Premium said:

---

Splashdowns are a bit of a letdown compared to what SpaceX has accomplished

---

You're talking about crewed (or crew capable) vehicles? We've just seen splashdowns from them so far.



(Go Trump!)

I'm just saying it is very anticlimactic and at the same time only good for landing on one planet.

Other companies need to be building something to compete with SpaceX and I haven't seen anything close to what they do as routine.

Ok, I'm just trying to understand which man rated vehicle from SpaceX you were talking about.

I didn't say SpaceX has done it, I'm saying they are close to doing it. I'm saying no one else is trying. I'm also saying a splashdown is anticlimactic regardless of the company that does it.

Sierra Space' crewed Dream chaser is still supposed to wind up with a manned version that will…land on land. I'm looking forward to seeing it, at least. Uncrewed is about a month from first launch, I think, if ULA/BO are tracking….

Quote:

---

Dream Chaser Crewed Spaceplane

Dream Chaser was originally designed as a crewed spaceplane, in part under NASA's Commercial Crew Program, capable of carrying up to seven astronauts to and from the space station and other low Earth orbit (LEO) destinations. Dream Chaser is 30 feet, or 9 meters longroughly the total length of the space shuttle orbitersand can carry up to seven crew members.

The crewed version of Dream Chaser is approximately 85% common to the cargo system, limiting primary changes to windows, environmental control and life support systems. In addition, an integral main propulsion system is available for abort capability and major orbital maneuvers.

---

nortex97 said:

---

Sierra Space' crewed Dream chaser is still supposed to wind up with a manned version that will…land on land. I'm looking forward to seeing it, at least. Uncrewed is about a month from first launch, I think, if ULA/BO are tracking….

Quote:

---

Dream Chaser Crewed Spaceplane

Dream Chaser was originally designed as a crewed spaceplane, in part under NASA's Commercial Crew Program, capable of carrying up to seven astronauts to and from the space station and other low Earth orbit (LEO) destinations. Dream Chaser is 30 feet, or 9 meters longroughly the total length of the space shuttle orbitersand can carry up to seven crew members.

The crewed version of Dream Chaser is approximately 85% common to the cargo system, limiting primary changes to windows, environmental control and life support systems. In addition, an integral main propulsion system is available for abort capability and major orbital maneuvers.

---

---

That's cool

Dream Chaser can still only land on one planet: with runways and a 1Atm atmosphere.

It is also to be used with the BO space station concept.

In 'news from the enemy' the Chinese really do have some interesting concepts, and have landed unmanned equivalents to the X-37 a few times I think lately.

SpaceX did want to use the Crew Dragon for land-based landings, but Nasa was more comfortable with the splash downs. Ah well, a little more cost, but something about being too risky for propulsive landings…hey at least it's working well.

nortex97 said:

---

Sierra Space' crewed Dream chaser is still supposed to wind up with a manned version that will…land on land. I'm looking forward to seeing it, at least. Uncrewed is about a month from first launch, I think, if ULA/BO are tracking….

Quote:

---

Dream Chaser Crewed Spaceplane

Dream Chaser was originally designed as a crewed spaceplane, in part under NASA's Commercial Crew Program, capable of carrying up to seven astronauts to and from the space station and other low Earth orbit (LEO) destinations. Dream Chaser is 30 feet, or 9 meters longroughly the total length of the space shuttle orbitersand can carry up to seven crew members.

The crewed version of Dream Chaser is approximately 85% common to the cargo system, limiting primary changes to windows, environmental control and life support systems. In addition, an integral main propulsion system is available for abort capability and major orbital maneuvers.

---

---

Wanna take a guess as to how that's going? They just recently, like in the last month, got flight article #2 for the first Vulcan, so I'm gonna jump on a slick log and say it's going to be a bit more than a month before Dream Chaser makes an attempt.

nortex97 said:

---

It is also to be used with the BO space station concept.

In 'news from the enemy' the Chinese really do have some interesting concepts, and have landed unmanned equivalents to the X-37 a few times I think lately.

SpaceX did want to use the Crew Dragon for land-based landings, but Nasa was more comfortable with the splash downs. Ah well, a little more cost, but something about being too risky for propulsive landings…hey at least it's working well.

---

I guess Blue Origin lands on land as well. Any reason why they couldn't use the same method coming in from higher orbit?

Premium said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

It is also to be used with the BO space station concept.

In 'news from the enemy' the Chinese really do have some interesting concepts, and have landed unmanned equivalents to the X-37 a few times I think lately.

SpaceX did want to use the Crew Dragon for land-based landings, but Nasa was more comfortable with the splash downs. Ah well, a little more cost, but something about being too risky for propulsive landings…hey at least it's working well.

---

I guess Blue Origin lands on land as well. Any reason why they couldn't use the same method coming in from higher orbit?

---

Lunar orbit comes in much faster but that doesn't mean it can't be done

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Premium said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

It is also to be used with the BO space station concept.

In 'news from the enemy' the Chinese really do have some interesting concepts, and have landed unmanned equivalents to the X-37 a few times I think lately.

SpaceX did want to use the Crew Dragon for land-based landings, but Nasa was more comfortable with the splash downs. Ah well, a little more cost, but something about being too risky for propulsive landings…hey at least it's working well.

---

I guess Blue Origin lands on land as well. Any reason why they couldn't use the same method coming in from higher orbit?

---

Lunar orbit comes in much faster but that doesn't mean it can't be done

---

The additional velocity is managed in the hypersonic re-entry phase. By the time you get into the lower atmosphere, the flight conditions are no different than an orbital re-entry.

^exactly. It's the entry velocity above the hypersonic real that makes lunar so complicated. If I remember right, most capsules are at/near terminal velocity before even dropped shoots begin to deploy. The actual landing burn would initiate at similar speeds and energy requirements as an orbital re-entry.

The Russian's have a radiator spewing coolant on a soyuz.

Ship 24 completes a single-engine static fire test at Starbase in Texas pic.twitter.com/gF9beLcarX

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) December 15, 2022

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2022-11-24/national-ufo-historical-records-center-coming-to-albuquerque


Seems like a stretch for those confirmed weather balloons no?

We are getting more and more cool Webb images (some with Hubble ones overlayed too) and this is a cool space/time/distance visualization:

Contemplate the incredible vastness of space with this visualization of the size of our Milky Way galaxy.

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech pic.twitter.com/ROVgjqXf9d

— Wonder of Science (@wonderofscience) December 15, 2022

Scientists found “buried treasure," and the Cosmic Cliffs marked the spot. 🏴‍☠️

Remember this view from Webb’s first images? A deep dive has revealed young stars in an elusive stage of development — and may help us investigate how stars like our Sun form: https://t.co/KWQysezIWq pic.twitter.com/5NuhT3n4Op

— NASA Webb Telescope (@NASAWebb) December 15, 2022

Webb’s near-infrared camera (NIRCam) contributes thousands of baby stars, while its mid-infrared instrument’s (MIRI) contributions are clearest in the layers of diffuse, orange dust draping the top of the image. pic.twitter.com/RkS6Bp3VPd

— NASA Webb Telescope (@NASAWebb) December 6, 2022

Good explosive progress:

Sierra Space has successfully completed its second sub-scale Ultimate Burst Pressure (UBP) test and is the only active commercial space company to successfully meet multiple UBP trials.

Press Release: https://t.co/au3353ceD7 #Space #Engineering pic.twitter.com/jbaKXFvcdy

— Sierra Space (@SierraSpaceCo) December 13, 2022

You know you're on your rookie account right?

So…61 launches for the year for F9? Incredible.

Quote:

---

All three launches were completed in less than a day and a half. Further emphasizing the breadth of SpaceX's expertise, each Falcon 9 booster successfully landed after supporting their respective orbital launch, ensuring that those boosters will all be able to support more launches in the near future. In fact, Starlink 4-37 was the 15th mission for its Falcon 9 booster, B1058, breaking SpaceX's internal reuse record and pushing the technology's envelope. It remains to be seen if the company will push beyond 15 flights. In June 2022 interviews with Aviation Week, SpaceX executives stated that Falcon boosters would be retired after 15 flights a big change from past indications that there was nothing preventing each booster from launching 100+ times with regular maintenance.

Starlink 4-37 was also SpaceX's 59th successful orbital launch of 2022. In March, CEO Elon Musk raised an earlier annual target of 52 launches to 60 launches. At the time, 60 launches in one year was almost inconceivable. Set in 1980, the all-time record for a family of rockets (the Russian R-7) is 61 successful launches in one calendar year.

But against all odds, SpaceX has relentlessly executed week after week and sustained an average of one launch every six days for more than 12 months. Multiple sources currently indicate that SpaceX has two more Falcon 9 launches scheduled this year: another Starlink mission as early as December 28th and a mission carrying the Israeli EROS-C3 Earth imaging satellite on December 29th. SpaceX's Falcon rocket family thus has a chance to tie the all-time record of 61 R-7 family launches, which was backed by the entire Soviet Union at the peak of its national launch cadence.

---

The AWST article linked above doesn't really say that they are changing it down to only 15 flights imho, I read it as getting to 15 from the previous step of 10, and they added some good commentary about the inspection/preparation/iterative improvement processes (including vs. space shuttle) in that interview;

Quote:

---

The operational 21-member fleetconsisting of 10 single-stick Falcon 9s, two converted Falcon Heavy (FH) side boosters now flying as single sticks, five FH side boosters and four FH center coresincludes two other 12-flight boosters and another that has flown 10 times. "We don't need a huge fleet in order to do the launches that we're doing," says Richard Morris, SpaceX vice president of production and launch.

"Our goal is to be able to launch at a five-day rate or faster," Morris says. "To do that, we look at every piece of the process flowbooster maintenance, the launchpad, recovery team, fairingsand look how to optimize and speed that up. We have this approach where we iteratively improve each process and shrink the time from launch to launch. That's how we've been able to do this."

---

That whole article I'd missed in June and is very good, about their inspection/software/production processes.

Terran-R engine test!

Terran-R is a super-looking, fully reusable launch vehicle. https://t.co/qBxgEQO3zs pic.twitter.com/gGzrCINrKP

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) December 20, 2022

How does this compare to what space x is doing?
Is the entire engine 3d printed?

jt2hunt said:

---

How does this compare to what space x is doing?
Is the entire engine 3d printed?

---

All modern engines are entirely 3D printed except for a few tubes.
Actually, Relativity's engine, from pics I have seen, definitely isn't any fewer part count than others.

Relativity isn't unique in how they manufacture their engines. They are unique in how they manufacture their propellant tanks.

Any updates on when we might see Spacex start stacking for a launch or are they still stepping up static fire tests?

Think chose to the Falcon 9 payload, but fully reusable

Others can add more scientific/engineering commentary than I, but I'd just say they are basically building a fully re-usable F9. The F9 tosses the upper stage each time (and sometimes the cores), and then has to recover the lower stage via a barge. They can also strap 3 together to then just get more delta-v but that is it in a nutshell, imho.

The 3D printing is pretty great tech but I don't think the entirety of the engine being produced via this method is the lynchpin to the design.

If they make it really, in essence a fully reusable methelox rocket it could achieve something like 80 percent of the nominal goals of the (much larger, 2 stage) starship program for commercial earth launches, without wasting the scale/risk of starship's relative complexity which is really baked-in for...interplanetary design goals. Starship's raptor's are more 'gee whizz' in their tech/limits/pressures but...ultimately it often comes down to how much it costs to put a kilogram etc. in a given orbit.

Rocketlab and Relativity have a lot of funding to make it happen, and I think both are objectively more likely to work well than the 'moonshot' that is starship.

Why do they need a 3D printed tank factory if the whole thing is fully reusable? Then they wouldn't need to manufacture so many tanks as to make the 3D tank printing development cost worth while.

Relativity Space may build a great rocket, but not any more efficiently than others. Everyone is 3D printing the engines.

Relativity may survive because of their deep pockets but it's not clear they've been using cash efficiently.

Autonomous manufacturing should ensure faster, and cheaper (human labor), as well as very good quality (consistency), in theory. Many pages back I think we had a discussion on some of their applications and some Aggies I think work for them who have posted here (in Colorado?).

Anyway, that's the claim/rationale, not my opinion. Like all startups with a bunch of VC/private equity funding I am sure they have also pissed away a bunch but it doesn't seem like a very poorly run/sham outfit a la, err, blue origin.

nortex97 said:

---

Autonomous manufacturing should ensure faster, and cheaper (human labor), as well as very good quality (consistency), in theory. Many pages back I think we had a discussion on some of their applications and some Aggies I think work for them who have posted here (in Colorado?).

Anyway, that's the claim/rationale, not my opinion. Like all startups with a bunch of VC/private equity funding I am sure they have also pissed away a bunch but it doesn't seem like a very poorly run/sham outfit a la, err, blue origin.

---

Everything always looks better from the outside, each company and approach has their own challenges.

I totally agree, but it is interesting. It's also not insignificant to me that SpaceX originally wanted to do starship as a huge composite/carbon fiber (robotically built) vehicle, but realized nearly too late that this was going to be exorbitantly expensive.

The materials/design/production decision trade-off decisions of the others have been sort of mockingly derided by the 3 (spacex/relativity/rocketlab) for several years.







Personally, when I see Relativity updates, I always laugh that there are zero people working for them over 40 years old. I hope it works for them.

Those in the industry know the unique challenges faced by all these companies since it's a small number of engineers and companies that hop from place to place. One challenge that isn't unique is getting talented engineers, and a lot of the really good ones have retired on their options gains, or left the sector all together for more work life balance. It's still a very young workforce compared to other aerospace and engineering sectors.

Launch the rockets with boughs of holly
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
'Tis the season to be jolly
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Don we now our space suits
Fa-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-la
Blast off with our Christmas tree boots
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la

[Verse 2]
See the stars above us shining
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Countdown and engines are whining
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Follow me to outer space
Fa-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-la
While we bring the tree to grace
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la

[Verse 3]
Fast away the old year passes
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Hail the new year, lads and lasses
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la
Sing we joyous, all together
Fa-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-la
As we soar through stormy weather
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la

(thanks ChatGPT lol)

bmks270 said:

---

Why do they need a 3D printed tank factory if the whole thing is fully reusable? Then they wouldn't need to manufacture so many tanks as to make the 3D tank printing development cost worth while.

Relativity Space may build a great rocket, but not any more efficiently than others. Everyone is 3D printing the engines.

Relativity may survive because of their deep pockets but it's not clear they've been using cash efficiently.

---

Maybe print a tank that has a honeycomb wall structure. Could be stronger and lighter, resulting in better performance and more payload capacity.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Why do they need a 3D printed tank factory if the whole thing is fully reusable? Then they wouldn't need to manufacture so many tanks as to make the 3D tank printing development cost worth while.

Relativity Space may build a great rocket, but not any more efficiently than others. Everyone is 3D printing the engines.

Relativity may survive because of their deep pockets but it's not clear they've been using cash efficiently.

---

Maybe print a tank that has a honeycomb wall structure. Could be stronger and lighter, resulting in better performance and more payload capacity.

---

But it is not lighter. Rocket Lab approach, composite, would be the lightest. I suspect Relativity's tanks are heavier than traditional ribbed sheet metal panels as Relativity's 3D printed poor surface finish would require increased thickness.

Maybe some decreasing interest in this thread? Perhaps we let this go/start a new one next year.

Quote:

---

By every possible measure, 2022 has been a groundbreaking year for SpaceX even when considering the vast list of achievements it's racked up over the last half-decade. It owns and operates the largest satellite constellation in history by an order of magnitude. Its Starlink satellite internet service has secured more than a million subscribers less than two years after entering beta. It operates the only routinely reusable orbital-class rockets and orbital spacecraft currently in service. Its Falcon 9 workhorse has launched more in one year than any other single rocket in history. It's regularly launching at a pace that hasn't been sustained by any one country let alone a single company in 40 years. It's managing that near-historic cadence while simultaneously recovering and reusing boosters and fairings that represent some 70% of the value of almost every rocket it launches.

And now, SpaceX can also proudly show that it was able to hit a launch cadence target that seemed impossibly ambitious when CEO Elon Musk first shared it nine months ago.

---

Anyway, happy new year (one more F9 launch planned, for Friday).

Falcon 9 launches 54 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit; completes SpaceX’s 60th mission of 2022! pic.twitter.com/MIstToPIyL

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) December 28, 2022

This image consists of two long exposure photos taken in succession: one for the stars, one for the launch, then overlaid in post-processing

— John Kraus (@johnkrausphotos) December 28, 2022