totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[tater]

They've fired so many engines, for so many seconds, the only useful tests WRT propulsion are in fact flight tests. None of their current issues would have been caught, much less solved with static tests. They'd have all the risks, do the tests, fly for real—then the thing would have still had a RUD the first time they flipped it.

[darthgently]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Certainly they’ve made progress but only full test runs help solve the big hurdles now. 

If by “full test run” you mean launching through recovery then I agree.   There is no static fire duration long enough, nor enough relights on static fire test stand that can replace trying the actual thing wrt to data gathering power

[tater]

 

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, darthgently said:

If by “full test run” you mean launching through recovery then I agree.   There is no static fire duration long enough, nor enough relights on static fire test stand that can replace trying the actual thing wrt to data gathering power

Yeah I mean the full test flights.

[darthgently]

 

[magnemoe]

12 hours ago, tater said:

They've fired so many engines, for so many seconds, the only useful tests WRT propulsion are in fact flight tests. None of their current issues would have been caught, much less solved with static tests. They'd have all the risks, do the tests, fly for real—then the thing would have still had a RUD the first time they flipped it.

You can fire single engines horizontally for an full mission duration. Not full stages as it would require an significant larger test stand. and magnitudes more cooling water.  
And its not very relevant, you do static fires of stages to check for start up issues and vibrations, later to check that everything works.  
An full duration static fire would not give that much more useful information, it might have cached the ice buildup because using exhaust from turbopump to pressurize, but this was during the landing burn. 

[darthgently]

Given the alignment pins have been pulled from the launch mount holding B10 and the NOTAM for mid October I’m going to venture a 50% chance that IFT-5 will launch mid Oct.

If the catch related permitting isn’t issued by then they will simply go for another virtual catch in the gulf and focus on getting all the other data they want.  
But they won’t wait for the catch permission unless it is clearly imminent mid Oct.

Maybe 70% chance of just sending it mid Oct

[darthgently]

Hos Ridgewind now about 3 nautical miles east and a smidge north of previous hold position and holding station.  Hotstage ring?

[darthgently]

HOS Ridgewind almost back to it’s home port in MX, didn’t catch if it went into Brownsville on the way

[DAL59]

HLS thruster test?

[tater]

Regarding the often discussed goal of SpaceX to colonize Mars as its raison d'être, I just read Reentry by Berger, and he has a few stories in there about employees at first thinking the whole Mars thing was just BS to get people excited, but over time they started realizing that he was in fact being serious. Later people came aboard in some part because they agreed, but the staff in general realized it was not just about launching LEO stuff and came around.

 

Unrelated oped by the Varda CEO about what needs to happen with FAA regulations (put it here since SpaceX is the locus of current FAA regulation discussions).

https://payloadspace.com/op-ed-standardized-launch-reentry-regs-will-support-a-growing-industry/

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Regarding the often discussed goal of SpaceX to colonize Mars as its raison d'être, I just read Reentry by Berger, and he has a few stories in there about employees at first thinking the whole Mars thing was just BS to get people excited, but over time they started realizing that he was in fact being serious. Later people came aboard in some part because they agreed, but the staff in general realized it was not just about launching LEO stuff and came around.

 

Unrelated oped by the Varda CEO about what needs to happen with FAA regulations (put it here since SpaceX is the locus of current FAA regulation discussions).

https://payloadspace.com/op-ed-standardized-launch-reentry-regs-will-support-a-growing-industry/

Well that was an education.  Thanks for posting.  I figured it was already structured much as he thinks it should be and the glacial pace was simply a result of inefficient processing.  
The bottom up bespoke analysis needs to either go completely or be so slickly automated with live data feeds to things like concert schedules that it is as fast as cookie cutter standards.  Some hybrid seems likely to be optimal 

 

[darthgently]

Simply boggling

https://satellitemap.space/

 

[tater]

4 hours ago, darthgently said:

Well that was an education.  Thanks for posting.  I figured it was already structured much as he thinks it should be and the glacial pace was simply a result of inefficient processing.  
The bottom up bespoke analysis needs to either go completely or be so slickly automated with live data feeds to things like concert schedules that it is as fast as cookie cutter standards.  Some hybrid seems likely to be optimal 

 

Yeah, there are some real, fundamental issues right now with launch licenses, and it's not just "Regulations bad!" What worked for a few flights a month might not work for a few flights a week, and later a few a day.

Remember that BO absolutely needs current F9 cadence to launch Kuiper—and Soon™.

[AckSed]

Earth-imaging companies worried Starshield (which, among other things, could also do earth-imaging) might start eating into the money they receive from the government: https://spacenews.com/earth-observation-companies-wary-of-starshield/

Edited October 4 by AckSed

[Nuke]

30 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, there are some real, fundamental issues right now with launch licenses, and it's not just "Regulations bad!" What worked for a few flights a month might not work for a few flights a week, and later a few a day.

Remember that BO absolutely needs current F9 cadence to launch Kuiper—and Soon™.

i think its just that the regulatory process was not designed to handle the launch cadence that spacex is capable of. if you think its bad now wait until there are 2 or 3 direct competitors to spacex all going for a similar launch cadence. were going to need to rethink the regulatory framework for rocket launch if that's the case. you could create a new agency and fund it with a tax on launch services. a feature of this agency would need to be that it also serves as a go between for all the other agencies you need to deal with in order to launch a rocket, otherwise its just another agency that gums up the works.

Edited October 4 by Nuke

[darthgently]

19 minutes ago, AckSed said:

Earth-imaging companies worried Starshield (which, among other things, could also do earth-imaging) might start eating into the money they receive from the government: https://spacenews.com/earth-observation-companies-wary-of-starshield/

 

19 minutes ago, AckSed said:

Earth-imaging companies worried Starshield (which, among other things, could also do earth-imaging) might start eating into the money they receive from the government: https://spacenews.com/earth-observation-companies-wary-of-starshield/

Maybe they should have thought about pitching a satellite constellation to the gov instead of just the data?  People can say what they want about Musk, but he ain’t stupid

[tater]

12 hours ago, Nuke said:

i think its just that the regulatory process was not designed to handle the launch cadence that spacex is capable of. if you think its bad now wait until there are 2 or 3 direct competitors to spacex all going for a similar launch cadence. were going to need to rethink the regulatory framework for rocket launch if that's the case. you could create a new agency and fund it with a tax on launch services. a feature of this agency would need to be that it also serves as a go between for all the other agencies you need to deal with in order to launch a rocket, otherwise its just another agency that gums up the works.

That's exactly what I was getting at. BO aims to fly soon, and between the Kuiper launches Amazon bought from ULA (30?), plus what BO need to fly, they sort of need a couple per month just for Kuiper, ideally more like a couple a week. The same people that have to do the current load, then have to do 25% more? 50% more? 100% more? Seems unsustainable. If that piece written by the varda guy is right, reentries even more bespoke in terms of work than launch.

Edited October 4 by tater

[AckSed]

47 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Maybe they should have thought about pitching a satellite constellation to the gov instead of just the data?

Most of these companies do operate small to medium-sized constellations (a lot of cubesats are for EI; Planet has 300, with 150 active), but how do you compete (they ask) with a company that has demonstrated the ability to both build at least 6000+ satellites in a few short years, and operate more than 4000, and launch more often, with more mass, than the next largest country? Indeed, quite a few of them have taken advantage of their Transporter missions to get up there.

It's a bit like hearing that, oh, I don't know, Greyhound buses will start shipping their own robotic workers to the premises of the business that you work in. Since they own the transport company, they can charge ticket prices to themselves at cost, the business saves money and you're left competing with workers that do not get tired, need breaks or complain about working conditions. In desperation, you quit, then sign on with another company that designs and builds their own robots, but they've lost the first-mover advantage, the robot-worker market has already begun to race to the bottom and Greyhound worker-robots are frickdamned everywhere.

Analogy ran away from me there. Point is, I'd be nervous too, and, like some of these other companies, hoping I could latch on to the coattails of Starshield.

[Ultimate Steve]

I wonder, will it ever become a legal issue? A rocket company owning their own satellite business. Like how an aircraft manufacturer can't legally run their own airline. Or how manufacturers legally have to sell their cars through dealerships in most states.

[tater]

The dealership thing is a grift designed by the dealerships. Tesla doesn’t have dealerships many places because they are not allowed to—existing dealerships blackball them under color of law.

