sevenperforce

A glider that could neither have functioned in space nor survived re-entry from space. Because Shuttle docked to Skylab so many times, right? Oh, wait, it didn’t, and so they had to change the entire docking structure for Mir and ISS.

It didn’t even have engines. And I assume you also agree that the Shuttle didn’t even know how to dock until 1995, because that was when the docking adapter was installed in Atlantis to enable it to dock to Mir in STS-71? Oh, wait, that was a different docking adapter than the one Atlantis ultimately used for the ISS, so.......

The Shuttle concept was announced in 1968 and the Shuttle design was finalized in 1972. The first landing tests took place in 1977 and the first orbital test took place in 1981. The original ITS concept was announced in 2016 and the design was finalized in 2019. The first landing tests took place in 2020 and the first orbital test will most likely take place in 2021, with operational flights in 2022. The Shuttle took 4 years for a finalized design; Starship took 3. The Shuttle took 5 years to go from a finalized design to landing tests; Starship took 1-2 (depending on whether you count unsuccessful tests). The Shuttle took 4 years to go from the first landing test to an orbital launch test; Starship will have taken less than 2. It took 39 years from the date that the Shuttle design was finalized for the Shuttle to reach 135 orbital launches. How many times do you think Starship will have launched by 2058?

I suppose you could accurately say that SLS is closer to its operational launch configuration than Starship+Superheavy. The vehicle currently stacked in the VAB is much more similar to the Artemis II launch vehicle than SN20/BN4 is to a fully-operational Starship launch system. However, the only reason for that is that Starship has many more capabilities. Once BN4 test-fires, then the Starship+Superheavy combo will be every bit as close to being an operational super-heavy-lift launch vehicle as SLS is. Even in its unfinished state, Starship+Superheavy is SLS’s equal. It’s like comparing a prototype Corvette to a four-wheeler....just because the ‘Vette doesn’t have it’s AC system installed yet doesn’t make it less driveable than the ATV.

**sobs in Jupiter DIRECT** Could they have used three-segment boosters with two SSMEs and an ET for Orion Lite to the ISS?

SpaceX: “We’re going to refuel in configuration A, but we’re not entirely sure how it will work.” Kerbi and Friends: “Preposterous! It will never work!” SpaceX: “If we refuel in configuration B, we can use thrusters for propellant settling.” Kerbi and Friends: “You don’t know what you’re doing! Paper rocket!” SpaceX: “It turns out we can use thrusters for propellant settling even in configuration A, which simplifies GSE operations.” Kerbi and Friends: “You’re contradicting yourself! Just admit defeat! Shuttle!”

We know Mechazilla will not only be catching Superheavy, but also lifting Superheavy and Starship onto the pad for mating. We know where Mechazilla’s crane lift point is, about 20-30 degrees off from the launch table. For that lift to be efficient, the fulcrum for the lifting/catching mechanism needs to be under the crane lift point, or as close to it as possible. So we can conclude that the lift mechanism will have a fixed-axis fulcrum but have a “skew” capability allowing it to turn within a ~60 degree arc. If the OLT can handle the fire and fury of 30+ Raptor 2 engines firing simultaneously, it should be fairly impervious to an empty Superheavy exploding on the landing pad twenty or thirty meters away. SpaceX just has to make sure the OLT doesn’t take a direct hit. In summary, you don’t need a rotation all the way around the tower; you just need the arms to be mounted on a rotating frame with ~60 degrees of arc.

Since we do not yet presumably have any actual catch arms at the site, it is hard to know what they will look like. Here is an alternate configuration.

Here's what it looks like when you add the rest of the structure. I'm assuming that the components for the arms themselves are not yet on site. The GSE and stabilization arm can rotate around from the back. This is what I was talking about with the stabilization arm:

If the crane lift point was between two of the rails then I would agree, but it is clearly over a single rail and you need more than one rail slide for proper stabilization, so it will have to connect to three rails. The GSE and stabilization arm can rotate around from the back.

I've been looking more closely at the catching arm structures, and here's what I'm thinking currently. The big black pipe structures are carriages which sit on either side of the tower and slide on the outer rails. They are stabilized by the smaller truss structure, which probably provides braking on the central rail as well. The pointy bits protruding out of the black carriage structures come together right under the lift point; that's where the main lift frame is mounted, which can rotate around that lift point axis and provides the main lifting force for the arms. The sides of the arms are coupled to and actuated through the carriages.

The actuators are inside. I am with @RCgothic on this one. IIRC they seriously considered the wet lab proposal but found that they would essentially be taking the tank to LEO as a payload. They would need an adapter to convert the tank into a workshop, which would take up the additional payload capacity and be located in a fairing on the nose of the external tank.

<snip>

I just had a horrible, terrible, no-good thought that definitely should not be explored or discussed in any way. What payload would Starship be able to get into low earth orbit if it had twin New Glenn side boosters? EDIT: To be clear, I am talking about using Starship as a sustainer stage. No Superheavy booster at all. Your choice whether to cross feed from the New Glenns into Starship.

Stripped down and expendable, it would be vastly more capable to TLI than Saturn V.

Yesterday: Tallest rocket in history: Saturn V Most powerful rocket in history: N1 Highest operational LEO payload: Energia Largest reusable lower stage: Shuttle Boosters Largest reusable upper stage: Shuttle Orbiter Today: Starship (all of the above)

And of course I ran out of likes. Also this: I wonder if they will use hard points under the forward flaps for the tower chopstick lift.

Breathtaking

I wonder if they did the stack on the GSE sleeve to get a metric for how bad things were.

Frankencrane has a lift capacity of 1300 tonnes, but I'm not sure how much that reduces at a hook height of 140 meters. Also they started lifting....... .......a cryoshell.

Another fit check mockup

It was pointed out that Wikipedia's scaling is off by about 6% so I corrected. However, at this point they will get it stacked faster than I can edit haha We all assumed this, but word of Elon:

My money is 100% on immediate stacking.

Load spreader is off the booster. Definitely looks like they are going straight to stacking.