totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[tater]

11 hours:

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by tater

[tater]

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

Embeds seem to be broken again but…

https://x.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1697642656602501125?s=61&t=JV3DuAKeQdnHM-A2F2U-lA

https://x.com/jenakuns/status/1697442574099947530?s=61&t=JV3DuAKeQdnHM-A2F2U-lA
 

 

[tater]

 

[Ultimate Steve]

Man, and to think I thought we had a chance at Mars in 2024 when young me saw the IAC 2016 presentation... How young and naieve I was.

A preliminary design review of depots in Q3 2025 does not bode well for HLS.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

A preliminary design review of depots in Q3 2025 does not bode well for HLS.

Better than any alternative.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Man, and to think I thought we had a chance at Mars in 2024 when young me saw the IAC 2016 presentation... How young and naieve I was.

A preliminary design review of depots in Q3 2025 does not bode well for HLS.

I went through these emotions waiting for Perseverance and Webb to launch... And despite the delays am thrilled by the science. 

Some things are worth waiting for 

[tater]

imax.

[SunlitZelkova]

7 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Man, and to think I thought we had a chance at Mars in 2024 when young me saw the IAC 2016 presentation... How young and naieve I was.

A preliminary design review of depots in Q3 2025 does not bode well for HLS.

Moon in 2024 and then 2025 was always a fantastic date.

Note in the history of space projects, we have two examples of attempts at such predictions:

A) Soviet government orders a crewed lunar landing to occur in 1968, with development starting in ~1964-1965 (loosely similar to the original Artemis timeline)

B) NASA begins planning for Space Shuttle missions in 1978 following the beginning of formal STS development in 1972 (earlier timelines had the Space Shuttle getting approved right after Apollo 11 but flying in 1975!)

In reality, the best shot the Soviets had at a landing was probably around 1975-1976 after the improved N1F flew, so it would have taken them about a decade to fly to the Moon. Shuttle took until 1981 to fly, so also nearly a decade of development time.

I'd say Eric Berger's take in Ars Technica that Artemis III won't happen until 2028 is a best case scenario, and realistically it will take until 2029 or 2030.

Spoiler

Although part of me just really wants to see the US and China land people on the Moon near simultaneously, so I'm hoping we see delays and the missions match up. China is also aiming for 2029-2030 right now. Although it should be noted their development didn't start until 2022 or 2023, so 2031 or 2032 might be more realistic dates for their landing.

 

[tater]

You have to expand to read, but Zack thinks they will need to test boosters while the stand is occupied with boosters readying for flight. Also, the OLM is limited to 50% thrust static fires due to the nature of the launch hold-downs, he thinks these will clamp the booster down hard.

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Moon in 2024 and then 2025 was always a fantastic date.

Note in the history of space projects, we have two examples of attempts at such predictions:

A) Soviet government orders a crewed lunar landing to occur in 1968, with development starting in ~1964-1965 (loosely similar to the original Artemis timeline)

B) NASA begins planning for Space Shuttle missions in 1978 following the beginning of formal STS development in 1972 (earlier timelines had the Space Shuttle getting approved right after Apollo 11 but flying in 1975!)

Aren't you forgetting Kennedy's 1961 speech saying the US "should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth"?

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, tater said:

imax.

Look like it and impressed by the clamps holding the protective cover in place.  The other cameras has an protective film who don't look well fitted. Will it be removed before use?

[magnemoe]

13 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Man, and to think I thought we had a chance at Mars in 2024 when young me saw the IAC 2016 presentation... How young and naieve I was.

A preliminary design review of depots in Q3 2025 does not bode well for HLS.

This sounds more like an long term storage test than the fuel transfer test for NASA? Later sounded more like an extra tank in the cargo hold they pump fuel into in orbit who could be combined with an landing test.

[magnemoe]

Next launch Q3 2023 sounds plausible so does payload launch Q4 who would be starlink v2. 

First Starship recovery in Q3 2024, where to land it is my question. They would need to overfly continental US and even Mexico for landing at Boca Chica.

