totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[CatastrophicFailure]

36 minutes ago, darthgently said:

can’t think of a valid use case but it would be so dang spectacular

Asteroid deterrence . 
 

[Nuke]

17 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I guess being unemployed and not in education has its benefits. Watch party it is.

every day is education day when you aint got nothing to do. liner algebra, calculus, metal work, carpentry, electronics, programming, how to do these things with zero budget. would i have had all these skills if i stayed in school, nope. id be working some job either filling in holes dug by others or digging holes. i dont need money to prosper.

Edited November 17 by Nuke

[tater]

 

[Ultimate Steve]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

I’ve been subject to intrusive imaginings of a duel Superheavy launch and landing utilizing both towers at once.  I can’t think of a valid use case but it would be so dang spectacular

I could see it for bulk refueling. If they actually do get to the point of doing a Mars flotilla, they only get 1, maybe 2 shots at each orbital plane per day per launch site. If all of the Mars ships are in the same orbital plane for transfer and convenience reasons, doing only 1 launch per day would be effectively wasting half of their propellant throughput.

[Terwin]

2 hours ago, Nuke said:

thing i worry about here is that spacex lets this fast tracking go to its head and starts making mistakes.

Musk wants to 'go fast and break things' so making mistakes and learning from them is part of the game plan.

'If you do not need to put it back at least 10% of the time, you are not removing enough parts' sounds like another 'make mistakes and learn from it'

Verifying safety for human passengers by successfully launching unmanned lots of times with plenty of safety margin seems more reliable than proving that the vehicle is theoretically safe on paper like they did for the shuttle(before they realized it was a lot less safe then they thought).

[tater]

 

 

1 hour ago, Terwin said:

Musk wants to 'go fast and break things' so making mistakes and learning from them is part of the game plan.

Nonetheless, they still test and simulate everything. Going fast doesn't mean they're reckless.

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I could see it for bulk refueling. If they actually do get to the point of doing a Mars flotilla, they only get 1, maybe 2 shots at each orbital plane per day per launch site. If all of the Mars ships are in the same orbital plane for transfer and convenience reasons, doing only 1 launch per day would be effectively wasting half of their propellant throughput.

“So, you’re saying there’s a chance?”

[Vanamonde]

Some comments removed. Please avoid politics. It just never ends well. 

[tater]

in progress:

 

[tater]

FTS apparently already installed on the ship before it rolled out

[magnemoe]

23 minutes ago, tater said:

FTS apparently already installed on the ship before it rolled out

Probably easier to install in the bay with the scaffolding they have there. Assume its how its done on falcon 9. 

[darthgently]

Shotwell: 100 Starship flights a year next 4 years, F9+Dragon for 8 more years, crew rating Starship important milestone when enough flights in (after 8 years or so presumably)

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/spacex-president-predicts-rapid-increase-in-starship-launch-rate/

[darthgently]

Everything is bigger in TX

 

[AckSed]

Here's something cool.

Back before Falcon 9 started its tests, NASA engineers were considering supersonic retropropulsion to land on Mars, because its atmosphere was too thin to really decelerate with aerobraking before a human-landing craft entered. But there was no opportunity for tests. No-one had a spare rocket lying around.

Then they saw SpaceX trying to land a rocket, firing up engines in pressures and speeds remarkably similar to Mars' entry conditions and they asked, "Mind if we get in on that?":

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/new-commercial-rocket-descent-data-may-help-nasa-with-future-mars-landings/

Now they believe that it's the best way to land:

https://www.universetoday.com/169697/the-new-mars-landing-approach-how-well-land-large-payloads-on-the-red-planet/

Of course, there's still questions to answer, but there we go: SpaceX helped NASA.

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, AckSed said:

Here's something cool.

Back before Falcon 9 started its tests, NASA engineers were considering supersonic retropropulsion to land on Mars, because its atmosphere was too thin to really decelerate with aerobraking before a human-landing craft entered. But there was no opportunity for tests. No-one had a spare rocket lying around.

Then they saw SpaceX trying to land a rocket, firing up engines in pressures and speeds remarkably similar to Mars' entry conditions and they asked, "Mind if we get in on that?":

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/new-commercial-rocket-descent-data-may-help-nasa-with-future-mars-landings/

Now they believe that it's the best way to land:

https://www.universetoday.com/169697/the-new-mars-landing-approach-how-well-land-large-payloads-on-the-red-planet/

Of course, there's still questions to answer, but there we go: SpaceX helped NASA.

Given payload capacity is so valuable and time is relative, maybe a hybrid of multipass aero deceleration and retro burning could be found where not too much time is added to the journey but much less entry braking fuel is required so more stuff (or remaining propellant) can be delivered to the surface.

Cargo only missions could do as many aero passes as possible and crewed missions could do as many as could be endured.   Maybe enough fuel could be saved that it would be enough to put the crew back into orbit later?  That seems optimistic.  But if so, a refill tanker could be waiting for them in Mars orbit.

This could take the pressure off having successful ISRU of propellant wonderfully working right away

[Superpluto126]

Flight 6 T-Minus less than 20 Hours, game on.

[magnemoe]

11 hours ago, darthgently said:

Given payload capacity is so valuable and time is relative, maybe a hybrid of multipass aero deceleration and retro burning could be found where not too much time is added to the journey but much less entry braking fuel is required so more stuff (or remaining propellant) can be delivered to the surface.

Cargo only missions could do as many aero passes as possible and crewed missions could do as many as could be endured.   Maybe enough fuel could be saved that it would be enough to put the crew back into orbit later?  That seems optimistic.  But if so, a refill tanker could be waiting for them in Mars orbit.

This could take the pressure off having successful ISRU of propellant wonderfully working right away

Kind of typical Eve orbit capture in KSP, you get Ap so low its well inside SOI, then you do multiple passes to lower Ap so your circular low orbit. 
And yes this could also be used to get into Mars orbit, having the return ship staying in orbit also save fuel. 

[Ultimate Steve]

I don't think that multiple passes would significantly reduce fuel usage unless I'm missing something. It depends on if you would ever hit terminal velocity during Mars descent. If no, then coming in from a lower trajectory would allow you to slightly reduce Mars landing burn fuel requirements. If yes then there is no difference unless for some reason you can't brake into Mars orbit via aero alone, which, should be possible unless you're absolutely screaming into the system on an accelerated transfer.

[Cracktacular]

On 10/13/2024 at 8:55 AM, GuessingEveryDay said:

It will be interesting to see what the other competitors announce in the next few months. Since Starship is clearly working. They'll need to change their plans or let SpaceX be a monopoly.

It seems it may be too late for anyone to catch up to SpaceX in the near term. While many were pointing and laughing at SpaceX for things like no landing legs and demolishing the launchpad, SpaceX was doing R&D.  Is Blue Origin still on a single shift 5 days a week or have they figured out they need 24/7 ops to compete?

[Cracktacular]

On 11/17/2024 at 5:26 PM, tater said:

Going fast doesn't mean they're reckless.

Going fast is a dividend of manufacturing rockets on an industrial scale, not those (admittedly impressive as all hell) Rube-Goldberg devices NASA launched due to the programs being pretty much experimental.

 

On 11/17/2024 at 3:52 PM, Terwin said:

Verifying safety for human passengers

My guess is thy will use Crew Dragon for the near term, and long term have a modular crew section that gets launched with cargo pods atop Superheavy.

 

On 11/17/2024 at 3:52 PM, Terwin said:

Musk wants to 'go fast and break things'

"Go fast and break things we intend to break, because we are hardware-rich"

FTFY

17 hours ago, AckSed said:

Then they saw SpaceX trying to land a rocket, firing up engines in pressures and speeds remarkably similar to Mars' entry conditions and they asked, "Mind if we get in on that?":

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/new-commercial-rocket-descent-data-may-help-nasa-with-future-mars-landings/

Now they believe that it's the best way to land:

Didn't NASA come up with the whole SkyCrane thing for Opportunity/Perseverence? I think they knew SpaceX was gonna do the R&D so publicly they said how great an idea it was to give SpaceX good press. I think this is all part of SpaceX undercutting everyone else on price. They are playing the long game and sacrificing a bit of money upfront to be the people that has the technology NASA needs.

[Pthigrivi]

Hey, all. Another fun day. I might even be able to chat here at liftoff tonight this time

[Pthigrivi]

Prop load!

[StrandedonEarth]

Working during liftoff, shift should end before final splash though…. Which means I’ll probably be driving at that time…

[Brotoro]

Getting frosty!

[Ultimate Steve]

Stream live and forum back up! T-9 minutes, showing off some new HLS renders and some windows. Pushing ship beyond limits in many respects to find exactly where the limits are, unlikely it will survive.