totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[StarStreak2109]

Also, IIRC, F9's second stage needs to do more work than other second stages, since stage sep is way earlier to allow for RTLS... I may be wrong.

[softweir]

28 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I'm curious as to why they chose the exact same 2nd stage engine for the Heavy as they use in the 9. An engine that circs 25 tonnes is also capable of 70 tonnes? If that's the case, isn't that engine kind of overkill for the Falcon 9?

Best,
-Slashy

I suspect it is all about market. SpaceX is in the process of cornering much of the near-Earth launch market, ie LEO and GS satellites. The current S2 configuration is quite adequate for this market, and while there may be a few launches that would demand an expanded S2, it may not be worth the development costs.

There is a market that SpaceX could go into with an expanded S2, and that is the long-range interplanetary science market. Launching probes destined for the outer planets takes a lot of delta-V, more than the current S2 can produce. However: there aren't that many such missions, and the few that might come up aren't worth building a new S2 for. They can afford to let a few missions be filled by other launchers.

[Scotius]

Which will have to change when SpaceX decides it is time to finally go beyond Earth's orbit. But this is what ITS is\will be for .

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

Also, IIRC, F9's second stage needs to do more work than other second stages, since stage sep is way earlier to allow for RTLS... I may be wrong.

its more that rocket is just two stages, most GTO designs are 2.5, having an small and lightweight upper stage gives a lot of dV. 
 

12 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Which will have to change when SpaceX decides it is time to finally go beyond Earth's orbit. But this is what ITS is\will be for .

You can use F3 or FH for deep space, FH has decent payload. BFR (ITS) is another ballpark think saturn 5. 
It let you go pretty much nuts, You could bring an falcon 9 upper stage into orbit. for one. then use an smaller stage with storable fuel for braking. if needed  
let you reduce mission times a lot. 

[KSK]

So I was browsing for more Falcon Heavy news...

And I strayed onto Space.com. Good gravy, what happened to that place?

Don't do it folks. Not without an industrial strength ad-blocker and a military grade idiot filter.

[CatastrophicFailure]

In other news, Space.com would like to thank @KSK for single handedly doubling their web traffic today and, hence, ad revenues. 

 

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

 

And I strayed onto Space.com. Good gravy, what happened to that place?

Don't do it folks. Not without an industrial strength ad-blocker and a military grade idiot filter.

I know eh? It used to be one of my favourite sites, back when it had its own forum. Now it’s just another clickbait fest

I’m so looking forward to seeing and hearing 27 Merlin 1D’s firing up

[_Augustus_]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

So I was browsing for more Falcon Heavy news...

And I strayed onto Space.com. Good gravy, what happened to that place?

Don't do it folks. Not without an industrial strength ad-blocker and a military grade idiot filter.

That site convinced me that small computerized telescopes were better for beginners and show more than large Dobsonians. They're so stupid it's mind-boggling.

And the ads now get through my FIVE different ad blockers.

[Streetwind]

Yep, stopped going there months ago as well. Such a shame.

Oh well, at least SpaceNews.com still has high quality articles... that sometimes are even about SpaceX. Most recently, they published one about the Iridium flight being expendable.

Let that sink in for a minute. It is now considered news that SpaceX is not landing a booster!

Edited December 21, 2017 by Streetwind

[Nightfury]

1 minute ago, Streetwind said:

Let that sink in for a minute. It is now considered news that SpaceX is not landing a booster!

The space travel has changed

[DAL59]

spaceflightinsider is good

it has a really useful launch calender

Also, JAXA is sending up an H11A rocket just minutes after spacex.  

[magnemoe]

18 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

Yep, stopped going there months ago as well. Such a shame.

Oh well, at least SpaceNews.com still has high quality articles... that sometimes are even about SpaceX. Most recently, they published one about the Iridium flight being expendable.

Let that sink in for a minute. It is now considered news that SpaceX is not landing a booster!

Why is they not landing? Irdium is pretty lightweight and even if used twice they should at least get good data and probably some parts from it.

And yes the world is changing
 

[Nightfury]

I just noticed that it is one more day to the launch, thought the whole day it's on 22st at 2a.m. (GMT+1) but it's one day later

Would be a great moment to notice there is no launch when I get up so early

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

8 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Why is they not landing? Irdium is pretty lightweight and even if used twice they should at least get good data and probably some parts from it.

And yes the world is changing
 

The going theory is that they’re simply out of space for used boosters, and being a Block 3 there’s not much utility in recovering it anyway. 

#1stworldproblems

[sevenperforce]

4 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

15 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Why is they not landing? Irdium is pretty lightweight and even if used twice they should at least get good data and probably some parts from it.

And yes the world is changing
 

The going theory is that they’re simply out of space for used boosters, and being a Block 3 there’s not much utility in recovering it anyway. 

#1stworldproblems

Along with some speculation that they want additional margin because they're testing the Block 5 fairing recovery system, which makes the fairings a bit heavier than Block 3 boosters can safely lift AND land WITH recovery hardware.

[StrandedonEarth]

37 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Along with some speculation that they want additional margin because they're testing the Block 5 fairing recovery system, which makes the fairings a bit heavier than Block 3 boosters can safely lift AND land WITH recovery hardware.

I'll throw in my own speculation that they want that fairing recovery as hot as they can make it, to test its robustness

[tater]

the mission patch has a F9 booster pictured—no upper stage—with no legs...

but with fins.

Odd. 

Wonder if they can drop it someplace that might become a reef (soft land on water)?

[sevenperforce]

13 minutes ago, tater said:

the mission patch has a F9 booster pictured—no upper stage—with no legs...

but with fins.

Odd. 

Wonder if they can drop it someplace that might become a reef (soft land on water)?

That is very odd.

And clearly intentional. It's not like they could "accidentally" draw fins but no legs.

I wonder if they are going to use this as a test of maximum survivable entry speed, using a booster they're expending anyway? Or perhaps they are testing entry without an entry burn, to see if it can be managed?

[sh1pman]

13 minutes ago, tater said:

the mission patch has a F9 booster pictured—no upper stage—with no legs...

but with fins.

Odd. 

Wonder if they can drop it someplace that might become a reef (soft land on water)?

Or catch it with a giant net perhaps. If only they had a ship that could deploy such a net...

[tater]

Just now, sh1pman said:

Or catch it with a giant net perhaps. If only they had a ship that could deploy such a net...

That would leave a mark, lol. Is JRTI out there? Land on a clamp?

It’s the SpaceX patch, btw, not Itidium’s patch or VAFB’s. Very intentional.

I wonder about testing BFR landing with old boosters.

[sh1pman]

17 minutes ago, tater said:

That would leave a mark, lol. Is JRTI out there? Land on a clamp?

It’s the SpaceX patch, btw, not Itidium’s patch or VAFB’s. Very intentional.

I wonder about testing BFR landing with old boosters.

If they did software upgrades necessary for extreme landing precision, then it’s probably possible. Still hard to believe they can pull it off though. It’s one of the things about BFR that I’m very skeptical about.

Edited December 22, 2017 by sh1pman

[tater]

I am as well, but doing is better than simulating, and if they want to get rid of older boosters, why not milk them for data?

Musk said a few months ago that F9 was already landing wittin 1.4 m of aim point, and that 2m was the requirement for clamp landing.

Or was it 0.4 and 1?

[tater]

 

[sevenperforce]

The bird is out on the TEL! And sure enough, there are fins but no legs.

Curiosuer and curiouser.

1 hour ago, tater said:

I am as well, but doing is better than simulating, and if they want to get rid of older boosters, why not milk them for data?

Musk said a few months ago that F9 was already landing wittin 1.4 m of aim point, and that 2m was the requirement for clamp landing.

Or was it 0.4 and 1?

Thought they said RCS wasn't yet good enough for stability just before landing.

Also, no clamp slots.

[CatastrophicFailure]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Musk said a few months ago that F9 was already landing wittin 1.4 m of aim point, and that 2m was the requirement for clamp landing.

Two meters?! That’s impossible, even for a— 

er, wait a sec... 

Seems to me that kinda terminal accuracy has been around for a couple of decades, just with slightly more intentional explosions. There’s a reason SpaceX cozied up to the Air Force, after all. What’s a little data and technology sharing between friends business partners, after all?

No but really, of all the challenges with a clamp landing, I think the accuracy is the least of them at this point. 

 

18 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Also, no clamp slots.

What about that big silly roomba thing? Is there one on the west coast? Does anyone know where JRTI even is, in the first place?

Or perhaps... SpaceX is scrapping plans for the BFR and going bigger... like Sea Dragon bigger... and this booster will be scouting locations for a secret aquatic base to support it...