Dynaverse.net
Off Topic => Engineering => Topic started by: Nemesis on May 02, 2020, 10:14:06 pm
-
A youtube site, There are non Starship and non SpaceX things as well.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBNHHEoiSF8pcLgqLKVugOw/videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBNHHEoiSF8pcLgqLKVugOw/videos)
-
SpaceX Employee on SN4 explosion: "Hey Boss, we blew up another one."
Elon Musk: "Well, don't just sit there, roll the next one out to the test stand!"
Not literally of course. They had to dismantle the test stand and pretty much immediately began assembling another. They have at least the next 3 in varying stages of assembly so the project isn't being much slowed down. Amazing to see a rocket literally being developed with a production line of units ready to take up where the prior one fails.
-
The Soviets weren't much on test stands. They seemed to like figuring out what went wrong with their engines by the way they destroyed entire vehicles.
-
I think this is 4 that SpaceX has blown up in this line of prototypes. First time I know of the stand going with it. They were impressively fast at getting a new stand well underway, they had to have the material on hand just for it.
-
I've known this for days but I find it impressive that SpaceX is not only being allowed to reuse the Crew Dragons capsules but allowed to launch them on reused Falcon 9 rockets.
-
They did a 150 meter hop with a prototype using 1 off center engine. Looked like a flying silo with no fins or nose cone. Seemed really stable in flight.
-
They did a 2nd hop with a different prototype.
They are preparing another (3 engines installed) for a hop up to 15 or so kilometers. After some test fires they should install the nose cone on this one. The engine section has its (operable) fins and the nose cone is having its fins installed.
-
Some thoughts.
The Eagle:
SpaceX has the Falcon and the Starship can be considered to be one of the several code names for a new rocket. I would love it if SpaceX when finally launching a orbital mission were to formally rename it as The Eagle class.
Space Station:
Mars colonizing via Starship requires a space station. Why? Starships are equipped with 6 engines, 3 for sea level use and 3 for vacuum. The vacuum engines can handle Mars and Lunar landing and launch so why carry the sea level Raptors all the way to Mars and back? So the extra engines should be dismounted at a space station and the Starships going beyond LEO should be dedicated to that. Since they would no longer be able to land on Earth they could pick up cargo at the station. It might even be best to have that station in Lunar orbit with fuel delivered from the Moon. 2 bonuses one the ships can take more cargo and two the extra engines get to be reused.
How to build the station?
Make a Starship engine section with no nose cone and mount a cargo module there. The cargo module separates once final orbit is achieved and the engine module returns to Earth Base for reuse. The cargo shell itself could become part of the station adding substantial volume. It wouldn't take many launches to equal the size of the ISS.
Back in the 70's one of the methods of building a station was to inflate a balloon and build up the station shell inside the balloon by successive coats of sprayed on aluminum. So a cargo shell could carry up a balloon and the mechanism to inflate it as well as the spray mechanism and the first supply of aluminum. Other loads could add more aluminum, balloons or fittings. No reason this couldn't be used to build a spinning ring station.
The Not so Heavy Booster (NsHB):
Even with Mars and Lunar fuel manufacturing there is the problem of minimizing the amount of fuel a Starship needs to take on in orbit. So how about sending a Starship that is intended to have the cone/cargo section removed to use as a base building and have the engine/fuel section function as a booster for another starship for launch to orbit. The booster returns to refuel on the surface and the Starship enters orbit either fully fueled or nearly so. Fewer fueling launches. Fueling Starships aren't needed in the same number. Fueling Starships get the same boost so again they carry more fuel per trip.
Remember lifting the Starship onto the NsHB is easier in the lower gravity of Mars or the Moon.
Going Further Out:
For further out from Mars not only refuel in Mars orbit but rendezvous with a fully fuel NsHB in high Mars orbit and either the Starship can go further or carry even more cargo.
Potentially you could have a StarshipM where a ship going further out is modified by having extra cylindrical sections added to the cargo/crew section to the nose cone or remove (in orbit) the engines and fuel tanks with the NsHB being permanently mounted as the engine section.
Why keep building Falcons?
Use a cut down Super Heavy booster (or maybe the NsHB) to replace the Falcon 9 first stage. Fewer engines as Raptor is more powerful, Standardized components between two classes of booster. Even a Falcon heavy would just be a modified super heavy with an intermediate number of engines and fuel sections. Of course and adapter would be needed to take current Falcon cargos like Crew/Cargo Dragons.
-
I saw a online comment comparing a Blue Origin New Shepard rocket that had been launched and landed 7 times and how SpaceX hadn't yet managed 7 launches and landing. I'm not registered on the site so I couldn't point out the BIG difference. The 6 time reused Falcons actually were used to launch payloads into orbit, Blue Origin as far as I know has yet to make an orbital launch. Returning from an orbital launch of cargo for reuse is harder than a suborbital test flight such as New Shepard has been doing so their 7 launches and returns for a single New Shepard is less impressive to me by far.
Bezos was far richer than Musk when they started their "competing" rocket companies yet to date all Bezos has accomplished is tests. Wake me when they have actual successful orbital launches.
-
SN8 is now fully stacked with the nose cone, flaps and 3 Raptor engines. It may do a 15 km suborbital hop sometime this week.
From what I see the internals of the cargo/crew area is just hollow and there are no hatches through which anything can be passed to do the completion. So this will ultimately be a throw away prototype when testing is done. Nothing yet to indicate if this is the one that will be used for the first full orbital flight with a Super Heavy Booster, but I doubt it.
-
No hop but they did do an engine test. They then replaced one of the engines. Apparently they have 50+ raptor engines on hand. More than enough for a super heavy booster and Starship.
-
Still no hop and Musk is hinting that anything can go wrong from it blowing up on the pad to cratering on landing.
So is he:
1/ covering his ass in case something goes wrong
2/ does he have reason to expect disaster
3/ making sure that his success looks doubly good for beating the odds
??
-
More testing and some type of undefined engine issue, possibly a component melted. They'll need to do some disassembly and possibly even redesign before repeating test burns. Apparently SN9 is approaching readiness to replace SN8 if there is a "rapid unexpected disassembly event". Rapid prototyping at work.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiD8nGD0Q6w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiD8nGD0Q6w)
-
Liked the video. Followed links to other related ones. Enjoyed the time. Thanks.
-
Still haven't seen detail on the issue other other than the pneumatic system was knocked out by the failure and that didn't allow some controls to work including venting the methane tank in the tip of the nose cone, a burst disk activated which kept the ship from being destroyed. They have not only installed a vent on the nose cone to allow them to bypass but have swapped out the failed Raptor engine already so it was likely either an assembly error or a manufacturing defect.
If you notice that I referred to Starship as "the ship" that is because unlike everything done in spacecraft before (even the shuttle) didn't in my opinion rank as a Space Ship but Starship does.
After writing the preceding I heard on a video I was listening too that the 3 engine burn was powerful enough to break through the ceramic coating on the concrete below the ship. Shards flew up and out at considerable speed and severed an avionics control cable. This could be an issue when the starship has to launch from unimproved sites on the moon or Mars (my conclusion). They are armoring the cables with steel pipe and putting cooling pipes in the concrete (reinforces my conclusions on unimproved sites). So not a failure of the Raptor but of the pad.
I also saw pictures of the Chinese Long March rocket. Interesting that they seem to want the English speaking world to know about it as it is labeled bilingually.
-
It needs to be capable of interstellar voyages to be called a "Starship".
It's like Yugo naming a car "Reliable".
-
That's why I'd like to see it renamed Eagle.
-
Apparently they are about to launch a Falcon for the 7th time. Yet another record.
-
Some more thoughts:
Musk was asked some time ago what is next after the Starship/superheavy 9 meter diameter craft. He said 18 meters. Now was he joking or serious? I don't know. But lets consider the potentials if he was not joking.
1st assumption: He scales up the diameter but not the height This would increase the volume of the Starship and booster 4 fold.
2nd assumption: Cargo capacity scales in a linear fashion. Cargo becomes 600 tons (4x150)
3rd assumption: this craft sticks to LEO operations and we will call it Enterprise a pure cargo vessel (no crew)
4th assumption: Starship and the 18 meter Enterprise coexist
So what use is Enterprise?
1/ Space station building (the ISS is ~420 metric tons) Components much larger than anything yet built in space can be sent up. Imagine how big of an inflatable Bigelow style structure could be emplaced. Building a station as an industrial facility gets that much easier. Building a resort is also easier. It could operate as a base for dispatching missions from smaller craft such as Starship (or even smaller versions of starship)
2/ Refueling Starship for longer distance missions. Starship carries up to 1200 tons of fuel. 2 Enterprise flights refuel it to 100% or 8 starship flights to do the same.
3/ Building nuclear powered interplanetary space ships (call it Prometheus). Just like with a station you could send up much larger components at a time. A Prometheus could carry multiple Starships for use as landers on Mars or operate independently from the main ship in exploring the Asteroid belt or the moons of any of the gas giants. Building such a vessel only using Starships would be much harder and more expensive. A Prometheus would reduce flight time and avoid the currently planned "Death Dive" to land a Starship.
-
The most likely the route that future human space exploration will take in the 21st century, one time launch and never land again permanent space born interplanetary container ships akin to Star Trek TOS's DY-100, which we already have most of the technology to build currently.
We already have the NERVA atomic propulsion engine technology.
-
Funding a Mars colony and Deep Space Exploration
SpaceX has multiple ways of earning money for their Mars and other Deep Space plans. Some they are already using or hinting at using and others that I will speculate on.
1/ Delivering other peoples cargo to space includes people. Already being done.
2/ Delivering your own cargo to space (starlink) to serve other people ideally a subsription basis. In process with Starlink.
3/ Having proven your ability to design, build and mass produce satellites (starlink) market that ability to do so for others. Delivering them is icing on the cake. I believe this is in process but don't know of any sales yet.
4/ Do the same with space stations make and market a generic model with customizations for purpose. Rent space on them to people/companies that may want to have a custom station built in the future, hopefully designed, built and delivered to orbit by SpaceX followed by regular cargo and personel shipments. As mentioned in my last post building a station as a Starship depot (deep space version without the sea level Raptor engines) can be used to demonstrate ability in this sector. buying Bigelow (currently shutdown) would be a step in that direction.
5/ Long term Starship rentals for people wanting their own deep space missions.
6/ Space station resort. One of those things you would want to spin off as a wholy owned subsidiary. If it turns out as some have speculated that some degree of low gee extends life you might even get rich people wanting to retire to either such a resort or their own private station. Either way SpaceX could make a killing just building it
7/ Contract with Space Force to build Space Force HQ in orbit and provide Starships (armed?) for them. Big contracts supplying the station and returning Starships deployed to Earth back to space and refueling them.
8/ Go to MARS! and beyond. Ok this one isn't to make money but spend it.
-
The most likely the route that future human space exploration will take in the 21st century, one time launch and never land again permanent space born interplanetary container ships akin to Star Trek TOS's DY-100, which we already have most of the technology to build currently.
We already have the NERVA atomic propulsion engine technology.
I think they would need to be at least assembled in space. This would fall under the Prometheus I mentioned earlier. Nuclear interplanetary carrier of small craft and cargo.
-
Assembled using pre-fabricated sections launched into orbit and assembled in an orbital dry dock frame.
The other option is to launch the basic ship hull into orbit and send up the rest later, as with the ISS.
The various space agencies need to come up with a standardised space ship cargo pod / container design before that happens though.
-
Once Starship is going SpaceX can pretty much define what they want as a cargo pod. No competition at that level for some time. When it is "us" or no one you have quite a lot of power.
I'm really surprised the Chinese haven't gone public plans for something bigger.
One "competitor" I'm seeing interesting things from is Rocket Labs. They are more at the Falcon 1 level but are looking at reusing them. They just did their first recovery of the booster.
I do wonder if SpaceX have given up the plans to move the Falcon 9 to using a smaller number of Raptors. Might cause trouble with the manned certification if they do so before the Starship is certified for manned use.
-
Almost forgot. Starship did a test fire with the replacement engine and is apparently likely to do the big hop next week. No specific day but they do have the road blocks scheduled early in the week.
-
Looks like sometime Monday to Wednesday the 15 km hop should happen. They are saying 1 in 3 chance of success. Starship SN09 is apparently ready in the wings if SN08 should fail.
Also a Falcon 9 flew and launched for a 7th flight leaving the possibility of an 8th launch. It was also the 100th Falcon9 launch. No info on how many different Falcon 9s have flown.
-
Current plans seem to be another static fire Monday and high hop on Wednesday. Times of day? Don't know.
-
Static fire slips to Tuesday. May (rumour) include running off main engines with shutdown and restart using the header tank to simulate the actual flight better. Hop Wednesday?
-
I don't think the static fire happened. No info on why. So who knows what is up? I sure don't. :(
-
Things still slipping. They seem to be saying tomorrow now. However unlike earlier dates this one is different in one way. Musk is there now. Those who can say no may be over ridden by him. We'll have to wait and see.
-
No guarantees but at least today SpaceX is streaming things.
Link to SpaceX stream if I got it right :) (https://youtu.be/OLpN8Cco3mU)
-
Didn't go yesterday. Launch is currently on hold estimate is 4:40 PM Texas time.
-
Interesting times we live in.
Thanks for the updates
-
Finally getting what we thought would happen by the 80s.
-
She flew but looks like problems with the gimballing system and keeping the engines all firing in coordination. It landed hard and kaboom. R.I.P. SN8. Long live SN9.
-
Might have been a problem with one or more of the engine bells burning out. Waiting for the SpaceX explanations.
-
She flew but looks like problems with the gimballing system and keeping the engines all firing in coordination. It landed hard and kaboom. R.I.P. SN8. Long live SN9.
According to reports what appeared to me to be a problem with the gimballing system and first one than a second engine failing was actually planned shutdown of those engines and the immediate compensation by the gimballing to keep the thrust going through the center of mass, which was pretty violent and the separation of the not firing engine was to put it in a neutral position where it wouldn't interfere with the other engines moving. The hard landing was from low pressure in the fuel system. Why the low pressure? No explanation from SpaceX yet.
If I understand it correctly the fuel pressure is maintained by hot reaction mass from the engines fed back into the tanks. Perhaps the system isn't fully compensating for less than 3 engines firing. Just a guess.
In spite of the hard landing SN8 did land on target.
Apparently components for SN16 have begun showing up. SN15 apparently has some major improvements from earlier. SN9 is ready to fly barring adjustments from things learned from the SN8 flight.
Not Starship related but the Hyabusa 2 mission did successfully return asteroidal material to Earth. The Osiris Rex mission has picked up its own samples from another asteroid (a carbonaceous chondrite) and returns next September. The Chinese automated sample collection from the moon is on its way back too.
All told. Way to go SpaceX!
-
One further observation I have. The exhaust streams from all 3 starship hops are very tightly collimated even the SN8 with 3 engines. I thought it unusual so watched videos of Falcons1 and 9, Electron (Rocket Labs), shuttle and Saturn 5 launches and those launches have a much more diffuse exhaust. Could this be part of the increased efficiency of Raptors? Wonder if it will apply to the vacuum engines?
A crash site picture. That apparently is Musk in the center of the image with his back to the camera.
-
When Elon Musk play Kerbal Space Program, he does it for real..... with bigger and more spectacular crashes!!
-
I'm watching the Marcus House video about the flight and other things. So far 3 observations from him.
1/ It looks like during the landing when the one Raptor ceased to fire it didn't move to the neutral position and when the firing Raptor moved to compensate for the thrust being off center in a different way they impacted. That may have caused the green flames by copper in the bells being released into the flames. Alternate theory the green was caused by the low pressure in the fuel system changing the proportions of methane and LOX.
2/ The SN9 appears to have been knocked over in the assembly bay.
3/ SpaceX has asked for a road closure Monday to move SN9 to the launch pad Hopefully this means no damage that would affect test flights. Maybe another hop by Christmas? We can hope. :)
Non related. The Hyabusa 2 having delivered its samples has changed course to rendezvous (eventually) with 2 other asteroids. Don't hold your breath the first one is 2031. Maybe by then we will have Mars sample returns via starship. :)
-
The SN9 had a partial collapse of the platform it is standing on to cause the fall of the rocket. It does look like the fuselage may be damaged. Whether the damage is real or just an impression caused by reflection I couldn't say. Also is it significant for the next flight(s) or not? Is it repairable? Couldn't say.
Hopefully SN9 will survive to fly successful test flight(s).
It does occur to me that the road closures might not be to move SN9 to the test platform but to remove SN8 debris from the landing site.
-
Looks like the damage to SN9 in its fall may be limited to the 2 flaps on that side and the associated hinges. Likely repairable. Good news if that is all. They likely have the components on site to replace those even if they have to take units designated for SN10 or SN11. Sometimes it is helpful to have a production line with multiple units in different stages of construction.
-
Looks like the Falcon 9 just launched was a 7th flight and unlike the earlier 7th this wasn't a Starlink launch but an external satellite so they are now selling launches on boosters on their 7th use. Costs thus fall again. They did plan on the Falcon 9 being able to be used 10 times without major refurbishment so they are getting closer and closer.
Well done SpaceX.
-
Looks like the damage to SN9 in its fall may be limited to the 2 flaps on that side and the associated hinges. Likely repairable. Good news if that is all. They likely have the components on site to replace those even if they have to take units designated for SN10 or SN11. Sometimes it is helpful to have a production line with multiple units in different stages of construction.
Apparently while they were standing SN9 back up properly they also brought over a new front fin.
They were still simultaneously cleaning up SN8.
Also during this more components have shown up for other Starships that are in process (Up to SN16).
Even if SN9 were to be scrapped they could have SN 10 ready in weeks. In the past losing a prototype rocket could put you back months to years. SpaceX has been doing amazing things.
Amazon is apparently planning their own Starlink competitor. So will Blue Origin be able to launch their satellites or will they have to pay SpaceX to do so and effectively subsidize Starlink? Blue Origin has yet to put anything in orbit with their own rockets.
-
Apparently SN9 has been moved to the 2nd launch stand. Interestingly apparently there are plans to have TWO starships on launch stands simultaneously sometime soon.
They are still working on the first booster. Taking their time. It appears they need permissions for launching a Super Heavy Booster from this site that they don't yet have (but thought they did). Hopefully it won't take long to get it.
So Merry Christmas. :)
-
Falcon 9 has now landed a total of 70 times. Since there have only been around 100 launches how many actual Falcons have there been?
-
Another company that has been a disappointment is Virgin Galactic. They have had 16 years to get Spaceship Two with its 8 person capacity and haven't made it. The early people who signed up are likely to be too old to go by the time these clowns actually deliver if they ever do.
I used to hope that their planned orbital spaceship two would actually happen and give competition for manned orbital flight but that hope is pretty much done. If it ever happens it will already be obsolete.
-
Another Starship possibility I haven't mentioned (not my idea). I first heard of it on the Angry Astronaut (https://www.youtube.com/c/TheAngryAstronaut/videos) channel of YouTube. Though he doesn't make all the points I do below.
Scaling Starship DOWN. Use fewer segments to make a shorter orbital unit. Lets say 1/3 length with (assuming capacity scales with length) a 50 ton capacity.
Why?
Reducing the length that much reduces the fuel capacity from 1200 tons to 400. Refueling in orbit takes fewer trips by a full size refueling Starship yet leaves the mini Ship the same deltaV capacity (Fewer Raptors too). Should be able to act as a mini Lunar Ship as well as a Mars capable lander.
Reduce the Super Heavy Booster the same way results in a Heavy Booster. Mini Ship with Heavy Booster = Fully reusable Falcon 9 replacement. Another option would be to use a Super Heavy but take it higher before separating leaving more delta V based on the onboard fuel of mini Ship. It would be more than double the capacity of Falcon 9 and 75% of Falcon Heavy so it replaces both for smaller flights and likely reduces costs. The only real issue is shipping them by road due to increased diameter is much more difficult.
Maintenance costs should be cheaper than Falcon 9 as again they use the same components as the full sized Starship AND the same technicians. 1 facility services and 1 builds BOTH Starship and Mini Ship. The Falcon facilities could either be shut down or used to service the hopefully higher volume Starship and Mini Ship launches.
This results in a smaller cheaper lunar lander and Mars lander for early missions with a minimized development cost as it uses all units that are first developed for and proven with Starship. Cheaper for support than Falcon 9 as (almost) all components are in use first for Starship.
Fewer engines for Heavy Booster means it is quieter so might be launched from locations Super Heavy would be too noisy.
-
Lunar Starship comments.
I've seen complaints on line of how will the Lunar Starship be refueled economically given the cost of shipping fuel from Earth when with water on the moon LOX and liquid hydrogen could be provided to competitors for landers but not methane for the Starship. This made me curious so I went looking online to find the composition of lunar regolith and of course found what I was looking for - carbon. Carbon and water from the soil gives you your LOX and methane.
That makes the Lunar Starship viable for major cargo deliveries such as would be required to set up that fuel manufacturing base. The Dynetics lander could operate over a relatively long distance from such a fuel base using sub orbital hops. The mini Lunar Ship mentioned in the last post could be used for crew to and from the surface and to make orbital transfers between lunar and Earth orbits for crew, transfer from a Lunar Ship to an Earth capable lander for return to Earth or the opposite for the Lunar flight.
Now if substantial fuel can be made on the moon then a high lunar fueling station could be a great place to fully fuel up a Starship or a mini Ship for longer voyages whether to Mars or Venus or further out. They might well be able to do much more decelerating before the Mars "Death Dive" landing currently planned.
Now if you do have that fuel manufacturing capacity it might well be an excellent use of the Enterprise class I speculated on earlier which was a double diameter Starship design with no length increase resulting in a 600 ton capacity. It could like the Lunar Starship carry LARGE cargos to the Lunar surface. It could carry lunar made fuel to Earth orbit in much larger capacities.
-
For 2020 there were 26 Falcon launches. There were only 11 Falcons used for the launches. It takes about 50 days between a Falcon launching once before it can launch again. Hypothetically a Falcon could fly 7 times a year at that launch rate so 26 launches a year could use 4 falcons each flying 6 or 7 times. Some launches do expend the booster by using all its fuel for the launch leaving nothing for a landing. I don't know how many launches this year were expending the booster or how many expended boosters were reused before being expended.
Not too bad considering that any other organization doing 26 launches would have expended 26 boosters.
Now if Starship works out even nearly as well as Musk wants 26 launches could hypothetically be done by 1 or 2 Starships with no expended boosters or upper stages (Falcon 9 always expends the upper stage). It would also be able to put up several times as much cargo with the same number of launches.
-
I've seen some speculation of this in the past but now Musk has confirmed it. They are going to try landing the booster without landing legs, some form of catcher on the launch pad using the launch tower and the grid fins on the booster.
Interesting if they can leave the booster landing mechanism behind in favour of more cargo capacity.
Step 1/ demonstrate that they can. Like the barge landings that could involve multiple failures
Step 2/ demonstrate that they can do it reliably.
Step 3/ put it in production.
Of course if they can't do step 1 or step 2 then they need to move to something else. Which they probably have contingencies for already in planning.
Now I wouldn't be surprised at some type of minimal landing legs like the current starship ones are part of the plan. Possibly longer with some degree of shock absorbing ability. Maybe with the idea of replacing one or more each landing. This might be needed just to give the booster something to stand on.
-
Apparently they are at least for now going back to using helium to pressurize the tanks as a result of the crash of SN8. This has apparently already been implemented for SN9 (maybe SN10-12 which are in fairly advanced stages of assembly). Makes me think the system was built in as a contingency in case the new system was buggy.
I find this one interesting. Apparently some observers think that certain components visible outside match ones set up previously when testing modified tank designs. These tanks were tested to failure.
I wonder if this possible new tank is to test improvements to the helium free pressurization system. Alternately they could be trying to up the pressure or lower the weight (or both). More pressure, more propellant, more delta V from a given size tank. Either way should be good. Of course it could be for both or something I haven't thought of.
There has been a concrete pad added on the site with no explanation for its purpose. Maybe with all the prototypes they are building the pad is to store them on. They have 3 assembly bays that hold two. They have SN9-12 either assembled or largely so, add the SNB1 booster under assembly and of the 6 places for units in advanced assembly stages (or complete) only 1 is empty (not including the launch pads). If they start having units making multiple flights they will need to store some elsewhere.
Does any other company even potentially need a warehouse for rockets?
-
I just watched the SpaceX edited version of the SN8 flight and it occurred to me that the starship might be able to sweep the landing site clear of loose debris with its own exhaust by tilting back and forth and swinging the exhaust plume over the landing site. Especially so on the moon and Mars where the gravity is lower.
-
SN9 has done a brief test fire of the 3 Raptors. There is a 3 day (Sunday to Tuesday) flight restriction around the facility that may be for another 12.5 km hop and hopefully landing.
Looks like they have some new pieces for making a nose cone on site. They would reduce the number of pieces required and therefore the number of welds and the time to make a nose cone.
They also seem to be holding off on assembly of components they have on hand which may be to allow for design modifications based on test hops (speculation).
-
I think SpaceX should persuade Tom Cruise and his backers to delay his flight till sometime in 2022.
Why? Launch him aboard a Crew Dragon on a Falcon 9 then dock with a Starship. One that though it may not be certified for manned flight to and from Earth can be used as a Space STATION with lots more room for sets and filming. Also the docked Dragon(s) can be used as filming sites with the film crew in the Starship and the actors in the Dragon. Potentially they could have 2 Dragons and 14 people for a lot more filming. Currently the ISS is only rated for 6 people and the 7th has to stay on the Dragon capsule. The filming equipment and anything not needed for the time on the Dragon could be launched on the Starship saving capacity on the Dragon.
Much more bang for the buck for the filming and a great publicity stunt for SpaceX and Starship.
Potential to use the Starship even in development as a profit center functioning as a station which has a volume of about a 3rd that of the ISS. Each time it is launched it can be customized for a particular customer and should be possible to stay up for around 6 months at a time. Multiple Starships could be docked together for larger missions 3 of them together would rival the size of the ISS. They could even dock to the ISS.
Now if Bigelow were to become active again and make modules that take the full capacity of a Starship to orbit you could have one or more of them docked to a Starship/Station as habitats with the Starship being used for the pure science or production experiments for things that might be done in a future custom station. A Starship with 2 docked Bigelow modules might exceed the usable volume of the ISS.
These options allow full tests of the life support systems for longer periods of time. Such as the time for a trip to Mars. All while the Starship is still not rated for manned landings/launches.
Another option. Assume something like the Columbia disaster were to almost happen and a Starship had damage that precluded landing. Convert it to a permanent space station that could be refueled and moved to where needed. It could also act as an orbital fuel store for other vessels whether starships or not. With the sheer size and cargo/habitat volume a starship "stranded" in orbit could be made an asset rather than a loss.
Starship just has so much potential. It could be the Giant in whose shadows all the competition has to stand.
-
Last year there were 26 Falcon 9 launches more than 40 expected this year. Nice growth rate.
The most recent launch (this week) resulted in their 71st booster recovery. A 4th for that booster.
-
The FAA permission for the next Starship launch test has the specified altitude listed as - unlimited. Interesting.
-
Nice comparison image:
-
The FAA permission for the next Starship launch test has the specified altitude listed as - unlimited. Interesting.
I'm wondering if they are going higher so that once they resume the vertical position they can leave a bit of time before beginning the engine burn to allow the fuel to reduce its "sloshing" around (I'm sure they have baffles) as going vertical to horizontal to vertical as quickly as they did might be their whole problem.
The one thing that concerns me with the landing is will these interim legs handle it if the legs don't simultaneously touch down or will the most stressed one crumple and turn an otherwise perfect landing into a topple and RUD.
The unlimited altitude may well be that they are going higher than the FAA regulates. I doubt they will be hitting above 50 KM (guessing 20-25) as I haven't seen any mention of a full set of tiles for the heat shield.
-
They've been dismantling some of the earlier prototypes (must need the room). Also there seems to be some doubt whether the parts for SN12-SN14 will ever be assembled into a vessel.
SN11 is being assembled but either its nose cone is being modified or scrapped as the end has been chopped off (including the header tank), this could be part of a fix for the low pressure problem on the SN8 flight.
SN15 is also being assembled though in an earlier stage.
The indicators that a new test tank is being assembled seem to be confirmed. The thickness of the metal is being reduced from 4mm to 3mm which would be a substantial weight savings and therefore payload or deltaV increase. Hopefully this can handle the high pressures needed. When tested it will probably be tested to destruction like earlier test tanks. Likely it will be numbered SN7.2.
2nd static fire test for SN9 still needed before another hop. No solid info on whether it will be a 12.5km or higher. I'm hoping for double the height. Personally doubting any launch before Friday at the earliest.
-
.
-
Apparently SpaceX has been contracted to use the Falcon 9 to send a couple of (unmanned) landers to the Moon.
SN9 has been having static fire tests, 3 in one day. Some type of repair is needed to 2 of the engines resulting in them needing to be switched out. Then of course more static fires before a launch can be done. Maybe they can send it up noon Wednesday and see which is the most popular thing to watch. ;)
-
A Falcon 9 is launching more Starlink satellites monday. The 8th flight and 8th landing if successful. Even better it flew last just over 1 month ago. Turn around times are getting quicker.
-
Looks like it is Tuesday for that launch due to bad weather at the recovery site. With this launch half of all Falcon 9 launches have been with reused rockets. That has to help the bottom line and give one heck of a competitive edge vs any one who doesn't get reuse i.e. everyone else. :) Way to go SpaceX!
Virgin Orbital has used an air launch rocket to put some micro satellites in LEO. This is not Spaceship 2 but a separate rocket.
The SLS has had a failed engine test. Was supposed to be 8 minutes with 4 minutes for the required data but got less than 2 minutes before a shutdown.
-
SN9 has had the 2 engines swapped. Apparently they are scheduling 1 static fire then possibly as soon as late this week a 12.5 km hop and hopefully a fully successful landing.
If it lands and we have the landing leg collapse and topple that I fear may happen it would still be a success as these are nowhere near the final landing leg designs and it would demonstrate the landing burns success which is what is needed. But though I fear the topple I really want to see a full landing and then a 2nd higher flight with SN9 within a week. This would demonstrate the possibility of the rapid turn around that is really needed for routine space flight.
Still looks like SN12-SN14 won't be assembled so after SN9 to SN11 will be SN15 which has unspecified improvements to its design. SN16 and SN17 parts have been seen as well. There is also the SN7.2 test tank to be tested and burst. When? Don't know. Soon I hope.
-
A Falcon 9’s booster designation comes from SpaceX’s internal naming structure. “B1” means it is a first stage booster, “051” means it’s the 51st Falcon 9 booster to be built, and the “.8” means the booster is going to perform its eighth flight.
Wondered what the number meant. The next launch is supposed to be B1051.8.
-
SpaceX bought two deepwater oil rigs last year and is converting them into floating launchpads, to support the enormous Starship rockets that the company is developing.
The rigs are in the Port of Brownsville, near SpaceX’s Starship development facility in Boca Chica, Texas.
The rigs have been renamed Deimos and Phobos, presumably in homage to the Martian moons.
-
The link below is to a sight that gives weather and road closure info for the Boca Chica Starship development and launch site. If the weather is good (no rain or high winds) and there is a road closure something is happening that is a potential danger. Static fire test, launch/hop or a tank test to destruction for example.
Link (https://nextspaceflight.com/starship/)
There are road closures for today and tomorrow so the static fire test which I don't think has been done could happen either day. Hypothetically if the Static fire test is today the hop could be tomorrow but I rather doubt it.
Haven't seen anything about the Falcon 9 launching on its 8th flight yet.
-
The Falcon 9 unit flew for its 8th flight and 8th landing successfully. Now on to #9 in a month or so.
The SN9 static fire should be today or tomorrow and flight restrictions are in place from now to Sunday for a launch. Current info seems to be 10 KM.
Looking forward to them nailing the landing right on target and gentle as a zephyr.
I wonder if Musk has read Heinliens The Man Who Sold the Moon and fears Harrimans fate? Too bad Heilien isn't around to update it to Musk, the Man Who Sold Mars.
-
One further observation I have. The exhaust streams from all 3 starship hops are very tightly collimated even the SN8 with 3 engines. I thought it unusual so watched videos of Falcons1 and 9, Electron (Rocket Labs), shuttle and Saturn 5 launches and those launches have a much more diffuse exhaust. Could this be part of the increased efficiency of Raptors? Wonder if it will apply to the vacuum engines
The recent (sub orbital) test by Blue Origin with 1 engine also had a more tightly collimated exhaust. Not as tight as the 1 and 3 engine Raptor hops done by Starship but much more so than the others I looked at.
-
Yesterday apparently had 3 aborted static fire tests. Why? Don't know. They still have the flight restrictions set up until Sunday.
Of the 26 launches for SpaceX last year only 4 were using new Falcons the other 22 were previously flown.
-
Looks like the SN9 static test happened in the fog so no decent video. The 10 km hop is now scheduled for Monday.
-
Weather reports show fairly high winds (assuming I have the right Boca Chica location) Monday so I wouldn't expect a launch now till Tuesday or Wednesday. For me that is rather good as I am going to be rather busy on Monday at work not so much Tuesday and Wednesday. I want to see it land (even if it topples after landing.
-
Could be the SN9 hop will happen today wind ~8 mph but foggy. So if they want good video it won't happen unless the fog clears.
-
They have apparently canceled the launch today but are testing the SN7.2 tank (3mm stainless vs 4mm stainless on earlier tanks, don't know if the grade of stainless or the welding has changed). Starship weighs 120 tons empty, making some or all of the structure out of thinner material might well drop it by more than 10 tons which increases payload proportionally.
-
Yesterdays launch was apparently not allowed by the FAA. The FAA has stated that they look forward to working with SpaceX on safety issues but I haven't seen anything that specifies what those issues are.
Edit: This isn't anything I can confirm but there is a claim that the FAA is treating either the damage taken when the SN9 fell against the wall of the bay it was assembled in or the replacement of 2 engines the same as if these were commercial aircraft carrying passengers rather than unmanned prototypes which are flown out over the Gulf before coming in over the SpaceX site and landing. So SN9 might well not fly until well after SN10 (and maybe later units) if at all.
Damn bureaucrats.
-
Monday to Wednesday they have closures in place for the launch. Whether the FAA will allow anything is not clear as they haven't stated what they think SpaceX did wrong (publicly at least).
They have done a pressure test on SN7.2 but not to bursting, whether that lack is because of the FAA is unclear.
SN10 is now on the #1 launch stand with SN9 on #2 and SN7.2 on the test stand. Full house.
All set for a busy time if the FAA doesn't block things.
-
Huh, wonder if this had something to do with it?
https://gab.com/AmericanAFMindy/posts/105647387021854220
-
I'm more concerned with the possibility of Amazon/Blue Origin and Boeing using connections to influence the FAA to slow down SpaceX.
Amazon is fighting to keep Starlink from using low orbits that they want even though they don't even have either prototype satellites yet or a launcher to put satellites up with. Blue Origin which wants to be a SpaceX competitor was founded before SpaceX and has yet to put anything in orbit. They have only a prototype suborbital rocket and a prototype manned suborbital capsule. They talk about a orbital capable launcher and capsule, but no one has seen it and that launcher is more of a Falcon 9/Dragon competitor not a Starship competitor and based on their current suborbital development is years away.
Boeing also is years behind with both their manned capsule and their booster for the SLC (which just recently had an abort on the engine test). The "manned" capsule when it last flew missed the station which it was supposed to dock with and wanted Nasa to call that flight a success so they could go on to their next stage. That was over a year ago and they have yet to repeat the flight which they need to do to Nasa standards before they can even try a manned mission. Like with their failed capsule test Boeing wants their failed engine test to be called successful.
Compare those 2 companies development speed to SpaceX that started building Starhopper in December 2018. Still far from a Orbital craft SpaceX has worked on at least16 different prototypes of the Starship (not counting Starhopper) and is working on 2 different Super Heavy Booster prototypes. They flew 3 different prototypes while using the others to test fuel tank designs most to destruction. Most of the components developed for Starship apply equally to the booster so its development will be even faster. Now add Starlink from first prototype launch to a 1000 satellites with beta deployment in multiple nations in 3 years. By the time Amazon is ready for first launch (and how will they match SpaceX prices for launches?) Starlink will be generating large incomes. Add Starship for launching and SpaceX can deploy 400 (maybe more) satellites at one go for even less.
I could easily see those 2 companies (and others) wanting to stall SpaceX. Stall SpaceX too much and they could move out of U.S. jurisdiction or some other country could successfully clone Starship before SpaceX can deploy it. Alternately drive up their costs too much and SpaceX fails as a company. No more big dreamer driving forward the space industry just go back to those big cost+ contracts of the traditional U.S. space industry and nothing really changes.
-
Rumour has it that the FAA intervention is due to a claim that debris from SN8 crossed the Rio Grande into Mexico. Too bad they waited so long to SAY ANYTHING about the issue (if it is true). The border is apparently 4 KM away from the landing pad.
-
The next Starlink flight is due this week (Monday if no slippage) and again it will be the 8th flight for this Falcon 9 booster and barring accident the 8th landing.
-
Did you know that Space X was originally a brand name for late 1960's & early 1970's a line off toy space exploration vehicles & spaceships marketed by Triang??
I still have a couple of Triang Space X models around the house.
If Triang (the world's biggest global toy manufacturer in the 1960's) hadn't have folded in 1971, I'm sure that they'd be suing Elon Musk over the use of the Space X brand name.
-
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1970s-HONG-KONG-PLASTIC-TRI-ANG-SPACEX-SPACE-X-GOLDEN-ASTRONAUT-SET-OF-FOUR-MOC/353364671973?hash=item52462cfde5:g:3DAAAOSw5llf4QGO (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1970s-HONG-KONG-PLASTIC-TRI-ANG-SPACEX-SPACE-X-GOLDEN-ASTRONAUT-SET-OF-FOUR-MOC/353364671973?hash=item52462cfde5:g:3DAAAOSw5llf4QGO)
-
Huh, wonder if this had something to do with it?
https://gab.com/AmericanAFMindy/posts/105647387021854220
Except it is factually wrong. Hutter is a legal resident legally able to work in the U.S. (has dual citizenship part Canadian). SpaceXs defense is pretty good, they didn't find anyone to fill the job.
-
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1970s-HONG-KONG-PLASTIC-TRI-ANG-SPACEX-SPACE-X-GOLDEN-ASTRONAUT-SET-OF-FOUR-MOC/353364671973?hash=item52462cfde5:g:3DAAAOSw5llf4QGO (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1970s-HONG-KONG-PLASTIC-TRI-ANG-SPACEX-SPACE-X-GOLDEN-ASTRONAUT-SET-OF-FOUR-MOC/353364671973?hash=item52462cfde5:g:3DAAAOSw5llf4QGO)
Didn't know that. Interesting. Wonder if they let the Trademark lapse?
-
Looks like they have FAA clearance and may launch today.
Will edit this if I see more info.
Currently doing "pad closeouts" what exactly that is I'm not sure. But they've already done road closures and town evacuations (about 11:30 am their time). Probably at least 3 hours before launching. Among other things they still have to load propellant.
2nd Edit
Currently doing "tank farm activity" and expecting launch about 2 pm their time. So about 1/2 and hour or more depending on delays.
3rd Edit
Now they are on engine chill. Next step? LAUNCH!
4th Edit DAMN! Something went wrong and it didn't seem to have full engine control at the end (possibly something came off) and it hit hard and way off vertical.
So all we can say is GO SN10!
-
Rumour has it that the FAA intervention is due to a claim that debris from SN8 crossed the Rio Grande into Mexico. Too bad they waited so long to SAY ANYTHING about the issue (if it is true). The border is apparently 4 KM away from the landing pad.
Seems that the FAA gave them a launch permit for SN8 but refused them a "safety waiver" which is required for doing something that may "exceed the maximum public risk allowed by federal safety regulations" which any experimental rocket launch definitely does. Since the SN8 exploded due to landing too fast SpaceX were in violation of the launch license due to not having the waiver. The whole purpose of the site is to manufacture and test experimental rockets that may explode at some point. So why refuse the waiver? If they had a valid reason then, how can they issue to the SN9 which has the same dangers?
-
Well, the SN9 had a *successful* flight. it is a massive ship.
But the landing didn't helped clear those 'safety concerns' for the average observer.
Just imagine if the SN9 had collapsed into the SN10 that was in the ground. Thank God.
Hope SpaceX doesn't suffer any setbacks with that.
It is impressive what they have been doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZl6YV3xYA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZl6YV3xYA)
-
It did land on target so SN10 and structures on site were in danger from flying debris alone. The video you linked to did show debris going towards SN10 but I didn't see whether it hit. Hopefully not. Still awaiting the "why" though it did look like the second engine didn't stay ignited but that if accurate still leaves the why didn't it question.
-
SpaceX engineer John Insprucker said on the company's livestream of the event that much of the test flight "looked to be very good," and engineers were able to gather data to help improve the Starship design throughout the flight, which reached about 10 km, or six miles, high.
"We demonstrated the ability to transition the engines to the landing propellant tanks, the subsonic reentry looked very good and stable," Insprucker said. "We've just got to work on that landing a little bit."
-
Last night a Falcon 9 launched for the 5th time taking up another batch of Starlink satellites. This is its 2nd launch this year, 27 days between flights. A new record turn around time.
-
Apparently the SN10 launch will on landing ignite all 3 engines then software will turn off one for the actual landing.
The SN7.2 tank is reported as passing all tests. So a lighter Starship means more cargo.
The upcoming private Dragon flight will use the Dragon capsule currently at the ISS, so first reuse of a crew Dragon capsule. No information on whether it will be a reused Falcon.
-
Interesting. They have Primary closures for the 8th and 10th and Secondary closures for the 11th and 12th. The first 3 are 9 am to 6 pm and the last 7 am to 12 pm. Almost like they were testing 2 different units. Are they planning to complete SN11 by the 10th and begin testing of it in parallel with SN10?
-
Starship is Musks way of saying about Falcon 9. "You think that's good? Hold my beer."
-
Now Starlink in looking at providing phone service. They also have competitors for money to provide broadband internet complaining that they shouldn't get any of the incentive money because a/ they just have an "experimental" system and b/ they are going to do it anyway whether they get the money or not so the money should go to those who are only going to provide broadband to isolated people if they get bribed and they don't want to share that money with Starlink.
I'd rather help the company that has already begun to do it to speed them up rather than those who are trying to block them. Remember Starlink wants to be world wide so that is money flowing into the U.S. instead of out.
Amazon is trying to block Starlink from using orbits that they want for their competing "system". The system doesn't have prototypes or a launch system that can deliver their satellites to orbit at rates competitive with what Starlink gets. Their system is years in the future if it ever gets up at all. Remember this is Bezos who has with Blue Origin a 2 year head start on SpaceX and more money hasn't yet launched anything to orbit.
First parts are showing up for SN18 so SN15-SN18 are now under construction. I do wonder if SN18 is using the 3mm stainless.
-
I've seen unconfirmed reports of flight restrictions for Thurs.-Sat. so possible launch any of those 3 days. Lets hope 3 times is the charm.
-
Starlink is now letting Canadians pre-order service on a first come first serve basis with the service beginning mid to late 2021. They are also talking IPO in the next year or two.
-
The UAE has just put a probe into orbit around Mars. They plan to share the data with 200 universities around the world.
More interesting they are building a prototype Martian city in the desert with the plan that it will allow development of the tech to actually live on Mars.
Wonder when they will take the next step and begin to design/build space ships capable of carrying people there.
-
SpaceX is pouring a lot of concrete on their orbital launch pad at Boca Chica. This might mean testing the booster is closer than it appears.
The SN7.2 did have its "destructive" test but is still on the test stand looking intact. The failure seems to have been pretty mild, hot a full on burst like the earlier test tanks. While not dramatic probably a good indicator.
SN 11 is "fully stacked". The shorter closure on Friday might possibly be to move it to the launch platform vacated by SN9.
With the number of Starships being produced they should rename it to Tribble (or Martian Sand Cat the Heinlien original).
-
Falcon Heavy is now contracted to send 2 pieces of the Lunar Gateway to lunar orbit. Power and propulsion and habitat modules. I don't know if there are other modules planned.
-
SN10 has had a static fire. The various closures have been cancelled. I don't know when the next stage will happen.
-
I haven't seen any video on the static fire but have seen conflicting statements on whether it happened.
The landing pad is not only being repaired but being made thicker so it may take time before it is ready for a launch. Guess they should have made 2. ;)
-
The Texas snow storm looks to be shutting down most work on the Starship launch site for now.
A new shipment has arrived that is not positively identified but is being speculated as grid fin halves for the Super Heavy Booster. If so then a booster launch may be sooner than many expect. There is no "belly flop death dive" like Starship just a Falcon 9 booster style landing on land at the first stages. Probably a local hop like SN5 and SN6 before a higher hop like SN8 and SN9 before going even higher. Probably using both boosters currently under construction. As Starship is being used to do most of the development work I don't expect near as many SH prototypes as Starship ones and each generation will probably lag the Starship iterations that match. I doubt very much they will on these early versions try the "catch" that is planned for the production version as I don't see a tower under construction so the actual landings should be on legs/ feet like the earlier Starship short hops.
-
Perseverance has landed on Mars. Now to see if the helicopter flies.
-
Looks like a probable static fire followed by possible hop for SN10 this week.
-
Looks like the actual static fire was yesterday and they are changing an engine. So I wouldn't expect a launch this week but they have closures for the next 2 days then Monday and Tuesday. With luck we will get the new static fire this week and the launch next week.
-
Launch is currently scheduled for Monday 1 PM EST. Subject to change of course
Link to launch list across the industry (multinational) (https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/)
-
Space Launch System vs Starship
SLS uses the shuttle main engines. For some reason Boeing added a valve that wasn't in the original design. They are having troubles with the valve and it will take months to fix because they have to fabricate a custom tool.
SpaceX prototype after a static fire they rejected one of the engines. In 24 hours they replace the engine and do a new static fire.
SpaceX for the win.
Blue Origin vs SpaceX
Blue Origin older company in over 20 years has not put a single kilo into orbit on their "launchers". Claims to plan to move all heavy industry into orbit but their only functional rocket is one they plan (someday) to use to send people on suborbital flights. They just did not get a contract to put Space Force cargos into orbit due to lack of demonstrated ability to do so has delayed the planned first launch of their New Glenn rocket till late 2022.
SpaceX due to expenses in A/ putting up over 1000 Starlink satellites and B/ developing their next generation rocket that is to me the first that will (if successful) be the first real space SHIP, raised 850 million in private funds and was offered 6 billion because of their proven track record. Is Starship behind what they planned? HELL YES! But since their founding they developed Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, cargo Dragon, Crew Dragon and Starlink, all these are either fully functional except Starlink which is partially functional.
So for all their accomplishments and all Blue Origins lack of accomplishments, SpaceX is the definite and decisive WINNER.
Once again Bezos put your money where your mouth is. Ante up some of those billions to finish developing a rocket to compete with Falcon Heavy and your Amazon internet satellite systems. Then if you really MEAN it about moving industry in to space you need to ante up again and build a FULLY REUSABLE SPACESHIP! Then you need your mining bases and industrial bases. Even your wealth will need to stretch for that but if you succeed you will multiply your wealth. If not then get used to Musk saying Bezos who?
-
A comment I saw on the topic of SpaceX not being contracted by NASA to provide lunar landing services:
SpaceX loses contract, flies team of astronauts to the moon anyway to film the Artemis crew arriving...
-
Launch is currently scheduled for Monday 1 PM EST. Subject to change of course
Link to launch list across the industry (multinational) (https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/)
Changed to Wednesday at 1 PM EST. Subject to change of course
-
SN10 had an automatic shutdown of the engines almost immediately after ignition, the cause thrust was too high. A few hours later they successfully launched. All 3 engines reignited and it landed. Too me it looked like it bounced twice and wasn't quite vertical when the smoke cleared. They were beside the circled X so they landed very close to target.
I suspect it won't fly again but be taken apart to see the wear and tear. While I was writing that I checked some other videos and some time after the landing something caused it to explode. What I don't know yet. I'm guessing a fuel leak, the double bounce I saw if real might have caused damage.
R.I.P. SN10 Long Live SN11!
I have heard the the BN1 booster will not be flying but will only be used for ground based testing.
-
It was quite impressive.
I saw it from the beginning to end.
But yeah, in that last moment, it looked like something failed. Not something very important as it landed almost 'perfectly'.
But there was that fire, that was worrying...
Anyway it was a test. And it was successful!
Kudos to SpaceX! :)
-
I'm guessing a fuel leak, the double bounce I saw if real might have caused damage.
Did you saw how the landing gear was not deployed well in all sides?
Only some got in place.
That for sure didn't helped.
They are meant to absorb the impact (1 time use)
The first video i saw didn't show the explosion.
I thought that they had controlled the fire initially.
-
I've read that about the gear but didn't see it on the videos I've seen so far. These landing gear aren't even what I would call a prototype, they are just a place holder for landing gear to be designed later. There is supposed to be a longer version of them but I haven't seen them yet.
-
I'm watching some videos now to see more details. I expect to look at more over the next few days and so will likely post more as I gain info.
The Angry Astronaut has one that shows SN10 landed and it looks like it is resting not on feet but on the "skirt" around the Raptors. While he mentions the landing leg issue I don't see it in this video.
One thing that I saw mentioned on The SpaceX launch video is that at apogee with one engine running it hovered, Falcon 9 can't.
One thing I'm looking for in a video is one that post landing gives a good look at the tiles so we can see if any are missing or have major damage.
As with SN9 you see a cylinder with an exhaust fly off. Elsewhere when this was commented on with SN9 I claimed it was the AI escaping. :)
-
While he mentions the landing leg issue I don't see it in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9mdMI1qxM&t=223s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9mdMI1qxM&t=223s)
-
Thanks I saw that one last night after I last posted.
How about this idea for the early SH boosters that are being tested but which might not be ready to do a reentry. Send it (them) all the way to orbit. Then later drain the fuel (ideally salvaging it but you could just vent to space) and with future missions of Starship before others are committed to using it send cargo to remodel the SH boosters in orbit as a space station. Such a station could also be built up incrementally using end of life boosters and Starships, don't scrap them use them as stations.
Attach 2 expended SH to a "hub" sent up as cargo with the two being end to end. Two (possibly 4, 6 or even 8 ) more later get attached perpendicular to the hub. At the end of these perpendicularly mounted units you mount more at their center via a new attachment point. Then rotate the whole thing based on those first two. (wish I could draw this but I lack artistic skill). The resulting station would be 550 feet across rotate at 3.26 rpm and you have 1 g at the outer hull (Mars gravity at 105 feet from center). At 2 rpm you get .38 g - Mars effective for testing how people handle it. At .74 rpm the outer habitats are lunar gravity for long term testing.
To give an idea of the basic station I used the code block below. The horizontal lines indicate the boosters used to connect the hub (the 4 central vertical lines which represent the 2 vertically linked SH) to the main habitat areas (the 2 vertical lines on the right and left sides).
|
|_|_|
| | |
|
Each of the "habitat" units is a cylinder 230' tall and 30' in diameter. A station with 2 - 8 of these would dwarf the current station and have 1g habitat and variable levels of gravity in the spokes to the hub. Imagine a station with 8 of those habitats, 8 spokes and the 2 central ones forming a hub. It could be even bigger by adding side links at the top and bottom (non rotating) that links to another (or multiple) copy of the original each rotating individually.
A station made of "garbage" for the structure but then refurbished inside for your station.
Rotation/g calculations by this site - https://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/ (https://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/)
-
SpaceX has a road closure for Monday. I expect them to be moving SN11 to the launch pad. Could also be connected with the cleanup of SN10.
-
Found this comment on the Marcus House video for today:
Elon tweeted that the Starship failed to increase thrust when commanded and that caused the harder that nominal landing. The legs were crushed as a result. On the next launch, they will attempt to land on 2 raptors.
Explains the hard landing and possibly explosion.
Rocket Labs is getting interesting. They have announced that they are working on what is planned to be a fully reusable, human rated competitor to the Falcon 9. Slightly smaller diameter than the Falcon but pretty good sounding.
-
One problem with Starship is you won't be able to do something that has been common in science fiction. You won't be able to use the magnetic soles on your space boots to walk on the outside of the hull.
-
One problem with Starship is you won't be able to do something that has been common in science fiction. You won't be able to use the magnetic soles on your space boots to walk on the outside of the hull.
Eheheh
Space is a harsh environment for a walk. ;)
-
Space Launch System vs Starship
SLS uses the shuttle main engines. For some reason Boeing added a valve that wasn't in the original design. They are having troubles with the valve and it will take months to fix because they have to fabricate a custom tool.
SpaceX prototype after a static fire they rejected one of the engines. In 24 hours they replace the engine and do a new static fire.
SpaceX for the win.
The issues with the SLS really astound me. Its whole selling point was that it was supposed to be based off of 40 year old technology to shorten development time, yet they're finding ways to screw it up.
-
Musk has stated that helium from pressurizing the header tank got to the engine and that is why the engine didn't throttle up. Now can they either fix it for SN11 or compensate for it?
SN11 is on the launch pad and there are part day closures this week so I am assuming pressure testing this week and barely possibly a static fire but I really expect that next week.
-
The issues with the SLS really astound me. Its whole selling point was that it was supposed to be based off of 40 year old technology to shorten development time, yet they're finding ways to screw it up.
Cost+ contracts. Cost over runs don't lower your profit margins. Time over runs don't either.
-
So SpaceX is building a second orbital launch pad at Boca Chica even though they haven't finished the first one. They also have plans for an expansion including a THIRD orbital launch pad. Each pad will have its own tank farm capable of holding all the fuel required for a launch.
They are also building something that demonstrates the advantage of methane + LOX, a fuel plant to allow them to manufacture all their fuel for the site on the site. Takes a lot of tankers to fuel a SH and Starship combo.
I think the launch pads are based on this being a spaceship construction site. They will (IMO) launch on their first flight from here and land elsewhere on a pad at a "spaceport". Given the volume of noise to expect from 28 raptors at full power for a launch you won't want to be living anywhere nearby. Also with the potential explosion of a combined SH+SS FULLY FUELED you don't want people or anything else anywhere nearby outside a bunker. The 3 exploded SN8-10 only had a very small % of their possible fuel at the time of explosion. So imagine explosions perhaps 150 times as great (likely several kilotons equivalent).
This works well with the converted oil platforms for launch sites as any structures could be under an (armoured) landing platform and most people/equipment could be a couple of kilometers away and relatively safe, even further away if needed, even subsurface. At sea the platforms could be many kilometers apart if needed. Command posts could be on ships. Setup off shipping lanes should be possible so you wouldn't need to worry as much about other ships or aircraft not destined for your launch site.
-
A Falcon 9 successfully landed after its 9th flight.
-
You know that SpaceX plans to land the Super Heavy by catching it. Now they are planning to do the same with Starship.
The first immediate thought is that Starship can't land on the Moon or Mars, not true. Landing legs for either of them would be far less massive as the Lunar gravity is .17g and Mars is .38g, only the Earth landing would need a catcher.
Just like a lot of things with Super Heavy this can be tried first on Starship and is much easier with the reduced mass. Almost all components for SH are common with Starship, now the Earth landing is shared too. This allows Starship to do almost all the prototype level work for SH.
One disappointing thing is the SH BN1 is not expected to fly. Not too surprising if you think about it as much of it was made based on now obsolete versions tested on starship. BN2? Hopefully it will at least do a low level hop or 2.
-
Static fire didn't happen today. Maybe Tuesday with launch later this week, tentatively Wed 10 AM EST.
Orbital launch planned to be pre July 1st 2021. Ambitious. Very SpaceX. :)
-
Static fire didn't happen today. Maybe Tuesday with launch later this week, tentatively Wed 10 AM EST.
Orbital launch planned to be pre July 1st 2021. Ambitious. Very SpaceX. :)
Haven't read anything about these.
Are you talking about SN11, or another kind of prototype?
-
Static fire didn't happen today. Maybe Tuesday with launch later this week, tentatively Wed 10 AM EST.
Orbital launch planned to be pre July 1st 2021. Ambitious. Very SpaceX. :)
Haven't read anything about these.
Are you talking about SN11, or another kind of prototype?
SN11. The static fire yesterday was cancelled due to a fire in the engine chamber. Cause of fire?? What burned?? New static fire wednesday maybe. Launch I'm seeing conflicting info Friday or next Monday.
Interesting note I saw a picture of one of the Chinese rockets and it has grid fins just like Falcon 9.
-
Apparently they are testing the SLS engines and NASA made a statement about it being the largest booster ever built.
SpaceX stacked the 2 parts of the BN1 and it is now the largest booster ever built. Records can be fleeting things. :)
-
The SN11 launch is supposed to be 10AM EDT Monday (currently and subject to change of course).
At 6:19 AM they are also launching a Falcon 9 Starlink mission.
-
The SN11 launch is supposed to be 10AM EDT Monday (currently and subject to change of course).
At 6:19 AM they are also launching a Falcon 9 Starlink mission.
Thanks for the update.
-
The SN11 launch is supposed to be 10AM EDT Monday (currently and subject to change of course).
At 6:19 AM they are also launching a Falcon 9 Starlink mission.
Now they are both on Wednesday, Falcon 9 at 4:58 AM, Starship 11 AM.
-
The SLS has had a failed engine test. Was supposed to be 8 minutes with 4 minutes for the required data but got less than 2 minutes before a shutdown.
Surprisingly they have redone the test successfully. That is one major hurdle that could have blocked the launch in November. Now if they can handle the Orion capsule problems.
-
The SN11 launch is supposed to be 10AM EDT Monday (currently and subject to change of course).
At 6:19 AM they are also launching a Falcon 9 Starlink mission.
The Falcon 9 flew and landed (for the 6th time)
Starship is now scheduled for Friday 11 AM EDT.
-
Now the launch is moved to Monday same time.
I have seen that some of the earlier changes have been due to weather not technical problems. I also saw a mention that there is an agreement that SpaceX will avoid road closures during March Break so depending what dates for that it may apply too.
-
And now it seems to be back to Friday again. :smackhead:
-
And now it seems to be back to Friday again. :smackhead:
Watching it live! :popcorn:
-
Back to Monday again.
-
Back to Monday again.
I imagine if they cancelled it because of the weather alone.
It was a very foggy day.
But the static fire, despite brief, looked fine.
Probably they are just being cautious, as they already had 2 failures in a row.
-
I haven't seen the static fire but the last video I saw was very foggy so I thought that was the reason for the cancellation too. I'm sure they want all around clear video of the landing.
I'm hoping for a perfect landing (or at least close). If the landing gear bend a little leaving the ship tilted but upright and no explosion I'll be very pleased and I suspect Musk will too.
What comes next will be interesting whether it is SN15 or BN1.
I doubt that they will make the July orbital mission unless it is just a booster that isn't expected to land. Alternately barely orbital with a Starship unable to land. But I would love to be wrong and have a full orbital mission of Starship deploying Starlink satellites en masse at any time in July. It would be a real wake up call to the "competition".
-
It looks like they are building fuel storage tanks using the same components as for the Starship/SH. I wonder if the results of the SN7.2 fuel tank with the 3mm material was good enough that they are going ahead with it for future Starship/SH construction and someone said "What are we going to do with all this 4mm material we have on hand"? and have Musk (or someone) say "Build our tank farm out of it damn it!"
They also finally installed the crane in the High Bay. No more taking the roof off and using extensions on their movable crane to stack SH.
-
SN11 blew up just after the beginning of the landing burn. R.I.P. Cause unknown. Two possibilities are 1/ a breach in the tanks allowed mixing of methane and LOX leading to the explosion 2/ The auto destruct activated when telemetry failed. My option would be 3/ the header tank at midships using heated propellant to maintain pressure had an "over pressure event" and blew leading to the whole tank-age going too.
BN1 is already considered obsolete and is scheduled for scrapping. BN2? If it survives early testing might reach orbit.
SN15 is nearly ready to be sent to the launch pad. Could be soon.
-
My option would be 3/ the header tank at midships using heated propellant to maintain pressure had an "over pressure event" and blew leading to the whole tank-age going too.
I'm starting to see discussion now of the possibility that this is the actual cause. No confirmation but discussion when I hadn't seen any such idea before posting it here. :woot:
-
From Elon Musk:
"A (relatively) small CH4 leak led to fire on engine 2 & fried part of avionics, causing hard start attempting landing burn in CH4 turbopump."
Now what exactly constitutes a hard start and why that caused the explosion still needs explanation. I don't think this rules out my idea. But we'll have to wait for more info.
-
Looks likely that SN15 will move to the launch pad Friday and maybe pressure testing and static fire for Monday and Tuesday. Not that long before some form of launch.
-
I was pessimistic it was done on Thursday. (SN15 moved to the launch pad)
Interesting, a thrust puck for super heavy has been seen at Boca Chica with holes for the full load of Raptors. Maybe for BN2 or BN3 I don't know. Something like 34 Raptors are being shipped to Boca Chica as well, enought for a fully stacked orbital Starship/Super heavy combo. Wonder if Musk really does expect an orbital launch by July even if he can't land either part.
Interesting times.
Also saw that there are 2 serious contenders to starting building a commercial space station within 2 years and a wannabe that may be a bit of a long shot but possible. One of those plans to NOT use SpaceX for anything.
I'd like to see SpaceX buy Bigelow and use Starship to send up modules bigger than anything anyone else can send. Even if they have to use Dragons to deliver the personnel.
There was a April Fools video with Bezos claiming to have bought NASA to destroy SpaceX and Tesla. ;)
-
I just recalled that the "wannabe" for a space station plans to "harvest" 2nd stages abandoned in orbit to make into station modules. Now if this would work what company is better positioned to do so than SpaceX? Even prototype starships that they know they can't land from orbital speed would make HUGE modules for a station once you empty the fuel tanks and remodel them for habitation and equipment.
-
From Elon Musk:
"A (relatively) small CH4 leak led to fire on engine 2 & fried part of avionics, causing hard start attempting landing burn in CH4 turbopump."
Now what exactly constitutes a hard start and why that caused the explosion still needs explanation. I don't think this rules out my idea. But we'll have to wait for more info.
I have seen statements that a hard start causes a pressure surge which would be compatible with the idea of the re-pressurization system blowing one or both of the header tanks.
-
Interesting, a thrust puck for super heavy has been seen at Boca Chica with holes for the full load of Raptors. Maybe for BN2 or BN3 I don't know.
Also a thrust puck with placements for 3 vacuum raptors in addition to the gimballed 3 standard raptors. Made I presume for an orbital Starship.
-
BN1 is already considered obsolete and is scheduled for scrapping.
Scrapping has begun.
SN15 currently scheduled to fly Monday at 8PM their time.
-
Looks like a Starlink system is installed on SN15. They may not have FCC approval for it yet but they do have an application so even if SN15 doesn't use it future SNs may.
-
3 companies were up for consideration on providing the Lunar Landers for the Artemis program. It was expected that 2 would be chosen to continue
1/ The national team (lousy design) that Blue Origin is part of and the owner Bezos has been boasting they are delivering the first woman to the Moon. Their lander is a 3 part lander and has a long ladder that the astronauts have to climb in and out - dangerous in a space suit. It is also only 1/3 reusable. NOT CHOSEN. This was being considered by many as a slam dunk even though a bad choice
2/ Dynetics has a nice design that other than a couple of drop tanks is fully reusable. A nice part of the design is that the engines are at the sides and habitat (cylindrical) section is between them, it can be driven out. NOT CHOSEN. This would be an excellent design for scouting out landing sites for larger craft and once fuel is being made locally as a hopper going surface to surface much faster than using a crawler type craft. Disappointed that it wasn't chosen for those aspects
3/ The SpaceX Lunar Starship. Wasn't expected to be chosen but it was. Big advantage is MUCH larger cargo. Disadvantage is it needs vastly more fuel to get it to the moon, land and return. Also though I believe that they can make the fuel on the moon it will be much more difficult.
What *I* think they should have done.
Choose 2 and 3. Use Dynetics for scouting a good location for the base. Use starship to deliver 100+ tons of cargo to start building the base and fuel extraction - cargo only at this stage probably not the fuel to return until it could be made locally, optionally lie it down on its side, bury it and convert it to part of the base. Once the fuel is generated locally use Starship, cargo, fuel and personel versions but continue with the Dynetics as an explorer craft.
Get SpaceX to design a cut down version that is shorter (but the same diameter) for passenger carrying. I think they should anyway.
Fuel delivered from the moon to lunar orbit would reduce the total fuel requirements compared to the fuel costs to deliver fuel needed not only for landings on the moon but for returns from the Moon to Earth.
Lunar fuel delivered to a high lunar orbit could potentially top up Mars bound craft and craft for missions further out.
If I was running SpaceX I'd want the Dynetics lander developed and in production to use as a Mars explorer too. Of course by the time it was on Mars I'd want to have it using methane rather than hydrogen.
-
BN1 is already considered obsolete and is scheduled for scrapping.
Scrapping has begun.
SN15 currently scheduled to fly Monday at 8PM their time.
Changed to Tuesday 4 PM.
-
On Artemis:
There were 3 bids for the lander each had some interesting things. It does seem that payments are to be on completion of various landmarks.
SpaceX was the low bid but even so the payment for this year was more than NASA had in the discretionary budget. So as they were the best bid NASA renegotiated. The total bid by SpaceX was NOT decreased but the amount due this year was pushed down. The bid covers 2 landings, one unmanned, one with 2 astronauts. This does NOT cover the whole Artemis program. SpaceX is the only one with the system already in development as the Lunar Starship is a variant of the standard Starship.
Blue Origins bid was 2nd best on price but it was worse by a "substantial" margin. How substantial? Good question but I haven't seen the answer. This bid would also have been renegotiated as it was invalid in that it required up front payment not payment on reaching goals as required by the bidding process. Renegotiating was not done as the bid was too high altogether and not within the budget Congress approved for Artemis even if it was the only lander.
Dynetics while they had an excellent design conceptually (IMO) was the worst price. The bid also had problems in that the mass of the lander was too much for the propulsion system to handle. A severe discrepancy and the bidding process did not allow for changes to the design proposal.
Sustainable bids: This came as a surprise in that the currently awarded contract only covers those first 2 landings which is far less than required for the full Artemis program. There is to be a 2nd bidding process for a Sustainable Lander for the rest of the program. Assuming that Starship is successful with the landing and the bid is good they should win at least part of the contract. The others would *I think* have to have an operable lander self developed to have a shot at this. I haven't seen details on the required design functions. Some suspect that this is a backdoor way to get a 2nd lander design. The goal from the beginning was to have 2 lander types.
Congressional Complaints: Some in government have objected already to the award. Info is sparse but it does seem to come from both parties. What will happen? Only time will tell.
Speculation. Some think that the objections are because the out going administration has made the agreement and it should have waited for the new one to be seated. Others think that the competitors as political donors are pulling strings to get the deal changed.
Time will tell.
-
BN1 is already considered obsolete and is scheduled for scrapping.
Scrapping has begun.
SN15 currently scheduled to fly Monday at 8PM their time.
Changed to Tuesday 4 PM.
Now Wednesday at 4 PM
-
BN1 is already considered obsolete and is scheduled for scrapping.
Scrapping has begun.
SN15 currently scheduled to fly Monday at 8PM their time.
Changed to Tuesday 4 PM.
Now Wednesday at 4 PM
Now Thursday at 4PM.Make that Friday at 4 PM. Whoops Monday at 4 PM.
-
Now Thursday at 4PM.Make that Friday at 4 PM. Whoops Monday at 4 PM.
Yeah, it has been crazy for them.
They won the NASA budget, found some issues in an engine in the middle of the week.
They want to be sure they won't mess next launch. :)
Thnx for the all the updates Nemesis
-
I'm hoping that this is the first of many perfect landings.
Of course the whole thing with Bezos claiming that Blue Origin was going to put the first woman on the moon is now out the window. Wonder who will ask him about that boast.
-
The upcoming private Dragon flight will use the Dragon capsule currently at the ISS, so first reuse of a crew Dragon capsule. No information on whether it will be a reused Falcon.
It is up now and did launch on a reused Falcon. Wonder if they cut the price/seat when reused? If not then maybe in the next NASA contract?
-
Now Thursday at 4PM. Make that Friday at 4 PM. Whoops Monday at 4 PM. Now Friday the 30th still 4 PM.
-
The Boeing Starliner that missed the ISS during its planned last unmanned launch back in 2019? It was found to have not 1 or 2 flaws but 83! It was scheduled to launch in March for a reflight but now is delayed till at least late August. They are blaming the most recent delays on too much traffic at the ISS. Seems that they had their windows of opportunity and failed to use them. Not sure I'd want to be flying on it any time soon.
Starliner and Soyuz are charging NASA $90 million per seat. Crew Dragon $55 million per seat. Remember NASA only sends 4 astronauts at a time but Crew Dragon can carry 7 so you could get a lower price per seat by sending more crew. Unfortunately the ISS can't hold them all. NASA does claim the numbers are lower than that because it doesn't allow for the additional cargo carried in the Dragon and Starliner specifically (they didn't seem to mention cargo with Soyuz).
Remember the only groups that can fly astronauts to orbit are the Russian government, Chinese government and SpaceX.
There is of course Starship coming along and Dream Chaser which might just make it as well. Could be that Dream Chaser could be the next spaceplane for human orbital missions, before Starship is likely to be human rated for launch and landing. Blue Origins plans for orbital flight (manned or unmanned) are still vapourware.
Dream Chaser is the craft of the Sierra Nevada Corp. and they want to use it in conjunction with building their own space station. Could make it not only viable but a money maker if it works out. They specifically DON'T plan on using SpaceX for their station plans in any way. Could allow others to beat them if Starship is cheap enough for high mass/volume cargoes for station construction.
-
Starship eating the competition.
-
May 8th Elon Musk is hosting Saturday Night Live.
-
Now Thursday at 4PM. Make that Friday at 4 PM. Whoops Monday at 4 PM. Now Friday the 30th still 4 PM.
Getting conflicting info. Either Friday at 11 AM EDT now 2:30 PM OR they have to change a raptor and do new static fire delaying things until next week sometime. The raptor change doesn't come from a source I have high confidence in but could be right.
Monday 11 AM EDT
-
They won the NASA budget
Both the National Team (Blue Origin is part) and Dynetics are challenging the results.
SpaceX has been told by NASA to stop working on the Lunar Starship until this is resolved.
-
The four astronauts made it back on the Crew Dragon.
China has put up the first module for their space station.
-
SN15 now
Tuesday at 3 PM. Wednesday 3 2 4 PM.
Launched. Flew and Landed. Excellent.
I haven't seen what their plans are for SN15 but what I expect is that it will be taken apart to see what would need to be done to refurbish it for a 2nd launch.
Waiting for SN16. Will they go higher?
-
It looks like they are building fuel storage tanks using the same components as for the Starship/SH. I wonder if the results of the SN7.2 fuel tank with the 3mm material was good enough that they are going ahead with it for future Starship/SH construction and someone said "What are we going to do with all this 4mm material we have on hand"? and have Musk (or someone) say "Build our tank farm out of it damn it!"
They also finally installed the crane in the High Bay. No more taking the roof off and using extensions on their movable crane to stack SH.
I've seen indications that they are making a 12 meter outer tank to go over the 9 meter tanks. Insulating foam is to go between the tank and this outer shell giving 1.5 meters of insulation.
Now some hopeful speculation. What if this is a "secret" testing for future plans? The new tanks use the same structure of the tanks in starship. What if the outer shell is made the same way? It doesn't need to be because it doesn't hold pressure. Could be practice for a larger diameter starship. A 12 meter diameter ups volume (if height is the same) by roughly 75%.
Now likely this isn't so but I do hope it is. Would love to see SpaceX go at some point and say that the whole 9 meter design was just to prototype the systems at a lower cost but the REAL Starship is a 12 meter design that they can take pretty much straight to production. It would really blow the minds of their competitors - and all their plans to counter SpaceX.
Space Cadets would just be shouting YES!
:)
-
I haven't seen what their plans are for SN15 but what I expect is that it will be taken apart to see what would need to be done to refurbish it for a 2nd launch
Musk is apparently saying that they will relaunch SN15. No time frame. Bold move if they do it. Excellent if they can make a success of it.
There was a "small" (compared to SN15) fire. Some insulation was seen on the ground under it. At least one of the heat tiles came off. There was a cable loose in the engine compartment. It also landed very close to the edge of the landing pad. Nitpicks yes, but things to address for usability and manned rating as well as for the Lunar Starship.
-
Sunday at 2:42 AM EDT SpaceX is launching another Starlink mission. This time the Falcon 9 is doing its 10th flight. :smitten:
Landed. Now on to flight 11. :)
-
I haven't seen a lot of details but apparently SpaceX has sold a mission to the moon paid for with Dojecoin.
-
Apparently the FCC of all organizations has released information about the 1st planned orbital flight for Starship. The booster is expected to "land" in the Gulf of Mexico and Starship 100 miles offshore of one of the Hawaiian Islands.
SN15 is back on the launch pad. They need to replace the landing legs of course.
When and if it will actually relaunch?
-
The possibility is being talked about by people that SN16 may never fly as SN15 may well fulfill all targets of the SN15-SN19 craft. Potentially 1 more SN15 flight then on to SN20/BN3 flight to orbit. Musk just might shock the industry by reaching his orbital launch by July. July 1st would be nice as it is Canada Day :) .
Cargo for SN20 has never been mentioned but it would be a big publicity win if it deployed some Starlink Satellites (doubtful, but I've been wrong before). Also nothing has been mentioned of recovery of debris from the "ocean landing" and I don't recall if they did any with the early Falcons that did "ocean landings".
Now compare Starship development speed with SLS and New Glenn.
BO funded by the richest man in the world has delayed their first launch of New Glenn by a year just because they didn't get a government contract.
BO challenging the HLS mission contract to SpaceX hasn't delayed SpaceX at all. If Starship can achieve an orbital launch and reentry it provides a big argument in favour of the SpaceX contract as they can point to the orbital capable launch success of a prototype and to the Blue Moon being just a mock-up. Then comes the refueling and a unmanned lunar landing becomes highly probable. SpaceX already has a orbital refueling demo contract with NASA and even if that contract were lost SpaceX will continue with it as they need it for their own plans just as NASA needs it for theirs.
So Starship development is way in front of what most people (even me) expected. Could Lunar Starship be ready for 2024? Possibly. Starship should be a major wake-up call for others who compete for space launches that there is a revolution in place that their existing plans can't compete with. They need to head for competition with and by Starship (and its successor!) as their current plans to compete with Falcon 9 are already obsolete as those craft will compete instead with Starship.
Like Musk or not you have to admit in Electric cars and rocket launches he has really shook up the industries. I don't expect the Boring Company or Hyperloop to do the same but Neuralink may and Starlink is on the verge of the same shaking up.
Too bad we didn't have a Musk back in the 80s, we'd be on Mars already and have nuclear interplanetary ships.
-
On Wednesday, a US senator added an amendment to unrelated science legislation that would impose significant restrictions on NASA and its plans to return to the Moon.
The amendment (see document) was spurred by NASA's decision in April to select SpaceX as its sole provider of a human landing system for the Artemis Program. Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from the state of Washington, where Blue Origin is based, authored the legislation. Owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin led a lunar lander bid that was rejected by NASA.
The legislation calls for $10.03 billion in additional funding for NASA to carry out the Human Landing System program. This legislation comes as Blue Origin and Jeff Bezos have been urging Congress to add $10 billion to NASA's budget—enough money to fully fund the development of a second Human Landing System.
Cantwell's amendment mandates that NASA move forward with two landers. If the amendment is signed into law, NASA would likely have to re-open the competition, thus delaying work on the agency's return to the Moon and putting an already difficult target of 2024 into further jeopardy.
Looks like Blue Origin owns a Senator who is trying to hand them billions regardless of NASA needs for Artemis.
The bill would also require NASA to continue development of the "Exploration Upper Stage," which is a new, more powerful second stage for the agency's Space Launch System rocket. Moreover, the bill says this upper stage should be ready for use on the third launch of the rocket.
There's just one problem with this requirement—NASA says it doesn't need the Exploration Upper Stage to complete its early Artemis Moon missions. The first launches will use a commercially available upper stage, which is powerful enough to launch a crew of astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft to the Moon.
This legislation therefore burdens NASA with the upper stage development—likely to cost about $10 billion and take five years—at a time when the agency is busy enough trying to complete the first Moon missions. And although they will not admit this publicly, some NASA engineers are not even sure they need the upper stage. If SpaceX's Starship vehicle is successful, it would be more powerful, cost less, and fly more frequently than the SLS rocket, even with its advanced upper stage.
There is one other novel aspect of this legislation that really drives home its parochial bent. The Cantwell-Wicker amendment says NASA should "initiate development of a main propulsion test article for the integrated core stage propulsion elements of the Space Launch System, consistent with cost and schedule constraints, particularly for long-lead propulsion hardware needed for flight."
So what is this? It's basically a test article of the SLS rocket's core stage. Such an element, which NASA has not asked for, would effectively allow NASA and Boeing to perform tests on an SLS prototype at Stennis Space Center in Southern Mississippi in perpetuity.
Boeing also seems to own their own Senator to hand them billions and the Senator making sure money is spent in his state that is absolutely not needed.
A Democrat and a Republican. Bipartisanship at its worst.
Corrupt idiots.
-
They can’t even expend their rockets now.
Another fail for SpaceX.
-
Blue Origin is apparently preparing to fly New Shepard in a suborbital tourist hop, 6 employees and 1 tourist who will have to buy the seat at auction. Lets assume they actually do this and start a tourist business bringing in $$ to fund New Glenn.
What about competition? Does a "hopper" like this need the same level of certification for man rating as does a fully orbital craft? If not what if SpaceX makes a Starship to do the same but higher and more spacious, more passengers and cheaper on a per seat basis? Would they kill the new field for anyone else? It would definitely be a more exciting ride with the belly flip.
-
Virgin just had another successful flight of VSS Unity VF-03. Looks like they carried some stuff for NASA tests so even made some money (BO has done the same with New Shepard previously).
-
Now some hopeful speculation. What if this is a "secret" testing for future plans? The new tanks use the same structure of the tanks in starship. What if the outer shell is made the same way? It doesn't need to be because it doesn't hold pressure. Could be practice for a larger diameter starship. A 12 meter diameter ups volume (if height is the same) by roughly 75%.
They are now making 12 meter water tanks using these same "outer shells". They aren't cryogenic so they won't need an even larger outer shell to go around them.
Still would like to see this turn out to be a secret prototyping for Starship II. It would need 50 or 51 raptors for the 1st stage and possibly as many as 12 for the heavy Starship.
Still love the idea of SpaceX getting Starship fully functional and not announcing anything just start making the ship with people thinking it is more tanks. Then of course when they start making 12 meter pressure tanks with 15 meter over shells people would wonder are THESE just tanks or prototypes for a 15 meter SS3? :)
-
China has had their Mars lander successfully land and it is apparently functional. Hopefully they will be open with sharing any info they gather.
-
A recent modification to SpaceX’s Dragon XL lunar cargo resupply contract with NASA suggests that the spacecraft could be used as an extra crew cabin and bathroom at a lunar space station known as Gateway.
The contract modification was made around April 1st of this year and provided SpaceX around $121,000 to complete the latest study on the potential utility of its expendable Dragon XL spacecraft beyond the primary goal of resupplying a space station orbiting the Moon. Designed to deliver at least five metric tons (~11,000 lb) of pressurized and unpressurized cargo to Gateway, Dragon XL will launch on SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy rocket – currently the only super heavy-lift launch vehicle in operation – and meant to heavily borrow from hardware and systems already developed for Crew and Cargo Dragon.
-
Here is something interesting in the Musk vs Bezos "competition". Amazon has signed a 9 launch contract for the Atlas 5 to launch satellites for their proposed Internet constellation. Why not New Glenn? Not ready? Then how about the Vulcan/Centaur which uses Blue Origin engines (and has a cheaper launch cost)? Also not ready and the Space Force has to allow them to substitute Atlas 5s for a couple of launches and some launches are in jeopardy as the Atlas 5 uses Russian engines and starting in 2023 military launches have to use American developed/built engines.
So whats up with the Vulcan/Centaur? No clear statements but apparently the Blue Origins engines have yet to be flight certified. For the military launches they are supposed to have 3 successful launches first before taking a military launch.
This military contract was split 60/40 between ULA and SpaceX. SpaceX might end up with much more of it (and did a legal challenge originally to get more - they lost).
Now the Falcon Heavy is theoretically capable of the launches but the fairing is too small and the new one isn't ready yet. Seems like a good time for a crash development project to allow them to take the contract away from ULA. Time will tell. Musk may be less interested as his focus is on Starship.
-
For the first time since November 2020 SpaceX launched a new Falcon 9. So 20 launches in a row with reused rockets. Not bad.
-
The 1st planned SH/SS launch is using 29 engines on the SH 1st stage but the 2nd SH is planned for 32 engines. Either if successful will be the most powerful 1st stage ever.
They are currently finishing a Raptor engine every 2 days so at these rates it will take better than 2 months to make all the engines for a SH/SS launch (35 or 38 engines). Now will they be able to do as they have with the Merlin and add several percent to the performance levels. With 32 engines a 3 percent boost allow the reduction of one engine. Fewer Raptors = more payload and less cost per launch.
Here is hoping for a successful launch sooner rather than later. Many are doubting the SH/SS can launch this year at all let alone this summer.
The 1st of the 2 deep sea drilling platforms being converted to SH/SS launch/landing platform is expected to be ready in 2022 and is needed to do frequent launches as you don't want these things launching near your home or business due to just the pure sound level not to mention the potential of a disaster if things do go wrong on launch. A couple times a year not much of a problem like the Saturn 5 launches (but TWICE the thrust for launch) but with potentially 2 landings for each launch a weekly or even daily launch rate if Musk gets his way would be a bit much.
-
Bezos has been making a big point of his plan to go up in the first manned flight of New Shepard on July 19th. I doubt he is happy that Bransen has now scheduled to fly on the Spaceship 2 on July 11th upstaging him.
EDIT: Bransen has flown. The altitude that Spaceship 2 reaches is not universally considered to be achieving space (doesn't reach the Karman Line)
-
BN3 is NOT going to be the orbital booster. It is fully stacked and is to be used for tests that do not include launches. BN3 is on a suborbital launch/test stand.
The orbital mission will use BN4 and SN20. The launch tower needs one more section to be mounted then whatever other features needed for the launch to be installed. It doesn't need the catcher feature at all at this time is first launch is not going to include landings here.
Unlike the Falcons the grid fins are not being equally spaced apart. It is thought (not confirmed by SpaceX) that this is to facilitate catching the boosters when they get to that stage.
The first of 3 vacuum Raptors needed for SN20 has been delivered for installing (ISP 378). Also 3 sea level Raptors have been delivered, are these for SN20 or BN4?
There are also hot gas thrusters delivered (needed for maneuvering the booster), some were installed on BN3 then removed as they aren't used on it as it isn't to fly. Fuel is assumed (but not specified by SpaceX) to be methane/LOX so they can use the same fuel supply as the Raptors. It is possible that this is the same design as would land the Lunar Starships on the moon but again not stated as such. ISP 300.
SN15 and SN16 are on display stands, whether they are permanent monuments or will have another fate is unclear. There has been talk of using SN16 for hyper-sonic testing.
Now will they do the orbital launch in July? Not likely (IMO). First of course they need to fully assemble and test BN4 and SN20 and that delays things from the original plan to use BN3. Second if BN3 uses 9 engines (the test stand it is on blocks the outer ring of engines so only the central 9 could fire) and those can't/won't be used on BN4 that delays things as they are currently finishing one engine every 2 days. They have recently enlarged their Raptor testing from handling 2 at a time to 5 (and have done test firings of the vacuum Raptor). So building 29 engines takes 58 days then testing (how long ??) plus potentially another 18 days (+testing) for 9 engines on BN3 so a total of 76 days, partly elapsed of course, but it could easily be September to get all the required engines. Third this site (https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/category/spacex/) that I've linked to before has stopped listing the orbital launch as scheduled for July to August (no precise day/time was or is listed just the month). Fourth they are having some regulatory issues over the road closures they are doing and the number of launches, potentially this is major as it COULD involve a new environmental assessment and those could take years (not happy about that part). So though SpaceX is still stating the target as being July it is highly doubtful, the regulatory problems might even block them from launching here for the rest of the year. I'd love to see where the backing for these complaints come from the locals or the competition (specifically for the Artemis Lunar Landers).
Of course Falcon 9s keep flying and landing and Starlink satellites keep going up and the BO New Glenn and its methalox engines are still no shows. Those engines are causing trouble for ULA by not appearing as promised for their new rocket causing them to have to do military launches with an older more expensive rocket and eat the extra cost. Not good for the BO/ULA National Team trying to get the HLS (lunar lander) contract that was awarded to Spacex (and stalled by objections from both these guys and the third candidate Dynetics).
The Lunar Starship apparently is not specified by the contract to be reusable. SpaceX did list it as a possibility but no promise was made in the proposal. One option if they aren't going to reuse it is to land it a second time at a planned base location to become part of the base or a fuel storage tank for when they start making fuel natively. If not used for fuel storage the tanks could be converted to rooms giving a roughly 15 story 30 foot wide tower to work with. More stories if you use lower ceilings and keep floor thickness down. Of course cutting it up for stainless steel building material would be a possible use on the base as well. Naturally you could fly it back to Earth orbit as either a fuel tank for refilling other Starships or as a Space Station (or component).
-
BN3 is scheduled for cryotesting on July 12th and static fire on July 13th. As mentioned earlier the test stand blocks the outer ring of engines so it is almost certainly (IMO) only the inner 9 engines being fired, still 3 times as many as ever fired at once before. These 9 are also the ones that are gimballed so It may be a test of the gimballing mounts.
Some indicators are that these are a slightly upgraded engine with a higher thrust.
-
Bezos has been making a big point of his plan to go up in the first manned flight of New Shepard on July 19th. I doubt he is happy that Bransen has now scheduled to fly on the Spaceship 2 on July 11th upstaging him.
Musk has put a deposit on a flight on a future (unspecified time) flight of spaceship 2. Another thing to annoy Bezos.
-
SpaceX is building a plant to make Raptor engines - target 2-4 engines per day. Total thrust for a Super Heavy roughly double that of the Saturn V.
They seem to be having problems with the FAA over the launch/integration tower. The FAA says it is a launch tower and has not been authorized by the environmental assessment whereas SpaceX says it isn't a launch tower but an integration tower and is covered by earlier authorizations. They still need FAA approval for any launch however the tower is defined.
My speculation is that the tower will have the catcher built in and then they can do a short up hop and test the catching with minimal fuel aboard. Possibly they could use the catcher to stack Starship on top of the booster.
On the first launch of New Shepard is an 82 year old called Wally Funk. She was trained to fly on Mercury but NASA decided on only using military test pilots which excluded women. Finally she is going to go to space. Now that is great publicity for Blue Origin.
-
On the first launch of New Shepard is an 82 year old called Wally Funk. She was trained to fly on Mercury but NASA decided on only using military test pilots which excluded women. Finally she is going to go to space. Now that is great publicity for Blue Origin.
[/quote]
Not exaxtly true. Funk and the other Mercury 13 were not officially trained. They were recruited as a part of a side project by Dr. Lovelace who had developed the physical requirements for the astronauts and had speculated that women might be more suitable than men because they were lighter and required less air, food, and water. NASA eventually put a stop to their training by blocking them from getting fast jet training. When a a few of the women used their connections to get congressional hearings, John Glenn testified and he actually said, Men go off to war while women stay at home. In addition, Jackie Cochrane a wealthy, well connected record holding female pilot who had initially been a supporter of the program turned against them after she had failed a flight physical and testified that there was no point training them because they were eventually going to get pregnant and drop out
-
Thanks for the clarification about Funk. I just went by the article which didn't have the details. I don't remember ever hearing about Funk and the other women before.
Bezos has flown and I've seen a lot of jokes about it. People have commented how the flight ended in disaster as he came back. Others commenting on how his rocket resembles him by looking like a "large dick".
His crediting his workers at Amazon and his customers for paying for it didn't make him look good. He really needs to put New Glenn into service.
A lawsuit trying to keep more Starlink Satellites from being put up has been tossed which is good news for SpaceX.
A static fire with 3 engines on BN3 has been performed there MAY end up being a 9 engine firing. One of the engines was installed in only 22 minutes. SpaceX is planning a new Raptor factory capable of making 2 to 4 engines a day.
-
They have taken the engines off BN3 and sent them back for other tests so likely BN3 isn't going to have a 9 engine test.
Musk has announced they will build a new larger (but only slightly taller) high bay. So looks like he is gearing up for producing multiple SH and SS simultaneously. This works with building another larger Raptor factory and expanding the testing facility as well. Details still lacking probably until foundations start going in. Would like to see a size increase per bay compatible with 12 or 15 meter diameter construction :) .
Bezos has apparently "volunteered" to cut the price of the National Team lunar lander but I have yet to see a real analysis of how his "offer" compares to the original bidding process. I don't know if NASA is even allowed to accept such an offer or if this is just theater for Bezos to make claims of corruption or bias from NASA. I'll be watching what the informed have to say if anything.
-
The Space Launch Schedule site lists August 30th for the orbital launch of Starship. I haven't seen any other place setting a precise date.
-
Both the "National Team" and Dynetics challenges to the Human Landing System for the Artemis mission contract being given to SpaceX and the Lunar Starship have been tossed. So soon SpaceX can begin working on the Lander directly.
Nothing about whether the "special deal" offered by Bezos will change things. I have my doubts that NASA legally can accept it as well as financially as they don't have funding from Congress.
-
I'm seeing a report that SH BN4 is not only fully stacked but on the launch pad with all 29 engines and grid fins that are fixed in place not movable or even foldable. SS SN20 is still a work in process but seems to be far enough along to have all fins on. There is a new thinner fin design but whether SN 20 has them or not I don't know but if it looks like the fins are smaller they very well could be.
Starliners launch for the 2nd attempt to dock with the ISS was delayed due to the spin on the ISS. Currently scheduled for this Saturday 8 PM EDT.
-
Starliner has valve problems in the propulsion system and the launch is delayed with the Starliner being removed from the launch pad.
SN20 is now stacked on top of BN4. Apparently the stack was just a test and they separated them for further work.
-
Virgin Galactic selling single seats at $450,000. Group rates and full booking rates seem to be offered but prices aren't yet available.
I still don't think Musk really expects to fly on Virgin Galactic I think it was just to annoy Bezos that he made a deposit.
Had to add a Starship picture
-
August 8th last year SN04 flew with a single engine. Now BN04 and SN20 are being prepped for an orbital test mission. Great progress. :D
BN05 and SN21 (or maybe SN25) are being worked on as well as more fuel tankage and the tower. Hints that orbital refueling may be from the sides rather than bottom mating as previously indicated. Engines have been removed for further testing and more work has gone on the heat shielding.
Starliner has been dismounted from its launcher as they were unable to resolve the valve issues in place. This is the same capsule that missed the ISS and Boeing wanted to count it as a success and go straight to manned missions. :screwloose:
-
Blue Origin having failed to get the GAO (Government Accountability Office) to throw out SpaceX being given the Human Landing System contract is now suing NASA over the contract.
Recently most of the quotes I've seen about the cargo potential of Starship have been 120 tons but Musk in responding to claims by Bezos about the number of launches to refuel the HLS has been referring to the capacity as 150 tons. If accurate this is promising.
-
The forward fins on future Starships are apparently being moved a little forward but up above the curve so the hinges won't be needing heat shielding but the reason is to improve performance.
-
Blue Origin now has Project Jarvis. Makes me wonder if he sees himself as a real life Tony Stark (Stark = Iron Man and Jarvis is his AI that he uses for designing and operating his armour). He must REALLY hate that people call Musk the real life Tony Stark.
So what IS Bezos Jarvis? It is a attempt to build a fully reusable 2nd stage to the New Glenn rocket, I don't know if they are eliminating the planned fairings. Like Starship it is stainless steel. They have a test tank very like the early Starship tanks. How do you think Cape Canaveral will appreciate Bezos blowing up test tanks on their property? SpaceX blew up theirs on their own test site not NASA grounds. New Glenn is about 75 feet shorter than Starship and only 7 meters diameter vs 9 meters for Starship.
New Glenn is planned to fly with the expendable 2nd stage until "the mid 2020s" when Jarvis will replace it. There are also comments that without a reusable 2nd they won't be able to launch at a profit but will lose money every launch. It also seems to reduce the planned cargo from 50 tons to 38 tons. This puts it squarely in the F9/FH market and far less than the Starship at 150 tons.
Functionally this is Bezos endorsing Starship.
-
U.S. requirements for Oxygen to treat Covid patients is apparently beginning to impact the ability to supply LOX for rocket launches.
Bezos is apparently filing objections with the FCC to try and block more Starlink satellites.
-
“The Commission should recognize this delay tactic for what it is — a continuation of efforts by the Amazon family of companies to hinder competitors to compensate for Amazon’s failure to make progress of its own,” Goldman wrote.
Goldman also said Amazon has not updated the FCC in “nearly 400 days” on Kuiper’s approach to interference and orbital debris but “took only 4 days to object to” the SpaceX Gen2 amendment.
“While Amazon has waited 15 months to explain how its system works, it has lodged objections to SpaceX on average about every 16 days this year,” Goldman added.
Bezos really is trying to be the most hated man in the space industry.
-
So how about the proposal to build space telescopes into Starships? Potentially a reflector 50% larger in diameter than the legendary Mount Palomar 200" one with no atmospheric distortions and 24 hour a day use.
-
90 successful landings of the Falcon 9 now achieved. On to 100!
The launch tower is now being called Stage 0 by Musk who says it is harder to make than Starship itself.
-
Starliner has valve problems in the propulsion system and the launch is delayed with the Starliner being removed from the launch pad.
Finally some details on this. 13 stuck valves 4 of which they freed. It is probably a good thing they couldn't free them all. The material the valves controlled is a nitrogen compound which leaked through the Teflon seals and interacted with moisture forming nitric acid which caused corrosion which is why they stuck. Looks like a serious design flaw to me.
I don't want to fly on this one.
-
Looks like all Bezos lobbying and lawsuits won't get him a HLS contract (1st round) as Congress isn't giving NASA a budget increase to handle it. There is a 2nd round that they are eligible for. He could fund it himself and then under bid to get the contract at a loss (he would have to pay him partner companies to get this). He might not even be able to do it because since his flight in New Shepard he has had an exodus of high ranked engineers (some to SpaceX).
Here is my advice to Bezos. If you REALLY plan to move industry into space to stop polluting Earth like you say then use some of your $200 billion to do the following (and STOP ALL THE BLOCKING LAWSUITS! Learn to let someone else win a round gracefully while working to win next time).
A/ develop New Glenn (fully reusable).
B/ Make your own lander (no partners) maybe based on your Jarvis 2nd stage.
C/ You haven't detailed your announced plan for New Armstrong so whatever it is change it to be a super Starship more capable than the SpaceX Starship/Super heavy combo.
D/ Buy Bigelow and make designs for inflatable lunar bases (and space stations)
E/ Design your lunar mining prototype and generic mini factory. Don't forget the remote operation of equipment (rovers etc) from Earth.
F/ Combine all this into your OWN lunar base / mines / factories. Then instead of making yourself the most hated man in the Space Industries you would be the most loved and just maybe become far wealthier if you succeed. Start with the E/ prototypes and use native materials to build the rest as much as possible.
G/ Build space stations (Bigelow or other designs)
H/ Build satellites for science and/or commercial
If you can't make this using your own talents then subcontract to SpaceX. I'm sure that while developing Starship II Musk would love to be delivering your stuff to orbit and the moon for a fair profit. Don't fight SpaceX - partner with it. Hell hire them to make your BE-4 engines work.
-
Firefly had a launch and it was destroyed by a Reaver (engine that exploded).
Astra had a explosion that either was of an engine or something that knocked the engine out which resulted in it moving sideways (fortunately through a gate) then when it was light enough it did fly until being terminated so the debris would fall in an exclusion zone but it did pass the sound barrier.
Both are small launchers but you have to start somewhere.
So two failures but the Firefly was a 1st launch and Astra was a third in a row failure (Falcon 1 failed 3 times as well) hopefully Astra will be 4th time lucky.
-
Interesting:
"A Private space company is starting up, unlike the others."
Steve Wozniak
The associated Youtube channel Privateer.
A new space startup Privateer (https://www.privateer.com/).
Must admit this is intriguing.
-
Wednesday 8:01 PM EDT is the first SpaceX launch of Space Tourists. It is the Inspiration 4 launch.
They are now in orbit. SpaceX is up to 14 people delivered to orbit now.
Now successfully returned.
-
The Starship launch now shows as November.
-
I just counted the planned SpaceX launches for the balance of this year. There is of course the possibility that some of them will slip to next year but it is an impressive 17 planned launches between now and New Years.
-
The Starship launch now shows as November.
Now December.
They seem to be building the catcher arms now.
Lots of construction going on for the launch site. Construction is going on for BN5 and SN21. Work is happening on the new high bay to allow work on more boosters and starships at the same time.
No launch excitement but lots of site development.
-
Cryotests have begun on the BN4 and SN20. SN20 was also struck by lightning. No reports on damage yet.
-
Elon Musk is now the richest man in the world partly because the value of SpaceX has been upgraded to being worth $100 billion.
Interesting (joking) post on YouTube
The years is 2025. Blue origin has launched their second cgi animation of new Glenn, however even the animated rocket failed to achieve orbit. They have sued sued themselves in retaliation
another
Elon Musk: “the best part is no part”
Jeff Bezos: “hmmmm” - proceeds to not built an orbital rocket
-
This morning Shatner is supposed to go up in the New Shepard.
He has gone up and back. He is now the oldest to reach space. Watching some of the videos now.
If Bezos has a clue he will try to get Shatner to be the face of Blue Origin (and actually have someone who can drive BO like Musk drives SpaceX - not Shatner or Bezos). They really need to get a flying orbital craft and the BE4 engine going to make it work though. Project Jarvis could be such a thing if they fly it from the ground like Starship prototypes very publicly. New Glenn of course needs to fly and land as well.
-
Sign on SpaceX fence at Boca Chica
No Trespassing
Raptors Loose
-
"If all goes well, Starship will be ready for its first orbital launch attempt next month, pending regulatory approval," Musk tweeted today (Oct. 22).
-
Blue Origin has announced a new consortium to build a space station called Orbital Reef. The concept requires a functioning New Glenn as two 2nd stages are to be joined together as a central truss and usable habitat volume with docking ports. Both conventional modules like the ISS and inflatable modules will be docked off both sides and at 90 degrees to them will be mounted an array of solar panels. It essentially is an updated ISS design, no rotation for simulated gravity. It appears most of the money is from BO so even though this seems to be a close variant of a design by one of the other participants it appears that BO is the central company getting the lions share of the credit. Boeing would apparently be doing the actual operation of the station.
The most novel thing about this is not actually part of the proposed station but a "Pod" designed to allow astronauts to leave the station without a space suit with small "space arms" to manipulate things outside the pod. Another sci fi proposal that looks to become real.
New Glenn would deliver cargo and modules to the station. Dreamchaser would deliver cargo and passengers to and from the station. Whether non participants in the consortium like SpaceX would be allowed to deliver to the station is not mentioned.
Using Starship as a core to build space stations has already been proposed. Due to pure size it would be a better core and would make awesome side modules.
-
Blue Origin having failed to get the GAO (Government Accountability Office) to throw out SpaceX being given the Human Landing System contract is now suing NASA over the contract.
Blue Origin (predictably) lost. So until BO appeals the loss NASA and SpaceX can carry on. Looks like a 30 day deadline for the appeal.
-
2022 has 4 (with a possible 5th) launches of Falcon Heavy. At least one launch will result in the side boosters both landing on drone ships at sea rather than past landings near the launch site on land.
The new SpaceX wider high bay for Starship/Superheavy vehicle assembly has the framework going up. This is something to watch as it will speed up the rate at which new vehicles can be assembled.
The new tank farm has had a great deal of liquid nitrogen used for testing the tanks and have begun filling the LOX tanks. With delivery by tanker trucks getting enough propellants to do a orbital launch will take a LOT of trucks and quite a long time. They really need on site manufacturing of LOX and either the same for the methane or a pipeline for natural gas. 3600 tons of propellant per launch assuming no wastage. That is a lot of tankers. They could really use one (or more) of these new portable nuclear power plants that are being promoted recently to be able to power an on site propellant plant.
A non operational prototype for New Glenn has been rolled out finally. How long for a launch capable unit?
Looks like the Crew 3 Dragon launch is in process right now. This will make 18 people put in orbit by SpaceX, 14 for NASA and 4 tourists.
Edited to correct the total numbers of astronauts SpaceX has sent to orbit.
-
Blue Origin has announced a new consortium to build a space station called Orbital Reef. The concept requires a functioning New Glenn as two 2nd stages are to be joined together as a central truss and usable habitat volume with docking ports. Both conventional modules like the ISS and inflatable modules will be docked off both sides and at 90 degrees to them will be mounted an array of solar panels. It essentially is an updated ISS design, no rotation for simulated gravity. It appears most of the money is from BO so even though this seems to be a close variant of a design by one of the other participants it appears that BO is the central company getting the lions share of the credit. Boeing would apparently be doing the actual operation of the station.
I've suggested elsewhere that Musk should essentially say "Great Idea, we'll do the same and build Musk's Reef with 2 Super Heavy boosters to form the back bone". This would have the added benefit that Bezos head would explode putting his skull cap into orbit and FINALLY Blue Origin would have achieved an orbital delivery.
One SH would be a lot bigger than 2 New Glenn second stages. Using 2 would be either a 140 meter (459 feet) long by 9 meter (29.5 feet) diameter or 2 could be docked side by side creating a double back bone. You could keep adding to it by docking Starships and SH that are on their last launch before scrapping.
If you started with 3 and launched with full fuel the 3rd could have all remaining fuel drained to the 3rd giving a fuel depot setup for refueling starships OR it could be sent to lunar orbit with that fuel to be a Lunar Gateway station.
SN20 has had a 6 engine test. It was short because 3 of the engines are of course vacuum Raptors and aren't intended for in atmosphere firing.
-
First the "bad" news.
There is a apparently authentic SpaceX E-Mail from Musk circulating to the effect that if Starship isn't launching Starlink satellites every 2 weeks in 2022 that SpaceX will be in danger of bankruptcy. Not that bankruptcy would be certain just a danger. Musk has stated that Starship is needed to launch the V2.0 Starlink satellites due to increased mass, how much mass increase not revealed. The problem is with the production of Raptor engines, it is unclear if this is due to the design of the engine or of the manufacturing process. This is connected with the recent firing of 2 executives in connection with the Raptor production.
Now hopefully pressure will be brought to bear on the FAA to get out of the way and let SpaceX go ahead with their test flights that are needed to get to the point of actually launching satellites.
Now the normal stuff on progress.
They've done more engine and pressure testing since I last mentioned it and also were just doing more on the last test tank made. Why retesting the test tank? Unknown.
Much more interesting is that SpaceX is building launch facilities for Starship at Cape Canaveral Launch Pad 39A. If I am right this is the one that SpaceX won the lease on against Blue Origin and then fought and won a lawsuit by Blue Origin over that lease. Since Boca Chica can't maintain a high rate of launch like one every 2 weeks they need at least one more site preferably 2 or 3. The 2 oil rigs being converted for sea launch platforms will contribute to it when ready and shipping the required tonnage of LOX/Methane is easier by sea than by land. SpaceX bought a LOX tank at Canaveral (110.000 ton capacity) from the Air Force that was scrapping it ($1). There are already Methane tanks at Canaveral for other purposes that hopefully SpaceX can use to support Starship launches.
So if they can get the test launches to succeed and make a usable Starship and adequate numbers of Raptors things get really interesting in the space industry. Pad 39A is not enough (IMO) to sustain a launch every 2 weeks and Boca Chica would be lucky to get the onsite fuel in 30 days for one launch unless they start generating at least their own LOX, LN2 would help to as would a LNG pipeline or use of their onsite well being authorized and processing to make it pure enough to use would eliminate the tankage issues.
Rocket Lab provided more info on the planned Neutron rocket. 8 tons to LEO with a reusable 1st stage, 15 tons if expended. It is being promoted as a "Falcon killer" but with the low payload it could with a low enough cost eat into the lower mass launches on Falcon but can't compete with it on capacity per launch. 2nd stage is expendable and deorbits to not contribute to space junk. Looks like 7 Methalox engines. Carbon fibre structure. Wider at the base than at the top, stocky compared to Falcon 9. Fixed landing legs, top guidance fins like New Shepard rather than grid fins like Falcon. 4 way opening top to release the fully enclosed 2nd stage that closes again for reentry with the 1st stage. No projected launch date or engine testing. So by the time it is flying Starship should be as well.
The Russians shot down one of their own satellites making 1,000s if not 10s of thousands of pieces of junk for everyone to deal with. Hopefully they will start cleaning up (but I doubt it).
Various companies have recently announced space junk clearing plans the big thing is who pays?
-
Ever since Blue Origin did their spiel on why HLS is a problem due to how many missions it would take to refuel the SpaceX HLS in orbit with super pessimistic assumptions I've been annoyed at the nonsense of those assumptions. (Their number is at least 12 missions with extra expected due to losses in the time it takes the fueling to be done and a slow launch cadence. With SpaceX building a Starship launch tower at Kennedy and converting 2 oil rigs for launch sites even without Boca Chica they could launch 3 on one day if they wanted once they are finished. So slow launch cadence isn't necessarily a issue at all.
I just posted the following elsewhere so if you see it anywhere mine is the original and even this one is just a copy.
So on with debunking those bad assumptions to get to a dozen or more fueling missions for HLS.
1/ That NASA will insist on a 100% fuel load not just the load required for the mission. Even if this is true SpaceX can still fill to 100% with fewer missions for multiple reasons one of which is creative.
2/ HLS reaches orbit with dry tanks. Why would it? It would presumably be launched 100% full. Not only is it lighter than the standard general purpose Starship but it won't be carrying full cargo meaning left over fuel (maybe lots of it). Also the GP version carries deorbiting and landing fuel that HLS won't have to use until it reaches the moon so this will still be on board.
3/ That the maximum tanker capacity is 100 tons. Why? At this point we don't know what the tankers payload will be but the cargo range targeted by the Starship design is from 100 tons MINIMUM to 150+ tons. A tanker won't have all the features (like huge cargo doors) and it is in any case likely that it will exceed that minimum, the big question is by how much? With 150 tons 1200 tons of fuel would take 8 trips not the 12 Bezos and co seem to call minimum and that assumes dry tanks as in 2/ above could be one or two less.
Finally the creative one. It assumes people at SpaceX are willing to go all the way in making the HLS custom while staying a Starship.
3/ If it would only take say 700 tons (just a sample number no claim of accuracy) of methalox to achieve the mission and NASA does require 100% fuel load then make the tankage 700 tons. Even with dry tanks and 100 ton fuel load it would only be 7 loads. With 150 it is less than 5 full loads, maybe 4 if enough fuel stays aboard. And it has a BONUS, the cargo compartment would be larger (though reduced mass capability) so the cargo and elevator would be at the bottom making the elevator lift height less and the elevator lighter so less fuel required to carry it to the Moon and if it is ever converted to a base or space station the cargo compartment is MUCH larger for that purpose even before converting the fuel tanks.
-
Falcon 9 just had a successful 11th flight of a booster
In addition to the plans for super heavy having 33 engines on future models Starship is now planned to have 3 sea level Raptors and 6 vacuum Raptors so the future is 42 engines per flight not the 35 of the 1st flight.
They also removed from SS20 the hardpoints used to lift it by crane. Presumably this means they will use the tower catchers to lift it into place.
Starship fuel tanks are apparently to be made longer giving more fuel capacity.
-
BN 5 is being scrapped. It was built for Raptor V1 engines and all new Raptors are version 2. Thrust increased from 185 tons to 230+ tons per engine.
-
Falcon 9 just had its 100th successful landing and SpaceX completed 31 launches this year. Only twice this year did they launch a new rocket.
-
Falcon 9 just had its 100th successful landing and SpaceX completed 31 launches this year. Only twice this year did they launch a new rocket.
Yes, i saw it.
Really amazing what they have achieved so far.
Thx for the ongoing updates,
Happy Christmas ! :D
-
In addition to "Starbase" where I've heard talk they might build a 2nd launch pad they are building at the Cape Kennedy LC39A site and apparently have leased another site LC49(?) at Kennedy for Starship launching along of course with rebuilding Phobos and Deimos as launch/landing platforms. So ultimately 6 launch pads based on current sites either being built on or with solid plans to do so in the works.
Even without quick turn around times or vehicles sharing launch pads for HLS this means that in a matter of days they could launch HLS and 5 refueling missions. With a 2nd craft at each site and all of them fuel tankers that rises to 11 given enough on site methalox at each location or rapid delivery available.
-
Falcon 9 just had a successful 11th flight of a booster
In addition to the plans for super heavy having 33 engines on future models Starship is now planned to have 3 sea level Raptors and 6 vacuum Raptors so the future is 42 engines per flight not the 35 of the 1st flight.
They also removed from SS20 the hardpoints used to lift it by crane. Presumably this means they will use the tower catchers to lift it into place.
Starship fuel tanks are apparently to be made longer giving more fuel capacity.
This does have one problem. Making Starship or Super heavy taller means the stacked ship may be too tall for the current launch tower. They may need to decapitate it and build one or more new sections.
-
They have not only begun building at LC39A but at the nearby location where they began to setup to build Starships before making Boca Chica the site they are now working on making it into second Starship construction site. So sometime next year they should be able to start building Starships there as well as at Starbase. By that time they should have a Version 1 ship flying cargo to orbit even if they haven't nailed the landings yet, though hopefully they will have at least the boosters landing even if not reusing them yet.
-
As a Christmas Present the James Webb telescope was successfully launched today. Still have to wait for it to be fully deployed and tested but it is looking good.
So Merry Christmas all. :)
-
As a Christmas Present the James Webb telescope was successfully launched today. Still have to wait for it to be fully deployed and tested but it is looking good.
So Merry Christmas all. :)
Yes, it is crazy the amount of things that can go wrong in the process. 30 days to reach L2 point, then almost 6 months till being cold and fully operational (if everything goes well. over 370 possible failure points, right ?)
Hope the best for them.
If well succeed, it will be an amazing Christmas present for humanity. :)
-
I don't know how many failure points but in any long term mission there can be many.
One thing though is it only carries less than 1/2 ton of fuel which limits its time in L2. Starship however should be able to get there and back to refuel it if NASA could get the mission funded.
Now assume a successor was build inside a Starship cargo bay and flown there with a detachable nose cone section, if it was refueled first in orbit and used a minimum energy trajectory how long could it stay on station?
A Hubble replacement could be built the same way 8 meters in diameter. Of course if it stayed in LEO repair/refurbishment/upgrade missions would be easily practical if Starship works to spec.
-
In addition to the plans for super heavy having 33 engines on future models Starship is now planned to have 3 sea level Raptors and 6 vacuum Raptors so the future is 42 engines per flight not the 35 of the 1st flight.
There are now some claims (not official) that this could result in a payload of up to 230 tons. This doesn't include any potential for the extra 4 engines on the next booster and the improved thrust of Raptor 2 increasing it further. No one has commented on that potential or any increase in fuel tankage either.
If HLS is kept at the current size a fuel tanker of this capacity could fully refuel it with less than 6 missions. With the reduced fuel capacity for HLS that I suggested earlier 3 missions would do.
-
FAA has now delayed their environmental assessment report till the end of February delaying Starship orbital launch until at least March.
-
As a Christmas Present the James Webb telescope was successfully launched today. Still have to wait for it to be fully deployed and tested but it is looking good.
So Merry Christmas all. :)
Yes, it is crazy the amount of things that can go wrong in the process. 30 days to reach L2 point, then almost 6 months till being cold and fully operational (if everything goes well. over 370 possible failure points, right ?)
Hope the best for them.
If well succeed, it will be an amazing Christmas present for humanity. :)
The Ariane rocket was VERY precise in hitting the transfer orbit. The result is that instead of hitting its position with fuel for 3-5 years of station keeping it is now projected to be able to stay on station for up to 10 years. So more time for SpaceX to develop the ability to refuel it AND if it does even longer time that a full fuel load would keep it in position. Here is hoping that happens.
Some people are concerned that a solar panel deployed early. According to Scott Manley that panel was to deploy either at a certain time OR when its orientation was stabilized to a certain degree and it reached that stabilization earlier than predicted so deployment early is no an issue.
The Chinese are complaining about 2 near misses of their space station by Starlink satellites. Hopefully the U.S. official reaction will be "We will worry about that when you start to worry about where your expended stages land". At the same time they should go behind the scenes with SpaceX and find out if this is real and how to make sure it stops happening.
Hopefully China will start getting reusable first stages in play so having them land with no concern for location will just stop being an issue.
-
Falcon 9 just had its 100th successful landing and SpaceX completed 31 launches this year. Only twice this year did they launch a new rocket.
It appears they have 35 scheduled Falcon 9 and 5 Falcon Heavy launches scheduled for next year. Plus any Starship launches of course. I can't say for sure if any Falcon 9 launches of the 35 are Starlink so that number could be increased, unless of course Starship takes over those which is a potential that Musk has indicated is in the plans due to increased size/mass of the V 2.0 satellite and could DECREASE the number of launches due to the much higher cargo capacity reducing the number of needed launches if they are already included in the Falcon 9 launch schedules.
-
SpaceX has said they want to do over 50 launches this year. If they start launching Starlink on Starship (even in expendable mode) they should be replacing quite a number of Falcon 9 launches for each such launch as it is expected to carry 400 or more per launch compared to 60 at most with Falcon 9.
I do want to see Starship deploying 100s of satellites per launch this year, preferably by summer.
-
A used Falcon Heavy side booster was just flown as a standard Falcon 9. Modifications were required. Landing was successful.
6 Falcon 9 launches in 5 weeks this year.
-
Stacking Starship with Mechazilla:
-
The latest batch of Starlink satellites had issues with a "geomagnetic storm" which increased drag by 50% and about 40 of them will NOT achieve orbit.
-
The rocket expected to impact the moon in March is NOT a Falcon 9 but is a Chinese rocket instead.
Musk talked about how when trying to get to 250 tons of thrust on the Raptor 2 they have trouble with keeping the thrust chambers from melting. People seem to think this means that at the 230 tons they are rated for they have the same problem. Personally I think this is a misunderstanding. I think they are currently topped at 230 tons is because that is a reliably stable (not melting down) thrust rate. He does say they expect to upgrade to 250 tons as they solve the problem.
Note how in the image the Raptor 2 has far less wiring. This is because of all the sensor systems in the Raptor 1 prototype that can be dispensed with on the (near) production model vs2. Far less to go wrong, simpler to assemble, cheaper and I am guessing lighter.
Edit to change image type:
-
SpaceX is planning a Dragon mission with an EVA in a SpaceX suit. Could be they'll be making a Lunar/Mars suit solving NASAs problem getting suits for Artemis.
-
FAA has now delayed their environmental assessment report till the end of February delaying Starship orbital launch until at least March.
Now delayed till March 28th so launch unlikely before April. :(
-
New Shepard 7m X 15m. Starship cargo compartment 8m x 18m. Finally a way for Bezos to get a rocket to orbit, even fully fueled. Not sure if that includes the capsule.
-
12th successful flight of a Falcon 9. On to 13.
-
They manage to keep the lower booster?
-
They reuse the Falcon 9 first stage, yesterday was the record of 12 flights and a safe recovery. They also can reuse the Dragon capsule both the cargo and manned versions. They manage also to recover some of the fairings and reuse them. It is a large part of why SpaceX undercuts the competition. I believe last year they had about 40 launches only 2 of which were new 1st stages (and that is insisted on for some customers). This year they target 50+ launches.
Starship target if fully reusable. Hopefully they will achieve it.
-
Once again the FAA has delayed their report, now to April 29th.
As a result of all these delays SpaceX is going to have enough Raptor 2 engines on hand to finish a booster and Starship with them and they (SH 7 and SS 24 apparently) will be doing the first launch. SH 4 and SS 20 will not do an orbital flight.
I would like to see them use the landing platforms from the earlier test flights with pure catching towers to do short hops and attempted catches so any failures don't risk the larger more complex launch tower and tank farm. Alternately complete one of the sea launch platforms to the minimum to do catches and armour the rest against failures. They could do tests using hops with the SH4 and SS20 that are being decommissioned anyhow. Get some testing done.
A quick edit:
Some people think the FAA is going to stall until the SLS (Space Launch System) launches first (due in May) so they can make a big thing of it being the most powerful rocket ever launched. The Starship stack is even more powerful so if it is launched first then SLS never gets to make that claim. The best they can do is the "most powerful government rocket launched successfully). Possible but I think unlikely. More likely (IMO) is the FAA and the other involved agencies are just showing government inefficiency and stonewalling in response to attempts to pressure them to finish quickly.
-
One Web that was bailed out of bankruptcy by the British government was contracted to have the rest of their satellites launched on Russian rockets but when conditions were added (after the invasion of Ukraine) to the launches and rejected by One Web they were facing bankruptcy again due to not only no launch provider but some of their satellites in Russia and not being returned. SpaceX is going to launch them (for a price of course) One Web does need to either get the satellites back or have replacements made but they are bought time by getting SpaceX to launch what they do have.
Some people were predicting that SpaceX would either refuse or put the price too high but I expected them to do the launches at a good price, glad I was right.
People need to remember that Roscosmos has always had issues with SpaceX especially since they undercut the Soyuz price to resupply the ISS and deliver astronauts. Musk I'm quite sure likes giving them the finger like this. During a recent launch of Starlink satellites they made a response to Roscosmos saying the U.S. would have to use broomsticks to get to orbit by having the Falcon 9 referred to as a American Broomstick. Musk does like to send jibes at those who annoy him.
-
SpaceX has stopped producing Crew Dragon capsules. They seem to think that with reuse they have enough till Starship can replace it. It also puts pressure on NASA because without Crew Dragon they have no manned space flight. Starliner isn't currently viable as it has never had a successful unmanned test. The 2 rockets it is intended to fly on are A/ using Russian engines which are no longer available and all flights using them are booked or B/ use the BE-4 engine which isn't yet available (maybe not even this year) and will need extensive flight testing for man rating.
This could be a move to have NASA put pressure on the FAA to finish their assessment of Boca Chica for Starship launches.
They also seem to have a design for a Starship "Launch Slot" to dispense Starlink 2 satellites like a giant Pez Dispenser retaining the launch mechanism for return to Earth and reuse.
-
The Axiom 1 mission has achieved orbit. Still to reach the ISS.
Docking was achieved and the crew has boarded the ISS. First purely commercial mission to the ISS.
-
Amazon has signed contracts with Arianespace for their Ariane 6 vehicle, with ULA for Vulcan Centaur and of course Blue Origins New Glenn to launch their Kuiper satellite network.
Ariane 6. Still in development.
Vulcan Centaur. Waiting for BO to complete the BE4 engines.
New Glenn still in development AND waiting for those same BE4 engines.
Estimated cost about $10 billion, twice the SpaceX launch price if SpaceX were to give Amazon their standard prices. Of course if I were Musk I would give the standard prices but insist that Amazon and Bezos/BO stop all their opposition to SpaceX which Bezos won't agree to I'm sure. Go ahead and compete but stop trying to manipulate the government and courts into causing SpaceX delays.
-
Once again the FAA has delayed their report, now to April 29th.
Once again. Now May 31st.
They had a pressurization accident on the BN7 booster where they had too great a pressure differential between the O2 tank and the methane downcomer pipe passing through it crushing the pipe. They seem to be trying to repair it.
The extended Axiom flight to the ISS ended after 15 days with a successful return and the next ISS crew has gone up.
I saw a video with a SpaceX photo of a group of Raptor 2 engines in the forefront was one with the number 52, it takes 33 for the booster and so far 6 for Starship (with a planned upgrade of Starship using 9) so at most 42 are needed.
The Cape Kennedy site has a lot of progress towards being a 2nd launch site for Starship but it has a long way to go.
Allegedly BO is finally shipping BE-4 engines to ULA. Haven't seen a trustworthy confirmation or what the source was so maybe.
-
The crushed downcomer pipe on SH7 has been repaired and the booster pressure tested twice. Seems likely that this will still be the first booster used but likely depends on how many more delays by the FAA.
SN24 seems to be the most likely candidate for first Starship to orbit. It includes the "PEZ" dispenser door but he seems unsure if it will launch any Starlink 2 satellites on the first test flight.
There are reports that 2 Raptor 2s failed testing at MacGregor but no details. Was this a pair of failures and if so are they repairable or was it test to destruction to find the Raptor 2 limits?
Some people are attacking the launching of Starship at Kennedy as it is "too close" to the pad used to launch Dragons to ISS and Falcon Heavy. Would like to see how many of those are connected to the competition that fears Starship.
Starliner is soon to redo its flight to the ISS (this Thursday). Atlas V. Then crewed flight December 2022 still on Atlas V. Then again March 2023 still on Atlas V.
BO has apparently shipped BE-4 engines for Vulcan Centaur to ULA (1 set) so it is expected to launch near the end of 2022 barring issues.
-
Starliner was launched but had multiple unplanned engine cut outs. Not what I consider crew ready but Boeing (again) so far seems unconcerned with the issues.
Docking was successful but there seem to have been some issues there as well. Docking thruster failures. Docking mechanism requiring reset. Delays to get telemetry, communications and lighting correct. Temperature control problems. Had to manually control the temperature systems.
Hope that NASA doesn't allow a manned flight until a essentially bug free flight and this flight ISN'T good enough. I'd have waved them off the docking due to the thruster issues. No sale Boeing.
-
Elon Musk: At SpaceX we specialize in turning things from impossible to late.
In reference specifically to the catching of a Starship or Super Heavy when landing.
-
Fastest Falcon 9 booster turn around 21 days. Part of that will be shipping time on the drone ship and part waiting for a launch opportunity.
Falcon 9:
160 successful launches
122 successful landings
98 reflights of previously flown boosters. (some up to 12 times so far)
Launch cadence so far this year 1/week.
James Webb telescope hit by a meteor. 1 mirror damaged still supposed to be able to perform above specification.
New Shepard had another manned hop. Wonder if it could achieve orbit on the moon or Mars and could it land on either from orbit?
-
A booster reached 13 launches and landings now.
-
Super Heavy booster #7 had an explosion of some size during testing today. Details are still to come but to me it looked like the explosion might have been external from a methane leak or accidental release. Amount of damage unknown. Will #7 still fly at some point? Who knows?
-
More explosion info. They were testing the turbines for pumping the methane/LOX. They are powered by burning the methane/LOX BUT the ones pumping LOX use more LOX than needed to consume all the methane. The ones pumping methane do the reverse. The exhaust from each is pumped into the material pumped and since there is effectively none of the material not being pumped combustion doesn't happen till it reaches the combustion chamber and is burned with the rest of the propellant (propellant in this case is methane+LOX individually they are the fuel and oxidizer respectively). Since they weren't pumping actual propellants the exhaust was not burned together in the combustion chamber and apparently there was not enough wind to disperse it. Add a ignition source and you get the BOOM! that they had. They won't try and test all 33 sets of pumps at the same time again.
I'm speculating but since they were "spin testing" the turbines I think they were not actually burning it in the turbines and what was exhausted was still cryogenic keeping it liquid and not immediately entering the atmosphere stopping the methane testers and explosive mixture detectors from noticing it before significant amounts had been released. Once they vapourized it was quickly an explosive mixture and a ignition source must have been present.
The booster (BN7) has been removed from the launch pad (with the chop sticks which obviously aren't too damaged to function) for inspection and possibly repair. Ultimate fate unknown.
They have filed a flight plan for the first launch and apparently are indicating that it will launch satellites and allowing for the option of the booster landing. It probably won't land the first time but they seem to be at least considering it (or getting the FAA ready for an actual landing test).
-
The spin test that caused the explosion on the booster BN7 has now been done with SN24. 13 of the engines for BN7 have been removed for inspection/repair/replacement.
-
Test fires with 1 engine have been done with both BN7 and SN24. BN7 is now having the center 13 engines reinstalled.
Blue Origin is scrapping the ship that New Glenn was supposed to land on and is buying a converted barge from the same people who make the landing barges for SpaceX.
-
SLS failed to launch due to the untested valves that allow fuel to be used to cool down the engines pre-ignition allowing one to fail. May launch Friday if they can fix it. If not then next window I believe is late September.
Now Saturday afternoon.
-
And its been scrubbed again. Its seriously baffling how Nasa keeps screwing the SLS up. Its based on 40+ year old tech!
-
As I recall there was a delay of several months once because Boeing had altered the engines and to fix a problem they had to have a wrench specially fabricated. So Boeing has "modified" the engines. Wonder if that is where the problem is with the valves as their Starliner has had multiple issues with valves.
-
SLS launch for Artemis 1 is now sometime in October. So Starship might launch first and if it does then SLS never gets the title of the most powerful booster in operation.
-
A New Shepard flight (experiments only no crew) just had a failed flight. It started with the exhaust having bursts of different colours (debris in the chamber aka engine rich exhaust) and then the capsule abort activated. The landing to me looked like the retros didn't fire. If not then the landing was likely rough enough to hurt passengers if there had been any. It looks probable that the rocket is debris across the landscape and likely (to me) that the capsule will be a write off as well.
Would have been a wild ride if there were passengers, good chance of injuries though.
-
Looks like Starship is still slipping into the future. The launch date is now November. No actual day just the month.
-
Firefly had their first successful flight this week. 2nd attempt. So another company out performing Blue Origin. Just 5 years old and already in orbit. Blue Origin 22 and counting with no scheduled orbital launch attempt
NASA, SpaceX and the people behind the Crew Dragon Polaris mission are studying to see if they can dock with the Hubble and move it to a higher orbit and extend its life. If this is done it will be at no cost to NASA. Paid for by the Polaris mission backers (and possibly SpaceX - I'm not sure). Maybe one day Starship can pick it up and while holding it in the cargo bay be able to overhaul it for an even greater life. If not then as long as Starship is successful it will be able to launch bigger and better successors eventually.
The DART mission had its successful collision with an asteroid. Just waiting now to see if the orbital change matches the theoretical adjustment. Should take about 2 months for details. The asteroid is about 5 million tons and orbits a larger asteroid. It is that orbit which is being changed, I haven't seen anything to indicate if the combined path of the 2 asteroids is expected to change.
Rocket Lab gave some updates on their projected Neutron reusable rocket design changes. They included a image of a Crew Capsule but stated it isn't an announcement but they are looking at it.
Ariane is looking at a fully reusable upper stage with a powered landing.
-
I've read the pervailing wisdom on asteroid deflecting is to not try to hit it out of the way like a billiard ball, but to use gravity to deflect it's course. I imagine, since placing a large mass in orbit is expensive, DART is able to test both - impacting Dimorphos (the smaller one) to see how it changes, and how that affects Didymos (larger one). There's a follow up missions planned by ESA called Hera, launching in 2024.
-
A New Shepard flight (experiments only no crew) just had a failed flight. It started with the exhaust having bursts of different colours (debris in the chamber aka engine rich exhaust) and then the capsule abort activated. The landing to me looked like the retros didn't fire. If not then the landing was likely rough enough to hurt passengers if there had been any. It looks probable that the rocket is debris across the landscape and likely (to me) that the capsule will be a write off as well.
Would have been a wild ride if there were passengers, good chance of injuries though.
One of the experiments on the New Shepard recorded 15g acceleration. With humans this would be severe injuries possibly death if it was not a VERY short term. So is it accurate? Now was this from the escape system or the landing? Did the retros fire or not? What happened to the booster?
-
Starship 24 is now stacked on Booster 7 at the launch tower.
Possible purposes:
1/ mass test to see if it can handle the weight of the full stack with propellant (or equal mass of LN2)
2/ more mass to allow static fire of more engines at one time without take off (again full of propellant for BN7 and either propellant or LN2 for SN24)
3/ to allow launch after static fire testing. November is a tentative launch time. So maybe.
BN8 and BN9 are well under way as are SN25-SN28 (varying degrees of course)
The Florida site is well along with the launch tower fully erected (not complete with fittings just the tower itself). A 3rd towers structural elements are under construction but no foundations are in place or info on where they are going.
Thanks to BE4 still not being ready the Vulcan won't launch this year. New Glenn has no projected date. No new info on the New Shepard "anomaly". Not even confirmed destruction of the booster though it is pretty clear it didn't land on the pad and almost certainly crashed explosively. So Blue Origin still a 22 year dud as far as orbital flight is concerned.
-
.
-
nice
someone got lucky
-
Falcon Heavy had a successful launch yesterday with the side boosters landing (center expended as planned).
A large meteor struck Mars. Its impact measured on a landers seismometer and the crater plus debris shows water ice boulders near the equator. Assuming this is a typical result it means there is water ice underground all over the place. This makes manufacturing methane (and LOX) much more likely to succeed.
-
nice we got any pics of the impact site?
-
.
-
cool
-
The much troubled Boeing Starliner capsule that is supposed to compete with Dragon (and was considered during development to be the most likely to succeed) is now not going to do its next manned launch until April. Delay after delay. Looks like this is going to lose a lot of money for Boeing and never be profitable if they don't find a way to turn things around in a VERY dramatic way.
For Starship the BN8 has been retired. It won't apparently be completed or flown. No reason given to my knowledge. Looks like SN25 will be paired with BN9 which is still being worked on.
According to a joint NASA/SpaceX announcement it looks like BN7 with SN24 will launch in early December. Attempts to get the FAA license are on going for that launch. It is NOT expected that the booster will be landed this flight (I never though it likely) in spite of an earlier indicator that SpaceX was considering it. I'm sure they will do the Falcon 9 style ocean landings until they are sure they can get a catch right the first try (Falcon didn't manage the actual attempted landings on the first few tries).
Multiple pressurization tests on BN7 and SN24 this week. These may be as much tests of the loading system as of the spacecraft if not more so.
SpaceX is making 7 Raptor 2 engines a week.
-
The Soyuz docked to the ISS is leaking some sort of coolant. It is unclear at present if it will be able to return the crew to Earth (including an American) or if a replacement will need to be sent. If they have to come back on a Dragon I propose the name "Project Broomstick" or perhaps "From Elon with Love".
The next SLS launch will not happen until 2025 at the least (dates like that are still hard to believe are real and soon). So no more American astronauts around the moon until then.
Starship launch is now January 2023. Anyones guess as to when it will really go.
-
Todays launch by SpaceX is the 15th launch for the booster. The 59th SpaceX launch this year. There are still 2 scheduled launches to go for this year.
So more records for SpaceX. How many launches next year? If Starship proves out and begins launching Starlink v2 it may be fewer launches in 2023 because of the sheer size of Starship allowing the launch of more Starlink satellites per mission. Then again if they begin practicing refueling launches it could still be a higher cadence.
If Starship works out and early enough in the year they could also end up using it to do OneWeb and Kuiper launches as well.
Vulcan with the Blue Origin BE-4 engine is currently scheduled for February launching Kuiper satellites.
Starliner crewed on Atlas is now April.
Dreamchaser is July on Vulcan.
ULA has 9 launches scheduled from January to September and they are perhaps SpaceXs biggest competitor. In January SpaceX has scheduled 17 launches. I can only assume that cadence will not continue for SpaceX and that ULA just doesn't have all its launches on the schedule I see.
So what year will SpaceX do 100 launches?
-
SpaceX has completed its 60th launch of the year with one more still scheduled.
61 st launch successful.
-
SpaceX has completed its first launch of 2023.
-
Starship has completed its wet dress rehearsal. It is going to be destacked for the booster 33 engine static fire. The destacking allows for Starship to have the crane lift points to be removed and to fill the gaps left with heat tiles.
If all goes well (no date for static fire) the next big thing should be restacking for launch. :D
-
Possible 33 engine static fire next week.
-
Cool
-
Here is even cooler, an update to the SpaceX Starship page apparently just in the last week or so.
SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket – collectively referred to as Starship – represent a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond. Starship will be the world’s most powerful launch vehicle ever developed, with the ability to carry up to 150 metric tonnes to Earth orbit reusable, and up to 250 metric tonnes expendable.
For a long time the media has been touting the lower limit of 100 tons to orbit in reusable mode. The original plan was 100-150+tons with people often attacking that upper limit. From other things it looks like the reusable 100 tons is to a somewhat higher orbit than the 150 ton LEO but definitely not geosynchronous.
Just to show how these capacities compare to past rocketry: Skylab 76.5 tons. The ISS 420 tons. Skylab in one launch, ISS took many. Imagine the volume of a 250 tons inflatable ISS module compared to ISS now.
I would suspect that to really make use of that 250 ton limit they would need a longer Starship to contain the cargo but that had already been talked about. I wouldn't be surprised if the early refueling missions were with expendables as they will still be working on the landing. I don't know of any reason they couldn't make the expandable cargo section larger in diameter as well as length. Other rockets have the upper stage at least partly wider, even Falcon 9 itself.
The 250 tons expendable mode might well be used to launch a nuclear powered rocket in large modules. Module 1 the engines, multiple modules for propellant. Life support modules, cargo modules, landers. Expend the launchers to build a reusable interplanetary manned craft.
-
Possible 33 engine static fire next week.
Apparently sometime tomorrow. Lets hear her ROAR! More than twice the thrust of Saturn 5 and SLS.
-
Lets see it get all the way up with a payload and get back that what Id like because then we can go back to doing things like work on Hubble
-
Probably won't fly this month. They have deluge system to install (and repair damage done by the static fire). But just firing these engines is the most powerful rocket ever fired if it is at full thrust. More than twice as powerful as SLS.
SpaceX is doing (or has done) a study on repairs to Hubble using Dragon to do a spacewalk for repairs (possibly one of the Axiom Space flights). So it might get repaired with or without Starship.
-
Looks like a successful static fire. But I've only seen video, not details from SpaceX.
I have now seen a claim that 1 engine was turned off just before ignition and one shut down automatically.
-
Just a piece of pure speculation on my part.
I wonder if having all these engines so close together they might constrain one another's exhaust like a large extension on the exhaust "bell" and increase the ISP and thrust by a small percentage. When you are talking 7590 tons of thrust a couple % is a lot of thrust.
So if after a few launches anything like this turns out to be happening remember I said it first. ;)
-
not likely Plasma tends to obey fluid dynamic principles so unless the outlets are polarized to setup some kind of projected containment the exhaust streams should behave like fast moving streams of water when they encounter each other in a concentrated state. fortunately in a 0 pressure situation the plasma will quickly become low density limiting the opportunities for such interactions.
-
Launch currently March 10th but this has changed many times before.
-
Just a piece of pure speculation on my part.
I wonder if having all these engines so close together they might constrain one another's exhaust like a large extension on the exhaust "bell" and increase the ISP and thrust by a small percentage. When you are talking 7590 tons of thrust a couple % is a lot of thrust.
So if after a few launches anything like this turns out to be happening remember I said it first. ;)
Apparently the sound was much less than expected. I haven't seen any source speculate why - except me of course. ;)
My explanation is that the exhaust of the outer ring of engines blocks the sound of the inner engines escaping to the sides (only down). Also of course the sound from those engines that goes towards the next engine in the ring or inwards is also blocked from escape.
These sound waves could be the constraining factor in the prior post. Doesn't need a polarized plasma.
-
It is apparently being rumored that ULA is for sale and that they hope to sell it this year. Lots of confidence at the company for the success of Vulcan Centaur obviously.
-
Just watching the launch of the Terran 1 rocket from Relativity Space. The rocket is supposed to be 85% 3d printed.
Launch was scrubbed due to an "internal abort". Exact reason not yet announced.
Edit: Fuel pressure was 1 PSI low.
-
Terran 1 did fly. The 2nd stage engine didn't do a full run so the flight did not achieve orbit.
The New Shepard failure has now had an explanation. Engineering changes allowed too much heat in streaks to affect the engine bell resulting in a failure.
Blue Origin claims that some would be passengers want to use the abort engine for "extra thrills" but they said no.
-
Once again there is a date for Starship 1st launch the 17th. Now will it or won't it?
-
And this is a completed ship or another test article?
-
Not cargo carrying but it will be a full launch with the potential to achieve a successful reentry and both stages are to attempt a "water landing" like the Falcon 9 had to successfully do before the first recovery. A full load of engines and presumably fuel and a heat shield on the 2nd stage. Maybe even Starlink for communications. It is the last one using hydraulic gymabling the next launch will use electric. So it is a full launch but it can reasonably be termed a "test article" too.
-
Since Virgin orbits failed launch they have entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Not a liquidation (yet) but pretty bad.
Virgin Galactic (the space tourism company derived from Spaceship One) is NOT affected (at least directly) by the Virgin Orbit problems. But it has been a long time since their one passenger flight so it is worrisome.
ULA is looking for a buyer. Also not looking good.
Boeing is looking to take a large loss on "Starliner".
One Web on the other hand has completed the first stage of their constellation (after multiple brushes with total failure).
Vulcan Centaur 1st launch is now "June" and Starliner "July" for 1st manned launch.
-
The FAA has issues the launch license for next week with the primary day being April 17th. SpaceX has installed the flight termination system which would seem to indicate that they expect the launch. The license covers at least Monday to Friday to allow for "slippage".
Apparently the 2nd stage will not attempt the vertical "ocean landing" but will do a belly flop horizontal impact, heat shield down. Curious. Hope we get video of both landings and an explanation. It could be to ensure a breakup so no one else can recover it or just to find out how much of an impact it can survive.
Indicators are that the 2nd stage is going to be given 3 more vacuum engines sooner than expected and be lengthened to about 60-61 meters. What this will do for payload and/or general performance is an unanswered question.
So looks like it should REALLY happen this time or at least VERY soon.
-
won't that destroy evidence on how well the heat shield holds up?
-
Maybe they don't expect it to? Or they could plan to have not just telemetry but telescopic high speed video from all angles. I haven't heard a reason for this and find it surprising.
-
Terran 1 did fly. The 2nd stage engine didn't do a full run so the flight did not achieve orbit.
The valves for the fuel didn't open fast enough and there was an O2 bubble inhibiting flow so the pumps didn't work right.
Terran 1 will not fly again.
Terran R is scaled back and won't fly this year. 2nd stage not reusable. NOT going to be fully 3d printed just mostly. Will have a bigger fairing than anything currently flying (Starship is bigger but not YET flying).
-
Starship launch - scrubbed due to a valve issue. Seems that a plastic retainer on the valve screws either came off or wasn't on and the screws became loose. Not absolutely sure how the site got that info or how accurate it is, so take it as unverified.
Launch date now Thur. morning.
Edited for date change.
-
Starship achieved lift off and 40 KM. The stage separation maneuver failed. It also appears that not all engines were functioning (whether partial or non functional not yet clear). It is also unclear if the RUD was by the flight termination system or some form of failure.
-
Well thats not a good start As I recall they had entered a period where they couldn't afford to lose tat meany engines all at once.
-
They planned to lose these engines. Neither stage was planned for recovery. So that is not an issue.
They have also been making at least one engine a day for months now. 39 engines takes 39 days or less to build and they won't be launching that fast for a fair while.
I've seen a claim (without evidence) that some engines failed by concrete impacts and that the hyraulic gimballing failed causing the separation failure. Totally unsubstantiated as of yet but at least possible.
-
While I'm not an expert It is my considered opinion based on the footage I saw that the booster began venting something, probably fuel, from 2 points on the same side that caused the spin. After that proved unrecoverable they self destructed the ship. I believe that at the moment they started the role an RCS quad catastrophically failed perforating the main fuel tank.
nevermind I was wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8q24QLXixo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8q24QLXixo)
-
Scott Manley is a good source. He has connections AND understanding.
Marcus House put out a quick video today with a picture of the crater under the launch stand.
-
they shouldn't have gone with the lowest bidder on that one.
-
.
-
Yeah that's no where near thick enough and I dont see any rebar so not reinforced either
-
There is rebar showing in other photos.
Interestingly a old NASA study has been released (or maybe rereleased) showing that with big rockets a flame trench will redirect the sound waves up at the sides of the rocket potentially being more damaging. It also appears to recommend the cooled steel plate that SpaceX is working on and that a deluge system CAN'T be big enough to do the job.
I do wonder if the plate is to be level or tilted to direct away from the rocket. Maybe conical?
-
Now the environmental groups are demanding full environmental impact assessments that could set Space X back years.
-
Could. But considering that it has already been judged by the FAA as not having caused ecological damage I think it has a moderate chance of success. Concrete isn't really that damaging to the environment. The debris from the ship is in the Gulf mostly stainless steel, again not really damaging more an interesting new reef for fish.
Even a totally successful flight would likely had this challenge due to the noise. In fact I expect that if and when they start seriously preparing to do sea launches there will be similar complaints that the noise could damage wildlife (cetaceans specifically).
-
Starship achieved lift off and 40 KM. The stage separation maneuver failed. It also appears that not all engines were functioning (whether partial or non functional not yet clear). It is also unclear if the RUD was by the flight termination system or some form of failure.
Apparently the spin was NOT part of the stage separation maneuver.
The RUD was by the flight termination but due to altitude (and IMO velocity) took an extra 40 seconds to breakup. Next Starship more explosives so a bigger quicker boom if required.
I've seen a claim (without evidence) that some engines failed by concrete impacts and that the hyraulic gimballing failed causing the separation failure. Totally unsubstantiated as of yet but at least possible.
This seems not to be true. They were unrelated to impacts as it seems the exhaust was enough to divert debris from the engines.
-
Raptor Version 3 announced. 350 bar chamber pressure. 269 tons of thrust (up 11.7% from 230%) so unless they decrease the number of Raptors overall thrust jumps to 8877 tons. Raising the thrust to mass ration to 1.775. So will they have this amazing ratio, reduce the # of Raptors OR make the ship taller?
A company called Vast has contracted to use Falcon 9 to launch Haven 1 a commercial Space Station. They have plans to use rotation for simulated lunar gravity. They also plan to use Starship to launch components to build a 100 meter long modular Station.
-
The Axiom 2 mission is at the ISS now. If you have forgotten Axiom is planning to use Falcon 9 to launch several ISS modules that will eventually be able to split off and become an independent station.
So which will be the first commercial independent station?
Axiom space? Falcon launched.
Vast with Haven 1? Falcon launched.
OR
Orbital Reef backed by a team with Blue Origin and requiring New Glenn?
Lots of progress at Boca Chica repairing and building new pad protections for Stage 0. Plans are to use one of the sub orbital pads for static fires on SN25 and maybe SH9
-
SpaceX is also attempting to get permits to allow the launch of Falcon 9 up to 20 times (the extra launches all Starlink for now).
There was also a burst test tank that observers think wasn't a normal test to failure (or unexpected failure) but a test of an updated flight termination system to ensure that a future Starship self destruct will be quicker even at high altitudes and velocities.
Vulcan now forecast to launch in July.
Starliner is now July.
New Glenn December (but I have SERIOUS doubt of it flying this year).
Dreamchaser in December.
-
Subject to change of course but the 2nd launch is now being predicted as in August.
Booster 9 and Starship 25 seem to be the test models for the launch.
-
Starliner delayed till September. The safety margin if a parachute fails is considered "unacceptable". Tape used to hold wiring in place has been found to be flammable which is not allowed. Thermal control is inadequate.
SpaceX are building a new mega bay and they are removing the low bay at Boca Chica to make room to expand the "Star Factory".
Axiom 2 have been to the ISS and returned. Axiom 3 will launch in November.
SpaceX has had at least 34 launches already this year so they are on course to blow away last years record number of launches.
-
Subject to change of course but the 2nd launch is now being predicted as in August.
Booster 9 and Starship 25 seem to be the test models for the launch.
Musk has apparently said that the repairs will be complete in June, boosters tests in July and if things go as planned launch in August. Naysayer of course are saying not till next year.
Apparently they have begun to receive liquid nitrogen and LOX at the launch tank farm. So either this is just for testing the tanks or they are doing some really early preparation for July testing. I'd say tank testing.
-
BE-4 engine causing Vulcan Centaur delays:
United Launch Alliance called off a test-firing of the company’s first flight-rated Vulcan Centaur rocket at Cape Canaveral Thursday to troubleshoot a problem with the booster’s engine ignition system.
Ground crews planned to ignite the Vulcan rocket’s two Blue Origin-built BE-4 engines on a launch pad at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station Thursday evening, but ULA officials postponed the test-firing and roll the rocket back to its hangar for repairs.
“During the countdown, the team observed a delayed response from the booster engine ignition system that needs further review prior to proceeding with the flight readiness firing,” ULA said in a statement Thursday. “We will be rolling the rocket back to the Vertical Integration Facility to gain access to the booster ignition system.”
ULA rolled the rocket on its mobile launch platform back to the Vertical Integration Facility Friday. The company has not set a new target date for the six-second test-firing of the first stage’s two BE-4 engines, a prerequisite for the inaugural launch of the Vulcan Centaur rocket designed to replace ULA’s Atlas and Delta rocket families.
“The team will continue to review data and determine when Vulcan can roll back to the pad to conduct the flight readiness firing,” ULA said.
-
ULA has apparently had a successful 6 second static fire test of the BE-4 engines on Vulcan.
Boeing is being sued over a tool used on SLS to prevent the leakage that was so much trouble blocking various launch attempts. Claim is that they helped a competitor to the tool maker steal proprietary information to clone it (badly?) to the damage of the inventors.
-
Looks like both Vulcan Centaur and Starliner are delayed until at least September.
Vulcan delayed due to a potential weakness in the upper stage fuel tank that needs to be checked out at the factory and possibly reinforced. If it needs reinforcement the question becomes will it launch this year and does it affect the payload capacity?
-
SN 25 has done a successful 6 engine static fire.
They also are changing the separation mechanism (maybe for the next launch) to involve igniting Starships engines while still connected to the booster while the booster is still running its engines. Apparently by not having a short period of new thrust the potential is to increase payload by another 10%.
-
The Falcon 9 booster used for Demo Crew 2 has now flown and landed for the 16th time. So it looks like they did get permission to fly them 20 times.
The last Ariane 5 has now flown. Ariane 6 is not yet ready to fly.
-
The Orbital Launch Mount (OLM) for Starship repairs is far enough along that they are testing some elements.
Booster 10 is undergoing some tests (not engine). Boosters up to 12 are under clear construction.
Lots of work on the Star Factory building.
Indications that they may have a solution for the issues with the PEZ dispenser hatch.
A 2nd Falcon 9 flew and landed for the 16th time.
A BE-4 during acceptance testing exploded. It is being played down as a minor issue but personally I think it is potentially of great significance considering how few have (to my knowledge) reached this stage. They are talking of making about 50 engines a year. Is this 1 week per engine or are they working on them in parallel and wasting more weeks if one fails?
-
Super Heavy Booster #9 is on the orbital launch mount and undergoing pressure testing. So much for the OLM not being ready this year.
BN #9 doesn't have the hot staging hardware installed. Will it be added or will hot staging happen with a later booster.
Musk has stated that with Raptor 3 they should have 200 tons to LEO with full reusability. So how much in expendable mode? 325 tons? Great capacity for building a bigger better station.
-
not to be a cycnic, but Musk's companies have exaggerated their claims extensively, from Boring to Starlink to Tesla (see the news reported by Reuters on that last week). I'm not saying Starship won't work or deliver tonnage to LEO; it's just hard to take anything Musk says seriously anymore.
-
SpaceX is more run by Gwynne Shotwell than by Musk. It has also changed the face of the whole space industry. So maybe Musk exagerates things for SpaceX (time lines definitely will be longer than his claims) but Shotwell does seem to keep him relatively close to reality.
BN 9 just had a static fire 4 engines did not ignite so it was 29 engines with the deluge plate. So far no information on any damage to the OLM. Also no info on the level of thrust, I'd guess minimum (which might affect the ignition). So it is hypothetically possible for an August launch but more likely Sept. to Nov. (IMO). Musk claiming a 50% chance of achieving orbit.
Now since the failures to ignite happened during a static fire it was not destroyed and hopefully they can diagnose the issue(s). I also haven't seen anything saying which engines. Were they all in the outer 20 or in the inner 13 with their differing ignition systems or were they spread between both? Was the ignition failure connected to the minimal amount of methane aboard?
The source I use for launches has switched from saying "August" to "August 30th", doesn't mean it will happen then, I'm sure this is just a place holder.
The same source shows multiple Vulcan launches in December and Starliner in September. I have my doubts that they will do more than one at most of the Vulcan launches in December as they will want time to evaluate it. ULA IS up for sale and they need Vulcan to show value for the future. Blue Origin could buy them to give them orbital launch capability.
Starliner had so many issues that it is hard to believe given how slow Boeing is to deal with things that they will launch that soon. Then again Boeing has wanted to launch with unresolved issues before, NASA however does NOT like risking actual astronauts so I doubt it will launch so soon. I wouldn't be totally shocked if Boeing cancelled the whole thing as the longer it takes to fly the greater their losses mount and the less chance they will recover the investment. Maybe they can sell it to Blue Origin to give them manned ability on New Glenn? They could also pair it with Vulcan if they were to buy ULA.
Of course Blue Origin once again has a December launch for New Glenn. Not the first time for a inaugural December launch plan for New Glenn, I think this is the 3rd December in a row "planned". Given that ULA is supposed to get priority on the engines for Vulcan it seems unlikely that they will be able to spare 7 for New Glenn. They take weeks to manufacture and they don't have SpaceX level of production lines for this. They have apparently now announced construction of a payload integration building but how long to actually build it? It has to be big enough for the full stack New Glenn and of course the ability to transport the fully loaded New Glenn to and from the launch pad. I haven't heard anything about them actually ordering let alone receiving their (SpaceX clone) landing barge, so no reuse is likely too soon unless they can land on land.
I don't have a lot of faith in Blue Origin. Too little actual performance for too many years and too little transparency.
-
Starliner is testing new parachute connections, there will be drop tests. The tape issue has some of the tape being replaced and other tape that can't be removed without damage being covered with a layer of a non flammable tape. Next flight won't be before March 2024 and is not actually scheduled yet as they will have to see where it can fit in with all the other ISS missions. No word on whether it will definitely be manned or not.
The first Kuiper satellites are now provisionally sometime in September as the rocket for the first planned launch (Vulcan I believe) isn't ready to fly and may not fly this year though it does seem to be scheduled for December. Why they bought launches only on 3 not yet flown boosters I don't know but it wasn't bright and all 3 are delayed (Ariane 6 and New Glenn are the other 2). This launch is on an Atlas (few Atlas flights left due to no more Russian engines).
Vulcan have multiple December launches planned. I DON'T believe that they will launch a 2nd within less than a month and probably longer as there will be a lot of flight data to check before a 2nd launch. Vulcan delays are causing issues for multiple companies.
Russia is launching a lander to the moon but due to the fact that this lander was built decades ago and never used they only give it a 50/50 chance of success. Totally obsolete technology won't accomplish much compared to what a new design would but they are rather busy and cash strapped with their "conquest" of Ukraine taking a little longer than planned.
-
2nd full static fire of BN9. 2 engines cut out after 2 or 3 seconds 31 engines ran the full time.
-
The first Kuiper satellites are now provisionally sometime in September as the rocket for the first planned launch (Vulcan I believe) isn't ready to fly and may not fly this year though it does seem to be scheduled for December. Why they bought launches only on 3 not yet flown boosters I don't know but it wasn't bright and all 3 are delayed (Ariane 6 and New Glenn are the other 2). This launch is on an Atlas (few Atlas flights left due to no more Russian engines).
Amazon is being sued by a major stockholder over the Kuiper launch contract. SpaceX wasn't asked for a bid and there was (allegedly) little or no oversight about Bezos as head of Amazon being involved on the bids for Amazon AND for Blue Origin. Allegedly it was because of his "rivalry" with Musk that SpaceX wasn't asked to bid. The lawsuit claims that not letting SpaceX bid cost 100s of Millions of $$.
Since Vulcan, Ariane 6 and New Glenn STILL haven't launched (and may not this year) they risk defaulting on their orbital licensing by not getting the first satellites up on time or not having 1/2 in orbit (more than 1600 more than 800 tons) by July 2026 and all by July 2029 (total 3236 satellites and more than 1600 tons), some perhaps on the few Atlas V rockets left (no more Russian engines) or on the 3 unproven launch vehicles 2 of which rely on the unflown BE-4 engines.
Assuming 20 tons per launch they need in excess of 40 launches in less than 3 years. Then another 40.
Ariane 6 20+ tons to LEO
Vulcan Centaur 27+ tons to LEO
New Glenn 45 tons to LEO
Falcon 9 22+ tons to LEO
Even using New Glenn with 45 tons to LEO it is 18 launches in the next 3 years with no attempts yet made and the "scheduled" December flight extremely doubtful. Without a reusable booster that would require 126 engines with each engine taking weeks to make. They need to mass produce reliable BE-4 and BE-4 has yet to be flown. This is especially problematic since the Vulcan Centaur is supposed to by contract get priority and each of its launches take 2 BE-4 engines and at least initially (could be years) they won't be reusable (if ever).
Kuiper NEEDS Falcon 9 or Starship.
-
Blue Origin is apparently pulling out of the Orbital Reef Station. Their New Glenn was to be the literal backbone of the Reef so can it continue without them?
So the questions are 1/ is it true? 2/ why? Is New Glenn not going to be available?
Maybe their partners should talk to Musk about a Musks Reef as I suggested previously.
-
Looks possible for a launch this Friday of the 2nd Starship attempt at orbit.
A Falcon 9 has now done 18 flights.
-
Starship now set for Saturday Nov. 18th morning. They had to remove the hot staging ring and replace a faulty grid fin actuator.
Two Falcon 9 are also launching Saturday morning.
I don't have details but there are reports of a Chinese company landing a booster. I don't know if this is one that flew to orbit or just a up and down low level flight.
The Chinese rocket was the equivalent of the SpaceX starhopper. It went up less than 200 meters never achieved anything like a high velocity. Its landing legs are permanently deployed and it bounced pretty high on landing. 29 meters tall.
-
Details are lacking at this point but Starship did launch and achieve separation. The 1st stage did their flip maneuver and seemed to ignite the engines for return then exploded. The 2nd stage had full ignition and after nearly full burn time the signal was lost with apparent self destruct.
Not a full success but still far better than the naysayers claimed would happen (they predicted it would at best explode on separation due to the hot staging).
How successful the deluge plate was still needs to be revealed. Was there damage?
Not a full success but still a very good test.
-
I don't know how official this is but I've seen it reported that the next Starship flight is tentatively in December no precise date. I'd expect it to slip into January or February as adjustments are made to "ensure" a more successful flight.
Falcon Heavy flies on Dec 7th.
-
Amazon is being sued by a major stockholder over the Kuiper launch contract. SpaceX wasn't asked for a bid and there was (allegedly) little or no oversight about Bezos as head of Amazon being involved on the bids for Amazon AND for Blue Origin. Allegedly it was because of his "rivalry" with Musk that SpaceX wasn't asked to bid. The lawsuit claims that not letting SpaceX bid cost 100s of Millions of $$.
Amazon has now signed a deal with SpaceX for 3 launches beginning in mid 2025. A token contract so far.
I recently saw an article that Blue Origin was planning to begin to build a integration building for New Glenn and a manufacturing facility for BE-4 engines. PLANNING only so far. They have been PLANNING December launches of New Glenn for 3 years so far and orbital launches in general for 23+ years.
What are the odds they can have the integration building ready for August 2024? How about having the manufacturing facility up and running in time to make all the required engines? I have severe doubts.
-
.
-
The booster used for Crew Demo for the first SpaceX manned mission to the ISS recently flew and landed its 19th mission. On the way back to port under heavy seas (10-20' waves) it toppled and broke in 2. R.I.P..
Engines are expected to be salvaged.
UPDATE: Nothing much really but apparently since this on was built 3 1/2 years ago they have added automatic leveling to let them handle waves better so a newer unit might have survived.
-
SpaceX has had 98 launches in 2023, short of their planned 100. This last Falcon Heavy launch blocked several planned Falcon 9 with all its delays tying up the rocket transporter that takes weeks to readjust to and from the Falcon Heavy configuration. Still VERY impressive especially with most of them being already flown boosters. They plan 140 launches next year, whether that will be reduced if Starship goes into operation with its higher payload I wouldn't try to predict.
Currently looks like the 3rd Starship (SN28 and BN10) will be in March. They just (within hours of each other) did a single engine static fire for SN28 and a 33 engine static fire for BN10, both successful tests. SN28 has had test opening and closing of the cargo slot so this one seems to be planning to be launched without welding it closed. The question is will it have any Starlink 2 satellites (or even mass simulators for them) when the launch occurs?
Vulcan has slipped to January 8th with the 2nd not till April where it is planned to carry Dreamchaser, the Sierra Nevada mini shuttle. Proving my prediction that they wouldn't launch multiple Vulcans in quick succession after the 1st launch without at least a month or two to analyze data from the prior launch successful or not.
New Glenn is now only showing 1 launch and that in August, 3rd year in a row cancelling their late December debut launch again as I expected. The other 2024 launches no longer show up on the schedule I'm using.
I have seen one unsubstantiated claim that Blue Origin may buy ULA. If so and assuming that BE-4 and Vulcan work it would finally give them orbital capability but knowing Bezos he would start calling the history of ULA and all the companies that went into them as Blue Origin history. I hate it when companies do that.
2024 ought to be eventful in the Space industry especially if all the planned new vehicles become functional. Starship, Vulcan, New Glenn, Arianne 6 and several others in various stages as boosters. The Starliner capsule if it works and isn't cancelled as a white elephant. Dreamchaser for cargo to and from orbit and the ISS with the potential in the future to be manned. Who knows what the Chinese and Indians will do as well? There are some fairly novel things in the works.
HAPPY NEW YEAR! to all.
-
Vulcan flew successfully but the payload propulsion has caused issues (not the fault of ULA) so the lunar lander won't be landing, last I heard they were considering backup options to make some use of its science abilities from space.
There are people crowing about how the Blue Origin BE-4 engine is the first methalox engine to achieve orbit. First of course since only the 1st stage has methalox engines none of them actually achieved orbit and second without the SRBs in addition to the BE-4 engines (2) the Vulcan wouldn't have got off the ground.
Vulcan will be competing with Falcon 9 mostly to start and is substantially more expensive to fly. Non reusable with plans to (maybe) one day recover the 2 BE-4 engines for reuse but nothing else to my knowledge. Don't expect many to fly per year, it won't be flying as often as Falcons.
Blue Origin has rolled out a "complete New Glenn booster". I put it in quotes because the inter stage unit to connect to the 2nd stage is not a flight capable unit. No insulation and no control surfaces. The "engine unit" is totally covered but has no aft control surfaces, looks like no landing legs and if there are engines you can't see any sign of them. Most likely just a test unit for cryo tests and maybe static fires if they have any engines (they need 7).
If this booster ever flies it will need a lot of work just to be in condition to try a sea landing (I don't think they yet have a drone ship to land on). I seriously doubt that this one will fly. Allegedly they have 3 more under construction.
-
SpaceX has torn out 2 of the vertical tanks in the Boca Chica tank farm.
They have started shipping tower components made in Florida to Boca Chica to build a 2nd tower there.
Axiom has another crew on the ISS (3rd flight for the Crew Dragon capsule).
They are designing a Starship 3 that will be 20-30 meters longer. The tower would of course need to be taller. No more details on cargo capacity etc. They seem to have redesigned (but not installed on any ship yet) the payload door into a 3 part door.
Starlink has demonstrated being able to send and receive text messages from a "standard tech" cell phone. Whether this means existing cell phones can be used with it or not is not clear (to me anyhow). They are demonstrating a backpack portable "dish" for mobile starlink connection, apparently "laptop sized".
The failed Peregrine lunar lander was made to re-enter and has burned up. The Japanese lander did deploy (while landing) two small lunar rovers and landed but contact has been lost either because it rolled over or landed out of direct sunlight.
-
Ingenuity has had its last flight due to rotor damage. The mission length was 33 times what was planned. R.I.P.
-
Now assume a successor was build inside a Starship cargo bay and flown there with a detachable nose cone section, if it was refueled first in orbit and used a minimum energy trajectory how long could it stay on station?
A Hubble replacement could be built the same way 8 meters in diameter. Of course if it stayed in LEO repair/refurbishment/upgrade missions would be easily practical if Starship works to spec.
Building a telescope inside a Starship 2nd stage is now an official option from SpaceX. Nice to be right.
-
Info on IFT2. The booster explosion was due to a Raptor exploding as a result of insufficient oxygen flow through a filter.
The O2 dump from the Starship caused multiple explosions that seem to have severed sensor connections resulting in the engine shutdown.
The recent lander on the moon that fell over landed off target on a 12 degree slope which probably contributed to it falling.
The JAXA lunar lander that also landed badly but which had some solar power allowing it to complete some missions survived the lunar night (it wasn't designed to) and is back in communication and continuing to function.
-
Just seeing that IFT 3 is now listed as next Thursday morning.
They have done a wet dress rehearsal. Fueling was done in something like 49 minutes and they think the upgrades that they have done will get that down to 42 minutes. That is for BOTH stages at the same time.
-
Launch occurred
33 engines for full duration
Successful hot staging separation
Booster did the initial relight after separation for boost back burn.
The relight for the "ocean landing" seems to have been at best partial.
Starship burn reached coast phase.
Pez doors did open.
Relight did not occur. It is unclear at this point whether that was a computer decision or a failure of the engines to relight.
Re-entry seemed to be a tumble that could not be controlled. Why is unclear. Were all the flaps working correctly or not?
During re-entry there was continued video through the Starlink system even with the tumble through the plasma that normally blocks transmissions. It is believed that the loss of transmission was due to it breaking up. The video during plasma showed debris which might have been detaching heat tiles, ice or something else.
So a big leap ahead but not full success.
On to IFT4. How much it will be delayed is unclear.
Still over all a big success.
-
Relight did not occur. It is unclear at this point whether that was a computer decision or a failure of the engines to relight.
The roll (not explained) caused the computer to not relight the engines. It was not an engine failure but the roll itself is not explained. It burned up during re-entry.
The booster not relighting properly seems to have it exploding at 460+ meters in altitude (not a flight termination as the explosives had been "safed").
Funny watching the naysayers ignore that their predicted failures didn't occur and target the goals not accomplished instead and predicting that this is the best that could happen in the future (just like they did after the 1st two flights).
IFT4 now showing as April 2024 (no day of the month). Lets see if the FAA will issue another license that quick.
-
Musk gave a talk where he claims that Starship will (eventually) be able to deliver 200+ tons to LEO with full re-usability. Is this Musk hyperbole or real? How much with expending the second stage? How much with expending both stages?
-
I'm prone to be extremely critical of Musk, but I suppose "eventually" is key to that claim. Saturn's LEO payload for the Apollo lunar missions was 140 tons for CM, LEM and fuel fifty years ago, so 200 tons seems doable.... eventually.
-
IFT4 now showing as April 2024 (no day of the month). Lets see if the FAA will issue another license that quick.
Now showing as May 2024. Either they expect delays due to needed modifications to address the issues revealed or more time for the FAA to be satisfied (maybe both).
I'm prone to be extremely critical of Musk, but I suppose "eventually" is key to that claim. Saturn's LEO payload for the Apollo lunar missions was 140 tons for CM, LEM and fuel fifty years ago, so 200 tons seems doable.... eventually.
Don't forget that you lose a significant amount of payload by going for reusable. Also potentially lowering cost/kg significantly.
Musk might be well advised to keep the current size for rockets that need to be fully refueled in orbit and the larger size for orbital cargo and fuel deliveries. 200+ tons of fuel delivered by a V3 to a V2 configuration could refuel it in 6 missions (1200 tons fuel if dry).
-
If IFT 4 works fully (for the booster) they MAY on flight 5 try a booster catch. If Starship succeeds in the deorbit burn it may mean that flight 5 could deploy Starlink satellites.
The current design is apparently limited to 40-50 tons to orbit with full reusabillity. This is version 1
Version 2 100 tons with full reusability
Version 3 200 tons with full reusability. 400 tons expendable. Total height nearly 150 meters, lengthening both stages. Could be 3 times the thrust of Saturn V.
Naturally being Musk this may include hyperbole.
2025 Starship to Starship fuel transfer testing.
EDITED: Some updates after seeing the weekly Marcus House video
-
Crewed Starliner launch is planned for May 6th. Best of luck to the astronauts but I wouldn't fly in it.