Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RCgothic

  1. That was an awful lot of repeating things they'd already done. "Aggressive step by step" lol.
  2. Even the mobile crane isn't big enough to stack Starship on top of Superheavy on the launch platform however. That's why the integration tower and its crane need finishing. The integration tower seems to be coming along nicely though.
  3. It'd actually be quite funny if bits fell on the US. In a "haha, now we get to analyse the bits, maybe control your re-entry next time" kind of way. Europe looks mostly safe at least.
  4. I think tater is probably right that re-entry descent and landing is better tested with soft Ocean landings before risking any barges or overflights of land. I'm thinking they'll probably skip supersonic flight and RTLS and go straight to orbital testing. If we consider Elon's schedule of July for orbit there isn't much time to squeeze in supersonic testing beforehand, especially if SN16 and 17 face the same license restrictions as SN15.
  5. They have enough of a production queue that reuse isn't necessary at this stage. I expect SN16 to roll out for a repeat, given the FAA licence for the next mission is already issued and there were no obvious incidents with SN15 that would need investigating. Changing the mission parameters is probably not worth the hassle. If SN16 goes well maybe they skip SN17 (which is also covered by the current licence) and jump straight to SN20, but that might mean a gap in testing whilst they sort BN3 and the integration tower and orbital launch pad out. Reuse can come later.
  6. Whilst starship looks slow, its terminal velocity for most of its fall is upwards of 200mph. Skydivers can manage a 1:1 glide ratio and Starship is based on similar principles. Even if Starship can only glide half as well, that counters 100mph winds. That doesn't seem overly restrictive, and SpaceX don't seem particularly worried about it either.
  7. Wind is likely to be less of a constraint for Starship than F9. Starship has a lower fineness ratio which makes it less susceptible to wind shear.
  8. Guidance isn't one of Starship's problems. It has aerodynamic control that has worked well since SN8. It hasn't missed the pad yet.
  9. Yup, nobody is proposing launching SN20 as a crewed demo and landing it on an ocean platform. The difficulties for Starship's crew rating are: 1) No abort system on launch (from earth). 2) Re-entry. 3) Bellyflop manoeuvre. 4) Propulsive landing. None of those apply to crewed operations in space. Crew rating a version of starship that only operates only in space is therefore no big deal. There's a good chance lunar starship would be safer than any of the other options as due to size it has increased endurance and system redundancy. NASA particularly liked the Luna
  10. Reference to the computer game Portal.
  11. 1) NASA bought two missions, not a lander. The missions include the starship architecture, so NASA isn't paying for anything they weren't aware of. 2) The contract payments are based on milestones. No milestone delivery, no money. If SpaceX wants to spend their money on unrelated things, they're free to do so. It's not NASA's money they're spending. 3) "Awful Mars rocket" doesn't ring true. China's opaque ambitions aside, nobody else has any other credible pathway to a crewed Mars mission.
  12. "Show a mission replica prototype" would be a more credible argument if anyone else had a mission replica prototype. As is, not so much. NT don't have flight ready engines. Dynetics' concept is severely overweight and likely to get moreso. These are deep program risks. Whereas SpaceX has demonstrated every tech they *need* to support HLS, except for orbital refuelling, which they'll get to this year or next, i.e. early programme. There's therefore time to work that out. It's not a deep program risk. Re-entry and reuse? Not necessary. Sure, it would help SpaceX's balance t
  13. Cool story about Mir. But NASA's selection document warned that significant additional risks to Dynetics' mass budget were yet to be resolved. It was likely to get heavier, not lighter. Whereas Starship could put on 50 tonnes and still work, albeit with lower payload.
  14. Merlin will never work. Falcon 1 will never fly. Falcon 1 will never reach orbit. Falcon 9 will never fly. Grasshopper will never land. F9-RDev will never land. Falcon 9 will never land . Falcon 9 will never fly twice. Reuse is a stunt. Falcon 9 will never fly twice within 6 months. Falcon 9 will never fly twice within 3 months. Falcon 9 will never fly twice within 2 months. Falcon 9 will never fly twice within a month. Falcon Heavy will never fly. Dragon will never resupply the ISS. Dragon will never be selected for co
  15. A better than usual article about the SN15 launch from the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57004604.amp
  16. Well starship can certainly ship more catwalk to the moon than either NT or Dynetics.
  17. Looked like a two engine landing burn the whole way to touchdown. New York Times runs a story: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/science/spacex-starship-launch.amp.html
  18. Maybe they'll be able to recover the camera drives intact this time and give us some clean footage eventually.
  19. Tile rectangle seems reasonably intact. Note that if you're reading Scott Manley's tweet about a few being missing from the smaller patch down near the engines, they were missing Pre-Launch. Since the static fire I hear.
  20. It's more dependent on whether there's a docking port free at the ISS now. As just mentioned in the HLS thread, the ISS is just barely capable of supporting non-operational missions. Fitting a months-long DEMO mission in around regular crew rotations and supply launches is not trivial.
  • Create New...