Jump to content

Spaceception

Members
  • Posts

    3,187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

4,324 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Engineering Student
  • Location
    Setting course for Rocheworld
  • Interests
    Gloria in astra caput
    Lets head to the stars

    Writing, KSP (why else am I here?), Spaceflight (crewed and robotic), Astrobiology and the search for habitable exoplanets, Interplanetary travel and colonization, Interstellar travel, and watching or reading plenty of science fiction and fantasy.

Recent Profile Visitors

78,210 profile views
  1. So they'll connect to the ISS long enough to do checkouts, but are aiming to separate as soon as possible?
  2. Okay, so this probably doesn't count, since it's coming from someone doing a high school project (and it hasn't coalesced into a single paper, updates are sporadic), but I find it interesting enough to mention. The idea is sending weekly missions to Mars, with 24 people, or 10 (they've also mentioned 12) people per ship. This is on average. At certain parts of their orbits, smaller crews or only cargo would be sent on longer trajectories, all leveraging in-orbit refueling. It's not an official proposal from anyone else afaik, but it does raise an interesting question, if Mars missions, particularly crewed ones, have to wait for transfer windows. Most proposals take it as a given since they rely on Hohmann transfers, as a minimum energy approach, but if you didn't have to, why stick to the limitation? Especially for SpaceX, so they don't have to wait 2 years to cram as many Starships in a window as possible, they can spread it out instead. A continuously inhabited base, being replenished constantly, and never cut off from Earth completely.
  3. Saw a tweet earlier that said something along the lines of "we live in a world where it's more likely for a launch feed to crash than a rocket landing itself."
  4. Fair, but; That assumes China doesn't hit delays either, I'd say based on Mars experience alone, the US has a strong edge in pulling this mission off in comparison... if we leveraged it. In either case, the US isn't a stranger to getting spaceflight milestones taken out from under them, and (the threat or event of which) might be the thing to kick us in our pants to actually supply decent support with ESA, and push to do so without putting it at the expense of other major missions like Dragonfly.
  5. SpaceX/Starship is the go-to option to talk about I think, but I don't think they'll make a proposal, at least on their own (though, that is probably what a lot of people thought before HLS, so what do I know). Relativity/Impulse have a Mars landing mission on the horizon, and could form the backbone to a project to pursue a return mission, as Tom Mueller is leading Impulse, and has a lot of experience with methalox (that he's applying to Helios), while also having looked into ISRU for Starship. They might even pull in SpaceX for this reason - giving them real data on making methalox on the Martain surface. Just based on having a slated Mars mission Blue Origin/RocketLab are another potential team, set to launch this summer (EscaPADE), but it's a pair of satellites, not a lander. So probably not. NASA needs a firmer deadline for sample return, NET 2040 is too far, and runs the risk of eventual cancellation. When NASA makes their selections, they need a closer date, preferably in the early/mid 2030s, about a decade from now.
  6. If I'm not mistaken, this will be the 5th vehicle reused for an operational flight (Shuttle, SpaceShipOne, New Shepard, Falcon 9, Electron), and the 3rd for an orbital launch.
  7. Just in time T-10 seconds! Liftoff!
  8. I don't know enough to make a reasonably detailed analysis, but I'll just point this out - in the video, he says "Flight 3" Starship, which while it is a V1 ship, doesn't mean it was built for operational flights. But, just my speculation, the likely culprit in the low mass to orbit has to be dry mass being too high, with underfilled tanks being another factor. V2 is presumably using similar/the same hardware as V1, so it'll likely have those same dry mass issues, but it'll be made up for with stretched tanks and more powerful engines. Ship stretching, Raptor upgrades, and additional development ahead of operations has been in the pipeline for at least a couple years at this point. So I'd be surprised if NASA isn't in the loop to some degree about it. SpaceX is also currently building the factory and new launchpads for Starship, and likely want to bake in vehicle upgrades before they're finished instead of applying them retroactively like with Falcon 9 development. Are we expecting another GAO report for HLS like last November? There was a brief one in Janurary. We might have some of our questions answered then if SpaceX doesn't elaborate during upcoming flights.
  9. I don't live in an area that will see totality, but it's supposed to hit a peak at over ~90% in less than 2 hours or so. Apparently the difference between 90 and 100% is day and night (pun intended), but I'm just glad I live somewhere that sees any part of the eclipse.
  10. IFT-2, which nearly made it to SECO, and was a mostly smooth launch (can't say the same for the recovery attempt). 96 Falcon launches in 2023, with 5 of those being Falcon Heavy, and one of those launching NASA's Psyche probe (FH will launch Europa Clipper this October). 148 planned this year (on track for more than 125 so far) https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/04/spacex-quarter-1/ Booster 1058, which flew the first crewed Dragon, tipped over on the way back after its 19th landing due to high winds (rip in pieces). Polaris Dawn is picking up, they're getting ready to test Dragon soon in a vacuum environment to simulate the conditions during the spacewalk. The EVA suit will be revealed in a few weeks. SpaceX has launched 50 people to orbit to date, 2 crewed missions this year. Falcon 9 launched 3 times in 20 hours in March. And 12 times overall (not including IFT-3). Starlink was breakeven last November, and has over 2.6 million subscribers, it's estimated to rise to over 3.8 million before the end of the year. So it'll likely start making SpaceX money they can use on other endeavors https://payloadspace.com/predicting-spacexs-2024-revenue/ That's not nearly all of it, but that's off the top of my head.
  11. Okay, that looks amazing
  12. I didn't notice any new views on this one, but I liked the music choice on this one.
  13. Static fire for the ship and booster will be finished about 3 weeks after IFT-3. Though there's plenty of work left to be done at the production site to finish preparing for launch, and addressing issues raised by IFT-3.
  14. I'm looking forward to seeing their next funding round later this year. Having an engine test fire should do wonders in giving investors confidence that it's worth putting funding into, on top of whatever other progress they achieve. On the outside, I think there's a good chance they'll have all the major components of Nova (engines, tanks, avionics, heatshield, payload integration) ready to begin putting together for an inaugural launch by the end of the year. I wonder what the payload will be, probably a dummy one, but Stoke seems like the type to have fun with it.
  15. Looks like a 1st stage tank (probably dev) in the background. Also We could see a first stage engine test from them in the near future.
×
×
  • Create New...