Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Agree, but it depend on that you are doing. Starship landings, its a lot like falcon 9 first stage landing tests, try 20 times before it works.

Falcon was still successfully performing its basic mission before they got the landings to be survivable.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mikegarrison said:

I thought that was impossible due to constraints from the ground support side. Did they get that taken care of?

Yeah, seems tight. We'll probably see one moved I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

IIRC, it was something like the shared fire and water deluge support systems couldn't support more than one flight every 24 hours.

Possible. The pads are quite far apart (1 on KSC, the other CC SFB), but that makes sense should they need emergency eqp—though it seems like if the first one didn't use such equipment, it's no longer in use—and SpaceX doesn't prop load til right before launch. <shrug>

 

Yikes!

Set SCE to AUX!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tater said:

This vehicle doesn't cost that much. They've probably spent on Starship so far maybe what Boeing will get paid when they actually fulfill their crew contract.

Starbase apparently employs ~1800 people (mentioned on stream I think). If the average is $100k/head, that's ~$200M/yr on payroll. Steel is cheap, engines are who knows right now... but well under $2M/ea by now I would expect, $1M? Less? So maybe they spend $1B/yr on this?

Problem with superheavy was that it bombed the pad and how close it came to nuking it. First ones would be dumped anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

IIRC, it was something like the shared fire and water deluge support systems couldn't support more than one flight every 24 hours.

Apparently not a thing... ^^^ If the weather is OK, they launch 2.

<shrug>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, tater said:
Apparently not a thing...

It was from a few years ago. I think an Atlas launch got delayed and that was going to prevent a Falcon launch, or vice versa. At least at that time I think the problem was that those two pads shared a water supply and the fire/emergency services coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It was from a few years ago. I think an Atlas launch got delayed and that was going to prevent a Falcon launch, or vice versa. At least at that time I think the problem was that those two pads shared a water supply and the fire/emergency services coverage.

I remember there being limitations as well—something must have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tater said:

Someone on NSF said the current rule is that a second launch can happen as soon as the first vehicle passes over the local horizon. (take with a grain of salt)

 

Does this explain the Falcon landing downrange, or was the payload heavy enough that a downrange landing was necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Meecrob said:

Does this explain the Falcon landing downrange,

I doubt it considering the FH is fully expendable.  It wouldn't need the landing pads.  It was also supposed to launch days ago.  Sending the boat out isn't something you can do on a whim.  Takes days to get out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...