totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Hannu2]

2 hours ago, Flying dutchman said:

I really don't see this causing that..

Probably it do not. But in any case that kind of problem must be analyzed carefully  to make clear is there any risk in continuing old way or changing procedures. If there are risks in both ways probably they postpone manned flight and send few satellites to make sure that change works properly.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

14 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Of course it can. Changing *anything* can hurt things.

For example, it says they *may* have been loading too much oxygen. That means they *may* *not* have been loading too much oxygen, right?

Administrators are notorious for ----ing stuff up when they notice an 'efficiency' could be achieved by changing something, and then mandating the change solely for the efficiency.

 

IOW - if it ain't broke...

 

 

(Now - having said that; they should not fear changing something if they notice that it can and should be improved, but I also agree with Mike - if you're going to 'play' with the system, do it when you're tossing expensive rocks at the sky... not several people)

Edited April 16, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[GuessingEveryDay]

Wait... What's that say on the circle on the front Raptor? Enhance

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

Guysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguys 
 

Not official yet, but seems to be the only contract awarded, too. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by CatastrophicFailure

[sevenperforce]

The sheer hilarity of tiny Orion docking with that gloriously massive Starship

[StrandedonEarth]

8 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The sheer hilarity of tiny Orion docking with that gloriously massive Starship

Docking? More like “swallowed by”

 

[cubinator]

7 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The sheer hilarity of tiny Orion docking with that gloriously massive Starship

not only that, on the NASA event page it seems to imply that only two astronauts will land on the first mission. Can you imagine having an entire Starship to share with just one other person?

[tater]

That's the least likely thing I can imagine.

Wow.

Did I say wow?

[StrandedonEarth]

I’d like to think it’s to give Congress a wake up call of the “bucket of water” sort. You want your buddies to get contracts? Then buck up!

[Spaceception]

8 minutes ago, cubinator said:

not only that, on the NASA event page it seems to imply that only two astronauts will land on the first mission. Can you imagine having an entire Starship to share with just one other person?

 

[tater]

 

19 minutes ago, cubinator said:

not only that, on the NASA event page it seems to imply that only two astronauts will land on the first mission. Can you imagine having an entire Starship to share with just one other person?

Orion holds 4, so it's risk mitigation I guess. Halves the possible lost crew if there was a LOC landing event—I was going to say that it allows Orion to rescue crew in case of some issue, but Orion is so awful, that's not actually possible. They can watch from NRHO, and do nothing at all.

[Ultimate Steve]

There's a lot of speculation that this award is because the SpaceX option was the only one they could afford, and even then they had to talk SpaceX down in price a bit.

There is further speculation that, because Congress probably won't be happy with this choice, that this also serves as a play to say "We'll have two landers, we'll give you what you want, if you properly fund us."

[cubinator]

Confirmed Starship lunar lander!

[RCgothic]

It's official!

 

 

 

 

 

[RealKerbal3x]

Updated design, with new landing legs!

[cubinator]

This is an absolutely towering lunar lander. A worthy successor to the Lunar Excursion Module, especially considering the 50 year lull.

[tater]

I'd say what this says to Huntsville in plain English, but it's a family forum, so I'll leave the two-word statement as an exercise for the reader.

[CatastrophicFailure]

44 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Updated design, with new landing legs!

Interesting... I’m not seeing any side-firing mini-Raptors... maybe there’s a ring of even-mini-er engines? The mythical hot-gas thrusters, perhaps, spammed around enough to land in lunar grabbity?

2 hours ago, tater said:

That's the least likely thing I can imagine.

Wow.

Did I say wow?

FromOuttaNowhere!.gif

Wonder if this’ll end up being one of those tiny decisions that ends up having world-changing implications down the road? I mean, even if not intended they just “legitimized” (for want of a better term) the whole Starship program. 

Prolly not, I imagine we’ll see more funding for a second lander eventually. 

2 hours ago, cubinator said:

not only that, on the NASA event page it seems to imply that only two astronauts will land on the first mission. Can you imagine having an entire Starship to share with just one other person?

I’ve seen horror movies that start exactly like that... 

 

2 hours ago, tater said:

Orion holds 4, so it's risk mitigation I guess. Halves the possible lost crew if there was a LOC landing event—I was going to say that it allows Orion to rescue crew in case of some issue, but Orion is so awful, that's not actually possible. They can watch from NRHO, and do nothing at all.

The irony that Starship could just land the whole dang Orion capsule on the moon anyway...

3 minutes ago, tater said:

I'd say what this says to Huntsville in plain English, but it's a family forum, so I'll leave the two-word statement as an exercise for the reader.

Good day, sir! ?

er, wait that’s three words...

[sevenperforce]

56 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Updated design, with new landing legs!

Close view on the legs.

This just looks like a really ridiculously sloppy render to me.

See how the feet clip through the fairing on one side but not the other?

[RCgothic]

7 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Interesting... I’m not seeing any side-firing mini-Raptors... maybe there’s a ring of even-mini-er engines? The mythical hot-gas thrusters, perhaps, spammed around enough to land in lunar grabbity?

 

In the darker ring above and to the left of the flag and the NASA logo.

[sevenperforce]

7 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I’m not seeing any side-firing mini-Raptors... maybe there’s a ring of even-mini-er engines? The mythical hot-gas thrusters, perhaps, spammed around enough to land in lunar grabbity?

Looks like four banks of six engines each for a total of 24.

[tater]

I notice they went for the more sensible array on the cylinder vs dealing with the nose compound curvature.

[RCgothic]

Just now, sevenperforce said:

Looks like four banks of six engines each for a total of 24.

Wow, I didn't spot the ones above and to the right.

24 landing engines then. What do we reckon, somewhere in the region of 25kN per engine? That's quite a bit smaller than superdraco.

[RCgothic]

Crew-2 progressing.

 

 

SpaceX's announcement tweet.

 

 

And of course what we will knew but old-space is extremely slow to acknowledge:

If you're just trying to copy F9 you're destined for failure. Starship may not work reusably, but there's no serious reason not to think Superheavy won't even so be by far the cheapest ride to space on a per kg basis.

 

[tater]

20 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

If you're just trying to copy F9 you're destined for failure. Starship may not work reusably, but there's no serious reason not to think Superheavy won't even so be by far the cheapest ride to space on a per kg basis.

This.

As I was trying to say up the thread, the mere existence of the GSE tanks implies SS/SH production is absurdly inexpensive, not matter how you do the math. The only assumption required is that SpaceX would not spend more than some multiple of off the shelf propane tank cost. Pick a number and work from there? Think SpaceX would happily spend 100X off the shelf tank cost? Then a SS costs ~$10M. Would they not burn money in that way, and only spend 10X tank cost? $1M. Etc.