They don't exist.DOD outsized payloads
They don't exist.DOD outsized payloads
But nobody would actually want to finance an expended Starship launch when they have the F9/FH as an option. Only a few NASA and DOD outsized payloads would make Starship a necessity and I don't think we can come up with truly viable Starship use cases for at least a decade though. Until that point, it doesn't matter whatever Starship could actually do, Falcon 9 simply does it better (cheaper/more reliable). Simply said, you don't need a beast of a rocket for most missions.
I wonder what a lighter/disposable second stage would look like payload-wise and demand-wise. Presumably demand for larger payload will eventually follow increases in capabilities. Is there enough demand currently to justify that path?Honestly as is You can use Starship as productive launcher.
Both made it to orbital velocity with only the flight plan being made so that it came down in a safe spot. They could have set it down in the Gulf if they wanted too but didn't due to safety reasons.
That basically ALL you need to yeet 100 plus tons of Satellite into orbit.
And use the cash from that to run prototyping til they get it fixed like they did with the Falcon 9. Especially Since most of the kinks are seemly removed from the main booster Which can toss like 90 tons to orbit with a faring, double that on a expandable flight, irc.
Then you can get it human rated.
Thunderf00t is a lot like Adam Conover. At first glance with their polished stuff they seem both entertaining and informative, but the more you watch them, specially unscripted, the dumber they come off. Thunderf00t is great when he's debunking crap products like sham underwater artificial lungs and moisture vaporators and even Hyperloop, but his Elon-Hate overrides his rationality.Thunderf00t is a bit of a twat, who doesn't seem near as smart as he thinks he is.
Perhaps inflatable LOFTID materials at the fin joins?No, they don't need stop gap measures. That is negative work.
The fins actuate *during* entry. They actuate on the pad.After re-entry, the fins actuate, shattering the RCC and leaving a pristine hinge area.
Starship. There is nothing substantial enough to spark like that at such altitudes. Note that having a few sparks is not fatal, and can result from things like not finishing all the corners of tiles smoothly, which at such pressures and temperatures is a self-fixing problem (so why spend the time and money to do it yourself). An analogous situation is that the first engine startup of all SpaceX engines is a bit green, because the chamber and throat start a bit rough, because machining it all away would add cost and you can just let the engine smooth itself out instead.Did these debris came from Starship or were there environmental? Hard to say at this stage.
*I am on the opinion that Starship came down too fast and should have pitched-up to cool down the structure before re-initiating the descent.
Early this morning SpaceX launched Starship for the fourth time and it was easily the most impressive one yet. The last flight was back in March earlier this year and ended a bit early with both the booster and upper stage being destroyed.
This time around, however, the company made a few key changes and upgrades to the entire vehicle and mission plan that helped Starship reach a couple of significant new milestones. Here I will go more in-depth into the fourth flight, exactly what happened, what to expect in the near future, and more.
For more space-related content check out - https://thespacebucket.com/https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...Q&q=https://thespacebucket.com/&v=J5HBZpWrE1g
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:28 - Fourth Launch Attempt
but is there any other imagery of the two "landings" (splash-downs) available besides the "on-board" camera settings or were there no ships (or whatever) nearby?
I’d hazard a guess at “No”.Maybe a stupid question and I may have missed the answer, but is there any other imagery of the two "landings" (splash-downs) available besides the "on-board" camera settings or were there no ships (or whatever) nearby?
I’d hazard a guess at “No”.
Having ships near enough to the landing zone to record the landings means putting the ships at risk of damage in the event of an unexpected or unplanned event.
Not a difficult prediction! We will have this nailed for next flight.
Note, a newer version of Starship has the forward flaps shifted leeward. This will help improve reliability, ease of manufacturing and payload to orbit.
No, LOFID was expendable. No need for water wings, there will be no ditching.That's right---maybe LOFTID materials at the join... bellows configuration?
The shuttle had a flap of sorts beneath the SSME's... anything applicable here?
no demand because it increases costs. Increase in demand comes from the lower cost, not from increased payload capability.I wonder what a lighter/disposable second stage would look like payload-wise and demand-wise. Presumably demand for larger payload will eventually follow increases in capabilities. Is there enough demand currently to justify that path?
with what? The fix needs to be passive.Adding some active cooling to the flap, perhaps?
not for this mission. It wasn't "safe" until they demonstrated a successful water landingThanks, but that‘s the point. But they will - surely later (albeit Elon posted today, maybe even already next time) - to catch it with the grips on the launch tower, so they must more than precisely know where it re-enters and at least which area outside should be safe.
They operate completely differently.Do the fins have more in common with the shuttle control surfaces, or that body flap under the SSMEs?
body flapDo the fins have more in common with the shuttle control surfaces, or that body flap under the SSMEs?
Why not habitats large enough to rotate for artificial gravity, factories, propellant depots, or delivery of things such as solar power satellites (with the proviso of any/all of these being sufficiently profitable to be practical)? Or 'steerage to the stars' as it were if you want to fit a large number of people into a single flight to orbit (whether that's to a hotel, a factory, a ship headed for Mars, whatever - again, with the proviso of assuming profitability). Or are you assuming such things likely won't happen, and future space operations will be broadly similar to the present day?For low earth orbit missions, I think Starship would be limited to mega constellation projects. It’s just too much rocket for much else.
Why not habitats large enough to rotate for artificial gravity, factories, propellant depots, or delivery of things such as solar power satellites (with the proviso of any/all of these being sufficiently profitable to be practical)? Or 'steerage to the stars' as it were if you want to fit a large number of people into a single flight to orbit (whether that's to a hotel, a factory, a ship headed for Mars, whatever - again, with the proviso of assuming profitability). Or are you assuming such things likely won't happen, and future space operations will be broadly similar to the present day?
See SP-413 for a gander at what we could have had. (Or could still with the right people.)Why not habitats large enough to rotate for artificial gravity, factories, propellant depots, or delivery of things such as solar power satellites (with the proviso of any/all of these being sufficiently profitable to be practical)? Or 'steerage to the stars' as it were if you want to fit a large number of people into a single flight to orbit (whether that's to a hotel, a factory, a ship headed for Mars, whatever - again, with the proviso of assuming profitability). Or are you assuming such things likely won't happen, and future space operations will be broadly similar to the present day?
Why not habitats large enough to rotate for artificial gravity, factories, propellant depots, or delivery of things such as solar power satellites (with the proviso of any/all of these being sufficiently profitable to be practical)? Or 'steerage to the stars' as it were if you want to fit a large number of people into a single flight to orbit (whether that's to a hotel, a factory, a ship headed for Mars, whatever - again, with the proviso of assuming profitability). Or are you assuming such things likely won't happen, and future space operations will be broadly similar to the present day?
So it’s less of a what, and more of when. Fair. I’m not assuming anything I mentioned will happen soon, though the beginnings of all of them are there. I would also note that our perceptions of cost will need to shift if Starship is flying at the scale multiple large constellations need, what seems preposterous now won’t be the case if enough Starships are flying to put thousands of V2 Starlinks into orbit every year.Perhaps, long term, depending on the costs.
ETA: short term there is not a market for large structures in orbit, outside one time government projects. SpaceX owe needs however could likely easily drive Starships development for years. I expect once its proven numerous other large constellations would be interested, in addition to some unique heavy lift requirements for NASA and such.
I read SP-413 a long time ago (and many of the other studies from that era). I’d have much preferred to be born after the large-scale settlement of space.See SP-413 for a gander at what we could have had. (Or could still with the right people.)
Yes. Of everything that I wrote, I’d be surprised to see any of it on a scale that demands Starship before the 2040s. Probably later. There are small-scale efforts in all of those arenas now, so a couple of decades of development can see significant changes. Back in 2004 SpaceX was the scrappy upstart working on Falcon 1.it is the "proviso"s
Early yesterday morning SpaceX launched Starship again for the vehicle’s fourth integrated flight test. Here we saw the booster return to Earth and complete a landing burn with minor complications. We also saw a hard-fought reentry of the upper stage that eventually ended with a splashdown in the ocean albeit not quite a fully intact Starship.
For a while now SpaceX has been working on the vehicle’s heat shield with the goal of creating a lightweight, easily manufacturable, and heat-resistant tile. That’s much easier said than done, however, and it seems they have a bit more work to do. Here I will go more in-depth into the current state of the heat shield, relevant testing of tiles, Starship’s steel construction, and more.
For more space-related content check out - https://thespacebucket.com/https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...Q&q=https://thespacebucket.com/&v=LAIQw5TNGAI
Credit:
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:36 - Starship's Heat Shield
3:23 - A Steel Rocket
Oh funny. It's not even competently written. Do they mean that this is the fourth flight without exploding? (Not true). Or do they mean that this, the fourth flight, was completed without exploding. (True).You may think you hate the professional media. but do you hate them *enough*? Probably not. Certainly not as much as they hate you.
View attachment 731219
I don't hate them (well, apart from a few precious outlets that skew heavily to either side of the political spectrum, see for example https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/), and I really don't think they hate me, because eyeballs, baby - so you were trying to say?You may think you hate the professional media. but do you hate them *enough*? Probably not. Certainly not as much as they hate you.