SpaceX (general discussion)

FighterJock said:
Got up early to watch it, did not realise that it was a reused booster rocket. I wonder, how many reused boosters do SpaceX currently have to use as of now?
Click to expand...

They are currently believed to have 9 operational boosters, of which 2 are new builds, so 7 have been flown at least once. Two of those are configured as FH side boosters. The also have 4 older (pre-block 5) boosters that landed successfully but are believed to be retired, which are most likely ending up as museum pieces or scrap.
 
quick look on

Falcon 9 Block 5
B1046 2018-2020 flow 4 time, destroy during crew Dragon Abort test.
B1047 2018-2019 flow 3 time, expended on Atmos-17 launch do heavy payload
B1048 2018-2020 flow 5 time, destroy during landing as miss the Drone Ship
B1049 2018- flow 5 time, refurbish for august Starlink mission
B1050 2018 flow 1 time, failed land landing and water down, scrapped
B1051 2019- flow 5 time, for moment return to habor after starlink mission
B1052 2019- flow 2 time, Falcon Heavy Side Booster, Stored for next mission
B1053 2019- flow 2 time, Falcon Heavy Side Booster, Stored for next mission
B1054 2018 flow 1 time, expended on GPSIII launch do high Orbit
B1055 2019 flow 1 time, Falcon Heavy core, destroy by accident during return to launch site...
B1056 2019-2020 flow 4 time, destroy during landing as miss the Drone Ship
B1057 2019 flow 1 time, Falcon Heavy core, destroy as miss drone ship
B1058 2020- flow 2 time, Refurbish and storage
B1059 2019- flow 3 time, Refurbish for next flight in august 2020
B1060 2020- flow 1 time, Refurbish for next flight in august 2020
B1061 2020- new build undergoes testing
B1062 2020- new build undergoes testing
B106X 202? new build Falcon Heavy core for Launch end 2020 begin 2021

That's 16 Block 5 (17 for that new FH core)
7 Falcons 9 and 2 Falcon Booster (yet to build core)


 
www.af.mil

Space Force awards National Security Space Launch Phase 2 launch service contracts to ULA,

The Space and Missile Systems Center, in partnership with the National Reconnaissance Office, competitively awarded two Firm-Fixed-Price, Indefinite Delivery Requirement contracts for National
www.af.mil

Concurrent with this announcement, the SMC Launch Enterprise, in collaboration with the NRO, will order the first three missions assigned under Phase 2. ULA has been assigned USSF-51 and USSF-106 scheduled for launch in the second quarter fiscal year 2022 and fourth quarter fiscal year 2022, respectively. SpaceX has been assigned USSF-67, scheduled for launch in fourth quarter fiscal year 2022. Future launch services will be placed on subsequent Task Orders by mission and will be publicly announced upon issuance. Task orders for the launch service support and launch service contracts will be issued to ULA for $337 million and SpaceX for $316 million for launch services to meet fiscal year 2022 launch dates.
 
Wonder what they'll do about Starship since that's only about 2/3 the required height for Starship. :confused:
 
sferrin said:
Wonder what they'll do about Starship since that's only about 2/3 the required height for Starship. :confused:
Click to expand...

They're going to build a whole new pad at 39A for Starship anyway, so this structure probably doesn't matter for how they will load Starship.

I think this supports the idea that Falcon 9/Heavy are going to be around longer than Musk likes to admit. This contract is definitely built around Falcon, and national security launches at least are going to rely on it for a long time to come.

PS: Of note in these images, the Falcon Heavy has a longer payload shroud than the current version. That also seems to be necessary for certain national security payloads.

PPS: these pics aren't that new. They've been public since at least January of this year.
 
I don't understand why they don't just dig a hole in the ground and carve out the servicing stations around instead of erecting such tall structures. You know like a cold war silo.
 
TomcatViP said:
I don't understand why they don't just dig a hole in the ground and carve out the servicing stations around instead of erecting such tall structures. You know like a cold war silo.
Click to expand...

What advantage would this bring?

It certainly wouldn't be cheaper. Building a lightweight steel frame structure above ground is probably orders of magnitude easier than digging out a several hundred foot deep concrete silo below ground.

And yeah, the water table at Cape Canaveral isn't deep and the soil is very permeable. If you dig more than a couple of feet down, the hole is going to try to fill with water almost immediately.
 
TomS said:
And yeah, the water table at Cape Canaveral isn't deep and the soil is very permeable. If you dig more than a couple of feet down, the hole is going to try to fill with water almost immediately.
Click to expand...

It's often a problem when building underground car parks (not to mention caissons - have a look at the history of the Brooklyn Bridge). You can excavate and you can seal spaces below the water table of course, but then your structure effectively becomes a boat and the challenge is not to keep it up, but to keep it down. That can be a lot more expensive.

As an historical aside, the development of the modern steam engine was inspired by the need to pump water out of mines, not transport: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Newcomen
 
Fact is that there is Cap Canaveral because you need empty space devoid of inhabitants or surrounding structures on a vast scale
You have to balance the cost constraints of this in front of those of an excavation.
It's not like digging holes in the ground is unfamiliar to empires like the one owned by Musk.
Imagine now a desert base surrounded by ridge like you have plenty in the Mojave desert.
This would offer perfect blast and sound mitigation with ground materials type that have been excavated for generations (no unknown, no hazardous projection cost...).
 
fredymac said:
Crew Dragon first mission set for October 23.

The first operational flight of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft with four astronauts aboard is set to launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida no earlier than Oct. 23
Click to expand...
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/08/...te-for-first-operational-crew-dragon-mission/

View attachment 639325
Click to expand...

Excellent news fredymac, I cannot wait until October 23 for the first proper operational flight of Crew Dragon, and it will launch four astronauts. That I am also excited about.
 
It'll be interesting to see what speeds people get when satellite density increases; right now most of the speed tests being found online are happening in Los Angeles where there's rather spotty coverage and evidently a tight concentration of users.

In other news however, SpaceX have broken a new record with the Raptor's chamber pressure, reaching 330 bar (10% above design pressure) without destroying the engine. They're about to begin testing of a further upgraded engine as well, Raptor SN40.

Also, Starship SN6 passed its cryogenic pressure test yesterday (SN5, which performed the recent 150m hop is undergoing some repairs) and just minutes before posting this, a Raptor engine (rumoured to be SN29 [vs SN27 used on SN5]) was seen being driven out to SN6, with a NOTAM TFR also issued yesterday, clearing them to perform static-fire testing any time between today and September 1st (CDT). County road closures haven't been posted yet, but we'll probably see a static fire later this week and then if all goes well, hopefully another 150m hop next week as they gather more data and try to streamline the launching and recovery process.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1295495834998513664
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295495834998513664

https://twitter.com/x/status/1295498964205068289
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295498964205068289

https://twitter.com/x/status/1295553672454311941
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295553672454311941
 
Looks like the Starlink business plan involves maximizing re-use of boosters to minimize capital cost in establishing the satellite population. This booster just notched up number 6 for launch/landing and the fairing are also used.

 
www.teslarati.com

SpaceX crushes rocket engine world record during Raptor test

CEO Elon Musk has revealed that SpaceX crushed a global rocketry record during a recent Raptor engine test, pushing the crucial Starship component past years-old performance targets. On August 17th, the SpaceX CEO unexpectedly released a photo of a Raptor test and a corresponding graph showing...
www.teslarati.com www.teslarati.com
 
There is Interesting debate about Launch Complex in Boca Chica

it could be that structure there building now is not launch platform but water tower
What make sense because the the Pad need allot of water for protection and sound suppression system during Launch.
if that is case were they put the Launch Pad ?
and from were comes needed Water, will SpaceX installed a seawater desalination plant ?

what going on next the test stand ?
after removal of Methane Flare stack, they drill deep holes filled up with concrete, now second test framework is moved over there.

source
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF20WgelPjU


https://twitter.com/x/status/1295794607331192834
View: https://twitter.com/RGVaerialphotos/status/1295794607331192834


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK87zJ3c7uE
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1299422160667250689
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1299422160667250689


Raptor reached 230 mT-F (over half a million pounds of thrust) at peak pressure with some damage, so this version of the engine can probably sustain ~210 tons. Should have a 250+ ton engine in about 6 to 9 months. Target for booster is 7500 tons (16.5 million pounds) of thrust.
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/x/status/1299423127605256194
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1299423127605256194


Testing with shorter RVac skirt went well. Full length skirt test coming soon.
Click to expand...
 
Looks like Space X will be launching twice today one is another Starlink payload the other is Argentinian communication satellite SAOCOM 1B.
 
It seems from posts on NSF that the Falcon 9 used its excess in performance to avoid overflying the Delta IVH sitting on its launchpad even though this wasn’t an optimal flight trajectory.
 
That would be perhaps a first when a returning booster had to manoeuvre to avoid overflying a restricted area.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom