totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Spaceception]

This is an interesting thread from the creator behind Apogee. 

Lot of different graphs and examples, I picked a couple.

(My thoughts) If SpaceX had never existed, the launch industry would probably be 2-3+ decades behind where it currently is. Few other startups (like Blue Origin and possibly Rocket Lab) would be around because they only got going long after SpaceX had succeeded and shown private spaceflight was worth investing in, and in addition, were founded or joined up by ex-SpaceX employees, so no Firefly, no Relativity, no Stoke.

Speculating what this would look like:

• Kistler would've still gone under, as they started missing milestones for COTS before being terminated in 2007, so it would've been sole-sourced to Orbital ATK.
• Vulcan is probably still developed, as ULA still would've found value in a single rocket family, and more importantly, Congress would still mandate that they stop using Russian engines.
• Ariane 6 is likely foregoed or pushed back in favor of advancing Ariane 5.
• Starliner would still be limping along, though Dream Chaser might've gotten the second contract (or Boeing succeeds in getting it sole-sourced). Hard to know if they would be on schedule, or if they would face crew delays as well. Best case, the gap between the Shuttle and crewed US flights would be a few years longer.
• Rocket Lab might still develop Neutron (and would put themselves in a similar position as F9 did more than a decade previously in our time), but would be under much less pressure to do so without a strong competitor and the rise of internet constellations. 
• On that note, Kuiper, or similar plans, would likely be delayed years or more without Starlink paving the way. 
• Blue Origin is tricky. With Bezos' funding and no real competitor outside the established corporations, plus the cost of spaceflight being as expensive as ever... would they try to sweep up the industry by developing New Glenn earlier? Would it even be scaled down to be comparable with F9? 
• Artemis is also tricky, SLS/Orion will definitely see continued funding, and without private HLV/SHLV development, the SLS upgrade paths would be seen as more of a necessity. Blue Origin's original Lunar Lander would likely be selected, so we wouldn't get the upgraded version for some time. This is the timeline where we get to see whatever Boeing proposed.
• With no hard push for reusability and lowering the cost of spaceflight in the current day, and few companies/individuals investing in it, I could see the global response (SMART/Vulcain and SUSIE/LM9/New Space companies) being delayed into the 2030s/40s rather than the 2010s/20s. So we're probably looking at the 2050s when things really get going across the board, instead of the 2030s.

Oh, and this has a chance of coming true too

Spoiler

Not official, I (and the person who created it) couldn't find the original.

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Spaceception
Minor spelling errors and additions

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Geonovast said:

I really don't see them ever staggering separation.  FH was already more complicated than they'd initially thought, that seems.... complicated, at best.  Especially with the massive COT/COM offset after the first booster lets go.  Also remember that doing so would have one booster go further down range with less fuel to get back.  If it can still RTLS, then the first booster brought fuel back home for no reason.  If they ever did do a staggered booster sep, I imagine one would be a boat landing, even if it was relatively close.

I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the trajectory.  Does the first stage turn before separation?  Does it roll?  If it rolls before booster sep, one of them may end up going to a higher altitude than the other, really putting off their timing.  I couldn't see it this time, but one of the previous FH launches I watched had the boostback burns desynced when they absolutely separated at the same time.

My thought is different trajectories. It might simply be avoiding the chance of they collide or interfere with each other. Or it could be trajectory optimization or simply updating the model. Benefit of an falcon heavy is that both boosters fly in the same weather so you get better data than falcon 9 launches. I don't think FH is designed for staggered releases in any way even is technically possible. If they used crossfeed it would make much more sense if crossfeed from one booster only.  

[Meecrob]

I can only speculate, but I suspect it was a slight delay in igniting one of the boosters for the boostback burn. Even a millisecond of delay means the lagging booster will always be travelling slightly slower than the leading one. Over the entire trip back, the error could stretch to a few seconds as we saw. Again, just speculation.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:05 PM, darthgently said:

You know you want to...

https://www.spacex.com/careers/jobs/index.html

I went through the list... Despite having an advanced degree, I'm probably only qualified for 'Barista'.  

 

[tater]

 

 

[mikegarrison]

13 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I went through the list... Despite having an advanced degree, I'm probably only qualified for 'Barista'.  

 

Better than "Barista -- temporary".

[AtomicTech]

16 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I went through the list... Despite having an advanced degree, I'm probably only qualified for 'Barista'.  

 

Then be one hell of a barista!

[tater]

The gist is that the FAA is doing the best it can, but it simply does not have the people required to support so much activity in the space part of FAA regulatory operations. SpaceX is often competing with itself for FAA attention (F9 vs Dragon, vs Starship). They expect this to get worse as other players start actually flying. Soon Vulcan, then NG, possibly Neutron soon, etc.

SpaceX alone doing ~5X the launches of all other providers. Somewhere between 1/5 the current SpaceX launches and the actual number likely stresses the system.

[magnemoe]

20 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I went through the list... Despite having an advanced degree, I'm probably only qualified for 'Barista'.  

 

Looked at the list and one thing stuck out, lots of starlink costumer support positions like 
Customer Support Associate, Bilingual Norwegian (Starlink) also lots of other languages from Czech to Swahili. 
And two positions for each, one in Redmond and one at Hawthorne, they are even in same timezone. 
Another thing is that 99% everybody buying an starlink terminal in western Europe is fluent in English and would understand the customer support if speaking decently and not some weird dialect. 
Now it might be an requirement for some larger companies or governments. 

3 hours ago, tater said:

The gist is that the FAA is doing the best it can, but it simply does not have the people required to support so much activity in the space part of FAA regulatory operations. SpaceX is often competing with itself for FAA attention (F9 vs Dragon, vs Starship). They expect this to get worse as other players start actually flying. Soon Vulcan, then NG, possibly Neutron soon, etc.

SpaceX alone doing ~5X the launches of all other providers. Somewhere between 1/5 the current SpaceX launches and the actual number likely stresses the system.

Now most of the falcon 9 launches are standardized starlink missions who should be pretty routine. Yes you have range safety but I assume the provider pays for these as part of the launch fee. 

[CBase]

4 hours ago, tater said:

The gist is that the FAA is doing the best it can, but it simply does not have the people required to support so much activity in the space part of FAA regulatory operations.

Politely this can be read as need for more people. However they cite as well other officials who are able to accept and return electronic documents. Which means the FAA doesn't. So it is not only about headcount, but mindset and ability as well.

[tater]

27 minutes ago, CBase said:

Politely this can be read as need for more people. However they cite as well other officials who are able to accept and return electronic documents. Which means the FAA doesn't. So it is not only about headcount, but mindset and ability as well.

Fair point.

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Now most of the falcon 9 launches are standardized starlink missions who should be pretty routine. Yes you have range safety but I assume the provider pays for these as part of the launch fee. 

They point out that rtange safety has really evolved to let SpaceX get this sort of cadence. The automated FTS the USAF (now USSF) wanted for years and SpaceX adopted probably played a huge role here.

[kspbutitscursed]

Soo wen launch

[tater]

F9 launched tonight and I didn't even know about it.

 

[kspbutitscursed]

starlink jumpscare.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

7 hours ago, tater said:

F9 launched tonight and I didn't even know about it.

 

Regular as air traffic 

[Kerballlistic07]

8 hours ago, tater said:

F9 launched tonight and I didn't even know about it.

 

I live 20ish miles from the pad and I’ve started taking my telescope out for the launches and tracking them. The views are spectacular. This one was probably my favorite I’ve ever tracked. The way the plume changes colors is just incredible! 

[sevenperforce]

5 hours ago, Kerballlistic07 said:

I live 20ish miles from the pad and I’ve started taking my telescope out for the launches and tracking them. The views are spectacular. This one was probably my favorite I’ve ever tracked. The way the plume changes colors is just incredible! 

Damn I'm jealous

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[cubinator]

Shiny!

[tater]

 

MECO

Sep

SES-1

Entry burn

Landing

SECO

[tater]

Deluge test today:

 

 

[tater]