SpaceX (general discussion)

Flogger15 said:
Those are awesome pictures! I never took that rolling seas and wind factor into account for transporting the spent booster back to land. I don't see anyone on deck, is that retrieval all autonomous?
Click to expand...
It already happened once in 2019 for the launch of Arabsat 6a on Falcon Heavy, the center core landed and tipped over during the return trip
en.wikipedia.org

Arabsat-6A - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
1703619668726.jpeg
The retrieval is autonomous up to the arrival to the port, the barge is uncrewed and there is a remote-controlled robot that grabs and secure (or attempts to in yesterday's case) the rocket's engine bay.
1703619829060.jpeg
 
Some people in spaceflight community are mourning for lost of B1058.19

It was the best booster, 19 flights with total 869 payloads Delivered (including 2 astronauts)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcgW7cOOoM8


GCPg3CvWQAA9Kpe
 
So, we (collectively) can build a booster that can land and be re-used for many more launches AND we put a sea-based landing platform out there for a long-range landing platform. THEN we make it travel, unmanned, back to land for unload and re-launch. PLUS, we build a built-in stabilizing system to keep the spent rocket upright going back to shore in bad weather.

No problem.
 
Flogger15 said:
So, we (collectively) can build a booster that can land and be re-used for many more launches AND we put a sea-based landing platform out there for a long-range landing platform. THEN we make it travel, unmanned, back to land for unload and re-launch. PLUS, we build a built-in stabilizing system to keep the spent rocket upright going back to shore in bad weather.

No problem.
Click to expand...
Imagine the gasps of horror pitching that idea to NASA 20 years ago.
 
Byeman said:
the issue isn't the technology and the ability to do it. It is the cost of the Falcon 9 excluding reductions for reuse. Having a cheap rocket made it easy to experiment.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't change the fact there would have been gasps of horror. NASA's middle name is "risk averse". I don't doubt their technical ability.
 
sferrin said:
Which doesn't change the fact there would have been gasps of horror. NASA's middle name is "risk averse". I don't doubt their technical ability.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the Webb was a very high priced mechanical nightmare waiting to happen. It was the very definition of high risk, if perhaps in package rather than delivery system.
 
Booster 10 made it static test firing.

In 2023 SpaceX launched 98 times (91 Falcon 9 and 5 Falcon Heavy and 2 Starship launches)
 
Watched booster landings from the Hangar C parking lot. It was a clear night but you can’t track the boosters between burns unlike daylight launches. The boosters made jellyfish plumes during boost back and then were invisible until entry burn directly overhead. Then we lost them and started looking towards the landing zone and were not disappointed. Loud sonic booms followed by loud engine roars. We were only 1.75 miles from the landing zone.
 
Michel Van said:
Elon Musk update on SpaceX (56 minutes)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1745941814165815717
View: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1745941814165815717
Click to expand...

Musk’s reference to Moon base Alpha (Space 1999 by Gerry&Sylvia Anderson) I thought was quite touching as it shows where he’s drawn his inspiration from.

It’s such a shame Gerry, Sylvia and Douglas Adams (who’s Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was launched into deep space on the first Falcon Heavy) have passed away before seeing what effect their imagination has had on the world.
 
Last edited:
Zoo Tycoon said:
Musk’s reference to Moon base Alpha (Space 1999 by Gerry&Sylvia Anderson) I thought was quite touching as it shows where he’s drawn his inspiration from.

It’s such a shame Gerry, Sylvia and Douglas Adams (who’s Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was launched into deep space on the first Falcon Heavy) have passed away before seeing what effect their imagination has had on the world.
Click to expand...
And that's why we need good science fiction. Dreams can be motivating.
 
NeilChapman said:
The extent of upgrades mentioned is staggering.

Is anyone developing payloads that will take advantage of Starships diameter?
Click to expand...
No. Nobody is going to spend the money on using it at this time. The configuration hasn't solidified. And its timeline hasn't settled down.

. It wouldn't surprising if they reach the moon before NASA.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. Starship is the lander for NASA. And one of the reasons for the delay in NASA's moon landing plans.
Plus Musk doesn't want to go to the moon, Mars is his objective.
 
NeilChapman said:
Is anyone developing payloads that will take advantage of Starships diameter?
Click to expand...
Only Space X for large Starlinks satellites and NASA HLS but that is heavy modified Starship.
but once Starship is operational, customer will come with large payloads...
 
Michel Van said:
Only Space X for large Starlinks satellites and NASA HLS but that is heavy modified Starship.
but once Starship is operational, customer will come with large payloads...
Click to expand...
I hope someone comes up with a stretched/larger diameter "Starship" to use as the backbone for a space station. Or three.
 
What's in the news ? 12 m diameter again ? (not english borne speaker, 1 hour of even Elon Musk speaking is too much)
 
Last edited:
NeilChapman said:
The extent of upgrades mentioned is staggering.

Is anyone developing payloads that will take advantage of Starships diameter? At >100t to orbit per they are going to run out of things to launch (other than Starlink) in the short term. It wouldn't surprising if they reach the moon before NASA.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define ‘develop.’ Vast, Gravitics, TransAstra, K2Space, and Virtus Solis are all either baselining Starship directly, or proposing payloads to take advantage of its (and New Glenn’s) volume. That runs the gamut from asteroid mining spacecraft and solar power satellites, to habitats and more general-purpose satellites.
 
NeilChapman said:
The extent of upgrades mentioned is staggering.

Is anyone developing payloads that will take advantage of Starships diameter? At >100t to orbit per they are going to run out of things to launch (other than Starlink) in the short term. It wouldn't surprising if they reach the moon before NASA.
Click to expand...

Not developing, but the LUVOIR telescope (a successor to Webb) study mentioned the possibility. Its mirror was up to 15m in diameter unfolded.

LUVOIR: Large UV/Optical/Infrared Surveyor

The Large UV/Optical/IR Surveyor (LUVOIR) is a concept for a highly capable, multi-wavelength space observatory with ambitious science goals.
asd.gsfc.nasa.gov asd.gsfc.nasa.gov

Note that this is an earlier iteration of Starship and SLS and Delta were studied in more detail. LUVOIR was only a study and has been superseded on Santa's list by the Habitable Worlds Observatory, which is still only a conceptual study.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org www.science.org


science.nasa.gov

Habitable Worlds Observatory - NASA Science

About NASA is further prioritizing its long-running search for life in the universe and laying the groundwork for its next flagship astrophysics mission after the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (slated to launch by May 2027). This observatory would simultaneously provide powerful capabilities...
science.nasa.gov science.nasa.gov
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-01-16 at 11.18.15 AM.png
    Screenshot 2024-01-16 at 11.18.15 AM.png
    160.5 KB · Views: 20

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom