SpaceX and other space news updates

1,002,220 Views | 12506 Replies | Last: 9 hrs ago by TXAG 05
Caliber
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bmks270 said:

Ag_of_08 said:

Not jyst a matter of removing mass, there's a new generation of engines on the way, as well as optimization coming along in construction.

In short yes, there is likely 50 or more tons that can be removed and/or made up for in performance.

That article is making some terrible conclusions and errors... I don't know what SLS program employee payed for it but jeez!! Seems like a hit piece designed to hand wave some of the major issues the SLS is fighting as spacex's fault


I wouldn't say a "new generation" on the way. Raptor 1 was the big leap.

There is some optimizations to be had as they learn what makes the engines happy, and what the limits are. But there isn't going to be a huge doubling of performance, maybe just a few percent.

Raptor 2 was basically the same as Raptor 1.

Nobody knows yet what chamber pressure they will settle on, I know that's one thing Elon was pushing was higher chamber pressure. So I expect some gains there.


50 tons is a lot, you can't increase isp indefinitely with optimization. It has a theoretical limit which is dependent on the fuel.
Raptor 2 was a bit more than a few percent increase... Raptor 3 may or may not be as big of a difference, but I'd be willing to bet that it is more than a 'few percent" increase at this point.

FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Taking the planned mass for flight test 3 as an absolute for production payload capacity seems pretty stupid.

From hit piece reporters to anyone biting on it.
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Caliber said:

bmks270 said:

Ag_of_08 said:

Not jyst a matter of removing mass, there's a new generation of engines on the way, as well as optimization coming along in construction.

In short yes, there is likely 50 or more tons that can be removed and/or made up for in performance.

That article is making some terrible conclusions and errors... I don't know what SLS program employee payed for it but jeez!! Seems like a hit piece designed to hand wave some of the major issues the SLS is fighting as spacex's fault


I wouldn't say a "new generation" on the way. Raptor 1 was the big leap.

There is some optimizations to be had as they learn what makes the engines happy, and what the limits are. But there isn't going to be a huge doubling of performance, maybe just a few percent.

Raptor 2 was basically the same as Raptor 1.

Nobody knows yet what chamber pressure they will settle on, I know that's one thing Elon was pushing was higher chamber pressure. So I expect some gains there.


50 tons is a lot, you can't increase isp indefinitely with optimization. It has a theoretical limit which is dependent on the fuel.
Raptor 2 was a bit more than a few percent increase... Raptor 3 may or may not be as big of a difference, but I'd be willing to bet that it is more than a 'few percent" increase at this point.




The truth is that a lot of what gets published from space companies is aspirational, including SpaceX.

There is a difference between what gets published and what is reality. I just don't believe the differences between Raptor 1 and 2 are as large as advertised based on my conversations with people that have intimate knowledge of the program.

Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

bmks270 said:

lb3 said:

SpaceX hasn't done much weight optimization at this point.

You think they have 50 tons worth of mass they can remove?
The article somehow takes Elon's statement about flight 3's mass to orbit as a payload capacity for starship. He was likely referring to the (mostly empty/no payload) total mass of the upper stage which is not going to even be carrying a (simulated) payload. I don't think it's real logical to surmise he was admitting to a 50% payload/performance shortfall.

There is credible analyses they aren't really 'stretching' the Raptor 2's yet in flight tests to their capacity, which is fine, but the Raptor 3's are the real goal now anyway. Just flying and re-lighting FFSC engines is pretty damn impressive.


Gracias.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agreed, and I thank you for taking a bit of a contrarian/skeptical look at it. My reason for confidence in the Raptor figures is just that they have built…a LOT of them for a developmental engine that hasn't gone (fully) into orbit yet even. I don't think they'd logically keep up a charade about the performance/goals if they know it's…not going to hit the figures, and also I think data would have leaked if they aren't getting the thrust numbers advertised.

As well, the rest of the speculation is about…the vehicle/stages themselves. I don't think it makes sense to assume the increased efficiency from the hot staging is actually…decreasing payload to orbit. That's neglecting the whole rationale behind it.

Things are changing and I have no idea what to expect in July/Starship 2 etc, but I do not see any evidence from the commentariat world that Starship is actually…drastically underperforming goals, just the opposite, though there are plenty of 'clickbait' headlines I realize from, heck Marcus House, Zach Golden, Angry Astronaut you name it. They also just removed a lot of the shielding from the design I think on the booster around the engines as it's not needed, so not all changes are adding mass/decreasing payload to be sure.

Myself, it's not the engine/payload specs that worry/concern me, it's whether the catch mechanism(s) will work as advertised anytime soon...if that huge system even survives re-entry. But I'm sure enjoying the show.

Mathguy64
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I mean if you are trying to cut 50 tons to put 50 more tons up, look no farther than the Raptors to get a good start.

Thats 400kg in savings per raptor from v1 to v2. 33 in the booster is 13200kg. 9 more in Ship and you have 3600kg and you are at 15800 already. 15.8 metric tons is a start.

I bet v3 cuts another 100kg. Now you are at 20 metric tons in mass savings.
NASAg03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mathguy64 said:

I mean if you are trying to cut 50 tons to put 50 more tons up, look no farther than the Raptors to get a good start.

Thats 400kg in savings per raptor from v1 to v2. 33 in the booster is 13200kg. 9 more in Ship and you have 3600kg and you are at 15800 already. 15.8 metric tons is a start.

I bet v3 cuts another 100kg. Now you are at 20 metric tons in mass savings.
Username checks out!
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
PJYoung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Any guesses on when test flight 4 will launch?

I'm thinking 2nd half of May.

Edit: this article says still on track for 1st 2 weeks of May

NSF understands that the fourth Starship Flight Test remains on track for the first two weeks of May, with regulatory and technical readiness nearing completion

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/04/nasa-hls-update/
Jock 07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quick question for those of you who are more familiar with starship and the business model. Are they still planning on using starship as a ballistic point to point travel solution?
Gwynne Shotwell came and gave a speech at work in the ~2017 timeframe. I remember being most intrigued by this idea of traveling pretty much anywhere on earth in 30 minutes or less. I wondered at the time how they would be able to assure all of our adversaries that the (at the time called) BFR was carrying humans and not warheads.

TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Beautiful footage of IFT-2

I identify as Ultra-MAGA
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pretty interesting configuration for the cargo lunar starship;
Blue Origin:


This seems a lot more...practical. SpaceX' portrait;



But, one of those two companies launched...12 flights just last month.
Maximus_Meridius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Given the recent trend of every lander tipping over on the Moon, I am a bit nervous about HLS/Starship having such a high CG. But at this point, let's just get successful launch and reentry.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
100 percent agree. I also think these early renderings are not…what will be built. I don't have any information etc. otherwise I just don't think those dinky landing legs are really what they'd try to pull off.

Just as we didn't see hot staging coming for starship (or starship 2.0 or Raptor 3), I doubt we really are accurate about what their lunar lander will look like in 2026+.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maximus_Meridius said:

Given the recent trend of every lander tipping over on the Moon, I am a bit nervous about HLS/Starship having such a high CG. But at this point, let's just get successful launch and reentry.


A big part of this is that the moon isn't flat in most places, and unmanned landers are limited by their programming. It is a very difficult task to program a lander to hit an exact spot and adjust to an alien landscape if it doesn't match what was thought to be there. There's a lot of things that could go wrong, like differing topography or sensors not functioning. People are a lot better at adjusting to these kinds of issues and handling unknowns because we have infinitely better generalized problem solving abilities.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We have terrific resolution/data of what we'll be landing on, the challenge is blasting a raptor at it and then landing on it. The concept of establishing a 'pad' for the systems (whatever they are) to land on is solid, imho. Low gravity, microfine dust, rocks, etc. can be an issue.

Human piloting/landing won't imho make that safer, the AI and programming will be safer, no disrespect to Neil Armstrong. The same is true for space station docking today.
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

We have terrific resolution/data of what we'll be landing on, the challenge is blasting a raptor at it and then landing on it. The concept of establishing a 'pad' for the systems (whatever they are) to land on is solid, imho. Low gravity, microfine dust, rocks, etc. can be an issue.

Human piloting/landing won't imho make that safer, the AI and programming will be safer, no disrespect to Neil Armstrong. The same is true for space station docking today.
Certainly don't want Matt Damon making a stab at it.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't worry. They will have a procedure in case the Starship lunar lander's elevator doesn't work.



Put Boeing in charge of the design.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

We have terrific resolution/data of what we'll be landing on, the challenge is blasting a raptor at it and then landing on it. The concept of establishing a 'pad' for the systems (whatever they are) to land on is solid, imho. Low gravity, microfine dust, rocks, etc. can be an issue.

Human piloting/landing won't imho make that safer, the AI and programming will be safer, no disrespect to Neil Armstrong. The same is true for space station docking today.


We have terrific resolution of what we want to be landing on, but hitting that exact spot is not exactly trivial. If it was easy and AI could just do it, then landers would never fail. Like I said, there are lots of things that could go wrong, and many of them involve the lander itself. Having people as a primary or backup increases the success rate because the parameters for success are not solely governed by correct programming and sensor input.
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:

Maximus_Meridius said:

Given the recent trend of every lander tipping over on the Moon, I am a bit nervous about HLS/Starship having such a high CG. But at this point, let's just get successful launch and reentry.


A big part of this is that the moon isn't flat in most places, and unmanned landers are limited by their programming. It is a very difficult task to program a lander to hit an exact spot and adjust to an alien landscape if it doesn't match what was thought to be there. There's a lot of things that could go wrong, like differing topography or sensors not functioning. People are a lot better at adjusting to these kinds of issues and handling unknowns because we have infinitely better generalized problem solving abilities.
The Mara are flat. If their goal is landing in the south pole, that is not flat.
I identify as Ultra-MAGA
lb3
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FAA is targeting a license for May 24th.
Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Starliner heading to ISS tonight. Is this a full crew flight or a small crew demo flight? I can't recall currently
bthotugigem05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Demo
Flying Crowbar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Crew of two. Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams.
Malachi Constant
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Godspeed to those astronauts!
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Man, I had to check you on that to make sure, but yes. Those are two brave folks. It's not her first rodeo either:





Trying hard to resist mocking ULA's 'advanced' rocket for this.
munch96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Anyone want ride up into the Stratosphere using a giant weather balloon?

Breggy Popup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
munch96 said:

Anyone want ride up into the Stratosphere using a giant weather balloon?




That narrator gives me the heebs. Sounds and looks like a cut scene from a video game where something is about to go horribly wrong.
rynning
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Breggy Popup said:

munch96 said:

Anyone want ride up into the Stratosphere using a giant weather balloon?




That narrator gives me the heebs. Sounds and looks like a cut scene from a video game where something is about to go horribly wrong.
Feels like an awesome trailer for Alien 5.
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No free fall with a parachute landing? Booo
I identify as Ultra-MAGA
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Happy Birthday 22nd Birthday SPACEX! Here's to MANY more!








ALSO, the new EVA Spacesuit was revealed a few days ago...




PJYoung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ChemAg15
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
munch96 said:

Anyone want ride up into the Stratosphere using a giant weather balloon?




This looks like the space version of OceanGate's Titan Submersible
flintdragon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Planning to see the June 25th Falcon Heavy launch at Kennedy SC. Starting my research now but if anyone has an experience/suggestions to share, let me know!

There might be some kind of package for $250 at KSC for the best viewing? I don't see anywhere to purchase yet so maybe they don't sell it until a bit closer to launch day. Is it worth it? I don't have much time so would rather not have to drive around looking for a close viewing area.

Is it possible to view the launch and booster landings from the same location? Not really sure if the distance between pads would not allow decent view of the landing.
Decay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Never even imagined you'd get charged for that. Some kind of VIP section maybe?
bthotugigem05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flintdragon said:

Planning to see the June 25th Falcon Heavy launch at Kennedy SC. Starting my research now but if anyone has an experience/suggestions to share, let me know!

There might be some kind of package for $250 at KSC for the best viewing? I don't see anywhere to purchase yet so maybe they don't sell it until a bit closer to launch day. Is it worth it? I don't have much time so would rather not have to drive around looking for a close viewing area.

Is it possible to view the launch and booster landings from the same location? Not really sure if the distance between pads would not allow decent view of the landing.
What you're probably talking about is being out on the elevated pavilion closer to the launch pad. Well worth it for the launch, although I don't believe you get a good view of the landing. Jetty Park is the best spot for the boosters landing but you won't get a good view of the takeoff.
First Page
Page 357 of 358
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.