SpaceX (general discussion)

New on launch tower
Connections for Starship
FE4-LDeXEAMc1gE
 
Watching launches of astronauts on Crew Dragon, two questions come to me, that hopefully, could be answered in this thread:
1) have been any back-up crew members planned for any launch - in case of sudden inability of any person to perform duties? Such things have been common in early days of space exploration. But now when Covid is still in effect - are "spare" astronauts trained/ready for quick replacement?
2) from the yesteryear, first 'Crew Dragon" launch we could see the crew convoy in "Teslas", guarded by armored car. And it's inside the such restricted area, as Cape Canaveral. Are such demonstrative security precautions exists in a days of first manned launches, Saturn era and Space Shuttle? Or it's the mark of our time?
Although such questions could be irrelevant to the SpaceX activity, I would like to knew the opinion of the forum' members.
 
NASA have backup crew
oddly only two astronauts for backup if problem happens
Inspiration4 had no backup crew

The security at KSC was increased in 1970s because threat’s of terrorist attack on Apollo missions
became lax in 1980s and 90s after 2001 terror attacks and several incidence
KSC has maximum security now
 
Michel Van said:
NASA have backup crew
oddly only two astronauts for backup if problem happens
Inspiration4 had no backup crew

The security at KSC was increased in 1970s because threat’s of terrorist attack on Apollo missions
became lax in 1980s and 90s after 2001 terror attacks and several incidence
KSC has maximum security now
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarification!

Perhaps the need for backup crew lowered due to more options to launch rockets: as the launchers itself became less expensive and easily available? I guess, the replacement of "Saturn V" couldn't be made easily and quickly.

Concerning security: I found the documentary about Space Shuttle Discovery STS-120 Launch 23 October 2007
View: https://youtu.be/_zh1e3Phikk?t=53

The convoy of "AstroVan" (transporting the astronauts to launch complex) with certain other cars has included black security vehicle, however, without any visible armament.
My point was that security measures now are more demonstrative and more serious.

Curiously, modified MRAP would been used as "emergency transport" if something going wrong on launch pad.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMXCZVmL0Q
 
@Silencer1 : Armored Crew vehicle with blast resistant protection is certainly something that would not be seen as a luxury if available for cheap as they are today for US administrations. Think about closing to the launch pad where a gigantic rocket is fully fueled.
 
www.cnbc.com

Elon Musk tells SpaceX employees that Starship engine crisis is creating a 'risk of bankruptcy'

Elon Musk is angry with the lack of progress SpaceX has made in developing the Raptor engines that power its Starship rocket.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

I haven't meticulously followed this discussion but it doesn't seem this has come up yet. A companywide email states that Raptor engines can't currently be manufactured at a pace that comports with SpaceX's financial sustainability, even in the near term. The article ties this development up with the departure of their vice president of propulsion but this seems more of an educated guess than anything else. On paper at least Musk himself has become immensely wealthy during the last couple of years so it's a bit hard to imagine the situation as entirely dire but of course at least some of his "net worth" does ride on these engines. In any case the haste points to an immensely ambitious schedule, much more so than could've been superficially gleaned from their progress so far, be that existential for SpaceX or not.
 
UpForce said:
www.cnbc.com

Elon Musk tells SpaceX employees that Starship engine crisis is creating a 'risk of bankruptcy'

Elon Musk is angry with the lack of progress SpaceX has made in developing the Raptor engines that power its Starship rocket.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

I haven't meticulously followed this discussion but it doesn't seem this has come up yet. A companywide email states that Raptor engines can't currently be manufactured at a pace that comports with SpaceX's financial sustainability, even in the near term. The article ties this development up with the departure of their vice president of propulsion but this seems more of an educated guess than anything else. On paper at least Musk himself has become immensely wealthy during the last couple of years so it's a bit hard to imagine the situation as entirely dire but of course at least some of his "net worth" does ride on these engines. In any case the haste points to an immensely ambitious schedule, much more so than could've been superficially gleaned from their progress so far, be that existential for SpaceX or not.
Click to expand...
A few thoughts; motivation, focus, pressure. A bit of all three for the Raptor team, you don't send a company wide email with out the expectation that it will shortly be public. Commitment to delivery for investors, while Elon surely could self fund, it sends the wrong message to his investors. They expect a certain rate of return, with a $300K minimum buy-in for the last round who wouldn't? These aren't day traders so no-delivery would have a bit of an adverse impact on any later rounds...
 
Now, there was this thing called Delta 3 that was a gap filler. Ugly bird. Now, SpaceX was looking at a five core Falcon super heavy. Maybe that or a cluster version could be topped with a methalox 'centaur' with only one vac Raptor..to finish Starlink and buy time?
 
publiusr said:
Now, there was this thing called Delta 3 that was a gap filler. Ugly bird. Now, SpaceX was looking at a five core Falcon super heavy. Maybe that or a cluster version could be topped with a methalox 'centaur' with only one vac Raptor..to finish Starlink and buy time?
Click to expand...
A ten year diversion to "buy time"? You work for the government?
 
So far the Musk Email (he not dispute or confirmed it's his)
He mention that management was replaced (most likely fired ?)
and that management screw up (they were definitive fired !)

now Musk mention in Email
if we cannot achieve a Starship flight rate of at least once every two weeks next year
Click to expand...
one moment ?
the FAA permit for Starbase has only 5 Orbital test lights for 2022 !
Yes the FAA made clear they restricted the launch from Starbase because is a Private site, not a State installation
(same goes for Sea Platforms)

Guess what
At KSC Launch pad 39A began construction workers to dismantle the abandon BFR launch installation.
Musk tweeted about this
Construction of Starship orbital launch pad at the Cape has begun
Click to expand...
Kennedy space center is a State installation, means SpaceX can fire so many rocket as they wish
With speed they build that launch complex in Texas, it will stand in 2022 at Cape
That would solve the Starlink problem, but only if the first Starship/Superheavy launch from there are disposable!
what explain the problem with Raptor production.

this artwork was posted several weeks ago
FFsc4x4XIAQXT82
 
And they're off! Right out of the gate. I'd love to see an SLS build upper stage with SRBs on Super Heavy :)
 
NASA announced Dec. 3 its intent to purchase three more commercial crew missions from SpaceX as a hedge against further delays in the certification of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner.
Click to expand...
spacenews.com

NASA to award SpaceX three more commercial crew flights

NASA announced Dec. 3 its intent to purchase three more commercial crew missions from SpaceX as a hedge against further delays of Boeing’s Starliner.
spacenews.com spacenews.com
 
Planetary scientists are getting excited by the possibilities of Starship:

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Accelerating Martian and Lunar Science through SpaceX Starship Missions

SpaceX is developing the Starship vehicle for human and robotic flights to the Moon and Mars. This vehicle offers unprecedented payload capacity and a lower cost of surface access due to its full reusability. Here we focus on the potential research benefits from an effective partnership between...
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

www.technologyreview.com

How SpaceX’s massive Starship rocket might unlock the solar system—and beyond

With the first orbital test launch of Starship on the horizon, scientists are dreaming about what it might make possible— from trips to Neptune to planetary defense.
www.technologyreview.com www.technologyreview.com

Scroll down a bit and you'll find the proposed 'Arcanum' orbiter mission to Neptune.

Conex Research

www.conexresearch.com www.conexresearch.com

[2110.10808] The Arcanum Mission: Scientific Objectives and Instruments for Neptune, Triton and KBOs

arxiv.org

Weighing in at about 21 metric tons, the spacecraft would be four times heavier than the largest deep space probe to date: NASA and ESA’s Cassini-Huygens mission, which explored Saturn from 2004 to 2017. No existing rocket could currently launch such a craft, but Starship would make it possible. Arcanum would have numerous components, including an orbiter to study Neptune, a lander to study Triton, and a penetrator to strike Triton’s surface and “perform a seismic experiment” to understand its geology and its structure, says McKevitt. The mission could also be equipped with a telescope, allowing for studies of the outer solar system and aiding the hunt for planets around other stars.
 
Thought this story on Raptor engine woes was already posted. From last week:
www.business-standard.com

Elon Musk warns employees of potential SpaceX bankruptcy

Musk in an email to his company's employees asked them to work over the weekend on SpaceX's Raptor engine as the company faces "genuine risk of bankruptcy" unless it speeds up the production.
www.business-standard.com www.business-standard.com
 
Why planetary scientists are excited by Starship, continued.

NASA Is on the Cusp of a New Era

A planetary scientist explains why SpaceX’s Starship will transform her field.
nautil.us nautil.us

The way we do things now, we’re always conscious of mass. We spend a lot of money on miniaturizing components to make them fit within the small mass box. But if that goes away, then you can start flying more things. You can take things off the shelf more easily. You can also fly more of them and lower your risk. If a couple of instruments don’t work, then that’s fine, you still have data from all the rest. It’s really thinking in a different way. We can start asking, “What science could I do if I could have all of these flight opportunities, if I could fly this much mass?”

There’s a lot of architectural versatility that’s provided just with the structure itself. A lot of interior volume, for example, and you can repurpose that volume depending on your mission needs. You can have crew compartments. You can have large bulk spaces for sending large spacecraft. There are pods on the bottom, so you can have easy access to the surface. There can be an elevator, so you can lower payloads down to the ground, if you need to. On early flights, you can even use some of that material for building up your base.
 
