SpaceX (general discussion)

publiusr said:
I know it needs to be cheap. Money was no object for defense programs, so leveraging work already paid for in some defense program would seem wise.

If not SLBMs, maybe cryogenic in-flight refueling proposals that got so only got far.

I want Starship to succeed.

What might you suggest he look into?
Click to expand...
SpaceX knows where to look for information. No need to help them in this area.
There is nothing in defense program to leverage from. No defense program has done anything remotely like this.
They have ability to get data from all the "cryogenic in-flight refueling proposals" from NASA and would be ludicrous to think otherwise that they haven't. Also, by flying dozens if not 100's of cameras in propellants tanks, SpaceX has more data on fluids in zero gravity than existed before.
 
Launch is 19th May.

The National Reconnaissance Office is targeting early May to begin launching the first phase of an operational proliferated constellation of spy satellites to enhance the military’s ability to gather space-based intelligence.

The mission, dubbed NROL 146, will be the first launch of six that are planned in 2024 for the NRO’s future proliferated architecture, Troy Meink, the agency’s principal deputy director, said Tuesday during a keynote speech at the annual Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
...
“This launch will be the first launch of an actual operational system,” Meink said.
...
NROL-146 will be launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. Meink did not provide details about how many payloads would be included in the first launch in May, or how many satellites NRO wants for the proliferated constellation.
Click to expand...
defensescoop.com

NRO expects to launch first spy satellites for proliferated constellation in May

The NRO is targeting early May to begin launching the first phase of an operational proliferated constellation of spy satellites.
defensescoop.com defensescoop.com
Click to expand...
 
SpaceX issue Vehicle operator License at FAA about use Starship/Superheavy on Launch complex 39A
FAA prepare Environmental Impact Study on this, because the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

SpaceX aim for 44 launches/year with Starship/Superheavy form LC 39A or every 8 days !
oddly the License include:
Starship/ Superheavy launches from LC-39A, recoverable or expendable configuration.
Landing of Starship and Superheavy at LC-39A or on Droneship !

It unclear to me, if Vehicle operator License include the use of VAB to store Superheavy and Starships near by.

Seems that SpaceX License cover very possibility on evolution of Starship / Superheavy

Source:
What about it!?
 
New article on the proposed private mission to service Hubble, after reading this I just cannot see it happening at least in its present form if at all. Jared Isaacman doesn’t come across that well, at least in this article. There seems a lack of understanding by some of those outside NASA not just of the risk of human life of the possible premature loss of Hubble from such a mission.

 
Mobile, Alabama is where a second Starbase needs to be...we have stainless steel plants expanding like mad.

The latest Falcon launch had the best jellyfish.

Marcus House has an update that IFT-4 may have just been given the green light by the FAA, as per an NSF blurb.
 
Last edited:
Jared Isaacman puts his side on the Hubble servicing mission.
I've rarely seen a more detailed and balanced article about space news. The way they quoted Isaacman made him look a bit petty but the rest of the article is quite good. Jared let out some of his frustration here and there and fell prey to everything on social media remaining out there to be used a little or a lot out of context. The split within NASA is interesting and falls along some predicable lines.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791845941013569616
View: https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1791845941013569616


I also did not love how they pulled my quotes from podcasts. What the article does not capture is the official position of the joint study and hopefully that comes out. On surface it looks like "billionaire wants to touch Hubble and NASA said hell no", but that is not what happened. There are three positions here, but only one that truly matters:
- My personal opinion about the source of delays, which I have never been shy about stating.
- The personal opinion of those who chimed in late in the process, which I think the article captures well.
- But what really matters is the joint study - Polaris + SpaceX + NASA. The team that performed the technical analysis for ~6 months and arrived at a formal recommendation.

It is unfortunate there is so much discourse over the subject. It is like new space vs. old space, or people who love SpaceX vs. hate SpaceX, incompetent tourist vs. real astronaut. It should really have only been about the mission, because if a mission was planned it would have had resources across all the organizations that participated in the study to ensure success. It is not like anyone was going to wing it, especially after a joint study was assembled to determine generally how a successful mission could be achieved.

I know a lot of people have memories of the heroic shuttle missions to save Hubble...the long EVA's, Canadarm and the giant gyros. The astronauts did an incredible job keeping Hubble going, but that was then and this is now. You can pack a lot of capabilities in to something the size of an iPhone these days. This was not lost on any of the scientists and engineers that worked on the joint study.

Would it be worth the risk to save Hubble? Many of the telescope systems have failed and most redundancy has been lost. This is why it continues to go offline. Hubble's orbit has decayed significantly and will continue to do so through solar max. It will be coming home earlier than what was represented in the article. Once it reaches a certain altitude, the prospects of a mission are all but lost. When it does, it will either be uncontrolled or come at a cost to tax payers to launch something robotic to manage it.

Had a mission been flown, and I was happy to fund it, I believe it would have resulted in the development of capabilities beneficial to the future of commercial space and along the way given Hubble a new lease on life.

I acknowledge this is not my telescope to touch and a lot of time has passed from the study till now. Government priorities change, budgets become tight, regardless of who is funding the mission, it does require contributions of resources from a lot of parties to ensure success. Regardless of what happens from here, I am glad we all, inclusive of NASA, invested the time to see if this could work. Hubble deserved that effort.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1791857579720573100
View: https://twitter.com/dr_thomasz/status/1791857579720573100


Even though I was not at NASA during the final steps that left of the ultimate demise (for now, at least) of the Polaris-Hubble mission, I can attest to the deep analysis and incredible and deep collaboration between @SpaceX, Polaris, and Hubble experts both from NASA and STScI.
Click to expand...

I and others briefed on multiple occasion in public etc. & was in contact with the team and all stakeholders. The work happened like it should have when investigating the opportunities of a commercially funded mission to add value to an incredibly successful mission like Hubble.
Click to expand...

It reminded me of the careful work that led to commercial crew & companies like @Axiom_Space, some of the biggest successes in space exploration this past decade. The question remains: when will science fully benefit from commercial approaches? This is what attracted me to this!
Click to expand...

In the end, what I think we as scientists should always be after is two metrics, more and/or better science, more and/or better science per dollar. Note, that new approaches always involve questioning the status quo, and that requires the kind of trusted collaboration I saw, leadership and ultimately trying it…
Click to expand...
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1793059777116848588
View: https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1793059777116848588


Perhaps a very carefully-worded tweet here. Road closure notices posted by Cameron County seem to suggest SpaceX is aiming to re-do the launch rehearsal next week, followed just a few days later by the actual launch, currently NET June 1st.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1793059780799439171
View: https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1793059780799439171


Last time SpaceX performed a launch rehearsal, the post was very detailed in the fact that it went all the way to T-10 seconds. During this last rehearsal, we never saw the usual signs of the countdown going down that far, may explain why the potential retry.
Click to expand...

Interesting nonetheless that they wouldn't just go ahead and proceed with a launch anyways and treat it as the rehearsal. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what we end up seeing.
Click to expand...

Something that it does tell me though is that, as expected, not everything seems ready yet even from a hardware standpoint. It's reeeeeeeally close tho, but work is still being done and more testing seems to still be needed.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sad to admit that the SpaceX fanboys have carried the day at NASAspaceflight forum. They have won: no more quality posting, just techno-optimists SOBs.
@Byeman I often wonder where do you find the patience to deal with those idiots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Starship updates as regards IFT-4 when it fly which is planned for 5th June & what were the issues of IFT-3 & how they are attempting to remedy them. Also the fiery fate of a Raptor 2 engine on the test stand.

arstechnica.com

SpaceX sets date for next Starship flight, explains what went wrong the last time

Clearing blocked filters and clogged valves is the order of the day.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

www.engadget.com

SpaceX Raptor engine test ends in a fiery explosion

A SpaceX testing stand at the company's McGregor, Texas facilities went up in flames during a test of its Raptor 2 engines on the afternoon of May 23.
www.engadget.com www.engadget.com
 
Chunking the hot-staging ring in flight I see.

It was designed to let Starship exhaust out…but could it disturb airflow coming off the grid fins?

With it and its weight gone, perhaps control authority is heightened…

Titanic’s helm wouldn’t answer due to reverse thrust turning slipstream into a froth that the rudder couldn’t bite into—perhaps here the ring acts as an aerodynamic cheese grater?
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Chunking the hot-staging ring in flight I see.

It was designed to let Starship exhaust out…but could it disturb airflow coming off the grid fins?

With it and its weight gone, perhaps control authority is heightened…

Titanic’s helm wouldn’t answer due to reverse thrust turning slipstream into a froth that the rudder couldn’t bite into—perhaps here the ring acts as an aerodynamic cheese grater?
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with aerodynamics. It has no effect on it. It is mass reasons for the jettison.
 
sferrin said:
I think they said it was because they didn't want to expend the fuel it would take to haul it all the way back.
Click to expand...

They could always design the hot-staging ring to be jettisoned by the booster after the Starship has separated before it initiates its' boost-back burn.
 
Last edited:
This confirms that the NROL launches are roughly V2 Micro in volume and mass (always likely since apparently the test models were snuck into existing Starlink launches). An NRO official stated this was one of six launches, which means there will likely be 120+ satellites by end of year, possibly more next year. SDA will also orbit ~170 satellites on ten scheduled monthly launches starting in September. That’s 300 satellite constellation (or more depending on NRO launches next year) assembled in a little over a year, with ~200 more known to be contracted by the SDA for launches two years from now. There is likely an additional Tranche 2 effort from NRO in the same timeframe. It seems there will b a single constellation of 600-800 recon, communications, and missile tracking satellites all optically cross linked to each other by the end of 2027.

Peanuts compared to Starlink even now, but likely dwarfing any other defense constellations.
 
How just one single thread can bring together all the [insert rude words HERE] ... annoying and abrasive and hysterical SpaceX supporters.

Impact of SpaceX rideshare on small sat launchers market

Impact of SpaceX rideshare on small sat launchers market
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com
It's remarquable: a bit like vultures on a zebra carcasse.

Oh well...
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1796222409965469827
View: https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1796222409965469827


Starship is just days away from its fourth flight out of Starbase.

Adrian Beil (@BCCarCounters) provides all the latest milestones in this overview:
Click to expand...

www.nasaspaceflight.com

As SpaceX Completes Second Starship WDR, FAA Closes Safety Investigation Into Flight 3 - NASASpaceFlight.com

SpaceX is clearing the final milestones before launching the Starship vehicle for the fourth time.…
www.nasaspaceflight.com www.nasaspaceflight.com
 
Josh_TN said:
This confirms that the NROL launches are roughly V2 Micro in volume and mass (always likely since apparently the test models were snuck into existing Starlink launches). An NRO official stated this was one of six launches, which means there will likely be 120+ satellites by end of year, possibly more next year. SDA will also orbit ~170 satellites on ten scheduled monthly launches starting in September. That’s 300 satellite constellation (or more depending on NRO launches next year) assembled in a little over a year, with ~200 more known to be contracted by the SDA for launches two years from now. There is likely an additional Tranche 2 effort from NRO in the same timeframe. It seems there will b a single constellation of 600-800 recon, communications, and missile tracking satellites all optically cross linked to each other by the end of 2027.

Peanuts compared to Starlink even now, but likely dwarfing any other defense constellations.
Click to expand...
SDA and NRO are separate and independent constellations
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom