Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, tater said:

STARSHIP_SN15_Desktop.jpg

Wow, just looking at this picture makes me realize how rough starship is right now. Like seriously it is awful but props to them for making it work. This means that this thing won't really fly for a while and there will be many changes in the future. My bet is that they give it wings and let it glide back instead of doing some silly bellyflop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SpaceFace545 said:

Wow, just looking at this picture makes me realize how rough starship is right now. Like seriously it is awful but props to them for making it work. This means that this thing won't really fly for a while and there will be many changes in the future. My bet is that they give it wings and let it glide back instead of doing some silly bellyflop.

What are you talking about? 

Who cares how it looks, if it gets the job done, then it doesn’t matter. 

Whwt issue does this picture bring up for you?

Also, “silly belly flop”. It may not seem ideal, but if it works, as they’ve demonstrated, even at this limited scale, then there I don’t see the problem. Plus, I bet you it has a lot more lift than you think. 

I don’t want to sound mean, but please give actual explanations. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

What are you talking about? 

Who cares how it looks, if it gets the job done, then it doesn’t matter. 

Whwt issue does this picture bring up for you?

Also, “silly belly flop”. It may not seem ideal, but if it works, as they’ve demonstrated, even at this limited scale, then there I don’t see the problem. Plus, I bet you it has a lot more lift than you think. 

I don’t want to sound mean, but please give actual explanations. 

 

I just meant that the thing is rough looking. Thats it, it looks patched together. Not an insult, not a compliment, just a fact. And that either means that their production quality is low or that bigger things are to come. Probably the latter of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Wow, just looking at this picture makes me realize how rough starship is right now. Like seriously it is awful but props to them for making it work. This means that this thing won't really fly for a while and there will be many changes in the future.

Each SN looks better than the last. They are still iterating.

 

7 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

My bet is that they give it wings and let it glide back instead of doing some silly bellyflop.

No. Not gonna happen. No use for wings on Mars. Skydiver is not silly if it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

just meant that the thing is rough looking

Ah. That’s fair. 
There is a lot of color variations on the body due to condensation, and the FTS system adds a ton o wires and stuff. This does give it a bit of a patchwork vibe. 
Definitely not something I’d want to put a person on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I just meant that the thing is rough looking. Thats it, it looks patched together. Not an insult, not a compliment, just a fact. And that either means that their production quality is low or that bigger things are to come. Probably the latter of the two.

Their production quality is actually pretty good. They X-ray every weld, they then ambient pressure test each, then cryo-proof it, then pressurize it and test with props. A failure in quality results in the the thing RUDing during testing—which happened early on, but has not been happening.

EyfE585WEAcFXcJ?format=jpg&name=large

Was looking for picks with the earlier ones—Mk1 looks REALLY rough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tater said:

Each SN looks better than the last. They are still iterating.

Yep, I don't like starship but I do enjoy looking at every design.

I do have a question about the big fat window they want to put on it. So in space big windows are a big no The biggest windows on the space station is covered most of the time when not in use so it doesn't get hit. But the windows on starship will be much much bigger. You have to agree with me that these windows aren't feasible so how do you think they'll get around that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Yep, I don't like starship but I do enjoy looking at every design.

While I can understand not thinking it will work, or not thinking it is likely (there are non-trivial issues going forward they have to try), I can't get my head around not liking it, though. If it doesn't work, it's a cool thing to watch, if it does work, it's by far the best launch vehicle ever.

I loved watching Shuttle, but I didn't like it—because it was not effective at increasing access to space. If Shuttle had flown 52 times a year for the same money—I've love Shuttle.

 

2 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I do have a question about the big fat window they want to put on it. So in space big windows are a big no The biggest windows on the space station is covered most of the time when not in use so it doesn't get hit. But the windows on starship will be much much bigger. You have to agree with me that these windows aren't feasible so how do you think they'll get around that?

I have no serious opinion on feasibility. I think it's possible to have large windows, why not? They could possibly add covers as the cupola has—or the much larger windows proposed on the Axiom module (also with covers):

960x0.jpg?fit=scale

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tater said:

While I can understand not thinking it will work, or not thinking it is likely (there are non-trivial issues going forward they have to try), I can't get my head around not liking it, though. If it doesn't work, it's a cool thing to watch, if it does work, it's by far the best launch vehicle ever.

I loved watching Shuttle, but I didn't like it—because it was not effective at increasing access to space. If Shuttle had flown 52 times a year for the same money—I've love Shuttle.

I really just don't like it. It just seems kinda oversaturated and not really that special. I don't know if other people have this same feeling but I do. I love watching launches from ULA or Ariane space because every launch is something special, wether it is some DOD satellite that can read the newspaper on my driveway or the super advanced probes from NASA and ESA. But with commercial launches its just repetitive, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think it is intended to be similar to N1-L3 or Energia-Buran, but without the dash and reversed. So if Orion were to launch on Superheavy it would be Orion Superheavy.

Out of curiosity, are there any other rockets that use an adjective as a name? Sometimes when I see people discussing Superheavy it makes me think "Superheavy what?".

Is Superheavy a relative in name only to Falcon? So technically it is Falcon Superheavy, which makes more sense as there is Falcon Heavy.

"Heavy" and "Super" are terms used by Air Traffic Control when referring to particularly large aircraft--"Heavy" for aircraft over 300,000 lbs, and "Super" for two types:  the Airbus A380 and the Antonov An-225

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

really just don't like it. It just seems kinda oversaturated and not really that special. I don't know if other people have this same feeling but I do. I love watching launches from ULA or Ariane space because every launch is something special,

I feel that way about the Falcon. 

For now, starship is an epic spectacle. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I really just don't like it. It just seems kinda oversaturated and not really that special. I don't know if other people have this same feeling but I do. I love watching launches from ULA or Ariane space because every launch is something special, wether it is some DOD satellite that can read the newspaper on my driveway or the super advanced probes from NASA and ESA. But with commercial launches its just repetitive, you know?

SS is not really much of a commercial vehicle. I mean it can be, but as a commercial LV it's more of a semi-truck.

As a crew vehicle—even if the crew are delivered on capsules to LEO for a long time—it's nothing short of spectacular. It's "Mars Direct" in one launch (not counting refilling the tanks)—2 such flights if you send one ahead as a spare, or to make propellant.

SpaceX never talks about variants, but it could make an excellent tug. It can loft "old school" parts to make large spacecraft in orbit. Say you're a fan of the old NASA Mars mission architectures that would somehow require half a dozen SLS launches in short order. Maybe it has a nuke on the back, or VASIMR—you now have a good way to get those parts to space. Honestly, very akin to what the Shuttle was supposed to be, but with 6X the payload.

Spoiler

oou1wZP.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tater said:

SpaceX never talks about variants, but it could make an excellent tug. It can loft "old school" parts to make large spacecraft in orbit. Say you're a fan of the old NASA Mars mission architectures that would somehow require half a dozen SLS launches in short order. Maybe it has a nuke on the back, or VASIMR—you now have a good way to get those parts to space. Honestly, very akin to what the Shuttle was supposed to be, but with 6X the payload.

I don’t think we have exact dimensions, but it could be an excellent lifter for a big orbital assembly project. 

On a related note, I wonder if it will maybe have a robotic arm. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tater said:

It can loft "old school" parts to make large spacecraft in orbit. Say you're a fan of the old NASA Mars mission architectures that would somehow require half a dozen SLS launches in short order.

That’s not old school, that’s cutting edge. Old school would be pulling a buck Rogers and going to Mars in your spaceship that you launched in even if it takes you 6-9 months to get their. Creating a larger nuclear or vasimir powered spacecraft is the future. It would allow better crew accommodations possible artificial gravity and it could cut transfer times in half with very efficient engines opposed to methalox ones.

5 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

On a related note, I wonder if it will maybe have a robotic arm. 

It probably would get one but also probably not. I doubt Canada sells canadaarms that often and I don’t think cargo starship needs one. I think cargo starship fills the role of carrying outsized cargo not technical maneuvering or satellite maintenance like the shuttle. But who knows? Starship probably won’t actually fly for a few more years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

That’s not old school, that’s cutting edge. Old school would be pulling a buck Rogers and going to Mars in your spaceship that you launched in even if it takes you 6-9 months to get their. Creating a larger nuclear or vasimir powered spacecraft is the future. It would allow better crew accommodations possible artificial gravity and it could cut transfer times in half with very efficient engines opposed to methalox ones.

No, it's old space.

SLS can launch once a year. Maybe they make Block 2, and spend a gazillion dollars and can then launch 2. 20 years from now—assuming another 100 billion—you get the parts for your Mars mission, and it is 6 launches over 3 years. They can drop their tiny lander to the surface and land near the Tesla dealership.

Cutting travel times is great—I'm all for nuclear thermal propulsion, actually—but a shorter trip is less interesting to me personally if I'm dead and don't get to watch it happen. A NASA style Mars mission is not 20 years away. Anything not inside 10 is "never" until it's inside 10. VASIMR has made no progress—maybe they can test fly it if a launch costs $1M per ton or less? (and they can loft a 100t spacecraft)

This isn't my first rodeo, as they say. I was super enthused by Shuttle. I watched the Enterprise drop tests. I watched most all of the launches live when I could. I was expecting Shuttle to maybe eventually build tugs, and vehicles to go back to the Moon. Nope, nada. 30 years of nothing terribly interesting happened as far as launches—until SpaceX started trying to land boosters live, while I watched.

14 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

It probably would get one but also probably not. I doubt Canada sells canadaarms that often and I don’t think cargo starship needs one. I think cargo starship fills the role of carrying outsized cargo not technical maneuvering or satellite maintenance like the shuttle. But who knows? Starship probably won’t actually fly for a few more years.

