totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[cubinator]

1 hour ago, tater said:

There are a few discussions (reddit/NSF) about the reuters piece (not that I trust any of the wire services on space reporting anyway), and the 4.8:100 they claim is 6X higher than the space industry is odd, since the ULA Atlas V facility was 3.1 when it was in operation, Relativity's at 3.4 for Stennis and  5.4 at their "Wormhole" factory. BO in TX is 1.8. As a reality check, the auto industry is 5.9, ship and boat building is 5.6.

 

The industry they cited SpaceX having filed under for most of their facilities was "guided missile and space vehicle manufacturing" which sounds to me like it might include various military-adjacent jobs that might skew lower in hazards from CFD and GNC office work. I can't be sure of that, though.

[tater]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Unexpectedly, Reuters revealed the whole industry dirty secrets, lol.

Also. What a strange whataboutism.

Hardly a "dirty secret," OSHA publishes all that data annually. Manufacturing has an injury rate, whoda thunk?

And Boca Chica is lower than auto mfg, Hawthorne is lower still (think I saw 1.8 for there).

live

[tater]

New stage 2 camera is epic

 

 

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, tater said:

There are a few discussions (reddit/NSF) about the reuters piece (not that I trust any of the wire services on space reporting anyway), and the 4.8:100 they claim is 6X higher than the space industry is odd, since the ULA Atlas V facility was 3.1 when it was in operation, Relativity's at 3.4 for Stennis and  5.4 at their "Wormhole" factory. BO in TX is 1.8. As a reality check, the auto industry is 5.9, ship and boat building is 5.6.

Weird that car manufacturing is more dangerous than ship building. In ship building its less routine, more heavy parts and fall height. On the other hand its less automation and no conveyor belts. 

[tater]

1 minute ago, magnemoe said:

Weird that car manufacturing is more dangerous than ship building. In ship building its less routine, more heavy parts and fall height. On the other hand its less automation and no conveyor belts. 

Boats might include much smaller craft that involve less risk, and skew the numbers?

Bottom line is that they are in the same ballpark as loads of other industries. Aircraft mfg seems to be ~3.4.

Have to wonder if once they have the proper factory built vs the temporary structures, the rate goes down (might include heat related issues, for example, and climate control/shade might make a big difference).

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Weird that car manufacturing is more dangerous than ship building. In ship building its less routine, more heavy parts and fall height. On the other hand its less automation and no conveyor belts. 

I suspect that's in line with the quantity of businesses and people involved in automotive manufacturing compared to ship building. 

Americans drive an average of 17,000 miles per year per person - while we only fly an average of 1,000 miles per year per person.  While the airline industry and airline travel have a much higher safety rating than the automotive industry and travel - and also despite frequent comparison - I really don't think the relative safety of one reflects accurately on the other.  E.G. if a significant number of the flight miles and aircraft were privately owned/maintained rather than being public transportation?  The rates might be worse for personally owned aircraft than passenger cars.  But the two industries just don't operate in anything approaching similarity.

[Codraroll]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckateli said:

I suspect that's in line with the quantity of businesses and people involved in automotive manufacturing compared to ship building. 

Americans drive an average of 17,000 miles per year per person - while we only fly an average of 1,000 miles per year per person.  While the airline industry and airline travel have a much higher safety rating than the automotive industry and travel - and also despite frequent comparison - I really don't think the relative safety of one reflects accurately on the other.  E.G. if a significant number of the flight miles and aircraft were privately owned/maintained rather than being public transportation?  The rates might be worse for personally owned aircraft than passenger cars.  But the two industries just don't operate in anything approaching similarity.

Yes, but these numbers are about the safety of manufacturing the vehicles, not travelling with them.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

25 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Yes, but these numbers are about the safety of manufacturing the vehicles, not travelling with them.

Think about how very, very many businesses are involved in the manufacture of car parts.

 

I used the analogy of comparing driving safety to flying safety to illustrate that comparing the two industries could be inapt.  Also, when looking at different industries - the quantitative number of people involved likely increases risk (similar to my analogy about driving vs flying).  Automotive is HUGE.  Space is tiny and shipbuilding small.

Google tells me there are 2 million Americans involved in Automotive manufacturing but only 100,000 in Ship building.

If we even just claim that an average manufacturing worker faces a 0.001% chance of mishap on a given day - looking at the two numbers side by side would show that there is a higher likelihood of automotive manufacturing mishaps than shipbuilding.  (again, illustrative)

Edited November 11, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Hotel26]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:39 AM, insert_name said:

SpaceX got another X-37b launch, this time on falcon heavy, wonder why they are using it instead of regular falcon

https://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-x-37b-spaceplane-to-launch-on-a-spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket/

Thank you indeed for your post.

I got all inspired and did an impressionist (not replica!) version, OTV-37, and have been having a lot of fun with it.

It has a small equipment bay and I'm thinking I might be able to jimmy some SCANsat instrumentation in there (but probably not); and I'm about to send one to the Mun and attempt a landing and return from there.

For no obvious logical reason.

It is fun, anyway, to have up in a 60-degree orbit and then pick an airport to attempt to bring it back to.

[I now return you to your SpaceX live feed.]

[sevenperforce]

On 11/10/2023 at 4:35 PM, darthgently said:

For the record, I'm still on the fence about catching boosters with the OLM.  Until I see F9s more consistently hitting a more exact bullseye I'm unwilling to make a bet on that.  The gap between the sticks is a much smaller target, relatively speaking, than the big circle on the barges.

Yeah, same. The RTLS landing of the last F9 was waaaay off-bullseye when it came down.

I know that before they were talking about giving Superheavy those ten-tonne gas-gas methox thrusters for translation during hoverslam and that seemed like a workable plan but AFAIK they have scrapped the thrusters entirely.

On 11/10/2023 at 5:36 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

As to the chopstick catch, I believe the chopsticks start more spread and close when the booster drops between them. Again, AFAIK. 

Yeah, but I don't think the chopsticks are capable of, like, "pinching" the booster into place.

And catching Starship with the chopsticks seems like a REALLY long pole.

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Yeah, but I don't think the chopsticks are capable of, like, "pinching" the booster into place.

Pinching, no, but I imagine they could close centred to the booster, without pushing it much.  

[Terwin]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Yeah, same. The RTLS landing of the last F9 was waaaay off-bullseye when it came down.

 

The F9 hover-slam has a lot less leeway than a hover-capable vessel.

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Yeah, but I don't think the chopsticks are capable of, like, "pinching" the booster into place.

And catching Starship with the chopsticks seems like a REALLY long pole.

The ability to hover, even for just a few seconds, gives a lot of opportunity for improving accuracy.

Sure it is expensive to hover before landing(5 seconds of hover-time costs ~50m/s dv), but it also allows for very precise positioning/landing.

Compare it to sliding into a parking space with your brakes locked and your engine dead compared to normal parking(even allowing you to back out and try again)

[sevenperforce]

26 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Pinching, no, but I imagine they could close centred to the booster, without pushing it much.  

Oh, I see your point -- adjusting to where the booster is, not trying to push the booster to the center. Yeah, that's workable.

[AckSed]

This is where decreases and increases in the mass of the booster trickle down - the lighter it is, the more it can reserve and the longer it can hover.

[StrandedonEarth]

38 minutes ago, AckSed said:

This is where decreases and increases in the mass of the booster trickle down - the lighter it is, the more it can reserve and the longer it can hover.

Especially the mass savings of not having to carry the landing gear around. 

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Pinching, no, but I imagine they could close centred to the booster, without pushing it much.  

Yes, if the sticks can close across a range of centers, that is one stick moves much further than the other to meet the booster, I would have more confidence.  All that said, when they go to attempt it I'll be 100% wanting it to work.  And if it does work I'll be very happy to have been wrong.  I also won't be completely surprised as my gut has been been wrong before and the SpaceX team pulls off some amazing stuff

Edited November 13, 2023 by darthgently

[darthgently]

 

 

[AckSed]

Aww yiss. Go on my son!

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Woot! 

[Cuky]

Have they stated any reason, other than Elon owning X now, why they stopped streaming launches on YouTube? While they were on even if I forgot about the launch I would get a notification and I'd watch or, in cases where time zone differences meant it was in super early morning for me I'd watch a replay. Since they stopped streaming on YouTube I haven't seen a single launch, X is just not my go to app/site.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Oh crap. 

I'm not on X. 

Thank God for NASA Spaceflight. 

[tater]

NSF coverage is hot garbage. Would be fine minus the yammering... but the yammering persists. Ditto Tim Dodd. Utterly uninterested in hearing them talk.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

NSF coverage is hot garbage. Would be fine minus the yammering... but the yammering persists. Ditto Tim Dodd. Utterly uninterested in hearing them talk.

I do have to play them on Mute, given all the shout outs to oddball names on the scrolling chat. 

FWIW, I do appreciate your sharing X content - I'd be banned in hours for arguing with Flat Earth believing election deniers. 

[Geonovast]

Is it possible they'll still stream to YouTube for this, though?  The SpaceX YT channel did upload two videos a couple days ago.  The first successful Falcon 1 flight... and "Preparing for Second Flight test" featuring Starship.

As much as I hate them going exclusively Twitter (No, I am Not), I get why they did.  But why hype up on YT if you're not going to feature there?

[tater]

YouTube has better functionality for the current use case to be sure. X needs a way to easily find video media for a source—say SpaceX—in one spot. High res video, with a windowed mode (vs the current potato or full screen choice)..