Thats why Tesla here is on Santa Ana Pueblo, they can ignore the state.

Are cell phone companies allowed to build their own cell towers? If so, they drive the eqp out to the site with trucks they own, right?  Currently, there doesn’t seem to be the right kind of regulation for a launch provider to “sell rockets.” 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 hours ago, AckSed said:

Most of these companies

I'm a little frustrated with TradSpace b/c they keep leaning in on anti-competitive arguments / protectionism. 

The way you compete with Musk is to compete - not complain that they are moving too fast and doing too much. 

Spoiler

These guys have the ability to innovate - especially since they already know what is possible.  But they're seemingly locked into a huge sunk cost fallacy based on how they've already spent money on the physical plant side of things which locks them into a process. 

Boeing / ULA / someone else could create a new company called something unrelated and move fast and break stuff to get launch competition  and others could revise their own attitude about how to build satellites. 

 

[darthgently]

10 hours ago, AckSed said:

Most of these companies do operate small to medium-sized constellations (a lot of cubesats are for EI; Planet has 300, with 150 active), but how do you compete (they ask) with a company that has demonstrated the ability to both build at least 6000+ satellites in a few short years, and operate more than 4000, and launch more often, with more mass, than the next largest country? Indeed, quite a few of them have taken advantage of their Transporter missions to get up there.

It's a bit like hearing that, oh, I don't know, Greyhound buses will start shipping their own robotic workers to the premises of the business that you work in. Since they own the transport company, they can charge ticket prices to themselves at cost, the business saves money and you're left competing with workers that do not get tired, need breaks or complain about working conditions. In desperation, you quit, then sign on with another company that designs and builds their own robots, but they've lost the first-mover advantage, the robot-worker market has already begun to race to the bottom and Greyhound worker-robots are frickdamned everywhere.

Analogy ran away from me there. Point is, I'd be nervous too, and, like some of these other companies, hoping I could latch on to the coattails of Starshield.

Total agreement.  They didn’t stand a chance.  But it is very much a “Who Stole My Cheese?” situation.  As the classic book of that title delineates, it was never their cheese to start with and companies need to be realistic as well as very nimble, and never assume a market is “theirs”

[Cracktacular]

On 10/1/2024 at 12:26 PM, Exoscientist said:

 

 What would be even better is a test fire with three burns each at the full length of an actual reusability burn and at the actual wait times in flight between restarts.

 Scott Manley does not believe Raptor reusability has been proven:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxY0chim5r54_TVXenspfEUN1b7VqiuxNC?si=MpWfWi2GyEUZU-23

 

  Bob Clark

Y'know, I actually agree with you on that one. I thought you were just a pot-stirrer.

On 10/1/2024 at 6:41 AM, darthgently said:

More likely they simply want to stress test the engine to extract predicted total run time over life span of the reusable engine by examining how much wear of what components occurred during that 15 minutes.  There is no current obvious realistic scenario for a burn that long; not translunar injection, not getting to Mars.  
I suppose, if using fewer engines, or if payload mass has been increased dramatically post launch (docking additional payload modules?), one could imagine such a long burn as being a solution.

Or maybe it has something to do with playing with an ISS deorbit solution using a single mass produced engine?  Seems like overkill, but might make sense cost-wise.   More questions than answers.

On a completely unrelated note, putting ISS, sans leaky Zvezda, into lunar orbit would be fun 

Dude, I'm joking. You really think Elon Musk conducts business based upon what is said on a message board? Get real

On 10/1/2024 at 9:49 AM, Pthigrivi said:

A billion dollars, 200 tons

 

Wait wait wait, is this Exoscientist?

Edited October 4 by Cracktacular

[magnemoe]

16 hours ago, tater said:

That's exactly what I was getting at. BO aims to fly soon, and between the Kuiper launches Amazon bought from ULA (30?), plus what BO need to fly, they sort of need a couple per month just for Kuiper, ideally more like a couple a week. The same people that have to do the current load, then have to do 25% more? 50% more? 100% more? Seems unsustainable. If that piece written by the varda guy is right, reentries even more bespoke in terms of work than launch.

Say that if you launch more than say 6 times a year you will need to pay an fee to FAA, It might also be an idea with an separate organization for rockets and space.