SpaceX (general discussion)

Well, TheSpaceBucket has just put a video concerning the Amazon shareholders opinions towards the use of the Falcon 9:


Only days ago, a lengthy public suit against Amazon regarding its Project Kuiper decision was filed. Project Kuiper, similar to Starlink, is trying to increase global broadband access through a constellation of over 3,000 satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO). Back in early 2022, Amazon signed and announced significant launch contracts with Blue Origin’s New Glenn, ULA’s Vulcan, and Arianespace’s Ariane 6.
Click to expand...
In the suit, however, shareholders claim that Amazon “acted in bad faith” and made no effort to properly discharge their fiduciary duties when picking the launch providers. They primarily claim that SpaceX, the leader within the industry was glossed over and not even considered when making the decision. If that were the case, they would have a valid point considering the cost per launch and timeline these satellites are meant to launch by.
Click to expand...
The suit puts a lot of focus on Blue Origin and the relationship between Musk and Bezos. They strongly suggest that SpaceX was excluded from consideration from the Project Kuiper competition because of the rivalry between the two. Here I will go more in-depth into this new lawsuit, what it means for the future launches, its significance, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/shareholde...
Click to expand...
 
Dagger said:
SpaceX can work like that at a remote location in a state like Texas. The rest of the industry however can't get away with that way of working.
Click to expand...
that is wrong. How many new launch vehicles have there been lately? Also, it isn't Texas that regulates the launches.
 
S25 is one the move.
but Right SPMT broke down over halfway to the launch site
They try to fix the issue
 
They are united, next fuelling and wet launch rehearse.
F5SFm61WEAAJifw
 
Here's a video looking at the development costs of Starship, from TheSpaceBucket:


While Starship is expected to be one of the most affordable launch options in the future, its current development is far from cheap. Between thousands of employees, frequent testing, materials, massive infrastructure projects, etc., Starbase requires a constant stream of funding. This begs the question of how can SpaceX afford this and what does the company’s finances look like.
Click to expand...
Not long ago reports came out showcasing SpaceX’s revenue and expenses over the last few years. This gives us a much better idea of the cost of Starship and how the company can keep innovating in Texas. It even revealed that for the first time in a few years, the company managed to turn a profit. This is all extremely relevant to SpaceX’s goal and the future of some of these different programs.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, companies can only burn so much money on certain projects before they need to see a return. On the other hand, SpaceX has been developing Starship at a fast pace and plans to have an operational launch vehicle in the not-too-distant future. Here I will go more in-depth into the costs of developing Starship, the greater finances of the company, SpaceX finally making money, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/a-closer-l...
Click to expand...
 
Mishap investigation is now closed, signaling the FAA is happy with the data and analysis. But they again make clear that SpaceX must make the specified corrective actions which affect public safety and obtain a launch license modification covering FAA's requirements before they can launch the next prototype.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1700150082392182871
View: https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1700150082392182871


SpaceX has been making corrective changes as the process has been going, and will likely apply for the modification as soon as practical.
 
Moose said:
Mishap investigation is now closed, signaling the FAA is happy with the data and analysis. But they again make clear that SpaceX must make the specified corrective actions which affect public safety and obtain a launch license modification covering FAA's requirements before they can launch the next prototype.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1700150082392182871
View: https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1700150082392182871


SpaceX has been making corrective changes as the process has been going, and will likely apply for the modification as soon as practical.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if most, if not all, of those corrective actions have been completed. Launch pad, specifically the deluge system, is completely new and tested as well as the Flight Termination System.
 
I hope so. The GAO is harping on SLS again...but Starship/SuperHeavy is such a complex beast that it is slowing Musk.

If the next few flights are failures... maybe meet in the middle.

A SpaceX type SLS that is the same width flies a stage-and-a-half to orbit profile and dumps a lot of Starlinks off directly---no upper stage...or maybe with just one VacRaptor.

The SLS like core has four standard Raptors...easy plumbing...and you throw less of them away than in losing whole SS/SH cores that will be de facto expendable. This can be built faster and be a less busy design.

More mass needed?

Just stretch the tank...add more Falcon Heavy style strap-ons....making it look like the Vulkan concept of Glushko.

Call it "Elonergia." :)

A whole line of pads for Falcon strap-ons at Boca.

Just make the core a bit stronger for side mount boosters, to make Dagger happy.


SS/SH full reusability can wait a bit...a four Raptor SLS-like SuperHeavy would be a faster build...get Raptors flying sooner.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
I hope so. The GAO is harping on SLS again...but Starship/SuperHeavy is such a complex beast that it is slowing Musk.

If the next few flights are failures... maybe meet in the middle.

A SpaceX type SLS that is the same width flies a stage-and-a-half to orbit profile and dumps a lot of Starlinks off directly---no upper stage...or maybe with just one VacRaptor.

The SLS like core has four standard Raptors...easy plumbing...and you throw less of them away than in losing whole SS/SH cores that will be de facto expendable. This can be built faster and be a less busy design.

More mass needed?

Just stretch the tank...add more Falcon Heavy style strap-ons....making it look like the Vulkan concept of Glushko.

Call it "Elonergia." :)

A whole line of pads for Falcon strap-ons at Boca.

Just make the core a bit stronger for side mount boosters, to make Dagger happy.


SS/SH full reusability can wait a bit...a four Raptor SLS-like SuperHeavy would be a faster build...get Raptors flying sooner.
Click to expand...
No, you don't give up after one or two failures and start from scratch. That's what the US does in hypersonics as we can see how awesomely effective that is.
 
Concerning the new Starship prototype TheSpaceBucket has just uploaded a video about the design changes SpaceX has made to it:


With the amount of changes and upgrades to the new Starship prototype, compared to the one that launched back in April, some consider it practically a new rocket. SpaceX and Elon have pointed out that there are over 1000 changes across the entirety of the new test article both physical and mission-related. All of which are intended to help facilitate a successful launch, stage separation, and complete flight.
Click to expand...
On the first test flight, there were quite a few things that went wrong from liftoff to the activation of the flight termination system. Thankfully, SpaceX also gained a lot of invaluable data which has been directly applied to the current prototype. From engine changes to booster heat shield upgrades, a new stage separation, and leak prevention, SpaceX has been very busy.
Click to expand...
Recently the company released a detailed report highlighting what exactly went wrong on the first launch and how they addressed these problems with the current Starship test article. Here I will go more in-depth into some of the most significant changes, why SpaceX thinks this launch will be different than the first, the expected launch date, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/the-upgrad...
Click to expand...
 
publiusr said:
I hope so. The GAO is harping on SLS again...but Starship/SuperHeavy is such a complex beast that it is slowing Musk.

If the next few flights are failures... maybe meet in the middle.

A SpaceX type SLS that is the same width flies a stage-and-a-half to orbit profile and dumps a lot of Starlinks off directly---no upper stage...or maybe with just one VacRaptor.

The SLS like core has four standard Raptors...easy plumbing...and you throw less of them away than in losing whole SS/SH cores that will be de facto expendable. This can be built faster and be a less busy design.

More mass needed?

Just stretch the tank...add more Falcon Heavy style strap-ons....making it look like the Vulkan concept of Glushko.

Call it "Elonergia." :)

A whole line of pads for Falcon strap-ons at Boca.

Just make the core a bit stronger for side mount boosters, to make Dagger happy.


SS/SH full reusability can wait a bit...a four Raptor SLS-like SuperHeavy would be a faster build...get Raptors flying sooner.
Click to expand...
SpaceX and SLS don't mix; too different of culture. Also, rockets are not Legos; can't just throw different rocket parts together. Also, it is show a lack of knowledge basic rocket science.
1. A second stage is needed to put items into orbit. There are no SSTOs.
2. A second stage is needed to provide a large velocity increment, so that the first stage and return to the launch site and be reuse.
3. SLS core is sized wrong for methane.
4. SLS core can not be made faster.
5. An SLS core with no engines costs more than a Starship booster with engines.
6. Falcon 9 boosters as strap ons would not work for Starship. Changes the structure too much.
7. There is no reason for SS/SH without full reusability. SpaceX doesn't need a large booster for Starlink. It needs a cheap booster.*
8. Raptors don't need to fly on their own. There is no point to it.

* this is what you continually fail to understand. Cheap lift is needed and not large lift. Once you have cheap lift, you can make it larger and keep it cheap. There is no requirement for large lift at any cost, except for congress to fund certain districts.
 
publiusr said:
I hope so. The GAO is harping on SLS again...but Starship/SuperHeavy is such a complex beast that it is slowing Musk.

If the next few flights are failures... maybe meet in the middle.

A SpaceX type SLS that is the same width flies a stage-and-a-half to orbit profile and dumps a lot of Starlinks off directly---no upper stage...or maybe with just one VacRaptor.

The SLS like core has four standard Raptors...easy plumbing...and you throw less of them away than in losing whole SS/SH cores that will be de facto expendable. This can be built faster and be a less busy design.

More mass needed?

Just stretch the tank...add more Falcon Heavy style strap-ons....making it look like the Vulkan concept of Glushko.

Call it "Elonergia." :)

A whole line of pads for Falcon strap-ons at Boca.

