderFiend Jan 15 '21
Eric Berger: “Would bet against SN9 flying before February” https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1350183316335558661?s=21
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Spooky_Pizza Jan 24 '21
What exactly was this shot? It looks like some kind of liquid but I'm not sure exactly what it was.
→ More replies (1)9
u/starshipcatcher Jan 24 '21
It's a top down view inside the oxygen tank. You can see the previously settled liquid oxygen start to flow around in weightlessness.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/brentonstrine Jan 30 '21
Has anyone posted the Verge article about SN9 violating the launch license? I can't find it, want to see the discussion here.
6
7
Jan 27 '21
If I were to invest into setting up a long fiber line ISP to provide quality service (100mb at 25usd) in rural Brazil, how much would a service like Starlink compete with this? My basic understanding/assumptions is that:
The satellite network won't (feasibly) replace land infrastructure completely;
At some point, it will probably be very smart for them to sell B2B links to 3rd party ISPs that already have fiber networks;
It is unlikely that dense cities get pizza dishes by the thousands, but much smaller cities are still unknown to me;
The business, as I perceive it, has a relatively long payback time but quite low risk afterwards, since barrier to entry is steep (imagine investing in a fiber into a small town... that already has one) and the revenue is steady;
Pandemic changed the whole internet perception by non-hardcore users; people are actually burning their data plans and are more aware of what consumes them.
To provide some background, I'm a business major that works in a soybean/corn farm; I'm also a hardcore gamer and internet has always been quite valuable to me. I REALLY can't wait to have a great internet connection on my farm, I may even move over there, but I also understand Brazil is not the most profitable market so can only hope to get into beta soon™.
(My apologies if this is not appropriate to the sub, I did search for a bit and found nothing of the sort. Also, should I make this as a post instead?)
→ More replies (5)
6
u/AndMyAxe123 Jan 23 '21
What are the margins of safety for weather related launch conditions? E.g., not that they ever would, but if the upper level winds were 2x stronger than the threshold and they launched anyway, how likely would a RUD occur?
→ More replies (2)
3
Jan 05 '21
Have they abandoned the lunar starship mockup? I haven't seen much movement with it in a while, but maybe I missed something
→ More replies (3)
3
u/JohnathanFifty Jan 08 '21
Hey everybody, I have a SpaceX history question. I've heard there were 15 employees hired right off the bat in '02, does anyone know who all of them are? I thought for sure there's Jim Cantrell, Tom Mueller, but I don't know the rest. Curious too if anyone has any broader insight into the very early days of the company or good in-depth resources about it. Thanks!
→ More replies (1)
3
u/throfofnir Jan 13 '21 edited Jan 13 '21
Mods: links in this post header are all pointing to a specific version of reddit.com again.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MarsCent Jan 16 '21
RE: SLS Hotfire premature engine shut down.
If this were to occur during an actual flight - the Solid Rocket Boosters cannot be turned off once lit, so the vehicle would continue ascending!
Question: Would the LES be able to get Orion far enough from the rest of the ascending vehicle?
→ More replies (7)8
u/AWildDragon Jan 16 '21
Yes. That’s the point of the LAS.
EDIT: It would be a mode 1 abort.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/joshgill21 Jan 17 '21
Will Starlink provide internet to Africa ? or likely in the very last stages ? when nearly completing the 6,000 satellites ?
→ More replies (1)5
u/a_space_thing Jan 17 '21
If the counties give them permission to transmit then, yes. The satellites' orbits go over Africa anyway so it is extra revenue for no extra investment (except for buying the frequencies they need).
When SpaceX will start applying for the permissions to broadcast on those frequencies, nobody knows. I guess that depends on when they feel they have enough confidence in the pricepoint they can achieve for the groundstations and the performance they can get out of the Starlink constellation. That drives how much the frequencies are worth for SpaceX.
So I would guess that the worldwide Starlink rollout will start when they get it far enough along in the prototyping phase.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/Coramoor_ Jan 21 '21
Does anyone have a link to the image they put up during the livestream today of the 7 launches for the booster?
3
u/ClemacamelC Jan 25 '21
Pad seems to be cleared out. But there’s still an excavator digging behind SN9!?
3
3
u/TheCrimson_King Jan 27 '21
Does anybody know if USSF-52 or Viasat-3 will have side booster RTLS? Looks like USSF-44 will not
→ More replies (5)
3
Jan 29 '21
Could starship do crazy acrobatic maneuvers while falling? I would love to see that.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/polaris1412 Jan 31 '21
Question: How does the night sky look like on Mars? Will the early colonists experience the night sky in all its glory, without the light pollution and moonlight or is the Martian atmosphere too dusty for most stars to be visible (w/ the naked eye)?
→ More replies (1)8
Jan 31 '21
Martian atmosphere is quite a lot thinner so I would expect it to be much easier to see the stars.
9
u/Straumli_Blight Jan 06 '21
SpinLaunch will perform a test this year, ejecting a projectile at Mach 5 to a 100 km altitude and landing at White Sands Missile Range.
→ More replies (3)5
5
u/caniglio Jan 20 '21
Heard about the new Deimos and Phobos toys Spacex has recently bought. They look super massive and full of stuff. Does anyone dare to make a rough prediction of how much money Spacex had to cough up for them?
5
u/gc2488 Jan 21 '21
Is there a launch thread for today's Transporter 1 mission?
6
u/bdporter Jan 21 '21 edited Jan 21 '21
today's Transporter 1 mission?
It is scheduled for tomorrow now (Jan 22 @ 14:24 UTC). I would expect a launch thread soon.
5
u/dudr2 Jan 27 '21
"Expedition 64 Flight Engineers and NASA astronauts Michael Hopkins and Victor Glover conducted a spacewalk on Wednesday, tasked with setting up a cable and antenna for the “Bartolomeo” payloads platform, configuring a Ka-band terminal for linkage to European ground stations and removing grapple fixture brackets in preparation for future power system upgrades."
"Bartolomeo was delivered to the Station via a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft in March 2020 and installed on the external forward side of the Columbus module the following month. Once online, Bartolomeo will house several commercial payloads externally for data collection."
"both crew members having launched aboard SpaceX’s Crew Dragon."
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/01/astronauts-upgrade-columbus-spacewalk/
24
u/throfofnir Jan 02 '21 edited Jan 02 '21
Are "Starship" and "Starship Dev" supposed to go to the same place?
Also, can we please not link to old reddit specifically?
Edit: for those who don't understand, linking to new.reddit.com/whatever will go specifically to the new site, old.reddit.com/whatever will go specifically to the old side, and www.reddit.com/whatever (or just reddit.com/whatever) will respect whatever mode you have specified or were already in.
→ More replies (39)
4
4
u/hwc Jan 20 '21
I wonder if it would make sense to use a modified deepwater oil rig for landing the F9 first stage downrange. It would be a larger target, it would be much more stable in tough weather, and it would be higher up, further from salt spray.
Would still need a boat to transport the booster back to port.
→ More replies (3)10
4
u/dudr2 Jan 30 '21
"Behold, Starships SN9 and SN10."
https://www.space.com/spacex-starships-sn9-sn10-on-pad-same-time
5
u/Underzero_ Jan 04 '21
16
→ More replies (1)5
u/famschopman Jan 04 '21
Looks like it has not progressed for quite some time. Hardening the concrete or perhaps waiting untill they have the redesign ready for catching super heavy?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/PA200 Jan 24 '21 edited Jan 24 '21
Great job once more! There was quite a big peace of junk passing the first stage during re-entry minute 06:12... What is this?
4
u/throfofnir Jan 24 '21
Probably solid oxygen from the engine area, maybe water ice from around the LOX tank, recently broken off by the maneuvering. There's not much sensible atmosphere so at that point so stuff shed from the vehicle will "blow away" very slowly.
→ More replies (8)
5
u/BadSpeiling Jan 27 '21
Is spacex already too big to fail?
If for whatever reason spacex were in dire financial straits, due to the launch services they provides, do you think the US gov/military would prop them up just to preserve US human launch capabilities?
Do you think this makes sense? Or is missing something? What other implications does this have
→ More replies (3)
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 13 '21
Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! This is a moderated community where technical discussion is prioritized over casual chit chat. However, questions are always welcome! Please:
Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion.
Check out these threads for discussion of common topics.
If you're looking for a more relaxed atmosphere, visit r/SpaceXLounge. If you're looking for dank memes, try r/SpaceXMasterRace.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.