Milestone 8: and beyond is concepts, but includes starship as a an long term space station and maned starship launches there starship as an station will be much much easier to pull off as it don't involve the danger of launch and landing and only add long term as a problem. 

[tater]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

First Starship recovery in Q3 2024, where to land it is my question. They would need to overfly continental US and even Mexico for landing at Boca Chica.

Yeah, that's a tricky one. Luckily they can do Artemis expendable (or half expendable).

[CBase]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

They would need to overfly continental US and even Mexico for landing at Boca Chica.

At what altitude is drag sufficient to slow down starship to 200-300 m/s horizontal speed  ? Assuming a low payload could they kind of reverse the entry trajectory high enough in order to keep a good safety margin ? My KSP gut feeling says no, but I never tried RO, so all my intuition for speed and altitude is way off from real vlaues.

[tater]

Live

Thursday scrub was an engine issue that they had worked through before T=0, but decided to check it out anyway. Friday scrub was an out of family GSE sensor.

Edited September 2, 2023 by tater

[tater]

That was cool, continuous footage

This launch tied total launches last year.

 

[tater]

 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, CBase said:

At what altitude is drag sufficient to slow down starship to 200-300 m/s horizontal speed  ? Assuming a low payload could they kind of reverse the entry trajectory high enough in order to keep a good safety margin ? My KSP gut feeling says no, but I never tried RO, so all my intuition for speed and altitude is way off from real vlaues.

Once its into the dense atmosphere I think you are correct but if it breaks up that is likely higher up. 

[CatastrophicFailure]

6 hours ago, magnemoe said:

First Starship recovery in Q3 2024, where to land it is my question. They would need to overfly continental US and even Mexico for landing at Boca Chica.

This doesn’t seem like a big showstopper to me. The Shuttle did this dozens of times. Dragon regularly does. And by the time Starship actually attempts it, they’ll have a LOT of data from, and presumably several successes at, bellyflopping into the Pacific. 

[tater]

 

[magnemoe]

48 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

This doesn’t seem like a big showstopper to me. The Shuttle did this dozens of times. Dragon regularly does. And by the time Starship actually attempts it, they’ll have a LOT of data from, and presumably several successes at, bellyflopping into the Pacific. 

Perhaps not but I see this is as an worse issue than launch fails who is over sea. I say doing some landings in the Pacific or US west coast could be relevant to inspect the ship and its condition. 
Don't think you could recover it easy but you could sell parts as souvenirs  

[darthgently]

29 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Perhaps not but I see this is as an worse issue than launch fails who is over sea. I say doing some landings in the Pacific or US west coast could be relevant to inspect the ship and its condition. 
Don't think you could recover it easy but you could sell parts as souvenirs  

My understanding was that there would be many, many water faux landings prior to an actual SS catch attempt.  I'm at a total loss as to where I got that understanding at this point though so sadly cannot vouch for its veracity with a hard cite.

Wasn't the plan in the first launch attempt to water land SS in the Pacific if it made orbit?  Maybe even near Hawaii to perhaps try out its cross range ability?

Edited September 2, 2023 by darthgently

[magnemoe]

43 minutes ago, darthgently said:

My understanding was that there would be many, many water faux landings prior to an actual SS catch attempt.  I'm at a total loss as to where I got that understanding at this point though so sadly cannot vouch for its veracity with a hard cite.

Wasn't the plan in the first launch attempt to water land SS in the Pacific if it made orbit?  Maybe even near Hawaii to perhaps try out its cross range ability?

Pretty sure they repeat that they did with falcon 9 first stages, they water land until they had it figured out, then they tried to land it and after some tries it worked and now its routine. 
But as they scrub launches is an stupid boat get into the launch trajectory I have problems seeing them allowing reentry over populated areas, Starship is 100 ton and pretty sturdy build so it will be large parts coming down.  On the other hand a shuttle broke up and they continued to fly them overland.
Now this could simply be legal stuff, launching rockets is dangerous but an shuttle deorbiting is just an plane landing. 
On the other hand overflying Mexico is more troublesome, even if SpaceX does an deal with Mexico the US might still say no. 
I thought the oil rigs was for Starship landing, but they was sold off so it might not be an issue.