totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Spaceception]

35 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

About 31 minutes in Elon suggests the current version V1 would be capable of 40 to 50 tons to orbit.

I don't know enough to make a reasonably detailed analysis, but I'll just point this out - in the video, he says "Flight 3" Starship, which while it is a V1 ship, doesn't mean it was built for operational flights. But, just my speculation, the likely culprit in the low mass to orbit has to be dry mass being too high, with underfilled tanks being another factor. V2 is presumably using similar/the same hardware as V1, so it'll likely have those same dry mass issues, but it'll be made up for with stretched tanks and more powerful engines.

Ship stretching, Raptor upgrades, and additional development ahead of operations has been in the pipeline for at least a couple years at this point. So I'd be surprised if NASA isn't in the loop to some degree about it. SpaceX is also currently building the factory and new launchpads for Starship, and likely want to bake in vehicle upgrades before they're finished instead of applying them retroactively like with Falcon 9 development.

Are we expecting another GAO report for HLS like last November? There was a brief one in Janurary. We might have some of our questions answered then if SpaceX doesn't elaborate during upcoming flights.

[Ultimate Steve]

In the recent presentation Elon says they are not working on Mars propellant production yet. This almost directly contradicts Tom Mueller's claim that he spent his last 5 years at SpaceX working on ISRU.

One if the negative nancies on the Discord is saying this proves that they stopped working on ISRU after Tom left.

I don't want to accept this but this is the only way to reconcile both sentences if we take both statements at face value.

[darthgently]

Maybe they've gone as far as they can research-wise without doing tests on Mars? Idk.  Probably priorities

[DAL59]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230003852/downloads/NEA_HSF_2023_PDC.pdf

Paper on using Starship for crewed NEA mission

[AtomicTech]

On 4/8/2024 at 11:20 AM, Spaceception said:

IFT-2, which nearly made it to SECO, and was a mostly smooth launch (can't say the same for the recovery attempt).

96 Falcon launches in 2023, with 5 of those being Falcon Heavy, and one of those launching NASA's Psyche probe (FH will launch Europa Clipper this October). 148 planned this year (on track for more than 125 so far) https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/04/spacex-quarter-1/

Booster 1058, which flew the first crewed Dragon, tipped over on the way back after its 19th landing due to high winds (rip in pieces).

Polaris Dawn is picking up, they're getting ready to test Dragon soon in a vacuum environment to simulate the conditions during the spacewalk. The EVA suit will be revealed in a few weeks.

SpaceX has launched 50 people to orbit to date, 2 crewed missions this year.

Falcon 9 launched 3 times in 20 hours in March. And 12 times overall (not including IFT-3).

Starlink was breakeven last November, and has over 2.6 million subscribers, it's estimated to rise to over 3.8 million before the end of the year. So it'll likely start making SpaceX money they can use on other endeavors https://payloadspace.com/predicting-spacexs-2024-revenue/

That's not nearly all of it, but that's off the top of my head.

I never cease to be amazed by SpaceX! Thanks!

[tater]

Starlink launch in ~30 min

[tater]

 

 

[tater]

14 min

 

[tater]

Norminal liftoff

Great footage. Landed. SECO 1.

 

[tater]

Musk posted this:

[sevenperforce]

On 4/8/2024 at 2:30 PM, Exoscientist said:

 If they intend to use version V2 then this is bad because it would require further qualification flights for the larger version and

Given that they have not started any qualification flights, this does not appear to be a problem, now does it?

[Exoscientist]

SpaceX should withdraw its application for the Starship as an Artemis lunar lander, Page 3: Starship has radically reduced capability than promised.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2024/04/spacex-should-withdraw-its-application.html

 Robert Clark

[sevenperforce]

8 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

SpaceX should withdraw its application for the Starship as an Artemis lunar lander, Page 3: Starship has radically reduced capability than promised.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2024/04/spacex-should-withdraw-its-application.html

Speculation -- most of it already rebutted many times -- from beginning to end.

8 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

Elon suggests the current version V1 would be capable of 40 to 50 tons to orbit. This is bad because SpaceX sold NASA on the idea the Starship HLS could serve as an Artemis lander based on 150 tons to orbit reusable

As you know, Elon was talking about the dev version that was intentionally launched with underfilled tanks to a non-orbital trajectory.

His suggestion that this was still capable of 40-50 tonnes to orbit suggests that Starship dev is well on track to meet goals...goals that, I must add, do not depend on the performance of any dev version.

8 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

If they intend to use version V2 then this is bad because it would require further qualification flights for the larger version

SpaceX has done zero qualification flights to date, as they are still in development of their launch vehicle. Since all qualification flights are in the future, there are no "further" qualification flights needed.

8 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 A good Chief Engineer should be scrupulously forthright. He would not refer to the little 5 or 10 second static burns SpaceX does for the SuperHeavy or Starship as "full duration". A true Chief Engineer would be aware that "full duration" in the industry is short for "full mission duration".

As an attorney with a particular certification in securities law, I can tell you that being "scrupulously forthright" is much more important for officers and board members of a corporation than it is for engineers (or whatever you imagine a "Chief Engineer" to be), and that your particular quibble over the way that static fires are described is nowhere near the ethical line for misrepresentations.  

8 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

These static fires in the industry are conducted at the full length and the full thrust of an actual flight and are meant to give confidence to potential customers that the engines can perform as expected for the promised capabilities of the launchers.

Where SpaceX deviates from industry standards, they do so openly and intentionally. You might as well complain that Apple deviated from industry standard by introducing an iPhone without a removable battery. Sure, people didn't like it, but it certainly didn't stop it from begin successful. Besides, you have presented no evidence that SpaceX has failed to share information with its potential customers about the duration and thrust levels of its static fires.

8 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

The FAA had great concerns in the Raptor reliability after the first test flight. In the "corrective actions" they required of SpaceX prior to a second Starship test flight, at the top of the list was correcting the tendency of the Raptor of leaking fuel and catching on fire while in flight.

Those were items C11-C20, so not the top of the list. Additionally, your phrasing -- "tendency of the Raptor of..." -- does not reflect the FAA's corrective action statement. More importantly, all of these were corrected to the FAA's satisfaction. 

8 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

I have argued multiple, independent lines of evidence suggest SpaceX intentionally reduced the throttle of the Raptors

Each of which have been debunked.

8 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

Did SpaceX throttle down the booster engines on the IFT-2 test launch to prevent engine failures?

No.

8 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

SpaceX has said the Starship RUD was due to an intentional LOX dump they performed to keep that flight as suborbital. However, many knowledgeable observers doubted the LOX dump alone would have caused a RUD.

So NASA and the FAA were fooled, then?

[tater]

This will be flight 20 for this booster apparently.

 

[Codraroll]

6 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

SpaceX should withdraw its application for the Starship as an Artemis lunar lander, Page 3: Starship has radically reduced capability than promised.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2024/04/spacex-should-withdraw-its-application.html

 Robert Clark

Same old bunk as always. What does it come from, this obsession to defend a bogus conclusion using whatever bogus straws you can grasp, often submitted multiple times even after thorough debunkings as if repeating them would make them any truer?

Put simply: your conclusion is wrong and the arguments don't hold up. They never have. You've been told many times. Yet you still harp on the same indefensible story and refuse to accept it as bunk. Why is that? This behaviour comes across as borderline obsessive and highly irrational.

[tater]

35 min

 

[tater]

2 min

 

[tater]

20th flight booster landed, nominal orbit.

 

[mikegarrison]

I find I never watch these anymore. Partly for the same reasons networks stopped live-covering shuttle launches by the time that one exploded. And partly because they stopped putting them on YouTube. I know, I know, Elon owns "X" and wants to drive traffic there, but if he actually wants people to watch the broadcasts.....

[Brotoro]

Yes. My watching of Falcon 9 launches have dropped precipitously after they no longer posted them on YouTube. I presume SpaceX just isn't interested in me watching their launches.

Also…I became much less interest in Starlink after I learned that I live in one of the few places in the U.S. where they won't sell me service.

Edited April 13 by Brotoro

[darthgently]

4 hours ago, Brotoro said:

Yes. My watching of Falcon 9 launches have dropped precipitously after they no longer posted them on YouTube. I presume SpaceX just isn't interested in me watching their launches.

Also…I became much less interest in Starlink after I learned that I live in one of the few places in the U.S. where they won't sell me service.

I've not had a problem finding the launches on YouTube after the fact from one channel or another and rarely do the launches line up with my schedule to watch them live anyway.  That said, the X video player has improved quite a bit.  YouTube's watch later queue is probably 60% of the reason I end up on YouTube with range of content being the other 40%.

[darthgently]

Bruno from 2020 on why booster reuse isn't viable: 

 

 

[Exoscientist]

On 4/11/2024 at 1:28 PM, sevenperforce said:

Speculation -- most of it already rebutted many times -- from beginning to end.

As you know, Elon was talking about the dev version that was intentionally launched with underfilled tanks to a non-orbital trajectory.

His suggestion that this was still capable of 40-50 tonnes to orbit suggests that Starship dev is well on track to meet goals...goals that, I must add, do not depend on the performance of any dev version.

SpaceX has done zero qualification flights to date, as they are still in development of their launch vehicle. Since all qualification flights are in the future, there are no "further" qualification flights needed.

As an attorney with a particular certification in securities law, I can tell you that being "scrupulously forthright" is much more important for officers and board members of a corporation than it is for engineers (or whatever you imagine a "Chief Engineer" to be), and that your particular quibble over the way that static fires are described is nowhere near the ethical line for misrepresentations.  

Where SpaceX deviates from industry standards, they do so openly and intentionally. You might as well complain that Apple deviated from industry standard by introducing an iPhone without a removable battery. Sure, people didn't like it, but it certainly didn't stop it from begin successful. Besides, you have presented no evidence that SpaceX has failed to share information with its potential customers about the duration and thrust levels of its static fires.

Those were items C11-C20, so not the top of the list. Additionally, your phrasing -- "tendency of the Raptor of..." -- does not reflect the FAA's corrective action statement. More importantly, all of these were corrected to the FAA's satisfaction. 

Each of which have been debunked.

No.

So NASA and the FAA were fooled, then?

 

 The trouble is if you run the numbers for the specifications SpaceX has cited for the SuperHeavy and Starship, i.e., their dry and propellant masses, and Raptor thrust and Isp, SH/SS should well be able to make 100+ tons to orbit as a reusable. I think NASA engineers were able to take the SpaceX proposal as a viable solution for an Artemis lander because their numbers checked out. But now we find the reusable payload for the current version is only 1/3rd the originally predicted 150 tons to orbit. What explains the drastically reduced payload capacity? This is a major issue because the current version can not perform the refueling functions of the Artemis lander missions at that low payload value.

My opinion: I think NASA was blind-sided by that low announced payload value. SpaceX and NASA will have to be open about what that severe loss in payload, by 100 tons, stems from.

  Bob Clark

[Terwin]

1 hour ago, Exoscientist said:

The trouble is if you run the numbers for the specifications SpaceX has cited for the SuperHeavy and Starship, i.e., their dry and propellant masses, and Raptor thrust and Isp, SH/SS should well be able to make 100+ tons to orbit as a reusable. I think NASA engineers were able to take the SpaceX proposal as a viable solution for an Artemis lander because their numbers checked out. But now we find the reusable payload for the current version is only 1/3rd the originally predicted 150 tons to orbit. What explains the drastically reduced payload capacity? This is a major issue because the current version can not perform the refueling functions of the Artemis lander missions at that low payload value.

My opinion: I think NASA was blind-sided by that low announced payload value. SpaceX and NASA will have to be open about what that severe loss in payload, by 100 tons, stems from.

  Bob Clark

Looks like the plan is for Starship V3 to have a capacity of 200t to orbit.

Why would NASA be worried about an early prototype not being as capable as the expected delivered rocket?

Especially when the delivery plan provides greater performance than was initially expected?

Did you also expect NASA to complain when grasshopper never made orbit?

[magnemoe]

On 4/11/2024 at 7:28 PM, sevenperforce said:

Speculation -- most of it already rebutted many times -- from beginning to end.

As you know, Elon was talking about the dev version that was intentionally launched with underfilled tanks to a non-orbital trajectory.

His suggestion that this was still capable of 40-50 tonnes to orbit suggests that Starship dev is well on track to meet goals...goals that, I must add, do not depend on the performance of any dev version.

SpaceX has done zero qualification flights to date, as they are still in development of their launch vehicle. Since all qualification flights are in the future, there are no "further" qualification flights needed.

As an attorney with a particular certification in securities law, I can tell you that being "scrupulously forthright" is much more important for officers and board members of a corporation than it is for engineers (or whatever you imagine a "Chief Engineer" to be), and that your particular quibble over the way that static fires are described is nowhere near the ethical line for misrepresentations.  

Where SpaceX deviates from industry standards, they do so openly and intentionally. You might as well complain that Apple deviated from industry standard by introducing an iPhone without a removable battery. Sure, people didn't like it, but it certainly didn't stop it from begin successful. Besides, you have presented no evidence that SpaceX has failed to share information with its potential customers about the duration and thrust levels of its static fires.

Those were items C11-C20, so not the top of the list. Additionally, your phrasing -- "tendency of the Raptor of..." -- does not reflect the FAA's corrective action statement. More importantly, all of these were corrected to the FAA's satisfaction. 

Each of which have been debunked.

No.

So NASA and the FAA were fooled, then?

This an airplane is fully fueled then its has enough fuel for its flight+ safety margins and perhaps some extra in some cases like headwind and few other airports to depart to. Planes crossing the Atlantic has so much fuel the can not land without dumping or burning some of it, Same plane model do 2-3 hour flights and can just turn around and land.