Just make the core a bit stronger for side mount boosters, to make Dagger happy.


SS/SH full reusability can wait a bit...a four Raptor SLS-like SuperHeavy would be a faster build...get Raptors flying sooner.
Click to expand...

Elonergia Nice idea but:
SLS core need complete redesign for Methanlox because different fuel as Hydrolox.
also if you replace the 2 solids with four Falcon 9 this SLS Core need additional modification.
The launch pad propellants system need rebuild to handle Methan, Lox and Kerosine.
also two additional landing barge to take the four Falcons 9.

but you got Elonergia core stage with payload in very low orbit
Either third stage or another Elonergia's as tankers to refuel fast, since the very low orbit is collapsing !
why ?
The rocket design of the Shuttle (SLS) or Energia, the core stage arrive in very low orbit for it fast disposal.

Here Superheavy and Starship is right way to get into Orbit, special if total reuse are needed.
 
SLS seems like it will forever be a limited use system for a few specialized launches due to expense (assuming it even lasts that long). At some point it just gets cut as too expensive. I think when they run out of pre made engines, that's that.
 
NMaude said:
They already have RS-25Es in production to replace the RS-25Ds when those run out.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, was unaware. But I guess they would have to for the program to be able to proceed.

I get that they were trying to use existing infrastructure and materials for the project. And that on the face of it seems to make sense. But they obviously couldn’t keep up with private enterprise. To be fair, when they started, the idea of private enterprise doing super heavy lift seemed impossible. Five years ago, reusable Falcon 9s seemed iffy. The SLS was overtaken by invents and industry. NASA is hardly the only government launching service caught flat footed; it just is perhaps the best funded with the most ambitious goals. It seems unlikely SLS lasts very long.
 
Josh_TN said:
NASA is hardly the only government launching service caught flat footed; it just is perhaps the best funded with the most ambitious goals. It seems unlikely SLS lasts very long.
Click to expand...

From what understand is that one of the main problems with the SLS programme is chronic underfunding by a penny-pinching US Congress (They clearly don't seem to understand the concept of false economy), IIRC Bridenstein had repeatedly begged Congress to give NASA adequate funding but the short-sighted penny-pinching fools didn't.
 
Agreed.

I hear from Next Big Future that Gates is trying to 'short sell' TESLA.

Elon is controversial--yes...but that worm Gates is what will wind up putting people out of work.

I hope the Wall Street Bets hackers crater Bill instead..
Malthusian misrablist that he is.
 
publiusr said:
I hear from Next Big Future that Gates is trying to 'short sell' TESLA.
Click to expand...
TESLA is a shareholder company, you face issue like hostile takeover.
SpaceX is not a shareholder company,!
SpaceX get money by investors like Yusaku Maezawa and others.
And Elon Musk stay CEO of SpaceX.
 
Archibald said:
Meanwhile the NASAspaceflight fanatical fanboying thread has reached brand new levels of criminal stupidity.

B9 + S25 IFT/General Discussion

B9 + S25 IFT/General Discussion
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

Special kudos to this - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58887.msg2522756#msg2522756

And this - but it is "business as usual". Unfortunately. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58887.msg2522723#msg2522723

Some people are so disconnected from reality - if their beloved Elon told them to eat cyanide poison on their way to Mars - they would do it. Blindly.
Click to expand...
Er, you do understand the concept of sarcasm, right?
 
Tuna said:
Er, you do understand the concept of sarcasm, right?
Click to expand...

I nuked the post. Better place in the other thread. I understand sacarsm, thank you so much :rolleyes: - and also absolute idiocy and arrogance. And Robotbeat push the boundaries, day after day.
 
Even though SpaceX has complemented all of the FAA mandated changes to the Starship it appears that the FAA is not quite ready to give its approval, from TheSpaceBucket:


Only a few days ago we learned that SpaceX had completed all the necessary FAA corrective actions for the approval of Starship’s second launch. This was very promising news and suggested the company would revive a launch license within just weeks or days. However, new information from the FAA confirms the launch will likely take place no earlier than October and a few more approvals are still needed.
Click to expand...
This comes in addition to new meetings between Elon Musk and the FAA, and physical progress on the Starship test article. Just earlier today SpaceX began to destack Ship 25 from Booster 9 for a possible installation of the Flight Termination System. This is one of the final pre-launch steps and only happens when the launch is right around the corner.
Click to expand...
This being said, the company won’t be launching anything until the second test flight is approved by the FAA, when they are satisfied with everything SpaceX has done since the last flight. Here I will go more in-depth into the new comments from the FAA, other necessary approvals, physical progress, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/more-detai...
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom