totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[tater]

Just now, SpaceFace545 said:

Why the heck are y'all still having this petty argument about if starship is in orbit or not. 

Because we're hopped up on coffee and nothing super interesting is happening in space news at this second?

[sh1pman]

So, to sum up:

1) A requirement to complete an orbit is flawed because you can reach a stable orbit first, then do a deorbit burn before completing a full circle.

2) Periapsis above Karman line or another altitude - also flawed because the altitude is arbitrary, atmosphere doesn’t have a defined border, and a spacecraft in a 10,000 km x 99 km orbit will most likely complete many circles (ellipses?)

3) Reaching an orbital velocity - flawed because that velocity can be achieved while going straight up, and that’s definitely not an orbit.

Hmm… I like @tseitsei89’s definition, but I’d change ground level to sea level because it’s less variable. It does imply a near-orbital velocity and near-circular trajectory, while not requiring to actually complete a circle. Also, Starship flight will count as orbital this way

8 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Why the heck are y'all still having this petty argument about if starship is in orbit or not. 

Are you a moderator or something? We’re discussing things because they’re interesting and relate to SpaceX in some way.

[YNM]

6 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Also, Starship flight will count as orbital this way

If anything, I thought SpaceX wants the "orbital" test to be counted as suborbital, as unless the specific assessment and permission - and/or new EIS / amended EIS - has been obtained, Boca Chica is not meant for experimental orbital tests.

Edited May 28, 2021 by YNM

[cubinator]

It's an orbital test because they are testing flight and reentry at orbital speed, even though it doesn't go into a stable orbit.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

3) Reaching an orbital velocity - flawed because that velocity can be achieved while going straight up, and that’s definitely not an orbit.

I'd still say that's an orbit, lol.

Course I think He is a metal.

Launch integration tower stacking:

 

[SpaceFace545]

17 minutes ago, tater said:

Because we're hopped up on coffee and nothing super interesting is happening in space news at this second?

I am to so I’ll join then. Starship is completing an orbital test because for my understanding it is going into orbit but just deorbiting before a complete orbit. So yes it is an orbital test but also not at the same time.

[Deddly]

There's a difference between an orbital test and an actual orbit. 

[SpaceFace545]

3 minutes ago, Deddly said:

There's a difference between an orbital test and an actual orbit. 

Yes but this is being called an orbital test so I guess its differnt.

[sh1pman]

Schrödinger‘s orbit.

[SpaceFace545]

4 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Schrödinger‘s orbit.

it really is isn't it. 

I think the fuzzy wording is partially a marketing move. Most people will read it and think that it really completed a few orbits.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

it really is isn't it. 

I think the fuzzy wording is partially a marketing move. Most people will read it and think that it really completed a few orbits.

Anyone who cares at all will watch the bulk of the flight live, with the orbit plotted, and funky music playing if there is LOS (like every other SpaceX flight).

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, tater said:

We get it, people will have an interest in saying that Starship isn't a thing for as long as possible.

Doesn't matter if it's SN21, SN22, or whichever does a complete orbit, one will eventually. SpaceX has an interest in paying for dev by launching their own sats, so they put it into a Starlink deployment orbit fairly early—that or they add a kick stage for that purpose.

Regardless, when they put in in an orbit that might be 900km x 30km, raising the perigee to make it complete one full orbit would be trivial. If the RCS works at all, it "could" be in orbit. It's hair splitting. Next thing we'll be saying that orbital crew flights don't count if the pilot bailed out of his vehicle

I get what you are saying - but the quibble is in different directions.  I agree with you that for SX purposes in the short term - whether SS can survive and how to land it during a full height reentry from orbital altitude and at orbital speeds, whether it completes a full circumnavigation of the globe is immaterial. 

But for the layperson (myself included) until and unless you have actually circled the globe while in space (and perhaps to the degree that you need a burn to lower Pe to allow reentry) ... You haven't achieved 'orbit'. 

Saying that you are orbital, when the flight path is best described as semicircular with a terrestrial start and endpoint but with a whole lot of explanation about why you don't actually need to 'go full circle' seems a quibble too far. 

Edited May 28, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[RCgothic]

6 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I get what you are saying - but the quibble is in different directions.  For SX purposes in the short term - whether SS can survive and how to land it during a full height reentry from orbital altitude and at orbital speeds, whether it completes a full circumnavigation of the globe is immaterial. 

But for the layperson (myself included) until and unless you have actually circled the globe while in space (and perhaps to the degree that you need a burn to lower Pe to allow reentry) ... You haven't achieved 'orbit'. 

Saying that you are orbital, when the flight path is best described as semicircular with a terrestrial start and endpoint but with a whole lot of explanation about why you don't actually need to 'go full circle' seems a quibble too far. 

Vostok 1 touched down West of its launch point. Gagarin is still first man in orbit.

SN20's periapsis will probably be above earth's surface, or near enough.

Edited May 28, 2021 by RCgothic

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

Vostok 1 touched down West of its launch point. Gagarin is still first man in orbit.

Did he require a reentry burn?  

Would we say that a hypervelocity vehicle that launches SouthEast from London, stays within the atmosphere for most of the flight, but over New Zealand briefly crosses the Karman line, passes over London again to finally land in Germany had achieved orbit? Or a B1-B that follows the same course with mid-air refueling? 

Knuckledraggers understand an orbit as a circular path around the earth that is stable and, in the absence of something that slows it down, is effectively eternal (Moon in orbit of Earth, ISS in orbit - and kept there by periodically burning to counter the deceleration caused by atmospheric friction}. 

 

Edit - Note: I have no interest in discounting Gagarin's accomplishments, or the general understanding of him as the first man in orbit.  However, the above is intended as a 'grin' continuation of the current quibble.

Edit the second: I would also say that if SX puts a ship into an orbital flight (consistent with what I've written above) and then does a reentry burn to drop Pe before completing a full orbit, and lands shy of the launch point... it's still an orbital flight.  That would be fair and consistent, IMO.

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Elthy]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Launch integration tower stacking:

 

How many of those sections do they have to stack? The tower has to be massive.

[tater]

1 minute ago, Elthy said:

How many of those sections do they have to stack? The tower has to be massive.

Unsure, need to find a pic. 7?

 

 

[Ultimate Steve]

I have heard 6, 7, and 8 sections. I'd tend to say 8.

[Beccab]

Current estimate is 7

[tater]

BO is working on their pad, too, the difference is that there will not be a rocket on it for a year or two. This thing could be functional in a few weeks.

Still, not as interesting as actual rockets, however.

[magnemoe]

57 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Current estimate is 7

You have to lift starship on top of superheavy on the high launch pad, you have to have the extra margin for the lifting cables to meet on top and its nice to have some extra margin if they say stretch SH. Do we know how high the tower will be? Assume its building permits. 

[Beccab]

6 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

You have to lift starship on top of superheavy on the high launch pad, you have to have the extra margin for the lifting cables to meet on top and its nice to have some extra margin if they say stretch SH. Do we know how high the tower will be? Assume its building permits. 

I believe the current estimate is basing just on BN3+SN20 and info from inside spacex, the number came from Nasaspaceflight

[CatastrophicFailure]

2 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Schrödinger‘s orbit.

Quantum orbit. 

It is simultaneously in orbit and not in orbit. 

Also, this thread: 

Tho I suppose that’s better than squirrels. 

2 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I have heard 6, 7, and 8 sections. I'd tend to say 8.

Schrodinger’s Launch Tower too, apparently. 

[grawl]

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

You have to lift starship on top of superheavy on the high launch pad, you have to have the extra margin for the lifting cables to meet on top and its nice to have some extra margin if they say stretch SH. Do we know how high the tower will be? Assume its building permits. 

I remember seeing pictures of a huge crane supposed to go on top of the tower. That's bonus height !

Edit:

Nevermind. The aforementionned crane is used to stack the tower.

Edited May 28, 2021 by grawl
Wrong assertion

[Starhelperdude]

39 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

 

to be honest, basically everyone is a nerd here, though that's not bad

[Spaceception]

Latest tweet from NSF, but stacked on stream. Will they stack one more section on it before extending the crane? It looks like it could handle one more.