RCgothic

So far block 5 is doing ok on the refurbs. Probably won't see 24h turnaround. Still quite a way to go from 50 days to 7-14 though! Also that chart needs updating.

Pretty! Falcon 9 is so slender it really does look like an arrow.

Landing success! 61st landing.

But in positive news: Because apparently it's hard to simulate a countdown.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/nasa-safety-panel-raises-doubts-about-software-testing-for-moon-missions/?utm_brand=arstechnica&utm_source=twitter&utm_social-type=owned&utm_medium=social Well well well

Starlink is scrubbed for today.

Probably just an ambient proof.

"The company's spacecraft is formally known as the "Autonomous Logistics Platform for All-Moon Cargo Access," or more simply: ALPACA." Not sure whether that's an awful acronym or actually quite brilliant.

Wow. That is an incredibly timed photo!

I'm somewhat surprised they weren't a bit gentler with the test stand!

surprise surprise

I was working the deep space tanker as a lightweight variant with maybe no heat shield and fewer engines, not aerobraking. But yeah, if a regular tanker can aerobrake from TLI that's definitely cheaper on the mass budget than saving propellant for LEO insertion.

It's 18 launches landing 150t of cargo and 100t of spacecraft on the moon and then returning 10t of samples for less price than the *engines* of an expendable SLS (admittedly astronauts delivered to NRHO separately). If the target goal of $2m is met them that's all that for about twice the marginal "at cost" price of a Falcon 9 reused mission. If we want offworld bases then this is absolutely what is needed to make that happen.

Also even if Starship Superheavy averages at $60m per launch (30x the $2m target) then 18 launches is still less than the *engines* of an SLS.

A 100t lunar Starship *just* has enough DV to go to the lunar surface from LEO and back to NRHO with 0 payload delivered to the surface. In order to fully unlock the potential it's going to have to refuel in NRHO *and* have a way of trans-shipping significant cargo there. I think a deep-space optimised Starship variant (>80t) could deliver 300t of propellant to NRHO *and return* without aerobraking off a full load in LEO. Which is convenient, because Lunar Starship needs about 580t of propellant for a decent margin to land 150t and return 10t. It'd take about 6 LEO tanker-fulls to reload a deep space tanker @230t to LEO (see my post at the top of the page). A regular cargo starship at 100t, could probably deliver 150t to NRHO and return to earth with 10t and land off 5 LEO tanker-fulls. So on a lunar Starship's first mission with 150t it requires the following launches: Itself. 6x refills. Lunar Tanker. 6 refills. That's 14 launches! For its next mission it needs: Cargo starship. 5x refills. 12x refills for the lunar Tanker. 18 launches! Assuming 6.5 days each way to NRHO that's 13 days per trip. Plus say 1 day per refill operation... That's a period of 27 days for the tanker to complete, which isn't too bad.

Update in three weeks.

Apparently they have it in for Antares as well.

Haha, I'll believe that when I see it. (Plus targeting falcon 9 and dragon isn't the right set of goalposts any more). There's even a question whether ISS will still be operational in that time frame.

Even if it's 6, 230t of propellant to LEO is a hell of a payload whilst reusing both first and second stages!

They wouldn't. There's no natural convection on the ISS, everything is stirred by life support fans and this is not a big leak.

Those do look absolutely gorgeous. The worm wasn't just back for a one-off then! NASA has definitely taken a decision to resurrect it.