Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

On the Aviation Week podcast, Musk was talking about reducing cost to orbit. He said that they need to reduce cost "by 1000% or more."

 

"1000% from where Falcon 9 is on a marginal cost basis. Which excluding overhead you know might be around...  R&D and whatever... at a best case scenario Falcon 9 is about 15 million dollars for 15 tons."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sevenperforce said:

I think all the flight trajectory recovery plans are based on a northeast launch.

And you'd have to overfly The Bahamas and Carribean as well, so maybe that's that...

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

wouldn't that end up being a night launch?

Night for you, midday for me XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tater said:

On the Aviation Week podcast, Musk was talking about reducing cost to orbit. He said that they need to reduce cost "by 1000% or more."

"1000% from where Falcon 9 is on a marginal cost basis. Which excluding overhead you know might be around...  R&D and whatever... at a best case scenario Falcon 9 is about 15 million dollars for 15 tons."

After the ORBCOMM launch, the first time Falcon 9's first stage was ever recovered, Musk said "The Falcon 9 rocket costs about $16 million to build … but the cost of the propellant, which is mostly oxygen and a gas, is only about $200,000."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Meanwhile in Boca Chica, SN4 is looking pretty! COPVs look very tidy. What's that square thing up top?

Oh cool, they got it mounted. I think linking directly from NSF is discouraged, but they've been watching that big thing which is a couple of welded-up stainless steel rolls, probably for ballast for the hop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Goaty1208 said:

Watched Space X launch fail:rolleyes:

Really a big fail. Well, hope it goes better next time.

I'm no SpaceX fanboy but I wouldn't call this a big fail.

Launches to the ISS have very short launch windows to be close to coplanar with the ISS orbit plane.  Without that, makes the launch more complex and require more delta-V and thus more risk and cost.  And quickly get to the limit of the delta-V of the launch vehicle.

Weather go/no-go policies and decisions are based upon a lot of launch experience.  Sure a rocket can survive excessive high-altitude winds and even lightning strikes.  But those can also cause total vehicle loss and even failure of launch escape and thus crew loss.

Together this made certain weather too close to the pad require a launch delay that couldn't be taken within the launch window.  Thus the scrub to the next launch opportunity, Saturday.

That's not a big fail.  That's reasonable prudence.

Edited by Jacke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, YNM said:

Is it possible for them to launch southeast instead ? Weather looks much clearer in that direction on Saturday and Sunday as well

For efficiency, the launch azimuth has to be close to the plane of the ISS as KSC rotates into the current plane of the ISS.

The Eastern Range can only handle launch azimuths between 37° and 114°The ISS's orbit is inclined 51.64°.   Launching towards the northeast still needs a bit of a dogleg ascent to get coplanar (about 1.36°), but a southeast launch would need around a 27.64° dogleg in the ascent.  That's a lot more delta-V as it can only be done when downrange and high enough to be safe.  Also would need to be planned and couldn't be done on the same day a northeast launch is planned or even close to the same day as downrange abort support would need to reposition a lot.  And may even be outside of the delta-V performance of the launch vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jacke said:

Launching towards the northeast still needs a bit of a dogleg ascent to get coplanar (about 1.36°), but a southeast launch would need around a 27.64° dogleg in the ascent. 

This reminds me, Scott Manley had a very quick bit in his vid about Virgin’s not-going-to-space-today launch, SpaceX has a launch manifested for next April that’s going into a zero-degree, equatorial orbit. :o That means one great big L of a dogleg over the equator. The mission, IXPE, was originally slated for a Pegasus launch, so it’s just a tiny little thing, but we all know how well that’s been working lately. :rolleyes: Tho the fact that SpaceX is price-competitive with a dedicated smallsat launch platform... :cool:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

This reminds me, Scott Manley had a very quick bit in his vid about Virgin’s not-going-to-space-today launch, SpaceX has a launch manifested for next April that’s going into a zero-degree, equatorial orbit. :o That means one great big L of a dogleg over the equator. The mission, IXPE, was originally slated for a Pegasus launch, so it’s just a tiny little thing, but we all know how well that’s been working lately. :rolleyes: Tho the fact that SpaceX is price-competitive with a dedicated smallsat launch platform... :cool:

 

Yeah, that mission hasn't been given much attention here. The telescope sure is interesting in itself (actually three telescopes bolted together and attached to a 4 meter long extending scissors mechanism for focusing) but the launch profile is something unexpected.

It shows that SpaceX is going by the "no job too big, no job too small" mantra, and willing to poach cargo from a launch system that seems like purpose built for just that type of launch. Just a reminder, the last Pegasus launch was in October 2019 at $56 M (contract awarded in 2014, so F9 was still a new player). If SpaceX can be competitive with a huge F9 for such small payloads (320 kg for IXPE), it's a changer for yet another game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Oops, I jinxed it... Horus was not appeased.

At least on Saturday I won’t be trying to follow this thread while working 

Especially since Horus does not have storms in his portfolio. Set does. And they're kind of enemies. By invoking Horus you brought the wrath of Evil Day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

Yeah, that mission hasn't been given much attention here. The telescope sure is interesting in itself (actually three telescopes bolted together and attached to a 4 meter long extending scissors mechanism for focusing) but the launch profile is something unexpected.

It shows that SpaceX is going by the "no job too big, no job too small" mantra, and willing to poach cargo from a launch system that seems like purpose built for just that type of launch. Just a reminder, the last Pegasus launch was in October 2019 at $56 M (contract awarded in 2014, so F9 was still a new player). If SpaceX can be competitive with a huge F9 for such small payloads (320 kg for IXPE), it's a changer for yet another game.

I don't know whether the launch trajectory or the mission's destination orbit has been revealed, but there's a lot of possibilities for an uncrewed low-mass launch, especially considering the plane change is relatively small, could be done early in the ascent, or could be done on-orbit with multiple burns.  Up to direct-east launch into the minimum 29° inclination orbit that can be highly elliptical for the plane change at high altitude for lower delta-V.  Plan out a few options and pick one that looks good.  If the first stage is recovered, from what's been revealed of the cost it could compete at around $50 million.

Edited by Jacke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the trajectory has been released, I'm not aware of if, but doing plane change early during ascent would mean lateral forces due to wind. Then again, by the time rocket reaches equator, it should be clear of most of the atmo. Doing plane change at the top of highly elliptical orbit would mean the need to lower the apoapsis after the plane change. Target orbit is fairly low circular 540 km.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Goaty1208 said:

Watched Space X launch fail

In chess terms, I'd call it a "draw", not a "loss".

In NASA terms, a "scrub", not a "catastrophic incident requiring Congressional investigation".

Even in Kerbal terms, this was NOT a "fail", epic or otherwise.

Terminology, sir!  I must protest!!

(I do like your avatar, though.  You look like somebody I know.)

Edited by Hotel26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jacke said:

I'm no SpaceX fanboy but I wouldn't call this a big fail.

Launches to the ISS have very short launch windows to be close to coplanar with the ISS orbit plane.  Without that, makes the launch more complex and require more delta-V and thus more risk and cost.  And quickly get to the limit of the delta-V of the launch vehicle.

Weather go/no-go policies and decisions are based upon a lot of launch experience.  Sure a rocket can survive excessive high-altitude winds and even lightning strikes.  But those can also cause total vehicle loss and even failure of launch escape and thus crew loss.

Together this made certain weather too close to the pad require a launch delay that couldn't be taken within the launch window.  Thus the scrub to the next launch opportunity, Saturday.

That's not a big fail.  That's reasonable prudence.

Yep, I knew that I needed to specify. They were right to postpone the launch for weather, because, who knows, maybe the rocket could have had problems. What I meant is: Nasa has a lot of weather satellites, now also Space X have some, and when they did some hours before the weather check they couldn't know that? Well, hope Sunday goes better though. 

P.S= 1) I know, I know, weather changes rapidly 2) I heard that the Apollo 12 got struck by a lightning and well, the mission didn't go really badly. They just landed on the moon.

 

1 minute ago, Hotel26 said:

Terminology, sir!  I must protest!!

You can do that, but count that from where I wrote that (not from the US) it was late night, and well, when it is late in the night errors like this for me are common.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jacke said:

The Eastern Range can only handle launch azimuths between 37° and 114°.  The ISS's orbit is inclined 51.64°.

Ah ok, so they do avoid to overfly Haiti / Dominican Republic and the NE coasts of South America. An SE launch to ISS inclination would have to launch at ~135° azimuth, which is well outside the approved azimuth range or requires significant dogleg. (they should launch NE to ~45° azimuth assuming no doglegs.)

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some posts have been merged in from the WDYDIKSPT thread.

 

I, for one, was glad to see a scrub.  Those lives are more important than "But I wanted to see a rocket launch today".  Launches get scrubbed all the time for many different reasons.  They're not failures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...