For something different, did we discuss the new Starlink dishes that are square?

Quote:

---

The rectangular satellite dish that will be sent to new users is 1912 inches, compared to the original circular dish's diameter of 23.2 inches. The dish's weight is 9.2 lbs, down from the original's 16 lbs. The operating temperature range of -22F to +122F (-30C to +50C) is unchanged, so the thermal shutdowns that have affected some users of the original "Dishy McFlatface" satellite dish could continue to be a problem.

The Federal Communications Commission approved Starlink's new user terminals on Wednesday. The main differences between the old and new equipment are described in the specifications section of a support FAQ.

There are some additional mounting options for the new satellite dish, including wall mounts that come in two different sizes and are "designed for installation on an exterior wall near the top of the gable." You can see mounting options for the new user terminal in this document and mounting options for the previous terminal here. Each user terminal comes with a base for ground-level installation, while mounting hardware is sold separately.

New Wi-Fi router lacks Ethernet port
The updated hardware kit's Wi-Fi router uses 33 MU-MIMO instead of the previous 22 MU-MIMO, so it can transmit in three spatial streams instead of two. There is one downgrade in the new router, as it doesn't have an Ethernet port like the original did. Starlink's website notes that users can buy an Ethernet adapter in the Starlink shop.

"To connect a 3rd party router or mesh system, you will need to purchase the Ethernet Adapter from the Starlink Shop to allow for a wired connection to the network. Bypass functionality is coming soon, and we are actively working on development of a Starlink mesh product," the website says.

The original Wi-Fi router supported operating temperatures of +32F to +86F (0C to +30C) while the new one supports a wider range of -22F to +122F (-30C to +50C), according to the support FAQ. The new router also has an IP54 dust- and water-resistance rating, the same rating listed for both the old and new satellite dishes. These changes suggest that this new version of the router could be used outdoors, but the FAQ says the router is still "configured for indoor use."

---

I'd have to guess most of us who wind up going the starlink route in Texas will get this model, or rather hopefully one that also includes an Ethernet port. Also an intent to drop the price to $250 to 300 sounds good.

Considering scorched earth is the hallmark of Russian military strategy for the last 200 years, I don't think it's an unreasonable fear.

NYT hit piece on a potential location in Indonesia for a space port for SpaceX.

I didn't even know that it was possibly in the cards. Seems risky to locate your glamorous American company assets (as opposed to the car batteries mentioned in the article) in an Islamic country. That X would take on a new meaning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/business/indonesia-spaceport-elon-musk.html

Quote:

---

Will an Island in Indonesia Become a New Frontier in the Space Race?

An Indigenous clan fears it will lose its place in the world as the government pursues a quest to open a spaceport and lure the billionaire SpaceX founder Elon Musk.

For 15 generations, members of the Abrauw clan have lived much like their ancestors. They farm with wooden plows in patches of the rainforest, gather medicinal plants and set traps to catch snakes and wild boar.

The land they occupy on Biak island is everything to them: their identity, the source of their livelihood and the link to their forebears. But now the tiny clan fears it will lose its place in the world as Indonesia pursues its longstanding quest to join the space age.

The Indonesian government claims to have acquired 250 acres of the clan's ancestral land decades ago and has planned since 2017 to build a small-scale spaceport there to launch rockets. Clan leaders say the project would force them from their homes.

Indonesia's president, Joko Widodo, personally pitched SpaceX's founder, Elon Musk, last year on the idea of launching rockets from Indonesia, without mentioning a site. Mr. Musk has yet to commit to a deal or comment on it publicly. But the possibility of his involvement has spurred a flurry of activity by Biak officials to promote the location, as well as renewed opposition from the island's Indigenous people.

Building a spaceport is part of Mr. Joko's push to modernize the Southeast Asian island nation with new airports, power plants and highways, often with little regard for environmental consequences. It is also part of the country's checkered history of using questionable methods to acquire land from Indigenous people, leaving some groups destitute while benefiting influential Indonesians and international companies.
. . .
Biak, nearly the size of Maui, sits just north of the island of New Guinea and is part of Indonesia's Papua Province. During World War II, American forces defeated the Japanese there in a key battle as Gen. Douglas MacArthur fought to retake the Pacific. Biak became part of Indonesia in the 1960s after the United Nations handed over the former Dutch territory of West Papua on the condition that Indonesia hold a popular vote.

Instead, in a 1969 vote regarded by many Papuans as rigged, Indonesia rounded up a thousand tribal leaders including chiefs from Biak and held them until they voted to join Indonesia in what paradoxically became known as "The Act of Free Choice."
. . .
The Indonesian officials who support the project say Biak, just 70 miles south of the Equator and facing the Pacific, would be ideal for launching rockets. SpaceX has plans to put tens of thousands of communications satellites into orbit in the coming years.

"This is our wealth," said Biak's regent, Herry Ario Naap, who is pushing for the spaceport. "Other regions may have oil or gold. We are given a strategic geographical location."

In wooing Mr. Musk, Mr. Joko suggested that his car company, Tesla, could also collaborate with Indonesia to make electric vehicle batteries, as Indonesia is the world's largest producer of nickel, a key component. A team from SpaceX visited Indonesia early this year to discuss possible cooperation, officials said.

Tesla submitted a battery production proposal to Indonesia in February, but the government declined to disclose details. Mr. Musk and his companies did not respond to requests for comment. In September, Mr. Joko bolstered the space program by increasing its budget twentyfold and placing it under the new National Research and Innovation Agency, which reports directly to him.

Laksana Tri Handoko, the agency chairman, who personally inspected the Biak site last month, said that the island remained a viable choice but that building the large spaceport he envisioned would require 10 times as much land. Controversy over the Biak site could prompt him to select an alternate location, such as Morotai island, about 550 miles northwest of Biak.

A key factor, he said, will be making sure the government has "clear and clean" title to the land. "Biak is not the one and only place," he said. "We have many options."
. . .
"Silence was the only choice," said Gerson Abrauw, a Protestant pastor and cousin of the clan chief. He dismissed government assurances that a spaceport would provide employment.

"They say the spaceport project will create jobs, but there is no space expert in our clan and in our villages," he said. "What they mean is three years of cutting down trees, removing roots and digging foundations. After that, there will be a feast to say goodbye to us and then only those with an access card can enter the area."

---

Indonesia has a very healthy aerospace industry, which they invest a lot in. Not that I'm an expert by any means but I think they've bought F-16's for instance from us, and build even some helicopters/transports via alliances with us/Europe also. It's a part of the world that has never interested me at all (and I'd never go to a muslim country willingly) but really a huge population.

The NYT hit piece is probably propaganda, as with most everything else they put out nowadays. I mean, even the Dutch have gotten over losing this colony after WW2, I think.

Fun fact, they have over 600 airports, and with over 40% of SE Asia's population, with proximity to the equator/other large population centers, I could see SpaceX establishing them as one of their first asian launch/landing sites for Starship. For high dollar travelers on trips like Borneo, Singapore, Vietnam/Thailand/Australia etc., they are already paying in the $10K range I think for a trans-pac flight, so a starship experience could be...of interest.

12 million pounds of thrust at liftoff pic.twitter.com/4ArkgU4Vff

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 17, 2021

I can't imagine what that sound is going to feel like!

I understand the future versions of the raptor engines will be much less complex and will have much of that piping printed into a single block of metal.

Farther down that tweet chain there was comment about that & Elon replied to it. He confirmed that Raptor 2 would be much less complex but that the next iteration of the design that 'makes Starship truly interplanetary' would be vastly improved and would no longer be called Raptor.

Yeah, well, I've had to cuss at my in sink erator/garbage disposal a few times. Plumbing is hard. Hope they get it all right.

Centerpole90 said:

---

Farther down that tweet chain there was comment about that & Elon replied to it. He confirmed that Raptor 2 would be much less complex but that the next iteration of the design that 'makes Starship truly interplanetary' would be vastly improved and would no longer be called Raptor.

---

Speculation is running wild on this. Aerospike? Nuclear engine?

Malachi Constant said:

---

Centerpole90 said:

---

Farther down that tweet chain there was comment about that & Elon replied to it. He confirmed that Raptor 2 would be much less complex but that the next iteration of the design that 'makes Starship truly interplanetary' would be vastly improved and would no longer be called Raptor.

---

Speculation is running wild on this. Aerospike? Nuclear engine?

---

I think Elon Musk said in an interview a while back that the aerospike is not worth it.

Malachi Constant said:

---

Centerpole90 said:

---

Farther down that tweet chain there was comment about that & Elon replied to it. He confirmed that Raptor 2 would be much less complex but that the next iteration of the design that 'makes Starship truly interplanetary' would be vastly improved and would no longer be called Raptor.

---

Speculation is running wild on this. Aerospike? Nuclear engine?

---

A nuclear engine like VASIMR would make sense for interplanetary. You'd need to pack a nuclear reactor though.

Due to inflation 420 has gone up by 69

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 15, 2021

There is ZERO chance of anyone letting Elon have a nuclear reactor. None. Zilch. They won't even let NASA put a reactor on orbit.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

There is ZERO chance of anyone letting Elon have a nuclear reactor. None. Zilch. They won't even let NASA put a reactor on orbit.

---

NASA seems to be advancing still. I dunno if it will actually build anything in orbit but they are doing the government thing and at least throwing money at it; July 13, 2021 press release;

Quote:

---

NASA is leading an effort, working with the Department of Energy (DOE), to advance space nuclear technologies. The government team has selected three reactor design concept proposals for a nuclear thermal propulsion system. The reactor is a critical component of a nuclear thermal engine, which would utilize high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel.

The contracts, to be awarded through the DOE's Idaho National Laboratory (INL), are each valued at approximately $5 million. They fund the development of various design strategies for the specified performance requirements that could aid in deep space exploration.

Nuclear propulsion provides greater propellant efficiency as compared with chemical rockets. It's a potential technology for crew and cargo missions to Mars and science missions to the outer solar system, enabling faster and more robust missions in many cases.

"By working together, across government and with industry, the United States is advancing space nuclear propulsion," said Jim Reuter, associate administrator for NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate. "These design contracts are an important step towards tangible reactor hardware that could one day propel new missions and exciting discoveries."

Battelle Energy Alliance, the managing and operating contractor for INL, led the request for proposals, evaluation, and procurement sponsored by NASA using fiscal year 2021 appropriations. INL will award 12-month contracts to the following companies to each produce a conceptual reactor design that could support future mission needs:

• BWX Technologies, Inc. of Lynchburg, Virginia The company will partner with Lockheed Martin.

• General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems of San Diego The company will partner with X-energy LLC and Aerojet Rocketdyne.

• Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies of Seattle The company will partner with Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, Blue Origin, General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy, General Electric Research, Framatome, and Materion.

"INL is excited to enable the development of nuclear propulsion technology for potential use by NASA in future space exploration," said Dr. Stephen Johnson, national technical director for space nuclear power and director of the Space Nuclear Power and Isotope Technologies Division at INL. "Our national laboratories, working in partnership with industry, bring unparalleled expertise and capabilities to assist NASA in solving highly complex challenges that come with nuclear power and propulsion."

At the end of the contracts' performance periods, INL will conduct design reviews of the reactor concepts and provide recommendations to NASA. NASA will utilize the information to establish the basis for future technology design and development efforts.

NASA is also maturing a fission surface power system for use on the Moon and Mars. NASA intends to partner with the DOE and INL to release a request for proposals that asks industry for preliminary designs of a 10-kilowatt class system that NASA could demonstrate on the lunar surface. Maturing fission surface power can also help inform nuclear electric propulsion systems, another candidate propulsion technology for distant destinations.

NASA's space nuclear technologies portfolio is led and funded by its Space Technology Mission Directorate. The agency's Technology Demonstration Missions program manages the projects to mature affordable, reliable technologies and demonstrate system capabilities to meet power and propulsion needs for future deep space exploration. The program is based at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

---

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

There is ZERO chance of anyone letting Elon have a nuclear reactor. None. Zilch. They won't even let NASA put a reactor on orbit.

---

One of the reasons I have so much hope for the fusion experiment I posted a couple of pages back, it's far more likely to be allowed to launch.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

There is ZERO chance of anyone letting Elon have a nuclear reactor. None. Zilch. They won't even let NASA put a reactor on orbit.

---

One of the reasons I have so much hope for the fusion experiment I posted a couple of pages back, it's far more likely to be allowed to launch.

---

We've been safely launching fission nuclear power sources into space for over 40 years. Modern pellet-types of launches would actually be even safer from a launch tower type of explosion.

The standards for safe launches of nuclear materiel are well developed/have been used for some time, and I think are likely to be used in the future on private launches as well as government ones.

I keep forgetting about Gen IV reactors and their TRISO fuel. That could be the game changer.

My previous post was more stating:
1) Nobody is handing Elon radioactive material. Look at the obstacles thrown just from NASA trying to use SpaceX for a freaking Moon lander...

2) Thus far, while NASA has been able to launch fission-based power sources for decades, they pretty well do it by disguising it as the RTG. Sure, anyone who looks deep enough at it says "Hey, that's a nuclear device", but the common individual (especially today) is barely cognizant of NASA in general, let alone what an RTG actually is. But to launch a Gen IV reactor of the size needed to power something like VASIMR...not sure they'll be able to hide that. And when the environmental nutjobs hear "nuclear reactor" and "rocket" in the same sentence, I think we all know how THAT reaction will go.

I think someday we will see a nuclear reactor on a launch. You pretty much have to for us to truly be an interplanetary people. Solar will not cut the mustard on its own. But I don't see it happening before 2040, to be honest.

Even the voyager space craft is powered by radioactive elements. It's not a true reactor but the breakdown of the isotopes does provide the heat for power. Anything past that is over my head.

I understand we've been doing it for years on a small scale, but nothing anywhere near big enough for an interplanetary mission. I agree with the above.... if fission is ever used large scale on a launch, we're talking 2040 or later. Given the ridiculous attitude the US take to nuclear anything... I'm not so sure it will ever be allowed

I get the skepticism, but I also think we have the guidelines, (also, Nasa, in it's government way, has been trying to streamline the approval process) and technology to make it a very safe launch process. If a vehicle the scale of F9 for instance orbits a bunch of the pellets, the risks would be very low for radioactive ingestion even if it blew up 500 feet over the pad. That has not been the case until the past 5 years, but as per the Perseverance and a whole succession of probes planned, we are greatly increasing the use of nuclear power for probes/space exploration.

Quote:

---

NASA's next plutonium-powered spacecraft will be the Dragonfly rotorcraft mission, launching in 2027 to Saturn's strange moon Titan, which NASA says receives about 1% of the sunlight that Earth does. Because of Dragonfly's nuclear power source, the spacecraft will probably freeze to death in the landscape of liquid methane and towering water-ice cliffs long before it runs out of power, Zakrajsek said.

Dragonfly belongs to a class of NASA missions dubbed New Frontiers, the agency's more ambitious tier of planetary science expedition proposals that NASA accepts from scientists beyond its centers. The fact that NASA even considered Dragonfly much less selected it speaks to the agency's progress working with the Department of Energy to increase the supply of plutonium available to mission designers.
...
Zakrajsek called the fuel's availability for the more recent selection "a big deal." "The fact that we're not making mission-limiting decisions anymore based on RPS [radioisotope power systems] is important," she said. "It seems to be making the scientists a little bit more happy."

The transition is due, in part, to a NASA decision to annually evaluate its plutonium needs for the next decade, she said, giving the partnership more preparation to ensure the necessary supply. It's also due to the Department of Energy's decision to produce spacecraft plutonium at a steady rate a stark change from its previous process.

"NASA would approach the department and let us know, 'Hey, we've got a mission coming up,'" Tracey Bishop, the deputy assistant secretary for nuclear infrastructure programs at the Department of Energy, told Space.com. "We would pull the equipment out of standby, go and hire new staff, requalify equipment and processes, manufacture fuel, support the development of the RPSs and once the mission was over, we would stand down the capabilities and put them in cold standby until the next addition."

That system was designed in part because NASA spacecraft are the Department of Energy's only use for this particular material, plutonium oxide also dubbed plutonium-238. And spacecraft may not be what anyone thinks of first when asked about plutonium. "Our use is by far the least famous of the things that plutonium gets used for," Rymer said. (The plutonium used in nuclear weapons and reactors includes an extra neutron compared to the spaceflight variety.)

But in 2017, NASA and the Department of Energy decided that the stop-and-go process was too risky for the spacecraft that can't launch without plutonium-238. Bishop said that with the new steady-production system, the agency hopes to shave as much as two years off the production timeline, which could last up to a decade.

---

The point is the regulatory challenges are getting easier, not harder for space flight, despite the sometimes moronic politics of nuclear energy domestically. (And frankly, I think the absurd goals of the 'green new deal' idiots will probably lead to more nuclear power support down the road, but that is a derail I don't intend to follow here).

The actual propulsion unit/engine etc. (for a Mars mission) could be orbited separately and linked in flight, or, and this is the real goal, down the road SpaceX could do the launch from an offshore platform (via starship) so the real risk is so marginal to humans of a low altitude RUD there is only a marginal risk. The advances of SMR terrestrial technology are also helping to make more accessible/affordable nuclear propulsion available for space exploration.

Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the capability, nor NASA's success in laying the groundwork with regards to procedures and inter-agency cooperation. I think (somewhat surprisingly) that NASA understands that eventually it's going to have to look at new power generation schemes, nuclear is a really strong option, and they appear to be moving methodically in that direction.

The capability to launch nuclear stuff is there now. Heck, my philosophy when idiots are screaming "what do we do with the nuclear power waste?!" is to stick a lead-lined container on top of a Falcon Heavy and launch it at the sun.

The problem has, and will continue to be, public perception. There are so many uneducated fools on social media that have significant followings, all it takes is one of them saying that this would "destroy our atmosphere", and you've got a royal charlie-foxtrot on your hands. And unfortunately, there's enough mouth-breathing imbeciles in Congress (on both sides of the aisle, I'd like to point out) that would cave to this social pressure that could cause a lot of grief in the attempt to launch a reactor. That's why I'm not convinced we see anything before 2040. I'm honestly not even sure I'll live to see it, and I'm in my mid 30's (hopefully I'm wrong).

Elon had a presentation yesterday that was really good. I didn't take these notes, they're from /r/spacexlounge

• Orbital launch site complete this month
• First orbital flight of Starship in January
• HLS Starship will help make a permanent base on the moon
• Starship 90% funded by SpaceX so far
• Carbon fiber abandoned because potentially ignite with LOX, and difficult to mold accurately
• Stainless steel properties roughly equal to Carbon Fiber at cryogenic temperatures, easy to weld, tough resilient, cheap. Also resists high temperatures on reentry, so only partial heat shield required with lighter tiles
• Starship radiation protection - check weather report before lunar launch, some clever ways to solve for Mars should be possible (mini-magnetosphere?)
• Wants propellant production on the moon and Mars, then 100 tonnes payload to Europa possible
• Should land 2 or 3 Starships on Mars first, without people, hopefully with NASA support and other countries
• Big rockets really useful for asteroid defense, could save billions of people
• Heavy duty research on Mars: people there, who could dynamically decide what they wanted to do, would learn a tremendous amount and over time that would extend over greater solar system
• Once we can explore solar system can send robot probes to other star systems
• Tickets for Starship should be possible in two years (#Dearmoon?)
• Testing operational payloads in 2023 (Starlink?)
• Works closely with Vera Rubin Observatory to mitigate effects from Starlink
• Docking with propellant depot should be easier than with ISS
• Transferring biological material to Mars is inevitable should be limited to small area - big planet
• Tesla should help transition to sustainable energy, SpaceX to ensure long term survival of humanity
• Long term Neuralink allows symbiosis with AI (cant fight 'em join 'em!)
• Creating a multiplanetary civilization allows us to overcome one of the Great Filters (re. Fermi Paradox)
• Only a little of the sun's energy could power all human activity, 100 km square solar array could power all of United States, needs Solar + Battery. Clear path to sustainable energy future, we have all materials necessary (iron, lithium, silicon etc)

Astra scrubbed last night, looks like the will try again tonight. I'm hoping they make it, if for nothing else the stock price to recover lol

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Astra scrubbed last night, looks like the will try again tonight. I'm hoping they make it, if for nothing else the stock price to recover lol

---

amen to that! I am patient with them though. after all, it is rocket science! from what I have seen it was a weather related scrub though so standard stuff in rocket world.

Hawaii almost never has bad weather and is basically on the equator. We need to build a launch complex there, obviously.

nortex97 said:

---

Hawaii almost never has bad weather and is basically on the equator. We need to build a launch complex there, obviously.

---

One of their stated operational goals is to have multiple launch complexes worldwide. that is something I really like about them. Small, nimble, versatile.

Y'all may have seen this, but here is another article/blog post about nuclear thermal propulsion. I don't see this for SH/as a launch vehicle itself, but it is good to see the ideas bandied about at least.

Too long to excerpt, but an interesting skim/read.

nortex97 said:

---

Hawaii almost never has bad weather and is basically on the equator. We need to build a launch complex there, obviously.

---

Closer than Florida and Boca Chica but I wouldn't call 20deg N "basically on the equator"

New World Ag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Hawaii almost never has bad weather and is basically on the equator. We need to build a launch complex there, obviously.

---

Closer than Florida and Boca Chica but I wouldn't call 20deg N "basically on the equator"

---

Ok, but their weather is so much better/leads to less cancellations, it would still be worth it (until some damn volcano nearby erupts violently). Fun fact; Equador has the highest point on the equator (and is named for being on it).

I guess something around Quito would be cool too, but…we don't own it and I think they get more weather drama, plus you'd be landing boosters in the amazon (or maybe Atlantic?)

nortex97 said:

---

Y'all may have seen this, but here is another article/blog post about nuclear thermal propulsion. I don't see this for SH/as a launch vehicle itself, but it is good to see the ideas bandied about at least.

Too long to excerpt, but an interesting skim/read.

---

I'm comfortable saying nuclear-thermal propulsion - particularly the NERVA concept - will never see flight. It doesn't solve a problem that can't be solved an easier way.

Inside the orbit of Mars, solar-electric propulsion offers a more economical way to move payloads with super-high ISP. Beyond the orbit of Mars, you are better using nuclear-electric propulsion rather than just heating liquid H2. The combination of better ISP with high thrust is nice, but there's plenty of ways to mission plan that need away rather than develop expensive new tech.

New World Ag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Hawaii almost never has bad weather and is basically on the equator. We need to build a launch complex there, obviously.

---

Closer than Florida and Boca Chica but I wouldn't call 20deg N "basically on the equator"

---

Interesting idea, but I think the transportation logistics behind getting all the launch equipment and the rocket itself to Hawaii would be a lot more expensive than the few percentage points of performance it would save you...

Malachi Constant said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Hawaii almost never has bad weather and is basically on the equator. We need to build a launch complex there, obviously.

---

Closer than Florida and Boca Chica but I wouldn't call 20deg N "basically on the equator"

---

Interesting idea, but I think the transportation logistics behind getting all the launch equipment and the rocket itself to Hawaii would be a lot more expensive than the few percentage points of performance it would save you...

---

Don't forget the additional taxes, fees and payola for the local pols. Hawaii is one of the worst states in the union to do business in.

They're holding at t-30 to complete fueling. Think the weather may be more favorable.