Canada would sell their arm to anyone—SpaceX would build their own, Canadarm is grossly over priced.

(north of $150M)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched one of those NSF videos of Boca Chica, with close up of the new parts, close ups of landed SN15, etc...

I think I actually like the fact that it's not precious.

My friend told me a story he got from the guy at the car dealership. An oil or ranching guy from SE NM bought a really nice, expensive pickup. Had some special order stuff for towing, etc. One of those 80 grand ones. He was set to drive up to Albuquerque and pick it up whatever day. The sales guy had his workers pull it out front after running it through their car wash, then drying it with towels, etc so no water spots. Gleamed in the sun. The guy shows up, gets out, walks around it, the sales guy has given him the keys. He walks up to it—and kicks a huge dent in it. "Now I can drive this." He drove it away.

The SpaceX people see a Mars transport. OK, cool, I'll be stoked to see that. What I see in the near term is a pickup truck, or a semi.

I have no idea what people will do if there is ever cheaper access (and that will require competition, so "Go Blue Origin!"), but there have to be things that are simply much harder than they should be because right now everything has to be made perfect, and as light as possible into the bargain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:

do have a question about the big fat window they want to put on it. So in space big windows are a big no The biggest windows on the space station is covered most of the time when not in use so it doesn't get hit. But the windows on starship will be much much bigger. You have to agree with me that these windows aren't feasible so how do you think they'll get around that?

4rfogr.gif

-_-

Yes, seriously. Turns out the stuff does exist, and Musk has mentioned using it in the past. It’s already found uses in optics that need to be tough, like military FLIR sensors. 

55 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

That’s not old school, that’s cutting edge. Old school would be pulling a buck Rogers and going to Mars in your spaceship that you launched in even if it takes you 6-9 months to get their. Creating a larger nuclear or vasimir powered spacecraft is the future. It would allow better crew accommodations possible artificial gravity and it could cut transfer times in half with very efficient engines opposed to methalox ones.

The trouble with these neato technologies is that they’re always just out of reach, just a few more years out. And anything with “nuclear” in the name automatically gets a metric crapton of pushback from the “nUcYAluR bAaAaaAd!!1!1” crowd, regardless of how safe and viable it is. Musk doesn’t want to wait anymore, he wants to move now with the things he can make work, even if it’s not a perfectly optimized system. The perfect is the enemy of the good enough. With orbital refueling and tethers they could still make a shorter-duration transfer with some simulated gravity. 

1 hour ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

On a related note, I wonder if it will maybe have a robotic arm. 

I think eventually we’ll see specialized mission modules that can be fitted as needed. Don’t need an expensive arm, or even solar panels, if you’re just launching a batch of Starlinks and recovering on the next window. Adding a module to the Axiom station? Now there it might be helpful. 

50 minutes ago, tater said:

This isn't my first rodeo, as they say. I was super enthused by Shuttle. I watched the Enterprise drop tests. I watched most all of the launches live when I could. I was expecting Shuttle to maybe eventually build tugs, and vehicles to go back to the Moon. Nope, nada. 30 years of nothing terribly interesting happened as far as launches—until SpaceX started trying to land boosters live, while I watched.

Preach
^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the high bay becoming a bit clogged up? It's the only place where they can stack starship (SN16), basing on BN1 the only place where they can scrap them (probably SN15), the only place to stack  superheavy (BN2) and supposedly also the place where to scrap them (BN2 again if it survives the hop)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tater said:

I just watched one of those NSF videos of Boca Chica, with close up of the new parts, close ups of landed SN15, etc...

I think I actually like the fact that it's not precious.

My friend told me a story he got from the guy at the car dealership. An oil or ranching guy from SE NM bought a really nice, expensive pickup. Had some special order stuff for towing, etc. One of those 80 grand ones. He was set to drive up to Albuquerque and pick it up whatever day. The sales guy had his workers pull it out front after running it through their car wash, then drying it with towels, etc so no water spots. Gleamed in the sun. The guy shows up, gets out, walks around it, the sales guy has given him the keys. He walks up to it—and kicks a huge dent in it. "Now I can drive this." He drove it away.

The SpaceX people see a Mars transport. OK, cool, I'll be stoked to see that. What I see in the near term is a pickup truck, or a semi.

I have no idea what people will do if there is ever cheaper access (and that will require competition, so "Go Blue Origin!"), but there have to be things that are simply much harder than they should be because right now everything has to be made perfect, and as light as possible into the bargain.

LOL about the pickup, but yes it makes sense, he would be so careful of the new one he would hesitate driving places he needed to use it like off road. 

And the real weird thing about starship is that reuse really is optional.
This as in SS would change the launch industry even if they could not reuse second stage.  
I thought the idea of an disposable starship was crazy or something you would be very niche like huge space probes on special heavy missions. 
But starship will be an cheaper launch platform than falcon 9 for launching large payloads like 5-6 as many starlinks. 
So then it can reliable reach orbit its in operation. 

Then they have to get reuse to work :) 

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...