Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Two thoughts about the recent starlink mission:

1) As I recall, the F9 reuse goal was 10 flights.  They now have a booster that has hit 8.  Dang, that's impressive, and dang, that's a lot of money saved.
2) In some of the early landing attempts, SpaceX tried some 1-3-1 landing burns, and there was speculation of a 3-engine hoverslam, as an optimization to squeeze a bit more payload into orbit.  Why did they abandon those efforts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

Two thoughts about the recent starlink mission:

1) As I recall, the F9 reuse goal was 10 flights.  They now have a booster that has hit 8.  Dang, that's impressive, and dang, that's a lot of money saved.
2) In some of the early landing attempts, SpaceX tried some 1-3-1 landing burns, and there was speculation of a 3-engine hoverslam, as an optimization to squeeze a bit more payload into orbit.  Why did they abandon those efforts?

Afaik Starlink is volume constrained, most other payloads also dont push the limits of the falcon 9. Its propably simply not neccessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said:

In some of the early landing attempts, SpaceX tried some 1-3-1 landing burns, and there was speculation of a 3-engine hoverslam, as an optimization to squeeze a bit more payload into orbit.  Why did they abandon those efforts?

I believe the droneship landing burns are still 1-3-1 while the RTLS landing burns are single-engine all the way down.

And as @Elthy said, Starlink is volume-constrained, not mass-constrained, so a three-engine hoverslam simply isn't necessary. We might see a three-engine hoverslam if they really needed it for a more massive payload. One possibility would be a really large MEO or LEO payload, with a lofted trajectory where they needed all the TWR they could get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

That's interesting, because in the most recent launch, they only mentioned a single engine for the landing burn.  Maybe they were simplifying it for the masses?

I think they usually do a single engine burn for most landing burns, when they can. The 1-3-1 landing burn significantly increases the pucker factor, IIRC, pushing the edge of the envelope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while we're waiting for Tp1 to launch and SN9's flop to be scheduled, this drops...

Apparently SpaceX wants to drill for natural gas near their BC launch site. You can imagine the Twitter blowback,  with the envirogod Musk *gasp* drilling! What happened to "Electrify eveything!?"

But of course it makes sense. Starship and SuperHeavy must be fuelled, and that methane has to come from somewhere. May as well source it locally if you can. It also makes me wonder how they get their fuel there in the first place. Do they have a pipeline hookup? Or tanker it in?  Regardless, if/when SH/SS gets operational at the cadence Musk hopes for, they will need a LOT of fuel.

But then there's this:

Which would make a great offset for all that methane burnt. And he'll probably want to use to to synthesize methane for SH/SS anyways.

Edited by StrandedonEarth
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...