Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

  On 8/7/2019 at 4:09 PM, mikegarrison said:

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/07/30/flight-test-dates-under-review/

"New leadership" seems to have put the crewed ISS missions into schedule limbo.

Expand  

Well, the dates were already in flux after the SpaceX Super Draco issue (which they seem to have corrected by dumping that valve).

SpaceX is NET December for the crew launch, emphasis on the NET ("No Earlier Than for those unaware reading this) part. They still have their MaxQ abort to do... have not seen it scheduled yet.

 

In other news:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, Chris B on NSF has some info for us:

  Quote
I'm told it's getting out there in public conversation, so from our end where we can cite our own info: L2 noted earlier in the week (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47107.msg1975408#msg1975408) that Hopper is set to be retired after the 200 meter hop. As a result it won't be moved back from the LZ - it'll be cannibalized for parts - as the pad will be prepared for Starship MkI. And that's where it gets really exciting.

Hoppy will likely become a Grasshopper style display, but there's no confirmed plan on that part.

So, 200 meter hop. That needs to go well. Tick off the Milestone for Dear Moon. Retire Hopper. Prepare for Starship at the launch pad. Three Raptor test flight. (Raptor production has really upped the pace). All will be outlined in the pre-200 meter hop article. Elon's overview comes later in the month.

So we'll keep this Hopper thread going through to the 200 meter Hopper and whatever retirement plan they create for Hoppy. I'm sure they will "Grasshopper-style" display the shell as it's been a key element of the test program as Grasshopper was. We'll eventually, down the road, pin this thread Sticky, as I really do feel people will look back on this thread in 10+ years to see where it all started.
 
Expand  

The 200m hop will be Starhopper's last flight.

I think this is most likely due to the Mk1 going faster than expected. Hopper was originally supposed to have 3 engines, but that's not going to happen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it makes perfect sense on why they would retire Starhopper after its 200m hop. The orbital prototype is more vital to the development of Starship, because the orbital Starship will do the actually scary and important things like the whole skydiving thing. Starhopper just seems like a way to test the engine and maybe a few other bits as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/7/2019 at 6:41 PM, NSEP said:

I think it makes perfect sense on why they would retire Starhopper after its 200m hop. The orbital prototype is more vital to the development of Starship, because the orbital Starship will do the actually scary and important things like the whole skydiving thing. Starhopper just seems like a way to test the engine and maybe a few other bits as well.

Expand  

The hopper is probably harder to work with since it's stubbier, too. There's way more leverage with RCS high up, like on the Starship, than closer to the CoM, like on the Hopper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that it’s made sense for Starhopper to retire after the 200m hop ever since it lost its nosecone, because that limited it to low-velocity (and as such, low-altitude) flight testing. I assume that the Starship Mk1s that are currently being constructed have the necessary heat shielding to fly higher-altitude and suborbital test flights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starhopper retires some testing risk for the orbital prototype hops, doesn't help to fly it past that.

Their dev path on this I think shows in the recent NASA cooperation (not money) on orbital refilling and large lunar lander surface interactions. Build it (or in this case, start building it), and they start to take you seriously.

Musk flat out said it would be easier to just land it on the Moon than it would be to convince them of it ahead of time, and I think that is the path to any government involvement. It'll be real to them when they can't ignore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/7/2019 at 10:29 PM, CatastrophicFailure said:

Cue a gallery of senators with fingers in their ears chanting “lalalalalalalalalalalalalala...” <_<

Expand  

Raptor engines are loud. If 3 of them at once don't stop this, 7 might, and 31 definitely will.

 

In all seriousness, though, while I have optimism in SpaceX, a backup plan never hurt anyone. SLS is fine IMO. But SLS and full, proper, crewed Starship really shouldn't overlap much...

Edited by ThatGuyWithALongUsername
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/7/2019 at 9:46 PM, tater said:

Musk flat out said it would be easier to just land it on the Moon than it would be to convince them of it ahead of time, and I think that is the path to any government involvement. It'll be real to them when they can't ignore it.

Expand  

It is a very interesting question whether any governmental approval is necessary for a private entity to land on the moon.

The existing Outer Space Treaties were not really written with the idea that private space flight might be a real thing. There is a US law that says any launches from the US or by any US citizen outside the US or re-entries over the US must have a license from the Department Of Transportation (ie. the FAA). There is a penalty of up to $100,000/day for violation of this law.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/8/2019 at 12:02 AM, mikegarrison said:

It is a very interesting question whether any governmental approval is necessary for a private entity to land on the moon.

The existing Outer Space Treaties were not really written with the idea that private space flight might be a real thing.

Expand  

Well, generally launches to orbit require permits, but once there spacecraft seem to be mostly free to go wherever they can. Landing on the Moon, especially with humans, would probably get NASA's Planetary Protection involved, but I think your point is the very reason why getting the government's permission would take so much longer than actually doing it: The laws haven't been written yet, and simply can't be well defined until people start doing things like that in space.

There may not even be a lot of regulation until the population of the Moon begins to necessitate a governing body of its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/8/2019 at 12:02 AM, mikegarrison said:

It is a very interesting question whether any governmental approval is necessary for a private entity to land on the moon.

Expand  

As per international maritime law, approval of the lunar government would be necessary.

And since there is no such government, no such approval is needed.

  On 8/7/2019 at 9:46 PM, tater said:

It'll be real to them when they can't ignore it.

Expand  

And when they have to sign a treaty with the guy who grows the first potato, it'll be even funnier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/8/2019 at 12:38 AM, Nothalogh said:

As per international maritime law, approval of the lunar government would be necessary.

And since there is no such government, no such approval is needed.

Expand  

So, if the flight is under maritime law, and they steal the Apollo 15 LRV, would they legally, then, be space pirates? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/8/2019 at 12:02 AM, mikegarrison said:

It is a very interesting question whether any governmental approval is necessary for a private entity to land on the moon.

The existing Outer Space Treaties were not really written with the idea that private space flight might be a real thing. There is a US law that says any launches from the US or by any US citizen outside the US or re-entries over the US must have a license from the Department Of Transportation (ie. the FAA). There is a penalty of up to $100,000/day for violation of this law.

Expand  

Certainly interesting... a topic for discussion with a buddy who is a space fan who is also an attorney.

I was really thinking more in terms of government funding. Ie: build the capability, then sell said capability to the only likely current lunar customer---NASA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/8/2019 at 12:56 AM, CatastrophicFailure said:

So, if the flight is under maritime law, and they steal the Apollo 15 LRV, would they legally, then, be space pirates? :o

Expand  

The Martian explained this very well, and I expect said answer to be "Yes".

  On 8/8/2019 at 1:02 AM, Nothalogh said:

No, as the LRV constitutes an abandoned vessel.

That would be salvage.

Expand  

Oh yeah, I never thought about it.

Link to comment
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...