Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon
 Share

Recommended Posts

To be fair that's the rationale for much of the funding from Congress (SLS, etc).

It is bizarre to me that when Congress has been shown that a substantially more capable system costs ~$3B, they would then fund ONE more for $10B, instead of opening up a new competition for 3 new landers at $3B each for the winners.

I mean, if yer gonna spend $10B, why not get 3 landers when we now know for certain that's what they cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know what houses cost in your neighborhood?

You look at "comps." Comparable homes that have actually sold recently.

Say a house on your street sells for $2M! Is your house then worth $2M? Is your house worth $6M?

What if the details show that the $2M house is twice as large, and is on twice as much land, and subjectively speaking, the lot is just better (better views, better proximity to a mountain or a beach, etc)? Objectively your house should maybe be 4X less, right? Half the size, half the land. Add in that the other is on the beach, and yours is the next street over, and what's that do to relative value?

If they were on the market for $2M, and you threw yours on for $6M and someone bought yours—something is wrong/crooked. Maybe you're laundering money for them or something, because that price makes no sense, no rational person would spend 3X as much for less in every category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The endless frontiers bill is specifically about maintaining US technical leadership over China. Therefore references to China are relevant to the main bill topic.

The amendment relating to HLS is actually pretty legislatively off-topic.

Edited by RCgothic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I am aware comps is not a direct analogy here, but it's reasonable for the government to really think about cost.

We have a good idea what Be-4 engines cost, for example, and we know that new "cheaper" RS-25s for SLS cost almost 15X more for pretty similar performance (Be-4 is substantially higher thrust with CH4, but would probably be fairly close to RS-25 burning H). Be-4 is not even "cheap" as it is designed for reuse. This doesn't tell us much except that RS-25s are grossly overpriced.

I think it would be entirely reasonable to reframe a secondary contract for the next human landing services such that they compete to provide landings at a cost comparable to the SpaceX bid. Doesn't have to be exact, could be for some % more. 25% more? Round HLS to $3B, and say future contract for a first lander at, heck, round up to $4B. Then after they get multiple providers, the compete on the seat price to the lunar surface, where the seats are not defined, just the duration, etc.

Ie: Assume gateway, and some pahsing issues for abort, so call crew duration in the vehicle at at least 2 weeks per person, then the number of seats it can carry to the surface with 14 days provisions. If they mostly land 4 people for 2 weeks, then if one can land 4 for 8 weeks, then that lander divides total mission cost by 32 instead of 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beccab said:

I'm surprised this wasn't posted already: Flyer sent by spacex to congress,W3uHTks.jpg

and counterflyer sent by Blue Origin https://imgur.com/a/ahgjGG4

Edit: Oh god, spacex even put that blue origin hasn't sent a single rocket to orbit yet :P

Bid protests are common - getting your pocket congressman to write a bill in your favor? 

 

Priceless 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Bid protests are common - getting your pocket congressman to write a bill in your favor? 

 

Priceless 

 

Heh heh....so this is becoming like the lore of Aperture Science versus Black Mesa eh?

 

Use your imagination of who is who...but I reckon SpaceX probably has more in common with Aperture Science than Bezos...Blue Origin does....so there.

 

Because SpaceX actually builds, flies, and lands rockets.

Blue origin?

I barely even remembered they were even a name since they have done.....nothing worth being watched with rocket plumes worth watching on TV. Yet.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

You can determine that with MATH.

By that logic, Gagarin didn't "orbit" either.

Gagarin’s flight did require a deorbit burn. Starship’s orbital-ish flight will not. I’m not saying Starship isn’t showing it’s capable of orbit by performing this flight - it most certainly would be. I just don’t think it’s fair to call that trajectory orbital without putting an asterisk at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

Gagarin’s flight did require a deorbit burn. Starship’s orbital-ish flight will not. I’m not saying Starship isn’t showing it’s capable of orbit by performing this flight - it most certainly would be. I just don’t think it’s fair to call that trajectory orbital without putting an asterisk at the end.

I agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

OK, it's time to consult the ultimate authority about orbit:

In KSP, once you get your periapsis above the atmosphere, you are in orbit. No need to actually go all the way around Kerbin.

And there we have it. Settled.

So - this is my understanding, too... because without another burn your ship is not going to get dirty or wet.  (but if you don't get your Pe above... nope - you're suborbital no matter how fast you might be going)

Grog likes simple meanings of words.

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, RyanRising said:

Gagarin’s flight did require a deorbit burn. Starship’s orbital-ish flight will not. I’m not saying Starship isn’t showing it’s capable of orbit by performing this flight - it most certainly would be. I just don’t think it’s fair to call that trajectory orbital without putting an asterisk at the end.

Note that this might be an benefit in that the heat load will be a bit lower. However primary its to avoid it ending up stuck in space and then falling down an unknown place if it fails once in orbit, its an very large rocket after all who is designed to survive reenter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Note that this might be an benefit in that the heat load will be a bit lower. However primary its to avoid it ending up stuck in space and then falling down an unknown place if it fails once in orbit, its an very large rocket after all who is designed to survive reenter. 

I think they will do a full heat load by using a higher apogee and just keeping the perigee around 30 km.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I think they will do a full heat load by using a higher apogee and just keeping the perigee around 30 km.

Starship: The biggest Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troopers. It should carry the Starship Troopers, even such movie was.

So, it should test a ballistic trajectory with mass bail-out of mannequins.

15 minutes ago, Brotoro said:

Starship: The biggest Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ever.

After the Doomsday Orion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Troopers. It should carry the Starship Troopers, even such movie was.

So, it should test a ballistic trajectory with mass bail-out of mannequins.

After the Doomsday Orion. 

Yes that was an very scary device, take one of the 20 meter orions and put an 1600 ton nuclar bomb on it no that is not the explosive effect its the bombs mass.  Blast would be in the gigaton range and I see it a as a bit bizarre, a thousand 1 megaton bombs would be more damaging unless your point was to break earth crust or something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 8:30 PM, tater said:

How do you get "safer" from a post where all I say is that this is the safest trajectory for testing orbital EDL?

Uncrewed spacecraft don't need an LES system, so that is clearly not remotely related to what we are discussing—the orbital test flight of SN20/BN3.

Interesting cargo starship has a lot of abort options, probably much more than the shuttle had. If superheavy fails in an way who don't blow you up you can do an return to launch site burn this will be an powered decent as you need to burn off all the fuel. 
If you loose vacuum engines the lower isp landing engines has to take over, you might have to abort to Europe or Africa, your expensive cargo is safe. 
Else you have abort to orbit with perhaps an refiling to get you into intended orbit and the landing part you don't care much about. 

 

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...