Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, tater said:

The NASA contract pays for a new Crew Dragon each time. They decided to alter Crew Dragon slightly for a dedicated cargo version (small changes, mostly), presumably just to run the production line and bang them out. Cargo versions will be nominally assumed to fly 5 times each, but more if that works out. Used Crew Dragons will be SpaceX property to do with as they please, I suppose.

News from the future: “...NASA commercial Moon transportation contracts pay for a new Starship each time. Used Starships will be the SpaceX property to do with as they please...”

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

News from the future: “...NASA commercial Moon transportation contracts pay for a new Starship each time. Used Starships will be the SpaceX property to do with as they please...”

The funny thing is that it's hard to imagine a new Starship costing any more than NASA already pays for even a Delta IV Heavy launch. That will be funny, if they can charge a few hundred million expendable for a SS flight in an era where SLS is literally 10X more for about the same payload (I'm assuming they get to at least block 1b with a fairing for that).

Also:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@RealKerbal3x yer I’m a bit confused by that. 

The plan was already to use a brand new dragon for crew mission and reuse the capsule for cargo missions after it. It kinda seems like the tweeter may have misunderstood something but I don’t know what confirmation they are referring to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather still no go.

They have test tiles for Starship on Dragon. The gray paint is to measure the effect on tank color for prop temperatures on longer duration missions.

 

Almost certainly a weather scrub, though.

Storm looks like it's evaporating on the radar, but not until after the launch window :( is my guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That fire did not look nominal, it looked worse than the one a few days ago, like a leak. I don't want to be pessimistic, but this might mean a week or a few of delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

That fire did not look nominal, it looked worse than the one a few days ago, like a leak. I don't want to be pessimistic, but this might mean a week or a few of delay.

Could be a blowoff valve venting from overpressure that happened to also ignite, maybe.

Edited by SuperFastJellyfish
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.

×
×
  • Create New...