Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

That just looks like photo parallax to me.

The fan render above was based on those images just above, and Musk replied they had gotten smaller, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

That just looks like photo parallax to me.

There is hardly any parallax on RGV's pics, they are taken from so far and so zoomed in that they look basically ortographic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

That just looks like photo parallax to me.

It's not photo parallax, or the bottom one would be smaller still (but it's not).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I wonder how they will do the lifts when they have the tiles affixed. 

Guess the launch tower will need a service arm near the top so they can remove the attachment points that go through the TPS and replace them with a tile cover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Minmus Taster said:

S20's nosecone is rolling out!

 

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

No tiles yet on the curved regions.

I wonder how they will do the lifts when they have the tiles affixed. 

This isn't S20's nosecone as it has no flap aerocovers. It appears to be a pathfinder for a payload bay:

 

Edited by RealKerbal3x
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:
3 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

This isn't S20's nosecone as it has no flap aerocovers. It appears to be a pathfinder for a payload bay:

Oooooh, nice catch!!

And here we have it in all its glory...

2047945.jpg

Just as I suspected, a bunch of stiffeners. Interesting shape overall, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tater said:

Guess the launch tower will need a service arm near the top so they can remove the attachment points that go through the TPS and replace them with a tile cover?

That doesn't seem conducive to "rapid, reliable reusability..." Seems like a lot of work, and potential failure points if the same tiles are going on and off over & over. There's been talk of tethering two starship nose to nose for artificial grabbity, I wonder if they could use some single point of attachment beneath an opening nose tip, kinda like the docking port on Dragon?  Would need some stabilizing arms that brace the leeward side. Or just attach the lifting mechanism only to the leeward side with some kind of cantilever, like the ol' balanced hammer physics trick...

3 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

This isn't S20's nosecone as it has no flap aerocovers. It appears to be a pathfinder for a payload bay:

I also wonder if, knowing they're being watched 24/7, they deliberately position stuff like this the wrong way with just enough view for a tease, just to mess with all of us. :confused:

Er, nevermind... :P

5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Just as I suspected, a bunch of stiffeners. Interesting shape overall, though.

Seems like a big chunk is inaccessible tho?

Edited by CatastrophicFailure
Ninjad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where the "$2B+" number is coming from, but apparently last November the (previous) White House asked (the previous) Congress to remove a requirement that the mission must be launched on SLS.

https://spacenews.com/white-house-asks-congress-to-remove-europa-clipper-sls-requirement/

In that article it says that SLS was the technically preferred launch vehicle because it would enable a direct (and much quicker) launch to Europa rather than relying on gravity assists, but the cost savings was pretty substantial. They also argued that the limited available number of SLS launches would be better used to launch Orion to the Moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

I'm not sure where the "$2B+" number is coming from, but apparently last November the (previous) White House asked (the previous) Congress to remove a requirement that the mission must be launched on SLS.

That's at least the cost of a single SLS.

The lower cost production RS-25s are $99M each. So $396M

The Core Stage is a few hundred million anyway. Anyone have a number?

Spoiler

The contract to "Design, build, test, and evaluate 2 Core Stages, 1 EUS, and test articles" is $6,681,774,882

So the first couple cost some billions each, apparently.

They were working on a contract for 10 cores... zero official information on how much that will cost (though it is for some inexplicable reason "cost plus" though for production not dev).

A pair of SRBs are $971M (from memory, it's 900-something million for 2 per the OIG report—not dev the first 35 production segments, which is 7 boosters))

The ICPS contract is 65% funded out of a total of $995.6M for 3 units. That's $331M each.

So we're basically nearing $2B just with a few parts we know, not counting any associated program and ground costs to support a launch campaign.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tater said:

Yes, payload door should be higher, you could put good sized crew compartment above the door we see here. 
But not much a fan of the mouth door. Yes it looks cool and might be the most lightweight design but it make it hard to load cargo unless you remove the door.
It will also make it harder to deploy satellites as you can only deploy forward at an angle. 
With an sideways opening door its much simpler to roll in the next cargo and you can deploy satellites over an larger arc who is nice if you launch huge groups. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, payload door should be higher, you could put good sized crew compartment above the door we see here. 

*GASP*

Maybe what we’re seeing here isn’t for standard Starship, it’s a pathfinder for lunar Starship.  :o

The shape of the door makes much more sense then, if there’s a (planned) crew compartment above.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, payload door should be higher, you could put good sized crew compartment above the door we see here. 
But not much a fan of the mouth door. Yes it looks cool and might be the most lightweight design but it make it hard to load cargo unless you remove the door.
It will also make it harder to deploy satellites as you can only deploy forward at an angle. 
With an sideways opening door its much simpler to roll in the next cargo and you can deploy satellites over an larger arc who is nice if you launch huge groups. 

 

With that much space, you could implement a rotary dispenser like is used in bombers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nothalogh said:

With that much space, you could implement a rotary dispenser like is used in bombers

Thought about it.  makes some sense, its common to put secondary payloads on an pedestal who becomes an tower if you mostly carry smaller satellites. 
With fairings you can deploy in all directions but with starship you need to rotate this tower to release all.  This however require an side opening hatch to work easy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Beccab said:

SpaceX won the Europa Clipper launch contract with FH, beating SLS!

That’s really huge. Obviously it is a shame that the mission will take a little bit longer due to gravity assists, but it’s not like SLS was going to be ready anytime soon, so it will probably get to Jupiter even sooner.

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, payload door should be higher, you could put good sized crew compartment above the door we see here. 
But not much a fan of the mouth door. Yes it looks cool and might be the most lightweight design but it make it hard to load cargo unless you remove the door.
It will also make it harder to deploy satellites as you can only deploy forward at an angle. 
With an sideways opening door its much simpler to roll in the next cargo and you can deploy satellites over an larger arc who is nice if you launch huge groups. 
 

All reusable rockets tend toward the Shuttle, apparently.

What about a door opening in the opposite direction? At least that would make loading payload easy.

Unfortunately, nothing about the Starship outer mold line makes for particularly good payload deployment. Either you need a payload adapter that can tilt itself forward in order to point stuff out the door before release, or you have to have a payload adapter that handles transverse loads.

How was Hubble deployed?

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Thought about it.  makes some sense, its common to put secondary payloads on an pedestal who becomes an tower if you mostly carry smaller satellites. 
With fairings you can deploy in all directions but with starship you need to rotate this tower to release all.  This however require an side opening hatch to work easy. 

Yes, it would make sense to have a single rail traveling from the base of the LOX header tank to the top of the methane tank with the ability to rotate, and then your payload dispensers would crawl up and down it.

Not too dissimilar from the configuration of the last rideshare Transporter 2 mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

This isn't S20's nosecone as it has no flap aerocovers. It appears to be a pathfinder for a payload bay:

Look behind it in the tent:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52398.msg2266960#msg2266960

There's a huge pic there (first one).

That might be the SN20 nose, and it has tile studs to the nose. Look at the stud pattern, there are intentional gaps vs the usual alignment.

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...