Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

And both segments are designed to land and be reused three times a day. It's just silly, and I'm glad they're doing it.

3 flights a day for starship on a regular basis doesn't seem plausible to me,  at least until they get more launch/landing sites (or alternatively an equatorial launch/landing site).  Just think about orbital inclinations and their existing launch/landing sites.  Once you launch starship, and it achieves its mission, how long will it need to wait for its orbital track to pass over its intended landing site?  Then once it lands, cools down, gets a cargo, and is mated to superheavy, how long do they need to wait for the launch site to pass under a target orbit again?  Regularly having even one vessel do all that 3 times a day from their existing launch/landing sites?  That doesn't seem likely to me.

I can see them being able to get starship back on the pad and waiting a launch window in under 8 hours (especially for tanker flights), but starships performing 3 orbital flights a day on a regular basis seems unlikely, at least without a lot more launch/landing sites or alternatively an equatorial launch landing site (and zero inclination target orbits).

If they get enough missions happening, then flying the same booster 3 times a day is more reasonable, but even there if you have that many flights happening on a regualr basis you need some spare boosters simply so that if on does have issues/needs maintenance, you can simply slot in another available booster without affecting flight cadence.  At which point I would have expected them to be rotating the boosters anyway.  (eg if you are launching 3 flights a day from Boca Chica I would expect them to have 4+ boosters sharing the launch duties, and so that they can take one or even two out of the roster for maintenance without affecting scheduled missions). 

If point to point suborbital missions actually happen, then 3 suborbital flights a day for the same starships is more reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory for super heavy 1 is that it will carry a space ready version with the vacuum raptors of the high altitude hoppers (sn8, sn9, etc) on a sub orbital mission and maybe attempting a landing with the booster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

I don't expect Superheavy 1 to have enough thrust to carry a payload.

Super Heavy 1 will probably only have 2 engines and do the low-altitude hop. The next one might be able to get Starship on the way to orbit with no payload, but it'll take a couple more iterations to get to full thrust and full payload capacity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AVaughan said:

3 flights a day for starship on a regular basis doesn't seem plausible to me...

I think it's pure fantasy, especially for a manned version. Just think about all the work that goes into making airliners run. And airliners don't do 6 g belly flops, don't get cooked by reentry, and don't use highly refined rocket engines which experience some of the most difficult environments for materials to survive in. And what kind of payload would we launch three times a day, or more? Starlink would be finished in the blink of an eye at that rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

...and don't use highly refined rocket engines which experience some of the most difficult environments for materials to survive in. 

I especially agree with the above; airliner turbine blades experience THE most difficult environments for materials to survive in.

Edited by Lukaszenko
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any bets on how many prototypes they’ll lose before landing in one piece? I’d say.... four. They lost three in pressure tests, and a 15km hop is riskier, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Someone made this and it's amazing. I'll put it in a spoiler as it may be slightly tangential to the topic:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

That is brilliant. Thanks for the link.

Link to post
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...