totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Supercheese]

3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Apparently things are happening...

 

 

3 hours ago, NSEP said:

 

 

Actually, I think it was more of a reference to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Circuit_(1986_film)

[CatastrophicFailure]

19 minutes ago, Supercheese said:

Actually, I think it was more of a reference to this:

This guy gets it... 

 

And then there’s this...

 

yes, of course it’s going to get delayed from Monday. Since I happen to have Monday off. 

[tater]

Dragon departure from ISS coverage:

https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

Bye Dragon. Released on schedule, heading back to Earth.

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, tater said:

 

And, obligatory:

 

[tater]

 

 

[tater]

 

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

 

That's... not good.  Although it does explain a few things.

I hope this thing can still launch by the end of the week?

[tater]

 

NOTAMs are for Monday as well as Tuesday.

 

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

NOTAMs are for Monday as well as Tuesday.

Yes, but that's only in a few days. It may give them time to do their "data review," but if the problem persists, it may have to be delayed further, right?

 I mean, I hope not, but it is definitely a possibility.

[tater]

https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/992870295743627266

 

[Canopus]

On 5/5/2018 at 12:15 AM, sh1pman said:

The killer argument: with the money it takes to just keep the SLS program going (with 1 launch per year), NASA can pay for 13 expendable (!) Falcon Heavy launches or 6 fully expendable (haha) BFR flights. Every year.

The question would be what you would do with 13 falcon heavies. 

[Jaff]

5 minutes ago, Canopus said:

The question would be what you would do with 13 falcon heavies. 

Who cares? We would get to watch 13 Falcon heavies! 

[Canopus]

3 minutes ago, Jaff said:

Who cares? We would get to watch 13 Falcon heavies! 

I'd rather have them buy 166 Electrons then.

[Ultimate Steve]

7 minutes ago, Canopus said:

I'd rather have them buy 166 Electrons then.

What about 892857142 A8-3 model rocket engines?

[tater]

FH is listed as 90M$ on their site, and the stats are for an expendable vehicle. Even at 150 M$/launch, SLS costs 17 FH launches (or 27 @ 90M). That's just for the keep the lights on program costs of 2.5 B$ a year.

All that said, FH is not as useful as it looks, except for space probes, since the bulk of the mass to space is stage 2 propellants.

6 minutes ago, Canopus said:

I'd rather have them buy 166 Electrons then.

This would be utterly useless for NASA. Electron can't do anything useful, really.

NASA should be about larger payloads, not cubesats.

 

[Canopus]

Just now, tater said:

NASA should be about larger payloads, not cubesats.

If Cubesats can get the job of larger Probes done at a lower price? 

Anyway, for 1 billion you could probably buy at least 4 Vulcan/Aces and really get something going in Cislunar Space. Still not much sense in speculations like these though.

[insert_name]

29 minutes ago, tater said:

FH is listed as 90M$ on their site, and the stats are for an expendable vehicle. Even at 150 M$/launch, SLS costs 17 FH launches (or 27 @ 90M). That's just for the keep the lights on program costs of 2.5 B$ a year.

All that said, FH is not as useful as it looks, except for space probes, since the bulk of the mass to space is stage 2 propellants.

This would be utterly useless for NASA. Electron can't do anything useful, really.

NASA should be about larger payloads, not cubesats.

 

cubesats are still a developing technology, and can be used to save money, NASA should continue to lead the development of cubesats and use them for scientific/engineering purposes. Larger payloads, while important, may become less important as cubesats mature.

[tater]

3 hours ago, insert_name said:

cubesats are still a developing technology, and can be used to save money, NASA should continue to lead the development of cubesats and use them for scientific/engineering purposes. Larger payloads, while important, may become less important as cubesats mature.

Not for missions to other worlds, sorry. Solar is pretty weak past Mars, and RTG mass alone precludes cubesat sizes. As does the required high-gain antennas.

Astronomical instruments require objective diameter for better resolution. There is a place for cubesats, but I'd rather have a handful of well-used FH launches than 100+ Electron flights, and that's just for science, crew flights and Electron are mutually exclusive.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Not for missions to other worlds, sorry. Solar is pretty weak past Mars, and RTG mass alone precludes cubesat sizes. As does the required high-gain antennas.

Astronomical instruments require objective diameter for better resolution. There is a place for cubesats, but I'd rather have a handful of well-used FH launches than 100+ Electron flights, and that's just for science, crew flights and Electron are mutually exclusive.

Juno is using solar at Jupiter.

It doesn't take much mass to inflate large mirrors or lenses and point them at some small solar panels (I actually met someone at MSFC with some demonstration models in his office - if I recall correctly, they burned through a soda can with one). Definitely more complex, but at that distance, I'd worry about signal strength more than anything else.

Also, it would be pretty awesome to have a swarm of cubesats orbiting some other planets and doing science, as well as a number of larger probes, maybe also acting as relays.

[Wjolcz]

9 hours ago, Canopus said:

I'd rather have them buy 166 Electrons then.

 

9 hours ago, Canopus said:

Anyway, for 1 billion you could probably buy at least 4 Vulcan/Aces and really get something going in Cislunar Space. Still not much sense in speculations like these though.

You hate on F9/FH and then say you'd rather see a less powerful (and probably more expensive) rocket to do cislunar stuff? Where's the logic behind this?

And I mean FH has many problems and one of them is complexity.

On the other hand Vulcan has only one so far: it doesn't exist yet.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Wjolcz

[Canopus]

20 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

 

You hate on F9/FH and then say you'd rather see a less powerful (and probably more expensive) rocket to do cislunar stuff? Where's the logic behind this?

And I mean FH has many problems and one of them is complexity.

On the other hand Vulcan has only one so far: it doesn't exist yet.

You are right Vulcan doesn't exist yet but what you are wrong about is that it would be less powerful. The thing is that with ACES or the Blue Origin tug you could put an SLS sized payload to the moon in one piece thanks to the ability to refuel in LEO. Falcon heavy could probably put more mass around the moon for the same money, but in many smaller pieces. I think that developing the ability to transfer and store Cryogenic fuels for reasonable amounts of time on Orbit is a giant step in the right direction. Offering a true alternative for expensive superheavy Launchers like the SLS. 

Also i don't hate Falcon 9 and heavy but i think we have to be more realistic about what it's actual capabilities are. Still i probably shouldn't have mentioned  Vulcan on the SpaceX thread.

[sh1pman]

11 hours ago, Canopus said:

The question would be what you would do with 13 falcon heavies. 

Moon landing can be done with 2 FH launches (lander and cryogenic transfer stage with IDA, like DCSS) and one F9 launch (Dragon V2 with crew).

They'd need to redesign the heat shield to enable reentry from Moon orbit, and make a new lander. 

[NSEP]

11 hours ago, Canopus said:

I'd rather have them buy 166 Electrons then.

How about 285 reusable BFR's 

285*150=42.75 MEGATONS to LEO. Now all we have to so is wait for the BFR to be built and tested, and the price for launch to drop to 7 million.

BFR op pls nerf