totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[sh1pman]

34 minutes ago, tater said:

What about using it to fly troops from Free Mars for the reconquista of Terra?

It’s probably the closest thing to a proper alien invasion that we have a chance to ever experience. Unless the Knights of Titan decide to launch their Great Crusade first. 

2 hours ago, Xd the great said:

And Moon flights for whatever reason. (If crew version comes out soon enough).

Moon flights make sense only if they include landing and surface stay, otherwise it’s no different to LEO. For tourism the Moon needs infrastructure like landing pads, habitat, etc. Wouldn’t want to just land in the middle of nowhere. So, it’s likely not in the near future.

[Xd the great]

22 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Wouldn’t want to just land in the middle of nowhere.

How bout landing near Apollo 11's sites?

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

2 hours ago, Xd the great said:

How bout landing near Apollo 11's sites?

To take away the metal scrap which humans started leaving on the Moon after leaving it without water and moon whales and filling the Venusian and Martian atmosphere with carbon dioxide.

 

[kerbiloid]

11 hours ago, tater said:

They could build a few SS/SH, then what, fire all the employees?

Isn't that what they did a year ago?
Just not all, about 1/10 https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-layoffs-20190111-story.html
_{Wow ! A decimation!}

Edited November 7, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

Ninja’d. 

 

Poop.

Edited November 7, 2019 by CatastrophicFailure

[StrandedonEarth]

Hmm, wonder why they keep slipping it? Triple-checking that everything is A-OK hunky-dory norminal?

[tater]

Doesn't matter if it slips, they are being careful.

[tater]

Note that he has said a while ago that they saw a path to building Starship for the same sort of price as Falcon.

The more I look at what they are doing, the more reasonable that seems. Clearly the engines will cost a lot at first, but even at 2M$ each, that's only 82M$. Assuming they even get part way to his sub-200k/Raptor costs, the vehicles (metal tube for cargo variety, forget crew version) could easily only cost Falcon 9 amounts (retail).

 

[sh1pman]

10 million tons to orbit per year is enough material to build a Stanford torus in just one year. You know, an orbital megastructure with artificial gravity for 10,000 people.

 

[Meecrob]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Hmm, wonder why they keep slipping it? Triple-checking that everything is A-OK hunky-dory norminal?

I think this test is as much about performance of Crew Dragon as it is Public Relations. I used to work at a certain aircraft manufacturer who was developing a jet. The manufacturer received tax breaks to set up shop in a certain district, and also received government grants towards this specific test program. They set up a day for the Politician who spearheaded the grants and tax breaks to see the aircraft do an engine run in front of all the news cameras, then give a speech about how their tax breaks are helping industry. Long story short, the plane didn't start, politician looked extremely awkward, voting public saw their tax dollars going to a static display. Within a year of that incident, the whole program was wound down. Some people say it was the economy or the plane should have had x,y and z features. The truth most likely is: Don't embarrass the hand that feeds on live national television.

[tater]

 

 

[AngrybobH]

He says " It just needs crazy up force! ". I'm sure it does. But, it makes me wonder about how loud this thing is going to be especially after it pushes away from the sound suppression system. Is the sound pressure going to break things? SpaceX surely has thought about this, right? Anyway I can't wait to see the static fire and then the eventual take off of all those raptors on SH.

[AVaughan]

I wonder if he has thought through all the requirements of that (including the orbital mechanics bits)?  

Eg if you launch into a minimum inclination orbit from anywhere except the equator or the poles, it will be roughly 24 hours before the Earth rotates so that your launch site is back under your orbit so that starship can land back its launch site.   If you use a higher inclination orbit, then maybe you can setup your orbit so that you can launch from Florida and land back in Florida one orbit later.  

Of course you could probably do a launch from Florida, land somewhere (perhaps Boca Chica?), refuel and then do a suborbital hop back to Florida.  Or just have enough different launch sites spaced around Earth such that you can launch and then land one orbit or so later.  

 

6 hours ago, sh1pman said:

10 million tons to orbit per year is enough material to build a Stanford torus in just one year.

Of course if they are going to send 300 flights per day to all rendezvous with the same target, then they either need to use a lot of launch sites, (or an equatorial orbit with an equatorial launch site, or a polar orbit with a north or south pole launch site), or they need to do simultaneous launches of 9-10 starships plus 9-10 landings of starship, every time the target orbit passes over the launch site.  (Or almost 20 simultaneously if launching into a minimum inclination orbit for the launch site).

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by AVaughan

[Treveli]

11 hours ago, sh1pman said:

10 million tons to orbit per year is enough material to build a Stanford torus in just one year. You know, an orbital megastructure with artificial gravity for 10,000 people.

SpaceX announces achieving capacity for millions of tons into orbit. But, like with Falcon Heavy, there's no customers with such a high payload requirement.

Musk announces creation of SpaceY, dedicated to the development and building of orbital facilities and equipment (space stations and platforms).

Marships begin making regular voyages to Mars. Explorers and colonists complain of poor surface facilities.

Musk announces creation of SpaceZ, dedicated to development and building of surface facilities on other planets and moons.

Musk changes Twitter handle to 'Lord of all Spatial Dimensions'.

The above started as a joke a few months ago, but the more I think about it, and more I see of Starships possible capabilities, the more I think it's really a long-term Musk plan.

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, Treveli said:

The above started as a joke a few months ago, but the more I think about it, and more I see of Starships possible capabilities, the more I think it's really a long-term Musk plan.

He's basically trying to become Weyland with all these companies and tech essential for off-world colonization and sustainability.

Hyperloop: Mars' atmosphere is basically vacuum so high speed trains should be doable without any special tubes surrounding the track

The Boring Company: for underground habitats

Tesla: you need to get from place to place on the surface somehow but there's no gas there so EVs are the only option

Tesla solar roofs: to power it all (and because getting your hands on a nuclear reactor is probably harder than producing 150t of solar panels)

Starlink: to connect all of it together

SpaceX: to transport all of it out there

Edit: the only thing he needs to do now is to develop brain scanning tech so he can recreate them artificially and start building androids.

Hmmm....

Edited November 8, 2019 by Wjolcz

[StrandedonEarth]

40 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

Edit: the only thing he needs to do now is to develop brain scanning tech so he can recreate them artificially and start building androids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralink

[Wjolcz]

8 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralink

I KNOW

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

49 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

He's basically trying to become Weyland with all these companies and tech essential for off-world colonization and sustainability.

Hyperloop: Mars' atmosphere is basically vacuum so high speed trains should be doable without any special tubes surrounding the track

The Boring Company: for underground habitats

Tesla: you need to get from place to place on the surface somehow but there's no gas there so EVs are the only option

Tesla solar roofs: to power it all (and because getting your hands on a nuclear reactor is probably harder than producing 150t of solar panels)

Starlink: to connect all of it together

SpaceX: to transport all of it out there

Edit: the only thing he needs to do now is to develop brain scanning tech so he can recreate them artificially and start building androids.

Hmmm....

Spoiler

 

 

[tater]

From the Artemis thread, and @sevenperforce's work on FHe throw to TLI.

Looks like a 47.8t lander (either fitting in the payload fairing, or if that is tricky make the fairing itself a lander (steel, like Starship)) could have a dry mass of 8 tons (legs, engines, solar, etc, Dragon dry mass is 4200kg, so this seems totally plausible even with an airlock). and it would have 5600m/s dv with a 320 I_sp (hypergolics).

7tons dry and we get to 6km/s dv.

Edited November 8, 2019 by tater

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, tater said:

From the Artemis thread, and @sevenperforce's work on FHe throw to TLI.

Looks like a 47.8t lander (either fitting in the payload fairing, or if that is tricky make the fairing itself a lander (steel, like Starship)) could have a dry mass of 8 tons (legs, engines, solar, etc, Dragon dry mass is 4200kg, so this seems totally plausible even with an airlock). and it would have 5600m/s dv with a 320 I_sp (hypergolics).

7tons dry and we get to 6km/s dv.

If it doesn't need to take re-entry heat, then it makes more sense to keep a composite fairing.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

If it doesn't need to take re-entry heat, then it makes more sense to keep a composite fairing.

Yeah, I was wondering about fabricating a fairing that ends up sealed as the lander structure as per that pic I posed (crappy):

Not sure if making the tanks the structure helps or hurts.

It's fascinating that a Direct Ascent lander is possible with 2 just launches, though. If the (long pole) of prop transfer was added to such a design, you have a reusable lander, too (though it shares the same issue, that reuse at the Moon basically means replacing the propellants using another vehicle that masses about the same as the lander anyway).

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Not sure if making the tanks the structure helps or hurts.

Given the need for engines and COPVs and egress, I don't think it helps all that much. 

1 hour ago, tater said:

It's fascinating that a Direct Ascent lander is possible with 2 just launches, though. If the (long pole) of prop transfer was added to such a design, you have a reusable lander, too (though it shares the same issue, that reuse at the Moon basically means replacing the propellants using another vehicle that masses about the same as the lander anyway).

Yeah, reusing the ascent module doesn't make much sense. Reusing the capsule, on the other hand, does. Strip down a Dragon 2, put a docking port underneath for mating and for an access tunnel to an airlock in the landing module, and send it to LOP-G. Then you merely launch a new landing module with each mission.