Now they admit the advantages of HLLVs…now that they don’t have to share funding for Starship. Back when SD HLLVs were the only game in town…they hated on it.
 
Something is going on at Starbase

They put Booster 3 back on launch pad and removing the scaffolding on it
 
sferrin said:
Michel Van said:
Something is going on at Starbase

They put Booster 3 back on launch pad and removing the scaffolding on it
Click to expand...
You spelled "Booster 4" wrong. ;)
Click to expand...
Dam is Booster 4 already ?
i'm late...

Musk on Why Dogcoin will be future of Currency
https://twitter.com/x/status/1470378129575325700
View: https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1470378129575325700


My career is Mars and cars.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1470650809624969223
View: https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1470650809624969223


Musk on the other car industry
https://twitter.com/x/status/1470559253974982663
View: https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1470559253974982663


On SpaceX and Tesla, why do sound, between the line more like this ?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XUu3_pLPUE
 
publiusr said:
Now they admit the advantages of HLLVs…now that they don’t have to share funding for Starship. Back when SD HLLVs were the only game in town…they hated on it.
Click to expand...
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have the faintest clue of the complexities of the situation.
 
FighterJock said:
Ask a stupid question time. What type of engines does the Starship use? Are they the same engines as the Falcon Heavy? Or are they a new series.
Click to expand...
Starship and Super Heavy (Starship's booster) both use Raptor engines instead of the Merlin engines of the Falcon family of rockets.

Merlin is a kerosene engine using a gas generator cycle (so a fuel-rich combustion takes place secondarily to drive a turbine to power the propellant turbopumps, dumping some unburned propellant overboard via a small second nozzle). Merlin generates roughly 200,000lbf of thrust at maximum and has an ISP of 282 (sea-level variant) and 311 (vacuum variant).

Raptor is a methane engine using a full-flow staged combustion cycle, which is where they have two minor combustion chambers (one operating fuel-rich, the other operating oxygen-rich) which each drive turbines to power a pair of turbopumps (these minor combustion chambers and turbines are called preburners). Then the exhausts of both those turbines (one containing a bunch of unused methane, the other containing a bunch of unused oxygen) enters into the main combustion chamber of the rocket where the remainder of the propellant is combusted and exhausted out the single nozzle. Raptor generates about twice as much thrust as the Merlin 1D (the most modern variant of the Merlin), although the Raptor is a larger and heavier engine. The Raptor has an ISP of about 330 (sea-level variant) and 380 (vacuum variant), making it more efficient than Merlin.

Another bonus with Raptor too is that methane burns cleanly, whereas the combustion of kerosene results in soot being generated, which necessitates cleaning for reuse (not sure if that's after every landing or just after X number of flights however). Methane is also easier to generate on Mars (vs a synthetic kerosene) due to the simpler chemistry, enabling Starships to return to Earth after refuelling via ISRU equipment.
 
Last edited:
Dragon029 said:
FighterJock said:
Ask a stupid question time. What type of engines does the Starship use? Are they the same engines as the Falcon Heavy? Or are they a new series.
Click to expand...
Starship and Super Heavy (Starship's booster) both use Raptor engines instead of the Merlin engines of the Falcon family of rockets.

Merlin is a kerosene engine using a gas generator cycle (so a fuel-rich combustion takes place secondarily to drive a turbine to power the propellant turbopumps, dumping some unburned propellant overboard via a small second nozzle). Merlin generates roughly 200,000lbf of thrust at maximum and has an ISP of 282 (sea-level variant) and 311 (vacuum variant).

Raptor is a methane engine using a full-flow staged combustion cycle, which is where they have two minor combustion chambers (one operating fuel-rich, the other operating oxygen-rich) which each drive turbines to power a pair of turbopumps (these minor combustion chambers and turbines are called preburners). Then the exhausts of both those turbines (one containing a bunch of unused methane, the other containing a bunch of unused oxygen) enters into the main combustion chamber of the rocket where the remainder of the propellant is combusted and exhausted out the single nozzle. Raptor generates about twice as much thrust as the Merlin 1D (the most modern variant of the Merlin), although the Raptor is a larger and heavier engine. The Raptor has an ISP of about 330 (sea-level variant) and 380 (vacuum variant), making it more efficient than Merlin.

Another bonus with Raptor too is that methane burns cleanly, whereas the combustion of kerosene results in soot being generated, which necessitates cleaning for reuse (not sure if that's after every landing or just after X number of flights however). Methane is also easier to generate on Mars (vs a synthetic kerosene) due to the simpler chemistry, enabling Starships to return to Earth after refuelling via ISRU equipment.
Click to expand...

Interesting info. Thanks Dragon029.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom