SpaceX (general discussion)

On VAB Remark i made in NASA spaceflight Forum i got this answer:

by Conexion Espacial:
SpaceX not only has plans for KSC launch pads, right now they are in negotiation with NASA for the lease of VAB's High Bay #2 which would be used as a vehicle checkout and storage site (This is all under discussion so we will have to wait to find out what the final plans are there). Expansions are underway at Roberts Road which include new buildings not only for Falcon 9 and Dragon work, but some Starship related work will be done there as well. In addition, SpaceX may be planning some sites near 39A or 49 to support Starship activities, we'll have to wait to see what those plans are.
Click to expand...

Source:

SpaceX wants NASAs LC-49 for Starship Super Heavy launches

SpaceX wants NASAs LC-49 for Starship Super Heavy launches
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com


New Activity at Starbase production site
the Scrapyard is clean up and Tanks and part remove to Propellant production site for a expansion

FIceoAVWYAUvsXq
 
Scar said:
but why they decided to scrap it?!
Click to expand...
B1 was pathfinder for construction, scraped after completion.
B2 cancelled, parts became BN2.1 a tank for cryo proof test, still tested
B3 used for tested for transport, cryo proof, fuelling, hydraulic and engine testing, scraped
B4 first Superheavy flight hardware.
B5 second Superheavy flight hardware, stored (moved to launch side on 12 January 2022 ?)
B6 under construction
B7 under construction
 
Michel Van said:
B1 was pathfinder for construction, scraped after completion.
B2 cancelled, parts became BN2.1 a tank for cryo proof test, still tested
B3 used for tested for transport, cryo proof, fuelling, hydraulic and engine testing, scraped
B4 first Superheavy flight hardware.
B5 second Superheavy flight hardware, stored (moved to launch side on 12 January 2022 ?)
B6 under construction
B7 under construction
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarification. For some reason...and now i really don't why...i thought B3 was intended to become the first flight prototype.
 
Scar said:
Michel Van said:
B1 was pathfinder for construction, scraped after completion.
B2 cancelled, parts became BN2.1 a tank for cryo proof test, still tested
B3 used for tested for transport, cryo proof, fuelling, hydraulic and engine testing, scraped
B4 first Superheavy flight hardware.
B5 second Superheavy flight hardware, stored (moved to launch side on 12 January 2022 ?)
B6 under construction
B7 under construction
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarification. For some reason...and now i really don't why...i thought B3 was intended to become the first flight prototype.
Click to expand...
Just remember "4/20" for the first flight. (Would be amusing if it ended up being ON 4/20 as well.)
 
Short Overview on Starship January 2022

STARHOPPER the Enternal: cryo proof, fuelling, engine testing, test flights.

Mk I destroy during cryo proof test,
Mk II abandon later scraped

SN 01 RUD during cryo proof
SN 02 Test Tank
SN 03 RUD during cryo proof
SN 04 RUD during engine testing
SN 05 150 meter hop, put in storage, later scraped
SN 06 150 meter hop, put in storage, later scraped
SN 07.1 Test Tank
SN 07.2 Test Tank

SN 08 Suborbital test RUD during landing
SN 09 Suborbital test RUD during landing
SN 10 Suborbital test RUD 8 minutes after landing
SN 11 Suborbital test RUD in flight
SN 12 parts build, not assembly, later scraped
SN 13 parts build, not assembly, later scraped
SN 14 parts build, not assembly, later scraped

SN 15 Suborbital, First successful landing, move in Storage.
SN 16 not tested or flow, move in Storage.
SN 17 parts build, not assembly, later scraped
SN 18 parts build, not assembly, later scraped
SN 19 parts build, not assembly, later scraped

S 20 First orbital Flight Hardware
S 21 Assembly on hold (why is unclear)
S 22 parts build
 
Last edited:
Scar said:
Josh_TN said:
The Chinese tested a DF-21 based ground to orbit interceptor against one of their defunct satellites back in 2007 and created several thousand pieces of orbital debris. Some of it is still in orbit.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of this test, but I thought there was a recent one and i missed it. Not sure how this 2007 test is related to the recent China's complains about Stalink sats. =/
Click to expand...
Throwing thousands of uncontrollable pieces of shrapnel into orbit then complaining about somebody's CONTROLLABLE satellite seems like crocodile tears.
 
www.spacewar.com

USTRANSCOM expands cooperative research to explore space cargo

Scott AFB IL (SPX) Jan 01, 2022 - U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) entered into its third cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA), on December 17, 2021, with Blue Origin to explore the possibility of someday u
www.spacewar.com

Had to put the competitor Blue Origin here. haha
 
sferrin said:
Throwing thousands of uncontrollable pieces of shrapnel into orbit then complaining about somebody's CONTROLLABLE satellite seems like crocodile tears.
Click to expand...
Not that controllable, since it is second instance we know of when another operator has to move its assets and SpaceX does nothing. You can give SpaceX benefit of the doubt and assume that we don't get to hear about routine trajectory adjustments they do to avoid collisions, but the problem stands. There should be some form of international framework to make operators responsible for their sattelite constellations and potential debris they generate.
 
Ahriman said:
sferrin said:
Throwing thousands of uncontrollable pieces of shrapnel into orbit then complaining about somebody's CONTROLLABLE satellite seems like crocodile tears.
Click to expand...
Not that controllable, since it is second instance we know of when another operator has to move its assets and SpaceX does nothing.
Click to expand...
And? If I elect to let the other driver move their car, instead of me moving mine, that doesn't make my car any less controllable.
 
sferrin said:
And? If I elect to let the other driver move their car, instead of me moving mine, that doesn't make my car any less controllable.
Click to expand...
Empty semantics. If you were busy typing in your smartphone and didn't notice or cared about a bus full of people, your car is as good as uncontrollable and it doesn't speak higly of you as a driver. If it was not a random accident and proves to be a pattern, I would argue that you should be stripped of your licence alltogether. Not to mention if you simultaniously drive 1/3rd of your local traffic.
You can see why analogy is a poor argument.
 
Ahriman said:
sferrin said:
And? If I elect to let the other driver move their car, instead of me moving mine, that doesn't make my car any less controllable.
Click to expand...
Empty semantics. If you were busy typing in your smartphone and didn't notice or cared about a bus full of people, your car is as good as uncontrollable and it doesn't speak higly of you as a driver. If it was not a random accident and proves to be a pattern, I would argue that you should be stripped of your licence alltogether. Not to mention if you simultaniously drive 1/3rd of your local traffic.
You can see why analogy is a poor argument.
Click to expand...
Straw man. You should learn to read better. "If I elect to let the other driver move", that's a conscious decision to let the other guy move. Completely in control and best practice. Best way to avoid a collision is to let one maneuver around the other, not both people trying to move at the same time. Cry harder.
 
Ahriman said:
sferrin said:
Straw man. You should learn to read better. "If I elect to let the other driver move", that's a conscious decision to let the other guy move. Completely in control and best practice. Best way to avoid a collision is to let one maneuver around the other, not both people trying to move at the same time.
Click to expand...
Seems fair in response to another flawed analogy, for, if anything, public traffic is a subject to laws and regulations on who and in which situation should manuever. Then again, if you make a conscious decision to stay on a collision course with a bus, you should be stripped from that driving licence even more so than previously thought.
So, are you saying SpaceX conciously let its sattelite to be on a collision course with a manned space station? Despite all safety considerations and it being objectively easier for their sattelite to manuever in relation to the space station? I am not even sure you want to prove that, since I would personally prefer to believe this incident was a resut of bad intel, miscommunication or ineptitude, rather than willingly endangering human beings.
Click to expand...
Can we get more drama in here? I feel like you're not twisting your panties hard enough. Do you know all the specifics? No, you don't. What we do know is China claims there was a danger of its station hitting a satellite specifically designed to be able to maneuver out of the way of potential collisions. Does that mean the satellite must always be the one to move? Nope. Do we know how close they might have come? Nope. Do we know what constitutes "danger" here? Nope. Do we know if China bothered to communicate with SpaceX (you know, like everybody else does when there is a danger of collision)?

""China's description of the second incident suggests there was minimal or no communication with SpaceX:

"As the (Starlink) satellite was continuously maneuvering, the maneuver strategy was unknown and orbital errors were hard to be assessed, there was thus a collision risk between the Starlink-2305 satellite and the China Space Station. To ensure the safety and lives of in-orbit astronauts, the China Space Station performed an evasive maneuver again on the same day to avoid a potential collision between the two spacecraft.""

Sounds like China might have tried picking up a phone. (After all, they're just as responsible for avoiding collisions as SpaceX is. China doesn't own the road you know.)

Now let's talk about China injecting thousands of uncontrolled pieces of shrapnel into orbit. By your own description they should have their license to operate stripped, no? Sanctioned as well I'd think.
 
sferrin said:
Can we get more drama in here? I feel like you're not twisting your panties hard enough. Do you know all the specifics? No, you don't.
Click to expand...
Never claimed I did. In fact it was you, who brough that road traffic analogy and assumption of SpaceX willingly endangering Chinese crew. Pot. Kettle. Black.

sferrin said:
Does that mean the satellite must always be the one to move? Nope.
Click to expand...
Not "must", since there is no legislation in place that I know of (but it definitely should be there), but "should", since Starlink sattelites are obviously cheaper to operate and they, as well as OneWeb and future constellations, will continue to generate quite a number of potential collisions. The notion of manned craft and expensive sattelites having to run away from "controllable" mass-produced constellation sattelites sounds ridiculous to me.
Consider your position carefully. Before long 'Murica might be in similar situation.
sferrin said:
Do we know if China bothered to communicate with SpaceX (you know, like everybody else does when there is a danger of collision)?
Click to expand...
According to ESA they did back in the day and noone was there to pick up the phone.

sferrin said:
Sounds like China might have tried picking up a phone. (After all, they're just as responsible for avoiding collisions as SpaceX is. China doesn't own the road you know.)
Click to expand...
Well, here we go again. You are, once again, assuming lack of communication was Chinese fault and not SpaceX. Because of course it was.

sferrin said:
Now let's talk about China injecting thousands of uncontrolled pieces of shrapnel into orbit. By your own description they should have their license to operate stripped, no? Sanctioned as well I'd think.
Click to expand...
I can't remember claiming ASAT test debris were controllable. Not to mention you are throwing stones out of a glass house right now, since US ran not one, but two ASAT tests.
For the record, I am all for international regulations to be put in place on EO operation, as well as for prohibition of ASAT tests and militarisation of space.
 
Ahriman said:
sferrin said:
Can we get more drama in here? I feel like you're not twisting your panties hard enough. Do you know all the specifics? No, you don't.
Click to expand...
Never claimed I did. In fact it was you, who brough that road traffic analogy and assumption of SpaceX willingly endangering Chinese crew. Pot. Kettle. Black.

sferrin said:
Does that mean the satellite must always be the one to move? Nope.
Click to expand...
Not "must", since there is no legislation in place that I know of (but it definitely should be there), but "should", since Starlink sattelites are obviously cheaper to operate and they, as well as OneWeb and future constellations, will continue to generate quite a number of potential collisions. The notion of manned craft and expensive sattelites having to run away from "controllable" mass-produced constellation sattelites sounds ridiculous to me.
Consider your position carefully. Before long 'Murica might be in similar situation.
sferrin said:
Do we know if China bothered to communicate with SpaceX (you know, like everybody else does when there is a danger of collision)?
Click to expand...
According to ESA they did back in the day and noone was there to pick up the phone.

sferrin said:
Sounds like China might have tried picking up a phone. (After all, they're just as responsible for avoiding collisions as SpaceX is. China doesn't own the road you know.)
Click to expand...
Well, here we go again. You are, once again, assuming lack of communication was Chinese fault and not SpaceX. Because of course it was.

sferrin said:
Now let's talk about China injecting thousands of uncontrolled pieces of shrapnel into orbit. By your own description they should have their license to operate stripped, no? Sanctioned as well I'd think.
Click to expand...
I can't remember claiming ASAT test debris were controllable. Not to mention you are throwing stones out of a glass house right now, since US ran not one, but two ASAT tests.
For the record, I am all for international regulations to be put in place on EO operation, as well as for prohibition of ASAT tests and militarisation of space.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. China injects thousands of uncontrollable collision hazards into orbit and it's "but, but ,but" where one satellite "almost risked a collision" and it's a page of histrionics from you. Got it. ;)
 
sferrin said:
Ahriman said:
sferrin said:
And? If I elect to let the other driver move their car, instead of me moving mine, that doesn't make my car any less controllable.
Click to expand...
Empty semantics. If you were busy typing in your smartphone and didn't notice or cared about a bus full of people, your car is as good as uncontrollable and it doesn't speak higly of you as a driver. If it was not a random accident and proves to be a pattern, I would argue that you should be stripped of your licence alltogether. Not to mention if you simultaniously drive 1/3rd of your local traffic.
You can see why analogy is a poor argument.
Click to expand...
Straw man. You should learn to read better. "If I elect to let the other driver move", that's a conscious decision to let the other guy move. Completely in control and best practice. Best way to avoid a collision is to let one maneuver around the other, not both people trying to move at the same time. Cry harder.
Click to expand...
But what if you *both* perform uncoordinated collision avoidance maneuvers but unfortunately in such a way that you still collide? Chances may be extremely small but are non zero. There still has to be a decision algorithm as to who is required to maneuver around the other that both parties are aware of, agree with and adhere to. That's why in aviation, Air Traffic Control has been established globally, and Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems were implemented. All the more reason to pursue a corresponding coordinating international agency or at least a framework on the space side. As for who might have the duty to yield, a potential protocol could be that as a rule the party whose launch was the most recent is responsible, just like on freeways a car joining an existing traffic flow has to adjust its speed and position in order to merge, and not the whole traffic already on the road. Secondary considerations in addition to this first order principle could be OMS delta v capabilities, zero g requirements, required orbital precision, etc., for the spacecraft of either party.
 
Last edited:
@Ahriman, and especially @sferrin, alter your tone or face post bans. Breach of rules.

  • Remember The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you. The internet can allow you to behave in ways you would never do face to face in real life. Bullying online can be as hurtful as in the real world. Patterns of bad behaviour will result in moderation or banning.
  • ALWAYS be polite and civil in forum posts.
  • Personal attacks, insults or the belittling of the opinions of others, will ALWAYS be considered inappropriate. Disagree (tactfully and respectfully) all you like with their ideas or opinions, but don't resort to insults, name-calling or flaming. Argue facts, not personalities. 'Ad hominem' is a logical fallacy and will generally result in disciplinary action.
Click to expand...
 
SpaceX made 138 launches and 102 recovery of Boosters. from 2010 to January 2022.

Ariane 5 made 112 launches from 1996 to 2021.
Ariane 1-4 made 158 launches from 1979 to 2003.
Atlas 5 made 90 launches from 2002 to 2021.
Delta IV made 41 launches from 2004 to 2019.

Long March 2 made 137 Launches from 1974 to 2021
Long March 3 made 130 Launches from 1984 to 2021
Long March 4 made 85 launches from 1988 to 2021

Soyuz made 1700 launches from 1966 to 2022
Proton made 427 launches from 1965 to 2021 (SpaceX reach this number in 5 years with Falcon 9)

Vulcan - zero launches
New Glenn - zero launches
Ariane 6 scheduled to be launch in 2022
 
current rumor and progress at Starbase

according "What about It!?"
Work on S21 has stop and it Nose section will be used on S22 who tanks hast new modifications.

The berms on launch site are almost removed
unclear what gonna replace them to protect the Installation during launch.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f15c3ReTo


At KSC Launch Complex 39A start Drilling works
index.php
 
Michel Van said:
SpaceX made 138 launches and 102 recovery of Boosters. from 2010 to January 2022.

Proton made 427 launches from 1965 to 2021 (SpaceX reach this number in 5 years with Falcon 9)
Click to expand...
Hello, Michel!

I don't understand this comparison - Proton overall made more launches than SpaceX, 427 vs 138.
Could you be so kind to explain?
 
Silencer1 said:
Hello, Michel!

I don't understand this comparison - Proton overall made more launches than SpaceX, 427 vs 138.
Could you be so kind to explain?
Click to expand...


Just comparison of Falcon 9 launches vs other launch rockets
and how fast they catchup with competions
 
news update
It seems that Tankfarm has issue with methane tanks
and removal of berms has to do with possible Extension of Tankfarm

Rumours are that S20 and Booster4 will become hardware test article for Testing Stage Zero
S20 to S23 and B4 B5 B6? are scrap for S24 and B7 who will use Raptor 2 engines

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl_aLsXOu0o
 
science.slashdot.org

Astronomers Find Growing Number of Starlink Satellite Tracks - Slashdot

A team of astronomers has used archival images from a survey telescope to look for Starlink tracks over the past two years. Over that time, the number of images affected rose by a factor of 35, and the researchers estimate that by the time the planned Starlink constellation is complete, pretty...
science.slashdot.org
 
A little strange this. I would think that NASA would have had some run-ins with these people and warned Mr. Musk. Oh well.
 
kitnut617 said:
I think all this will do is move SpaceX operation offshore more quickly.
Click to expand...
So far i Know, Texas would be happy that old abandon Oil platforms in Gulf become Launch complex
But last word has the FAA on that
 

AFRL partners with SpaceX to explore Rocket Cargo potential​



Jan 20, 02:29 PM

The Air Force Research Laboratory is using a new five-year contract with SpaceX to better understand the constraints and viability of using space launch vehicles for point-to-point cargo transport.

The $102 million contract, which AFRL awarded Tuesday under its Rocket Cargo program, will give the lab more concrete data about how reusable launch vehicles could be used in future cargo missions and how the commercial capability could be adapted for use by the Department of Defense. The intent, according to program manager Greg Spanjers, is to ensure the government is ready to leverage the commercial service once industry has matured the capability[...]

[...]To date, AFRL has awarded several Rocket Cargo contracts for analytics, landing material research, wind tunnel sensors and command-and-control systems development, but this week’s award to SpaceX is the first deal with a launch vehicle provider. According to Spanjers, the lab is engaged with other launch providers and will consider awarding additional contracts later in the program[...]

[...]SpaceX work is focused in four areas: collecting data from commercial orbital launches and landings; exploring cargo bay designs compatible with U.S. Transportation Command containers and support rapid loading and unloading; researching landing systems that can operate on a variety of terrain; and demonstrating the heavy cargo launch and landing process[...]

[...]Because AFRL is looking to take advantage of an emerging commercial capability rather than develop its own launcher, the program isn’t dictating a schedule or prescribed milestones[...]“AFRL does not drive this schedule, but rather will collect data when SpaceX flies regular missions[...]

“The final task is a full-up demonstration of heavy cargo transport capability to another location on Earth. This is similar to AFRL funding and flying research spacecraft, except in this case the cargo returns to Earth.”
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

AFRL partners with SpaceX to explore Rocket Cargo potential

Under the new contract, the Air Force Research Lab will leverage SpaceX's point-to-point launch capability to develop a case for future military use.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
On Starbase Launch site Ground work continue
Seems they digging a trench from Suborbital launch Fuel farm to Orbital Fuel farm
connecting both with pipelines ?

There is rumor that Blue Origin complains at SpaceX
Because Falcon 9 landing on Landing Zone 1 or 2
BO has to stop working on their near by Launch pad-36 and evacuate their personal each time.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom