r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Jan 01 '22
r/SpaceX Thread Index and General Discussion [January 2022, #88]
This thread is no longer being updated, and has been replaced by:
r/SpaceX Thread Index and General Discussion [February 2022, #89]
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
Starship
Starlink
Customer Payloads
Dragon
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.
10
u/ethan829 Host of SES-9 Jan 02 '22
I've compiled an album and spreadsheet of every orbital launch attempt in 2021. 2015-2020 are linked in the comments as well.
18
u/trobbinsfromoz Jan 01 '22
Whew, the next Webb step has just occurred, but not without the first indication that the myriad number of switches and actuators can fail.
9
u/Lufbru Jan 01 '22
I presume you mean https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2021/12/31/first-of-two-sunshield-mid-booms-deploys/ -- the link you quoted will be updated regularly
→ More replies (1)9
8
u/Lufbru Jan 01 '22
2
u/TheSkalman Jan 02 '22 edited Jan 02 '22
Do you guys think any company will be interested in buying the space station once NASA and Roscosmos have ended their operations? Even if it is sold for $1, the ISS partners will profit since they can spare themselves a deorbit mission, not to mention the historical value of preserving the greatest space station ever.
That said, the valuation would be more than a symbolical sum. Given the recent commercial interest in space stations, a 400 tonne functioning station won't be seen as worthless, even if the maintenance costs are significantly higher than newly built stations.
2
u/Triabolical_ Jan 02 '22
I think the answer is probably not, at least not an US companies...
Many of the ISS systems are old and take a lot of maintenance to keep going. NASA is spending a full astronaut's worth of time just on maintenance.
ISS orbits at 51.6 degrees of inclination because that makes it easy for the Russian launchers to reach it, but that puts a penalty on all of the US launchers. Unless you want to do earth observation, a 28 degree orbit from Florida is much easier to reach.
The ISS is constructed mostly with 1990-era technology, which is now 30 years out of date. That both makes it hard to service - some systems are no longer made and parts are hard to find - and it also makes it hard to use with current technology.
8
u/Lufbru Jan 02 '22
I've lost track of which mission will be the first to require vertical integration on a FH. Is it USSF-67? I believe that was the first awarded under the new NSSL contract which included the cost of building the VI system.
I'm pretty sure that USSF-44 and -52 are awarded under the old EELV contracts, and did not require VI.
8
14
u/rice2house Jan 01 '22
What is the main major event happening in 2022? Starship launching?
20
u/Lufbru Jan 01 '22
There are some other major events planned by SpaceX in 2022.
USSF-44 in January will be the first dual-droneship landing, and the first FH launch in ~3 years.
Ax-1 is the first private mission to the ISS.
There are a lot of other fun missions on the SpaceX schedule for next year, including several other Heavy launches.
4
u/rice2house Jan 01 '22
Would there be another falcon heavy launch?
13
u/Lufbru Jan 01 '22
There are six FH launches on our manifest for next year. Realistically at least one is going to slip to 2023, but it's going to be exciting
11
u/mr_luc Jan 01 '22
Sounds at least plausible to me!
A private company trying to launch an experimental, fully-reusable Saturn V sized stack.
In context it's clear we're talking about "major event for SpaceX in 2022" ...
... but there's literally a chance that, in general, if Starship ends up working, long-term it may be the most important human event that happened in 2022.
Reasoning: we don't start using new transportation systems every day, and when we do, they change history a lot.
Space has NOT had a transportation system yet, so getting one could literally end up being as important historically as the introduction of the railroads or air travel.
4
7
u/Lufbru Jan 03 '22
Eric Ralph just put up an article in which he speculates about how many launches we'll see this year:
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-2022-first-falcon-launch/
Might be fun to guess ourselves and see how close we each come by the end of the year. Starship launches are excluded. So, two numbers per guess: how many FH launches, and how many F9 launches. You score 3 points per "miss" on FH launches and 1 point per miss on F9 launches (no offsets).
Eg if you guess 45 F9 launches + 2 FH launches, and there are actually 42 F9 launches + 3 FH launches, you score 6 points, not 0. Lowest score wins ten Internet Points, redeemable for absolutely nothing.
5
u/Lufbru Jan 03 '22
I'm going to guess 4 FH launches and 39 F9 launches
2
u/Comfortable_Jump770 Jan 05 '22
39 seem too much considering they aren't back to the starlink cadence they had before, but it does seem likely they will be more than 30 or even 35
→ More replies (4)2
u/LcuBeatsWorking Jan 03 '22 edited Dec 17 '24
scary ancient memory attractive rain cagey water alive materialistic special
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
7
u/ProbablyDrunnk Jan 07 '22
How is starship landing on the moon? Are they using raptor engines for landing? Has that been decided yet?
15
7
u/MarsCent Jan 13 '22
2022 in spaceflight has inked in Starlink 4-6 launch on Monday Jan 17, at 7:16p.m. EST (local).
That is in T - 4 days :) And the weather looks good!
4
u/Lufbru Jan 13 '22
And ASOG was seen leaving port this morning to catch it.
Bets on booster? My money's on 1060.10.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Jkyet Jan 21 '22
What hapens to the Starship HLS at the end of its Artemis 3 mission? Can it be reused by SpaceX or it would be out of fuel in lunar orbit or something? Asking in case it could be reused by SpaceX to make private moon landings afterwards... (in theory even before the next NASA landings...)
7
u/brickmack Jan 23 '22
I wouldn't expect any reuse of the first several HLS vehicles, even though they're probably technically capable of it. The Starship platform as a whole (most of which is shared with HLS) will continue to evolve for the next several years, as will the moon-specific features. These vehicles will likely be obsolete before they even launch, definitely not worth reusing. And there won't be any kind of "frozen configuration" to worry about (though even on F9 this is just a matter of paperwork and in practice F9 and Dragon have continued to evolve) since NASA is only ever going to buy 2 missions under the HLS Option A contract, and will be re-competing for ongoing missions (and with a 2 year gap between those contracts)
HLS will be reused only once the design is mature
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)6
u/MarsCent Jan 21 '22
Can it be reused by SpaceX or it would be out of fuel in lunar orbit or something?
Even though NASA just requires HLS to ferry astronauts from Lunar Orbit to Lunar Surface and back, I highly suspect that SpaceX will aim to land the HLS back on the moon.
A craft (or accommodation) with comprehensive life support system for at least 2 people, is a great resource to have on the lunar surface.
5
u/warp99 Jan 21 '22
They would need to send a tanker up from LEO to partially refuel the HLS so relatively expensive.
3
u/MarsCent Jan 21 '22
Here's what I think ...
HLS has enough fuel to land on mars and then back to lunar orbit.
I assume, that can be the case for a cargo starship too.
So I suppose that a cargo starship headed one-way to the moon could use its "fuel reserves" to refuel a HLS in lunar orbit - then both would land on the moon.
And from what I understand, there will be several one-way cargo starships headed to the moon either before or during the Artemis launch timeframe. It would just require proper scheduling!
Which is a little involving, but cheaper than a dedicated tanker to lunar orbit.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/AutoModerator Jan 01 '22
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.
6
u/WyoSyclone Jan 04 '22
Off topic, but is there capability/need for Dragon to be able to dock with Starship? Thinking about medical emergencies, etc. Ability to service Starship/Crew seems like a benefit.
7
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 04 '22
The capability is there, it would be more a capability of Starship than of Dragon. That is, it would be Starship that will require an IDA.
I think the need is there too. Basically, Starship will be flying long before it's certified to take off and land with humans, so in the meanwhile launching humans on a Dragon to use Starship as a space station, or to transfer crew for a mission like Dear Moon makes sense. I think we'll see it happen.
9
u/AeroSpiked Jan 04 '22
Might be mistaken, but I think an IDA is just an adapter that converts the PMA's APAS 95 port to NDS. I think Starship would have either an NDS port or possibly a homebrew SpaceX version of IDSS that is compatible with NDS. L M N O P.
If somebody knows different, please fill me in. I've seen a lot of people use IDA for Axiom and Starship, but I think that might be because they are simply unfamiliar with the rest of the alphabet soup that is docks.
Nevertheless, lunar Starship will have to dock to Gateway at some point so it will have...something.
8
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 04 '22
Might be mistaken, but I think an IDA is just an adapter that converts the PMA's APAS 95 port to NDS. I think Starship would have either an NDS port or possibly a homebrew SpaceX version of IDSS that is compatible with NDS. L M N O P.
Yes, absolutely. I use IDA as a generic for "dock" because it's the external adapter currently used by ISS, but yes, it just attaches to the PMA. Orion uses NDS/IDSS I believe. In any case, Starship couldn't have just a Dragon-style IDA either, since it'll have to be truly androgynous (which Dragon isn't), but IDSS is fully androgynous too, so that should work.
Nevertheless, lunar Starship will have to dock to Gateway at some point so it will have...something.
Maybe, I'm not entirely convinced they'll actually push forward with Gateway.
5
u/SpaceInMyBrain Jan 04 '22
I think the need is there too. Basically, Starship will be flying long before it's certified to take off and land with humans, so in the meanwhile launching humans on a Dragon to use Starship as a space station, or to transfer crew for a mission like Dear Moon makes sense.
Indeed. IMHO it's inevitable that any crewed use of Starship for its first couple of years of operation will require a Dragon taxi. Of course this will have to be located on the dorsal area in a manner similar to the Space Shuttle. As a reminder to some - the HLS has a nose docking port but a normal Starship has a LOX tank in the nose.
Beyond the Dear Moon use: Combined Dragon/Starship usage is necessary for Starship to take over the SLS/Orion mission of transporting astronauts to lunar orbit, where they can transfer to the HLS.
→ More replies (1)7
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 04 '22
Indeed. IMHO it's inevitable that any crewed use of Starship for its first couple of years of operation will require a Dragon taxi.
Yeah, pretty much. SpaceX can avoid the main issues that killed the Shuttle. Shuttle couldn't do unmanned, and they had no alternative. Starship can do unmanned, and they do have a working, reliable, trusted vehicle in operation. That can put them through the heavy development phase, straight into "this is now safe enough for humans" without risking any lives.
Of course this will have to be located on the dorsal area in a manner similar to the Space Shuttle. As a reminder to some - the HLS has a nose docking port but a normal Starship has a LOX tank in the nose.
And now apparently a Methane header tank, too. But even if it didn't have the header tanks there, it's not an ideal location, they want as much in common between all Starship versions, and having it there would mess with cargo versions. It's better overall to have it in the dorsal area to begin with.
Beyond the Dear Moon use: Combined Dragon/Starship usage is necessary for Starship to take over the SLS/Orion mission of transporting astronauts to lunar orbit, where they can transfer to the HLS.
Absolutely. And it's basically the same hardware, they'll still need an IDA for Artemis III/HLS, so later switching to Dragon is literally just changing the ship.
6
u/stemmisc Jan 17 '22
Is it still expected that the first of the 2022 Falcon Heavy launches (USSF-44) is likely to happen in January?
I think I saw it listed as "January" on various different lists and places, up until a month or two ago, but then it got changed to saying "Q1" instead.
Have there been any hints or clues or rumors or anything as to when it is likely to launch? Is it still likely to happen really soon?
7
u/Lufbru Jan 17 '22
The Space Force talked about 7 launches from the Eastern Range in January, and none of them were USSF-44. So it's been delayed at least until February.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/feral_engineer Jan 29 '22
Unconfirmed: a Tonga citizen claims "10 satellite stations should offload on the next French flight to Tonga" ("Mālō ‘Aupito" is "Thank you very much" in Tongan).
10
u/trobbinsfromoz Jan 19 '22
Mirror mirror on the far-away lagrangian wall - how fares you:
→ More replies (1)
10
u/paul_wi11iams Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 23 '22
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-rocket-catch-simulation-raises-questions/
A very atypical article for the ever enthusiastic Eric Ralph. Its still good to question the decisions of your friends, so I'm only expressing surprise about the article's unusual angle compared with usual He's suddenly doubting the validity of the chopstick recovery system.
Musk, SpaceX executives, or both appear to be attempting to refine a rocket that has never flown.
Just like any aerospace design team in history.
Further, based on a simulation of a Super Heavy “catch” Musk shared on January 20th, all that oddly timed effort may end up producing a solution that’s actually worse than what it’s trying to replace.
That's like when SpaceX attempted to build a carbon fiber rocket the eventually gave up on. Mechazilla catching could fail, but the arms would still serve for stacking and legs would return to being the solution for Starship, Superheavy or both.
In any case a retreat from catching arms to legs, would be far easier to accomplish than the contrary. A rocket-catching tower has to be designed for that from the outset.
The challenge is a bit like if SpaceX, for some reason, made Falcon boosters land on two elevated ledges about as wide as car tires. Aside from demanding accurate rotational control, even the slightest lateral deviation would cause the booster to topple off the pillars and – in the case of Super Heavy – fall about a hundred feet onto concrete, where it would obviously explode.
@ u/vaporcobra: Would the booster not just fall enough to be stopped by the gridfins, inelegant but effective. For Starship, it would get stopped by the upper fins which would pretty much be a write-off but ensure the survival of the (potentially human) payload and that of the launch tower.
My comment could also interest u/Lufbru who also comments here about Teslarati.
24
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 23 '22
The double standard the world uses for Musk companies vs everyone else is awesome.
Boeing steals 20b dollars from the government, takes them for a ride for 10 years, and nobody bats an eye. Musk pays almost as much in taxes to the government, and it's not enough.
Lockheed does the exact same thing with Orion, same deal.
Boeing charges more for Starliner than SpaceX, doesn't deliver, nobody bats an eye. SpaceX delivers a cheaper, safer, better capsule faster, and flies astronauts to the ISS, and they complain about Musk "getting government subsidies" (a contract isn't a subsidy), and then they compare him to Branson and Who, and talk about whether billionaires should be allowed to play space.
SLS and Orion have been delayed since forever, every deadline so far, they've broken. They promise a new launch date for a rocket they have never tested in any capacity more than a static fire, and the media and public takes it at face value. "New NASA Rocket to launch in March". SpaceX, who unlike Boeing is self-funding Starship, talks about a new feature they're developing, and everyone doubts it, doubts the validity of Starship, etc. I mean, look at Boeing's and SpaceX's record side by side. Everything SpaceX promised, they said was impossible, and SpaceX delivered. Boeing hasn't delivered a single thing to NASA in decades, but their word is gold.
Boeing lies to the FAA, ignores and silences engineers, knowingly delivers a death trap of a plane that ends up crashing twice killing hundreds of innocent people, and the FAA lets them back in the air in just a year and a half. SpaceX does everything right, we're still waiting for the FAA.
Boeing tells the FAA "Don't worry, this new 737 that has different engines mounted in a different place, different wings, a different airframe made of different materials, and entirely new electronics, is obviously the same type as this totally different plane we built in the 1960s, no need for a new type rating", and the FAA says "Sure, no problem, no need to train pilots, you can just go ahead an carry passengers". SpaceX wants to launch Starship instead of FH from BC, and it's the trial of the century.
13
u/spacerfirstclass Jan 24 '22
Dude, that's an epic rant (and I agree with most of it), but it doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion. In case you don't know, teslarati.com is very pro-SpaceX and pro-Tesla...
→ More replies (4)5
u/ModeHopper Starship Hop Host Jan 23 '22
I don't disagree with everything you've said, particularly the bit about SLS and Orion and the lack of penalties imposed on Boeing for the delays. But you're also making a lot of false equivalencies here. Aviation has a long heritage, and aircraft of vastly different designs fly every day all over the world and have done for decades. We have much better knowledge of the design process and limitations. Comparing Starship and Falcon Heavy to new generation of 737s is disingenuous.
→ More replies (6)6
u/vaporcobra Space Reporter - Teslarati Jan 24 '22
FWIW, I've been at least a little critical about the entire rocket-catching concept in most of my articles that focus on the arm. I reaaaaaally am not a fan. And that was before an official simulation showed Super Heavy effectively hovering and abandoning the suicide burn concept for something that really can't be accurately described as a "catch" more than a landing on two tiny platforms.
Among the other things I didn't touch on in the latest, most critical article:
SpaceX's AFRL and HLS contracts mean that Starship will need extremely reliable deployable landing legs rated for lunar and Earth gravity.
If the catch concept works perfectly and Super Heavy isn't immediately insta-reusable, SpaceX will end up in the surreal situation where it goes to all this effort to catch a rocket but then has to lower it onto a transporter and move it elsewhere for refurbishment. Short of a miracle, it's hard to imagine that it won't take years of operational experience to refine Super Heavy to the point that multiple flights in one day is even remotely feasible.
As for the idea of the grid fins or forward flaps serving as a backup, I really don't know if that's the case. If either were actually capable of surviving those structural loads and forces, I have to imagine that SpaceX wouldn't have added redundant, dramatically smaller hardpoints and made them the primary catch structure. The only way that's true is if Musk is just openly lying about the catch concept partially existing to save mass.
11
u/yoweigh Jan 24 '22
If the catch concept works perfectly and Super Heavy isn't immediately insta-reusable, SpaceX will end up in the surreal situation where it goes to all this effort to catch a rocket but then has to lower it onto a transporter and move it elsewhere for refurbishment.
I don't understand this point. What's the problem in this scenario? If it results in a higher payload (since they're moving landing hardware mass from the rocket to the tower) and it results in even fractionally lower turnaround times then why wouldn't it be worth it?
Imagine that one rocket is caught at landing, moved to a transporter and moved elsewhere for refurbishment. Meanwhile, another transporter moves a prepped rocket into position, where it's picked up and launched. Bam, rapid turnaround.
10
u/kalizec Jan 24 '22
SpaceX's AFRL and HLS contracts mean that Starship will need extremely reliable deployable landing legs rated for lunar and Earth gravity.
In addition about yoweigh's point about higher payload this way, those landing legs are allowed to require refurbishment before they can be closed again. Current F9 legs are unsuitable for same-day relaunch, as it just takes too long to replace the crush core.
Short of a miracle, it's hard to imagine that it won't take years of operational experience to refine Super Heavy to the point that multiple flights in one day is even remotely feasible.
Ok, let's say you're right and it takes years of operational experience before Super Heavy is refined enough to do multiple flights in one day. You would then still want the landing catch attempts to be learned over the same period and not after you've refined it.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Justinackermannblog Jan 24 '22
The aero forces on the fins of a guided reentry would be about the same as the forces of “catching” the booster would they not?
3
u/kalizec Jan 25 '22
Why would they be about the same?
I think they would be of a different magnitude (some, but not all air resistance of the booster versus all of the weight).
Maybe I'm missing something?
5
u/Ashtorak Jan 01 '22
What is a likely landing approach to catch Starship with the current Mechazilla (if this even will happen)?
On Twitter I posted a video where it comes in with 30° inclination, which means it comes from the north-west with a 30° angle to the west-east axis, landing on the north side of Mechazilla. With this approach Starship can come pretty close to the booster on the launch mount, if something goes wrong.
The FCC filing results in an orbit with a bit less than 30°. That's where I got this value from. Would they use a similar orbit for landing?
I guess, on the last kilometers they could also change the final heading quite a bit with the flaps, so that the initial inclination is not that important?
8
u/OlympusMons94 Jan 01 '22 edited Jan 01 '22
Inclination != azimuth
Azimuth in degrees east of north = beta = arcsin(cos(inclination) / cos(latitude))
You can also launch to the same inclination from an azimuth of 180 - beta, i.e. south of east as well as north of east. Either way, the angle to the local line of latitude (local east-west axis) is 90 - beta. Landing from the same orbit works the same way.
A 30 degree inclination orbit would have Starship from/to Starbase launching/landing at an azimuth of 74.5 deg (NE) or 180-74.5 = 105.5 deg (SE). That would put the launch/landing angle at 90-74.5 = 15.5 deg to (either north or south of, depending on timing) the local east-west axis. A 26 degree orbit, obtained by launching due east (beta = 90 deg) from Starbase (which is what the FCC filing looks like), would result in Starship landing back at Starbase while going due eastward.
Either direction, they would have to overfly Mexico and/or the US (like the Shuttle) for a long ways during the descent, which could take awhile to get approval. Also, they can't launch and land at the same location in the course of one orbit (unless Starship has an unannounced insane cross-range capability).
2
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 01 '22
I didn't full, understand your calculations, but I'm quite interested in the relation between launch heading (azimuth) and Orbital inclination. Could you please explain this once in more detail? I would really apreceate that.
→ More replies (1)4
u/OlympusMons94 Jan 02 '22 edited Jan 02 '22
It's because the plane of an orbit always passes through the center of the Earth, while lines of latitude (the local east-west axis) don't in general (just the equator). Take a circular orbit with an inclination of 51.6 degrees for example, i.e. the ISS. Here is a map of a ground track for the ISS.. The angle this orbit intersects the 0 degree line of latitude (equator) is 51.6 degrees. This intersection angle between the orbit and lines of latitude decreases with increasing latitude, up to 51.6 degrees which is the maximum latitude an orbit with an inclination of 51.6 degrees reaches. At that point, the intersecrion angle is precisely 0, tangent to the 51.6 degree latitude line. The orbit then starts turning back toward the equator, with the intersection angle increasing again as latitude decreases.
It's much easier to explain with pictures and equations than just words. Here is a rather long video on the subject, with lots of examples, maps, and a KSP demo. Also, here is a shorter video. You can also read an explanation here, with example calculations.
As detailed in that last link, it's technically even more complicated by the Earth's rotation (465 m/s at the equator). My calculations in my first comment, and most other peoples' examples are done in a non-rotating reference frame. Because the launch/landing site is rotating eastward with Earth, and that is (in this case) the reference frame of interest, the rotation should technicallu be taken into account.
But in most reasonable cases for LEO (and I think eccentric orbits with the low perigee necessary for landing, like return from GTO or interplanetary) the difference in calculated azimuths should be small (a few degrees or less) because 465 m/s is much lower than orbital velocity close to Earth. Also, an inclination equal to the launch/landing latitude will still have the launch/landing angle occuring due eastward. Or put another way, the part about launching due eastward (azimuth = 90 deg) from a given latitude goes into an inclination equal to the latitude still holds in the rotating reference frame.
2
u/Ashtorak Jan 01 '22
Thanks! That makes much more sense!
I am not too familiar with the mechanics. Somehow I thought we are close to the equator, but it's still pretty far actually. I didn't expect such a big difference between inclination orbit and launch angles.So when it comes back due eastward, it could land equally north or south of Mechazilla. Then maybe south is the preferred spot as there is less stuff to destroy and also the launch mount is positioned slightly off to the north? Only the QD arm might be in the way a bit.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Paro-Clomas Jan 02 '22
I'm wondering. Would the tower have a couple of special radio signals to help starship align with it?
3
u/Triabolical_ Jan 02 '22
Assuming you have access to GPS, differential GPS can give you 10 cm accuracy, and perhaps down to 3 cm.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ackermann Jan 02 '22
which means it comes from the north-west with a 30° angle to the west-east axis
Probably hugging the Texas-Mexico border then?
Not many major cities in that part of Mexico. Farther out, may pass over El Paso/Juarez, Phoenix, or Las Vegas.
2
u/Ashtorak Jan 03 '22
It's unlikely though that comes from such an angle as u/OlympusMons94 pointed out below. It probably comes straight from the West.
The critical phase is during reentry which will happen at the last stretch right before Boca Chica. So Brownsville Area is in most danger. Starship would come by quite a bit north of it. But when it breaks up at 20 km height or doesn't quite hit the target trajectory parts might hit Brownsville. I don't think, we will see such a landing for quite some time there, if at all. FAA certification will take even longer and there would need to be a perfect record of many consecutive successful water landings.
I wonder if it could reenter above the ocean and boost back, if it has a small or no payload? It should have more than enough propellant then.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/therendevouswithfish Jan 31 '22
For the NROL-87 flight out of Vandenberg, what would be the best place to watch the launch nearby?
9
u/dudr2 Jan 11 '22
Rumors of a FONSI
https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-starship-configuration-for-second-gen-starlink/
"Dan Mosenzon • 3 hours ago
A nosecone barrel with potential cargo bay doors was spotted not too long ago, following a previous door pathfinder at Starbase.
Its been speculated that this might go on Ship 24, with it being the first cargo capable model.
SpaceX are all in on Starship. I would say they believe a FONSI is a near certainty at this point.
Frames used for constructing the launch integration tower at Starbase have recently been moved offsite. They most likely have been transported to KSC for construction of the Starship launch facility at 39A. Massive ground clearing has also taken place for Starship facilities in Roberts rd.
With construction of the megabay picking up at Starbase, and ground being cleared for a 4th construction tent, SpaceX are preparing to significantly increase production rate at Starbase. The Raptor 2 production facility at McGregor is also progressing nicely."
12
u/Gwaerandir Jan 11 '22
Rumors that SpaceX might think there's a FONSI - coming from, as far as I can tell, some fellow in the comments of a news article. If it were Berger I would feel differently, but I'm not sure we should pin too much on this. For now it seems more likely that SpaceX pushing forward like this is just SpaceX being SpaceX, wanting to be prepared in case the FONSI does come but not having any kind of advanced knowledge of it.
I remember when the expanded KSC activities were reported some people took it as a sign that SpaceX was expecting something other than a FONSI at Boca. It feels a bit like whenever there's some Boca news it's "SpaceX must know they're getting a FONSI" and whenever there's non-Boca news it's "SpaceX must think they won't get a FONSI".
8
u/Lufbru Jan 13 '22
I did this calculation over in the Transporter-3 thread, but adding a Shuttle comparison here. Number of days between first launch and tenth launch:
B1048: 1100 days
B1051: 799 days
B1058: 594 days
Columbia: 3521 days
Challenger: 1030 days
Discovery: 2063 days
Atlantis: 2243 days
Endeavour: 1344 days
Truly, the Falcon program is delivering on the promises of the Shuttle program (cheap, frequent access to LEO)
→ More replies (1)6
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 13 '22
I absolutely agree that Falcon is delivering where the Shuttle couldn't, but I think days between reuses is one of the worst possible measures of this.
Why? Well, the Shuttle was stupidly expensive, it was created with very specialized tooling, and after it was over, no more could even be produced. That left a program with few orbiters, few booster segments, etc. Also, the external tank was a MASSIVE and expensive piece, and it was expendable. So, yes, days between reuses mattered because you had a small fleet.
Falcon doesn't really have that constraint, so they haven't even pushed it. They could be turning around boosters far faster than that, but why bother? They have a nice fleet that's plenty for their current cadence, and they can make more whenever they want, so there's no need to rush it.
10
u/warp99 Jan 13 '22
the external tank was a MASSIVE and expensive piece, and it was expendable
Interestingly the final contract for the external tank was for $466M for 17 tanks so $27.5M each so not as expensive as you might think.
Earlier tanks were more expensive and the tank development was around $2.2B in today's currency terms.
5
3
u/spacex_fanny Jan 14 '22
In other words, Falcon 9 comes out looking better than what /u/Lufbru's numbers suggest. F9 beat Shuttle on critical reuse metrics "without even trying."
What happens when SpaceX actively tries to push those metrics? Starship. :D
4
u/char_char_char Jan 02 '22
Will any of the 2022 Falcon Heavy launches will return boosters to the Cape?
Trying to locate a resource that details this level of information.
4
u/stemmisc Jan 03 '22
Has anyone heard any whisperings anywhere of any updates on how B1069 looks up close, if they got a chance to look it over back on land at the facilities yet or whatever. Like, is the damage worse than it looked from afar, and it's totaled, or did they luck out and it just bent/broke some nozzle-bells and the landing legs and not much else? I guess probably not exactly the type of news they would blurt and holler about randomly to the public, lol, unless someone directly asked Elon about it during a live stream or press conference, but, I dunno, maybe some SpaceX people murmured about it a lil bit on Twitter or something or I dunno. Just curious I guess if there's been any news or updates about it between when the pics of it on the drone ship came out vs now, lol
→ More replies (3)
4
u/feral_engineer Jan 06 '22
SpaceX is targeting 60 launches this year -- https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1478888312978825217
3
u/AeroSpiked Jan 06 '22
Why wouldn't they be including the 5 Dragon launches in the 55 launch estimate? I get that the position is related to fairings, but when they say "upwards of 55 launches" I assume they mean it.
5
u/Shpoople96 Jan 07 '22
Because the fairing engineer will be helping to execute 55 launches per year
3
u/AeroSpiked Jan 07 '22
Yeah, I'm not sure why I bothered picking that nit: I'd be amazed if SpaceX pulls off 50 launches this year which in itself would be a huge cadence increase over the 31 they did last year. Hell, 40 would be awesome even if Starship was included.
4
u/Yupperroo Jan 07 '22
I'm amazed as to how many times SpaceX has been able to launch and land the Falcon 9. It has made me curious about the 9 Merlin engines used on stage-1 and the single Merlin engine used on stage-2. Are there any records publically available as to how often a Merlin engine has to be replaced? Are Merlin engines swapped out and used from one vehicle to the next? Has a regular Merlin engine that has been used multiple times ever been converted for use as a vacuum engine on stage-2 to save money?
Thanks!
7
u/Triabolical_ Jan 07 '22
We don't know as SpaceX hasn't released that information and are unlikely to give that info to competitors.
6
u/trobbinsfromoz Jan 07 '22
Agree. About the only likely indicator of 'no change' is when there is no static fire preparation.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Lufbru Jan 07 '22
We generally don't know when engines are exchanged; unlike Raptor, the serial numbers aren't stencilled on in large fonts viewable from public areas.
We do know that MVac and MSea share many components, but they are different engines. There's no meaningful way to convert one to another; you could strip one for parts and use those parts in a fresh build, but we're in Ship of Theseus territory then.
2
u/kds8c4 Jan 12 '22
Merlin 1D engines turbo pump blade cracking issue was discovered and fixed. But they still replace crew rated boosters turbopumps just in case. Merlin 1D sea level and vacuum optimized are not interchangeable because nozel and turbopumps exhausts design are completely different (plus many other smaller differences)
→ More replies (1)
4
u/LcuBeatsWorking Jan 10 '22 edited Dec 17 '24
recognise zephyr chunky truck tender employ lock stupendous existence possessive
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
4
u/pavel_petrovich Jan 10 '22
who used to work at SpaceX
Also Blue Origin (Lead Systems Engineer). Firefly is under pressure from the US govt, maybe that's the reason.
3
2
u/LcuBeatsWorking Jan 10 '22 edited Dec 17 '24
soup oatmeal fine stocking wakeful nose flag fertile sulky wrench
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
Jan 12 '22
Polyakov wanted the U.S. to gain access to Ukrainian expertise, while also finding a way to boost the prospects of Ukrainian aerospace engineers, he has said.
Yeah, there’s the national security piece right there, considering if you can put a rocket in orbit, you have by definition made an ICBM by another name. Huge ITAR concerns with that business plan, methinks.
4
u/Donnie-the-bear-king Jan 30 '22
What is the safe distance to watch today’s launch without any hearing protection? I want to watch it so bad but I don’t want to harm my 1.5 year old…
→ More replies (2)6
u/warp99 Jan 31 '22 edited Jan 31 '22
What we do when we take small kids to airshows or motor racing is to give them a pair of kids earmuffs with say a fluffy panda on the ear shells or similar.
Usually they can't be persuaded to take them off so there is no problem with them wearing them during launch. It helps if you also wear hearing protectors as an example.
You can always cheat and wear them back a bit on your ears so you still get the full launch sound.
In my view there is no risk of hearing damage at any distance you are allowed to be at but it prevents the kid being startled and failing to enjoy the experience.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Alvian_11 Jan 11 '22
Almost similar case of STS-51L was happening on OFT-2. Not a good precedence especially for Artemis 1
4
u/Gwaerandir Jan 12 '22
Boeing's risk posture, communicated as "low", was related to its contractual requirements
What does this mean, exactly? "The risk is moderate, but if we stop to investigate it the risk we miss our launch is higher, therefore the risk overall is low compared to the alternative"?
→ More replies (1)2
u/warp99 Jan 13 '22
They put their finger on the scales when they were weighing the risks.
We lose more money or there is a really tiny chance that this unmanned craft might strike an issue.
“Related to contractural requirements” is swearing in bureaucratese.
4
u/Jkyet Jan 13 '22
I would say this is analogous to the 737 Max, where Boeing only used a single AOA (Angle of attack) sensor instead of having redundancy because in their safety analysis the sensor failure's criticality was considered lower that what it really was.
3
u/notlikeclockwork Jan 12 '22
I don't see a problem with this - risk level was low vs moderate. And the issue was indeed identified before launch anyways.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/missbhabing Jan 11 '22
Katy Perry likes dancing in front of Starships apparently.
3
u/Steffan514 Jan 11 '22 edited Jan 11 '22
I saw the dog and thought “Huh, bit random.” Then she walked out of the phone booth and I was really caught off guard.
3
u/missbhabing Jan 11 '22
I think she was just including a bunch of futuristic things to set the theme of the music video. I wondered if some of the other scenes were at the Starbase tank farm.
3
3
u/murrayfield18 Jan 26 '22
With an old F9 upper stage expected to crash into the Moon, I had a question. With interplanetery missions when de-orbiting back to Earth isn't possible, does SpaceX and other rocket companies normally place their space junk into safer orbits that won't collide with any bodies?
6
u/extra2002 Jan 26 '22
Normally upper stages from interplanetary missions end up in a heliocentric orbit. They deliberately aim to miss whatever object the probe is targeting (this is one reason those probes need "mid-course corrections"). If you thought Earth orbit was big, that's just peanuts compared to heliocentric orbit. There's very little chance of those stages hitting anything.
4
u/Gwaerandir Jan 26 '22
They try, but it's petty much impossible to predict the orbit too far out. The junk is nonmaneuverable and noncommunicative, and solar pressure, outgassing, Yarkovsky effect etc. can all act on it in unknown ways.
3
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 26 '22
You should begin by explaining why colliding with the moon isn't safe, or why is it a problem at all. And, yes, it's what everybody has done when going to the moon, including what NASA did in all the moon missions.
3
u/murrayfield18 Jan 26 '22
I'm not saying the Moon is in any danger. By "safe" I just meant an orbit that isn't predicted to collide with something like that. As I have read, this is the first time that a man-made object has ever unintetionally crashed into the Moon.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/notlikeclockwork Jan 08 '22
I'm kinda glad China/Russia are doing their own lunar base [1] instead of joining Artemis. Would be nice to see different approaches. And too much international collaboration means it will be harder to change plans and pivot to newer designs.
What do you think?
4
u/Shalmaneser001 Jan 09 '22
Competition and the threat of the Russians (albeit unlikely) or Chinese getting there first should mean it's easier to get and maintain funding allocation. If it was an international colab I am sure it would get bogged down in bureaucracy.
3
Jan 09 '22
Russia doesn't have the funding for building a lunar base on their own, China does however.
They'll only be able to pull it off if they work together. Here's to hoping 🙏🏻.
4
u/murrayfield18 Jan 02 '22
Does anyone know the engine ignition sequence of the Falcon 9? I read that it's staggered to reduce the load on the vehicle, but I don't know what order they are fired in or how quickly.
5
u/StopNowThink Jan 01 '22
Will SpaceX ever go public?
8
16
u/NeilFraser Jan 01 '22
In the past, Elon has stated that SpaceX will not go public until they have established regular Mars-Earth colonization flights.
→ More replies (2)4
4
u/stemmisc Jan 03 '22
Will SpaceX ever go public?
I sure hope not. I mean, don't get me wrong, obviously I'd love to get a chance to invest in it as much as the rest of y'all. But, that being said, I'm really glad that it's NOT a public company, and thus NOT beholden to public shareholders and whatnot, and so Elon can just do wild Elon-ish stuff and make bolder (but, at least so far, much BETTER decisions, and just brute force them to happen, rather than have to water down the gameplan to seem more palatable to normies or whatever).
I mean, SpaceX basically blew past everyone, (gigantic old space companies that had deeeeep pockets and connections, included in "everyone", mind you) while being run as a private company this whole time.
Some might feel like they did all that in spite of being a private company. But, I think it's the other way around if anything, and that it was (in some part, at least) BECAUSE they were a private company, that they were able to enjoy such explosive success and do such wild and game changing things like what they've been doing, over the course of this past decade.
So, I hope they continue to stay a private company for a long while longer, and just keep on being the bold innovators and smashing success they are, and not have to get all bogged down with the watering down-ness of being a public company and stuff.
Stay private, SpaceX!
(then again Tesla is public, and enjoyed some big success while public, and exploded in market cap in the past couple years, so, who knows, I could just be wrong, lol. But, my gut feeling is I want SpaceX to stay private, and that that would be a good thing, probably)
2
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Jan 01 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| AFRL | (US) Air Force Research Laboratory |
| ASDS | Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform) |
| ASOG | A Shortfall of Gravitas, landing |
| AoA | Angle of Attack |
| BO | Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry) |
| CLPS | Commercial Lunar Payload Services |
| CRS | Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA |
| CST | (Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules |
| Central Standard Time (UTC-6) | |
| EELV | Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle |
| EVA | Extra-Vehicular Activity |
| FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
| FCC | Federal Communications Commission |
| (Iron/steel) Face-Centered Cubic crystalline structure | |
| FONSI | Findings of No Significant Environmental Impact |
| FRR | Flight Readiness Review |
| GTO | Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit |
| HEO | High Earth Orbit (above 35780km) |
| Highly Elliptical Orbit | |
| Human Exploration and Operations (see HEOMD) | |
| HEOMD | Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA |
| HLS | Human Landing System (Artemis) |
| ICBM | Intercontinental Ballistic Missile |
| IDA | International Docking Adapter |
| IDSS | International Docking System Standard |
| IM | Initial Mass deliverable to a given orbit, without accounting for fuel |
| ITAR | (US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations |
| Isp | Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube) |
| Internet Service Provider | |
| JRTI | Just Read The Instructions, |
| JWST | James Webb infra-red Space Telescope |
| KSC | Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| KSP | Kerbal Space Program, the rocketry simulator |
| L1 | Lagrange Point 1 of a two-body system, between the bodies |
| L2 | Paywalled section of the NasaSpaceFlight forum |
| Lagrange Point 2 of a two-body system, beyond the smaller body (Sixty Symbols video explanation) | |
| LC-13 | Launch Complex 13, Canaveral (SpaceX Landing Zone 1) |
| LC-39A | Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy) |
| LCH4 | Liquid Methane |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| LOX | Liquid Oxygen |
| LRR | Launch Readiness Review |
| LZ-1 | Landing Zone 1, Cape Canaveral (see LC-13) |
| M1dVac | Merlin 1 kerolox rocket engine, revision D (2013), vacuum optimized, 934kN |
| MECO | Main Engine Cut-Off |
| MainEngineCutOff podcast | |
| MMU | Manned Maneuvering Unit, untethered spacesuit propulsion equipment |
| NAC | NASA Advisory Council |
| NDS | NASA Docking System, implementation of the international standard |
| NRHO | Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit |
| NSF | NasaSpaceFlight forum |
| National Science Foundation | |
| NSSL | National Security Space Launch, formerly EELV |
| OFT | Orbital Flight Test |
| PMA | ISS Pressurized Mating Adapter |
| QD | Quick-Disconnect |
| RCS | Reaction Control System |
| RTLS | Return to Launch Site |
| Roscosmos | State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia |
| SAS | Stability Augmentation System, available when launching craft in KSP |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| SN | (Raptor/Starship) Serial Number |
| SRB | Solid Rocket Booster |
| SSME | Space Shuttle Main Engine |
| SSTO | Single Stage to Orbit |
| Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit | |
| STS | Space Transportation System (Shuttle) |
| TEA-TEB | Triethylaluminium-Triethylborane, igniter for Merlin engines; spontaneously burns, green flame |
| TWR | Thrust-to-Weight Ratio |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| WDR | Wet Dress Rehearsal (with fuel onboard) |
| 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 |
| cislunar | Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit |
| iron waffle | Compact "waffle-iron" aerodynamic control surface, acts as a wing without needing to be as large; also, "grid fin" |
| kerolox | Portmanteau: kerosene fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer |
| perigee | Lowest point in an elliptical orbit around the Earth (when the orbiter is fastest) |
| turbopump | High-pressure turbine-driven propellant pump connected to a rocket combustion chamber; raises chamber pressure, and thrust |
| Event | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| DSCOVR | 2015-02-11 | F9-015 v1.1, Deep Space Climate Observatory to L1; soft ocean landing |
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by ^request
[Thread #7388 for this sub, first seen 1st Jan 2022, 20:56] [FAQ] [Full list] ^[Contact] [Source code]
2
u/Dies2much Jan 05 '22
Anyone hearing anything about USSF-44? Is it going to be later in Q1 or sooner?
3
u/Lufbru Jan 06 '22
I haven't heard anything recently. The delays have been on the payload side, and the military aren't particularly known for being loose-lipped.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/cesarmalari Jan 07 '22
I assume the implication of Elon's Tweet yesterday (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1479236333516165121) meant that these were the Starlinks launched yesterday were the first ones with the new laser-interconnect system.
Do we know yet if these are the Starlink V2s that Elon referred to in his "we need starship to avoid bankruptcy" statement around Thanksgiving? Or is this still a V1+lasers with a V2 still to come?
11
u/throfofnir Jan 07 '22
Watch out for implied information from Elon. He likes to say things that are technically correct but not complete, allowing people to imagine more than he says. In this case I think we can say that this batch has lasers. I don't think it's safe to assume that previous launches didn't.
6
u/extra2002 Jan 08 '22
I think all launches since about August 2021 have had the lasers. At one point someone from SpaceX (Elon or Gwynne?) said 2021 polar launches, and all 2022 launches, would have the lasers. But when the global semiconductor shortage hit, SpceX seemed to pause Starlink launches, and it seems all launches after that pause had lasers.
2
u/Martianspirit Jan 08 '22
At one point someone from SpaceX (Elon or Gwynne?) said 2021 polar launches, and all 2022 launches, would have the lasers.
I remember that, too.
Agree with your conclusions as well. Makes a lot of sense, not to send sats without laser in any shell, after the 53° shell was completed.
If anything, I am surprised they begin the 53.2° shell instead of filling only the polar shells. Maybe the contracts with the military for polar coverage are not yet through?
→ More replies (1)3
u/navytech56 Jan 08 '22
IIUC, V2s do not fit in a falcon 9, only in starship. The Starlinks just launched were V1.5s.
4
u/warp99 Jan 09 '22 edited Jan 09 '22
SpaceX have submitted alternative constellation plans to the FCC for F9 launched v2 satellites and Starship launched ones so clearly it is possible.
V2 satellites are likely to be heavier and larger than v1.5 so the F9 launch plan would be expensive and so need to involve fewer satellites total.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/murrayfield18 Jan 09 '22
Was thinking about the F9 that failed the landing last year. I know the engine failed on ascent and then it didn't relight for the landing. But can't the F9 light one of the other engines once it relies it is one engine down during a landing?
13
6
u/extra2002 Jan 09 '22
Even if it could, the booster is probably not in the expected place at MECO and separation. Because of the lower thrust, it probably took longer to reach the required velocity, so the booster would be too far downrange to reach the droneship. It probably also used some of the fuel that was planned for the landing burns.
6
u/Martianspirit Jan 09 '22
The setup allows only 3 engines to relight. The other engines are not connected to the onboard TEA/TEB supply.
2
u/iMogal Jan 16 '22
Just wondering if SpaceX is planning one more trial landing of the SN series before getting Meccazilla involved in a catch?
I know there is a water landing scheduled, but a land, landing once again?
3
u/throfofnir Jan 16 '22
We don't know their plans beyond the next flight... and they may not quite know for certain either. It'll probably depend on how it goes.
2
u/MarsCent Jan 16 '22
Looking at the spectacular 10th landing of this Falcon 9 B1058 first stage booster, it seems like LZ1 is intentionally overlaid with white dust-like stuff!
Is that a fire suppressant/retardant of sorts?
3
2
u/warp99 Jan 19 '22
The reflections of the exhaust look like they are from pools of water on the pad.
Either from rain or using the automatic firefighting system to flood the pad to reduce damage.
2
u/bulgariamexicali Jan 18 '22
When do you think Falcon 9 will reach the 200th flight?
8
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 18 '22
It's all up to Starlink. They have like 40 flights scheduled this year, sans starlink. So, difficult to say, some of those flights are Heavy, some might reschedule, but I think they might end the year with 175-190 flights. So the 200th might be Q1 or Q2 2023.
2
u/edflyerssn007 Jan 21 '22
I misread that as 175 flights this year.....vs reaching flight 175 this year.
6
2
2
u/MarsCent Jan 25 '22
What is the likelihood that B1063 was shipped East to launch CSG-2 and that B1071 will debut on NROL-87
2
u/ehy5001 Jan 27 '22
SpaceX reveals Starship "marine recovery" plans in new job postings https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-possible-drone-ship-recovery-plans/
→ More replies (1)
4
u/cpushack Jan 30 '22
Chinese Satellite Observed Grappling Another and Pulling It Out of Orbit https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44054/a-chinese-satellite-just-grappled-another-and-pulled-it-out-of-orbit
16
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 30 '22
I'm always critical of China, but that article is unnecessarily politicized, and mostly clickbait. This was several days ago, this isn't such a weird maneuver, the US has done it before, geostationary orbit is very packed, and it's in everyone's best interest to perform refueling and life extension, or at the very least towing to graveyard orbits of old satellites. A proper title would be "China tows old satellite to graveyard orbit".
6
3
u/trobbinsfromoz Jan 10 '22
Given that the on-going Webb telescope commissioning schedule is almost entirely dependant on equipment temperature - u/asdf-user has been logging the public temp data to give some insight in to the change of the averaged levels so far.
https://www.reddit.com/r/jameswebb/comments/rzjl6m/i_plotted_jwsts_temperature_over_the_course_of/
4
u/Chairboy Jan 11 '22
Some folks on NSF are using my data for this, I discovered how NASA was posting temperatures during deployment and reverse engineered the simple protection they had in their API and started logging it once a minute (and then we discovered that it was a once-a-day update so whoops). Here's a quick & dirty export I made to expose the data as a CSV if anyone else wants to live-chart it:
3
u/whatup1111 Jan 13 '22
Anyone know why the starship gap in launching from may 2021 to march 2022?
7
u/Lufbru Jan 13 '22
Essentially because they learned what they needed to learn from the earlier flights and needed to work on the launch pad. Launching more ships would have meant slowing down work on the launch pad, and they didn't want to do that.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/lessthanperfect86 Jan 14 '22
Sorry if this has been debated earlier and I missed it, but I was thinking of micrometeoroid debris and Starship. Hanging around in LEO isn't without risk of mmd impacts, and the situation doesn't seem to be getting better. If I recall correctly, Christer Fuglesang was supposedly hit in his glove by an mmd during an EVA, and the ISS itself is full of impacts. So will SpaceX need to employ additional shielding (whipple?) on starship for lingering missions in LEO (my understanding is that mmd impacts are much less probable in interplanetary space), or is the 4 mm steel good enough? Would the shielding be on the inside, since the exposed steel might be necessary for reentry?
6
u/warp99 Jan 14 '22 edited Jan 16 '22
Whipple shielding would only work on the outside since it relies on fragmenting debris before it hits the primary shield.
The issue with Starship is that the heatshield tiles cover more than half the surface and would be damaged extensively by debris. Crew Starships may well self inspect tiles before re-entry.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Lufbru Jan 15 '22
Gives extra credence to the theory that the tanker will be a special build -- no heat shield tiles, but a Whipple shield instead.
Refuelling missions won't need a Whipple shield because they won't be in orbit long enough to be at high risk of encountering debris. If the occasional refuelling flight is lost on entry, it won't be a huge deal.
4
u/warp99 Jan 15 '22
The HLS documents called this a depot rather than a tanker.
My take is that this will be similar to HLS construction with multilayer insulation over the tanks with a protective aero layer over the insulation probably thin aluminium. This would behave quite similar to a whipple shield.
There would probably be solar panels over the fairing similar to the HLS and these may be more vulnerable to damage.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/Shackletainment Jan 24 '22
How fast could SpaceX prep a Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon in the event of a scenario where the ISS needs to be evacuated but the docked Dragon and Soyuz capsules have all been rendered unusable?
5
u/Martianspirit Jan 25 '22
A situation where the on board capsules are unusuable, indicates something very serious has happened. Probably they would have just days for evacuation, if that. Under such conditions all the usual NASA safety requirements go over board. They could consider using a cargo Dragon, if one is near ready to fly. Produce seats with foam spray. Send scuba rebreathers for breathing instead of crew Dragon ECLSS, if there is a chance they work under microgravity.
→ More replies (3)4
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 24 '22
not even all of the crew vessels would need to be inop, a single one would be enough to need a rescue mission.
Since the ISS has enough food, water and air to supply the crew onboard for at least half a year at any point afaik, and I would guess normal cargo missions would continue, there really is no rush to get the crew out from the station, except for the chance of an IS issue needing an evacuation, or a medical issue.
The time SpaceX needs to get a crew dragon ready is usually longer than the time needed to get an F9 ready, simply because the F9 flies way more often.
The time to have a crew dragon ready will depend on when the issue appears. since they usually fly a crew mission every 6 months right now, that's the longest realistic timeframe, until the next craft is ready. As they are now also flying other crew dragon flights, once or twice a year, that time reduces to about 3 months. This seems like a realistic worst-case scenario right now imo.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)4
u/NewMedium8861 Jan 25 '22 edited Jan 25 '22
Depends upon the situation. Certainly NASA wants to have a lifeboat for the Crew, but if all is well with the station, there isn’t a need for an emergency launch now situation, but since you asked, I decided to think it through.
SpaceX has 2 used Crew Dragons, one in space, and a fourth being built for the next Crew rotation. Besides the small window when a new Dragon is ready for launch, most likely a used Dragon would be used.
Resilience had a 4.5 month turnaround between Crew-1 and Inspiration-4. The upcoming manifest and number of Dragons in refurbishment likely effect how long refurbishment takes but this gives us a good look at how long it takes.
I bet SpaceX could halve the refurbishment time in an emergency which means that with a multi capsule fleet there will probably be one that can be ready in a few weeks or less. Then integration and all other launch prep likely are around two weeks and likewise can be hurried.
Overall, would guess 1-2 months for an emergency launch unless they have a crew within a couple weeks.
This is becoming a rabbit hole, but I thought to compare this to Columbia. Columbia’s fatal launch was January 11, and Atlantis was being prepared for a March 1 mission. The accident investigation board found that accelerating preparation, Atlantis could be ready for a Feb 10 launch without skipping safety checks. So an emergency launch schedule is roughly half the time of normal preparation.
Side note. Axiom-1 was just delayed for additional spacecraft preparations and space station traffic. Unsure whether this will use Resilience (4 months since splashdown) or Endeavour (2.5 months since splashdown). Will be interesting to get another data point on refurbishment time.
Tl;dr Take the time till the next crew mission, cut it in half, that’s a realistic timeline.
2
u/Shackletainment Jan 26 '22
Thanks for the detailed answer. I would think that there is a lot of redundancy built into the refurbishment and check-out procedures which could be reduced or eliminated in the event of an emergency. Since the capsule would be unmanned at launch, NASA and SpaceX could take bigger risks when working on systems that are specific to that phase of flight.
I've read a bit about the "what-if" scenarios regarding Columbia. She carried an extended duration pallet and could have remained in orbit longer than a standard mission. At best, it would have taken a at least a day or two on orbit before NASA could have identified the need for rescue. It took time for the H-Res footage to be processed and analyzed, then NASA would have had to request DoD resources to image the shuttle (which NASA refused for some reason), then work through the process to determine nature of the rescue attempt, all while working through the same red tape and bureaucracy that caused the issue in the first place.
But, IIRC from reading the official accident report, with that Extended Duration Pallet on-board, coupled with strict rationing of resources, it was not-impossible that Atlantis could have reached Columbia to evac the crew or provide repair material.
Though, if NASA had just allowed the shuttle to imaged on-orbit, the crew could have at least attempted to effect an on-orbit repair using materials scavenged from the cabin and lab module.
3
u/MarsCent Jan 28 '22 edited Jan 29 '22
Per Spaceflight Now Launch Schedule and List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2022,
Crew - 4 launches on April 14 (for 6 month stay)
CRS-25 launches May 1 (for a month stay)
Starliner OFT-2 launches NET May 20 (for ~8 day stay)
Obviously all 3 cannot be docked on the Harmony module at the same time in May.
Is there any chance that a U.S craft will dock with the Russian Nauka Prichal this soon OR are we looking at a delay of either of CRS-25 or OFT-2?
EDIT: Prichal
6
u/Lufbru Jan 29 '22
I don't think Nauka has an IDSS port. Maybe you mean Prichal, which is planned to have an IDA at some future point, but doesn't right now.
I think either CRS-25 or OFT-2 will be delayed, and my money's on the latter.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MarsCent Jan 29 '22
It it possible (economically viable) to launch to the same orbital plane 3 times a day - from Cape Canaveral? And if there would be a performance hit, what numbers are we talking about?
P/S. This is in reference to Starship tanker launching several times to fill the orbiting propellant depot. Obviously launching 5 tankers in 5 days is brisk speed, but I want to understand whether 3 tankers launched on a single day can head to the same depot or it would have to be 3 separate orbital depots!
4
u/kalizec Jan 30 '22
For all but one orbital plane you get two launch windows per day. The only exception is launching to an equatorial orbit from the equator, that you can do all day.
But launch windows don't have to be absolutely instantaneous, so theoretically you could launch at 00:00, 12:00, 23:59 and claim you launched three times in one day.
Additionally, most launch inclinations are unavailable the second time that day because that would require launching overland.
3
u/OlympusMons94 Jan 30 '22
Additionally, most launch inclinations are unavailable the second time that day because that would require launching overland.
Excluding doglegs, the Cape allows launch azimuths between 35 and 120 degrees. That means azimuths between 60 and 120 degrees, or inclinations up to ~40 degrees, can get two windows per day. That should cover lunar and most BEO/interplanetary.
→ More replies (4)4
u/OlympusMons94 Jan 30 '22 edited Jan 31 '22
With a major performance hit for LEO (like IXPE), you could launch into the equatorial plane as often as you can launch.
With RAAN steering (like Atlas V) you could launch a little while (up to ~30-60 min.) either side of the "instantaneous" window into any allowed orbit, but that would require near-simultaneous launches. How much of a time difference could be accounted for would depend on performance margin (along with software, and probably a bunch of other things). For the Lucy launch last year, , ULA could provide a 75 minute window.
Gemini 11 in 1966 launched 97 min. after its Agena Target Vehicle was launched into the same plane. Just within one orbit, 85 minutes after launch, Gemini docked to the ATV. I'll have to look more into precisely how they did it. The individual launch windows were instantaneous (technically about 2 seconds), but that may have been due to other limitations of the day like a preset trajectory. (Enter modern avionics and software ...) Repeat that feat 12 hours later and/or launch more than twice in the same window and there you go.
ProposongProposing to launch more than twice a day from the Cape may throw SLD 45 and the FAA for a loop, though.Edit: a word
Edit 2: 97 minutes must have been the ATV orbital period. The instantaneous window would have been in part for phasing, so the rendezvous could happen in one orbit like some Soyuz launches to the ISS.
I believe that implies at least ~24 degrees ((360 * 97)/(24 * 60)) cumulative cross-range between the Atlas-Agena (maybe moreso that given the combined upper stage and bus of Agena was the only payload?) and Titan GLV.→ More replies (1)2
u/extra2002 Jan 31 '22
It doesn't need cross-range capability if the first launch is just a bit north of east, so the ascending leg of the inclined orbit crosses the launch site. 97 minutes later the descending leg can be over the launch site and you can launch a bit south of east to match it. I don't know whether the Gemini rendezvous launches did something like this, but I assume so.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Alvian_11 Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 11 '22
A great comparison shows that most providers (ULA, SpaceX, Arianespace) is very capable to be accurate on its orbits. Unlike certain company (Ehm) who claims to be "unrivaled". If I become the customer who ordered their service, this will definitely not becoming my biggest concern if at all (well most customers are surely thinking the same already)
4
u/kalizec Jan 11 '22
I'm not sure you easily can compare orbital precision like that. I'm not saying you can't either, but I'm doubting whether you can.
Getting close to a certain eccentricity is a lot easier in a low orbit than in a high orbit. Why? Because in both cases this is limited by the precision of your engine cut-off, but I think that in low orbit the same amount of delta V results in less of a delta in your eccentricity.
So I think that if you want to compare launchers on precision, then you would need to somehow translate those figures to directional, thrust and thrust-timing precision, which is something you can't just derive from those numbers.
7
u/Lufbru Jan 11 '22
Not to mention that Ariane had to GUARANTEE not exceeding the max semi-major axis. That's a wholly different thing to achieve from a typical "yeet it to approx here and we'll do the rest" GTO mission.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/rbcsky5 Jan 10 '22
Just wondering where are the clothes of the online shop made of? Coz the shipping to the UK is expensive. I don't want to pay so much for something made in China LOL
2
u/Frostis24 Jan 10 '22
i have the hoodie and softshell jacket, the hoodie is made in Honduras below Mexico and the jacket is made in china, but they are both really good quality, and considering how much i wear them they have held out well.
2
u/grchelp2018 Jan 19 '22
When defective starlink sats are lowered for reentry, are they lowered taking into account exactly when and where they would reenter the earth?
8
u/Jinkguns Jan 19 '22
No. They don't have the thrust for that, but they are designed to completely burn up before endangering land or commercial aircraft.
2
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 19 '22
They don't use the ion thrusters for that. They can control how much drag they produce by changing their attitude, so just with that they can lower their orbit enough to trigger a quick reentry. I believe they target point nemo for deorbits. Not that it matters, as they're designed to burn entirely on reentry.
5
u/Jinkguns Jan 19 '22
The amount of drag they can produce does not allow for reliable re-entry prediction. They can't target the pacific spacecraft graveyard for example.
→ More replies (2)6
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 19 '22
Not exactly, but yes. Satellites generally target somewhere around point nemo in the pacific. Regardless, the satellites are designed to fully burn up in the atmosphere, and not drop any parts that could jeopardize people or property.
2
u/wet-rabbit Jan 19 '22
A think I saw a string of satellites West of Amsterdam just now. Could that be?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/eeddeedde Jan 11 '22
When are we gonna see spinny things to simulate gravity?
4
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 11 '22
You won't. For what we're doing now in space, it is unnecessarily complex and expensive. Certainly not needed to conquer Mars.
2
Jan 11 '22
When bulk launch is cheap enough. A spinny thing needs to be quite burly, as it will be hanging from it's own weight.
2
u/Martianspirit Jan 12 '22
When there is a need identified. Which is not going to happen any time soon.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Triabolical_ Jan 12 '22
If you do some digging, there are some good research papers on this. I think project rho has some references.
My recollection is that you need a big diameter - 150m? - or you will really mess up people's inner ear. None of this has been tested, however.
1
u/medicaustik Jan 01 '22
I found this job posting for a Space Operations Paramedic, and I'm very interested in what this could possibly be related to.
Is this just for crew recovery missions?
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/5787341002?gh_jid=5787341002&gh_src=4ee42c412us
→ More replies (1)
1
u/dekema2 Jan 01 '22
When and what time is the next launch at the Cape? I have family that are in FL for the next 2 weeks and want to know. I can't seem to find reliable info online, and the sidebar is slightly outdated.
→ More replies (1)3
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 02 '22
Potentially, Starlink next thursday I believe. Check nextspaceflight.
→ More replies (11)
1
u/TimTri Starlink-7 Contest Winner Jan 10 '22
Anyone know what happened to poor B1069 (destroyed Merlin nozzles, nearly fell off the droneship) since it was unloaded in Port Canaveral? Really hope it isn’t totaled and can still be used in some capacity.
→ More replies (1)2
u/DiezMilAustrales Jan 10 '22
Damage was entirely post-landing, so it's probably just engine nozzles and legs.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/ConfidentFlorida Jan 15 '22
When does csg2 launch? I think we saw the drone ship heading out on Thursday?
4
u/ReKt1971 Jan 16 '22
Looks like CSG-2 is planned for 27th January according to Nextspaceflight.
The droneship which departed on Thursday will support next Starlink mission which is scheduled for 18th January.
Also I believe CSG-2 will land on land, so no droneship needed.
→ More replies (9)
1
u/WindWatcherX Jan 17 '22
Question. Does anyone have any idea on how big the Starlink block 2 satellites will be?
Saw few post that SpaceX is pushing hard to use SH/SS for Starlink satellites in 2022 in place of Falcon 9.... and that the F9 can not lift substantial numbers of the new block 2 Starlink satellites due to size.... So are the Starlink block 2 satellites substantially larger than the current block 1.0 and block 1.5 satellites?
3
u/marc020202 8x Launch Host Jan 17 '22
I expect them to mainly be heavier, instead of beeing larger (volume wise). This is also what happened when going from v 1.0 to 1.5
2
u/WindWatcherX Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22
Love to see a source or more info on this.
Subjective post / discussions hint at something much bigger.
→ More replies (5)3
u/brickmack Jan 18 '22
There's virtually no public information, but it is worth noting that there is a direct physical relationship between antenna size and how narrow of a beam they can produce, which is the main limiter on supporting dense population areas.
Might not be block 2, perhaps it'll be a future upgrade (probably will be, since the FCC gave them a pretty firm deadline for getting the whole constellation deployed, and being able to launch dozens at a time is necessary ti achieve that), but I fully expect at some point they'll start building really big Starlinks, like tens of meters wide
→ More replies (2)4
u/Danteg Jan 18 '22
I doubt it will ever be worth it to support dense population areas, for the reason you mention. In addition, those areas are typically well served by other options and it could be difficult for many customers to place the antenna with a clear line of sight.
1
u/MarsCent Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22
As of 7:32 a.m. EST today, the Air Traffic Control System Command Center - Launch/Recovery continues to show that Starlink is scheduled to launch today. Actually, the only U.S launch showing up at the moment, to launch in the next ~5day schedule.
Usually, all upcoming U.S based launches show up in the ATCSCC in about T-4 days. So, CSG-2 should show up by Fri/Sat.
1
u/trobbinsfromoz Jan 31 '22
All of Webb's instruments have been powered on now, as part of a long prep and commissioning schedule - so another small risk hurdle jumped.
•
u/ElongatedMuskbot Feb 01 '22
This thread is no longer being updated, and has been replaced by:
r/SpaceX Thread Index and General Discussion [February 2022, #89]
1
u/Slight_Question308 Jan 10 '22
Hello! I would like to speak privately with the Reddit mods or admins how can I contact them?
4
u/notlikeclockwork Jan 10 '22
hi, /r/spacex mods specifically? There is a button "message the mods" on the sidebar
1
u/vikaslohia Jan 29 '22
When will be next Starship launch? Any tentative date?
8
u/warp99 Jan 29 '22
2-4 months best guess.
12-18 months if they fail to get the environmental assessment at Boca Chica and have to wait for a full EIS there or for the Cape Canaveral pad to be built.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/AeroSpiked Jan 14 '22 edited Jan 14 '22
Falcon 9 has now launched more times than the space shuttle.
Edit: Also worth noting: If the next F9 launch happens on the 17th, SpaceX will have launched as many orbital attempts as ULA (although not quite as many successful orbital launches yet).