Skylon

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

r there is some function the sick ones cant perform during de-orbit that SpaceX is interested in, like some kind of data collection about burning up mebe.

I saw an exchange on Twitter that there was some concern over whether they’d burn up completely, hence the test. No sources provided, so take that with a spoonful of salt. 

Also on Twitter...

Sounds like all the parts for BocaShip’s shell are on site or already assembled, maybe! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Selective Genius said:

Musk's model of P2P is at the same stage where commercial aviation was at in the 1940s.

Then, airplanes were seen as a faster, if not safer alternative to cross the atlantic, as compared to slower, but safe and proven ships. Today, Starship P2P is seen as a faster, if not safer alternative to move around the world, as compared to slower, but safe and proven airplanes.

It's going to take a while though..

In the 1940s, airplanes had already been carrying revenue passengers for about 40 years. The first regularly scheduled airline passenger service began in the 1910s, and airplanes didn't seriously threaten boats for trans-Atlantic service until the 1960s. Sub-orbital flights have yet to carry a single passenger. Even the "just spend a few minutes in space" services have yet to carry a passenger. I think you are *way* over-estimating the maturity of this idea.

Edited by mikegarrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You know what I think? I think they are waiting with building the aft and tank sections until the hopper is done testing and/or design revisions from the upcoming presentation. Though the second option makes a little sense. If I were them I would build the simplest parts first which would be the empty sections of the hull.

So my guess is: that Starship in Florida is actually only the top part of a Starship and the skin of a booster.

Edited by Wjolcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

You know what I think? I think they are waiting with building the aft and tank sections until the hopper is done testing and/or design revisions from the upcoming presentation. Though the second option makes a little sense. If I were them I would build the simplest parts first which would be the empty sections of the hull.

So my guess is: that Starship in Florida is actually only the top part of a Starship and the skin of a booster.

They also need to install bulkheads, bottom also needs the engine mounting who also connect to the rear fins, the header tank and plumbing from it to the engines. 
One option might be to run the vacuum engine piping outside the header tank? 

So you make the bottom bulkhead, add the skirt, put one section on top, then add the common bulkhead, new section, top bulkhead, then the fairing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they're pushing for five flights of the same booster...I wonder what the maximum number of times a B5 can be reused before it becomes unfit for flight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

So they're pushing for five flights of the same booster...I wonder what the maximum number of times a B5 can be reused before it becomes unfit for flight?

Their goal I think was a refurb after 10+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, DDE said:

Whichever of you stole the time machine again and talked to von Braun?

 

Sorry. :unsure:

I was just going to make a few bets, but things got... complicated. It’s a long story, but at least y’all will never have to fear the name of Walt Hugo Jayceon. *shudders* 

Edited by CatastrophicFailure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DDE said:

Whichever of you stole the time machine again and talked to von Braun?

Spoiler

Starship with "dragon wings?"

57cdfae5e1257_378161b.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, SpaceX has more launches than ULA and ESA this year. BUT don't forget abut rocket lab's insane kerbal-like plan of launching EVERY 42 HOURS. So SpaceX is making useful progress.

And don't forget about Blue Origin they are making progress (sarcasm increases):wink:

Edited by nasa legolas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an interesting take on single-stage point to point routing.

Because single stage is optimal for destinations close to it's 10,000k range (compared to conventional aircraft), you cant directly link antipodal sites the way you could with Superheavy PTP. But... you can chain destinations together, and with fast turnaround, go completely around the world in under 12 hours, even with boarding/refueling/bathroom breaks.

In which case, it's less about hub and spoke, and more a subway model- get on at the nearest stop/starport, ride until you get close to your destination, and get off. Different "tracks" have connecting stations, but it's up to the passenger to get off at the right stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

I saw an interesting take on single-stage point to point routing.

Because single stage is optimal for destinations close to it's 10,000k range (compared to conventional aircraft), you cant directly link antipodal sites the way you could with Superheavy PTP. But... you can chain destinations together, and with fast turnaround, go completely around the world in under 12 hours, even with boarding/refueling/bathroom breaks.

In which case, it's less about hub and spoke, and more a subway model- get on at the nearest stop/starport, ride until you get close to your destination, and get off. Different "tracks" have connecting stations, but it's up to the passenger to get off at the right stop.

Hmm, what’s the turn around time for modern airlines with unloading/loading and refueling etc. you can probably add an order of magnitude for starship! the checks alone would need to be spot on! heat tile failures, regenerative cooling failures, structural failures, things welded together that shouldn’t be... XD, probably several swimming pools of fuel (cryogenic fuel! I wonder if there is a cooling down period for the rocket so it can get to a safe temp...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said:

Hmm, what’s the turn around time for modern airlines with unloading/loading and refueling etc.

Anything from 15 minutes to 24 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Anything from 15 minutes to 24 hours.

Hmm, somehow I feel like Starship isn’t going to relaunch the same day, especially where the level of safety required for passengers is concerned 0_0, once a week seems like a pretty good rate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dale Christopher said:

Hmm, what’s the turn around time for modern airlines with unloading/loading and refueling etc. you can probably add an order of magnitude for starship! the checks alone would need to be spot on! heat tile failures, regenerative cooling failures, structural failures, things welded together that shouldn’t be... XD, probably several swimming pools of fuel (cryogenic fuel! I wonder if there is a cooling down period for the rocket so it can get to a safe temp...)

Pretty much this, planes has loads of fail modes and the fuel is kerosene who is an very safe fuel to handle and you have 100 year experience, 60 year with mass use of jetliners. 
Add that you are launching an ballistic missile against an target. 

Last you have the hub issue, this is why both the concord and the A380 failed. You need enough passengers to fill your plane and passengers has an wanted flight date and time, concord worked well if going from London to New York, but if you was going from Glasgow to Chicago you need two jumps. Here it would probably be faster to use an direct route. 
All the extra security and better smaller planes has made direct routes far more relevant. And lots of flights make it easier to find one who fit you well. 
As concord could only fly limited number of high demand routes and had an range limit it was hit hard by this. A380 needed lots of passengers so also needed high capacity routes. 
747 is safer here as its smaller and has load of infrastructure for it.

But starship get hit by all this, high cost and high capacity, can not even land at an airport so you need transport to one adding time, probably an high chance of delays.  
Not saying its impossible but its very far off, well past an permanent mars base. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A rhetoric question: how much does the Starship flight delay cost?
A hydrocarbon airplane just stands away from runway, while the cryorocket should be either being cooled or unfueled.
Also the delayed airplane isn't spending the ground team time, and it doesn't lock a whole runway for hours. It just peacefully stands aside.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

A rhetoric question: how much does the Starship flight delay cost?
A hydrocarbon airplane just stands away from runway, while the cryorocket should be either being cooled or unfueled.
Also the delayed airplane isn't spending the ground team time, and it doesn't lock a whole runway for hours. It just peacefully stands aside.

I think it really depends on the platform design. I'm assuming it will be very similar to how oil rigs look like and work except with fuel tanks underwater, for safety reasons. They could probably use gravity to dump the fuel back into the underwater tanks if there's a delay or something goes wrong. Then use a crane to move the empty Starship aside.

Edited by Wjolcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

They could probably use gravity to dump the fuel back into the underwater tanks if there's a delay or something goes wrong. T

I mean a passenger flights schedule.
It's a common situation for airplanes, and they have no problems with keeping the propellant inside.
But if the skyliner is cryogenic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found some interesting pics XD

EDFF4-C7-E-2208-4-D31-8-B11-741543232-E5

I’d vote for him lol!

2-EE6-B26-F-B331-496-C-BE32-16904-CC6-CE

I hadn’t noticed this white stuff over the black stuff before 0_0

Source: I normally wouldn’t bother but he seems pretty new so he could probably use the publicity.

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Potential good news on the Crew Dragon anomaly:

 

Edited by Ignath
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That fairing reentry video is pretty trippy... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that interested me about the fairing entry video was the plasma streaming through holes in the fairing... since I never realized there were holes in the fairing (four in each half). On images of the fairing on the launch pad, the holes are covered by what look like forward-facing scoops. What is the reason for these holes and scoops?

Share this post


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.