totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

39 minutes ago, tater said:

There is no meaningful profit for a company spending literally billions. Real estate? Convenience stores? Woot, we made $0.50 on that candy bar, now we can go to Mars!

But - what if they're selling Mars Bars?

[Deddly]

The Mars company, by the way, is worth US$94 bn. There's apparently a fair profit in selling chocolate and other food items.

[AVaughan]

1 hour ago, Deddly said:

The Mars company, by the way, is worth US$94 bn. There's apparently a fair profit in selling chocolate and other food items.

When you sell to 100s of millions / a few billion customers sure. 

Not so much money when you are only selling to a few 1000 customers.

[Beccab]

On top of the Rvac 5 minutes static fire there was the first test of the shielded raptor configuration, which is the one that should be able to resist to anomalies happening to the nearby engines. On B7 an equivalent this was added directly on the thrust plate after the rest of the engines, which takes a lot of time and doesn't protect as good from explosions

[mikegarrison]

On 11/5/2022 at 10:01 AM, RyanRising said:

I’m by far not the first to come up with this comparison, but I do think it’s rather sinister they appear to be pitching to employees the prospect of a company town. Live on company land, eat at company restaurants, have fun at company sanctioned events, send your kids to the company school, etc.

Company towns can be fine. Or they can be extremely exploitive.

The problem is, it's hard for management to resist being exploitive when they realize the economic power of their monopoly.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 11/5/2022 at 1:09 PM, RealKerbal3x said:

This sort of occurred to me when there was first talk of 'Starbase City', I'm hoping things don't end up that way but I guess we'll have to see.

At least it ain't a FoxConn facility! 

Quote

The factory in China has grappled with employees fleeing the facility

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/apple-china-covid-iphone-rcna55922

That's why I love Apple: they represent the best in humanity.

Ethics and Compliance - Policies - Apple

 

Quote

 

Human Rights

Apple treats everyone with respect and dignity — from our customers and teams, to our business partners and people at every level of our supply chain. 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Beccab]

 

[Beccab]

 

[tater]

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

23 hours ago, Beccab said:

 

Remind me: is the spray only for sound, or does it also help minimize the chance of an 'oops'?

[RCgothic]

24 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Remind me: is the spray only for sound, or does it also help minimize the chance of an 'oops'?

Its designation is FIREX & DETONATION SUPPRESSION SYSTEM.

So its primary purpose is dispersing vented gasses to prevent explosions and extinguishing any minor fires. If it performs sound suppression as well that's a bonus, but the primary functions are as described.

I believe the system being installed at Kennedy may have a greater role in sound suppression.

[Elthy]

26 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Remind me: is the spray only for sound, or does it also help minimize the chance of an 'oops'?

From what ive heard not muffeling the sound could lead to an oops, as rockets (especialy of this size) are so loud that the reflected soundwaves can damage the rocket on liftoff.

[RCgothic]

Just now, Elthy said:

From what ive heard not muffeling the sound could lead to an oops, as rockets (especialy of this size) are so loud that the reflected soundwaves can damage the rocket on liftoff.

In this instance that's primarily accomplished by the high launch pad. Reflected energy goes with the inverse of the distance to the reflector to the fourth power. It drops off *really* rapidly.

[Meecrob]

Zach from CSI Starbase put out a good video on the detonation suppression system at Boca Chica, as well as a quick overview and contrast of it with the system being installed at the Cape.

 

[tater]

Launch this morning will throw away a perfectly good booster.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

27 minutes ago, tater said:

Launch this morning will throw away a perfectly good booster.

Love that we feel resentment (now) for what was not long ago the presumptive habit 

[Beccab]

27 minutes ago, tater said:

Launch this morning will throw away a perfectly good booster.

And not a random booster - B1051 had as it's maiden flight the fantastic Demo-1 launch in 2019, then 12 more launches in the last three years and a half and now getting on the launchpad for its fourteenth and last flight

[tater]

 

There are 11-12 more launches possible this year.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Beccab said:

And not a random booster - B1051 had as it's maiden flight the fantastic Demo-1 launch in 2019, then 12 more launches in the last three years and a half and now getting on the launchpad for its fourteenth and last flight

Wonder why? is the payload heavy? Yes 14 launched is a lot but if they thought the rocket started to be questionable use it for starlink launches. 

[Beccab]

49 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Wonder why? is the payload heavy? Yes 14 launched is a lot but if they thought the rocket started to be questionable use it for starlink launches. 

No rocket has been voluntarily expended for having been used too many times as of now, Galaxy 31/32 just needed a lot of deltaV for the launch

[magnemoe]

15 minutes ago, Beccab said:

No rocket has been voluntarily expended for having been used too many times as of now, Galaxy 31/32 just needed a lot of deltaV for the launch

Makes sense, if its a bit questionable you use it for starlink, pretty questionable you refurbish it and optionally junk the structure. 

[Beccab]

12 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Makes sense, if its a bit questionable you use it for starlink, pretty questionable you refurbish it and optionally junk the structure. 

Yep, the only flight that maybe could count as "expended because of the number of refurbishments" is the F9 that couldn't land because of the nitrogen (iirc?) stuck in an engine that prevented it from being turned on for the entry burn and splashed down in the atlantic

[Vanamonde]

Some comments removed. This is the SpaceX thread, people. Other endeavors by its founder are off-topic here. 

[sevenperforce]

On 11/12/2022 at 1:26 PM, magnemoe said:

Wonder why? is the payload heavy? Yes 14 launched is a lot but if they thought the rocket started to be questionable use it for starlink launches. 

The payload was just very heavy. At 6.6 tonnes, first-stage recovery would have necessitated an orbit with an apogee lower than a proper GTO (compare the Galaxy 33/34 mission back in October, where the 7.4-tonne payload could only be lofted to around 20,000 km; the same was true for SXM-7 and SXM-8). 

Usually, GTO launches have an apogee even higher than the 35,800 km of GEO. A higher apogee allows for a bi-elliptic transfer, which saves propellant on the payload and thus increases the lifetime of the satellite.

The customer paid extra to expend the booster.

On 11/5/2022 at 12:56 PM, darthgently said:

Does SpaceX push the F9 2nd stage Merlins beyond design limits given they are going to burn up anyway?  I ask because I often see (what looks like)  copper-green in the plume later in the burn

Example?

I don't believe they ever would push them beyond design limits. They don't want to risk damage to the engine before the payload has separated.

[darthgently]

12 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Example?

I don't believe they ever would push them beyond design limits. They don't want to risk damage to the engine before the payload has separated.

Quite a few F9 video streamed show this effect, but you have to find one with an extended 2nd stage burn and not bail out on the video after meco, 2nd stage ign like most do, ha ha.  I haven't noticed if it always happens but I think I saw it last with the recent FH launch