SpaceX

BlueAbyssal said:
C’mon, only mentioning three doesn’t mean there’s only three, and JWST costing what it costs is a rhetorical tautology. If we expect to keep funding space science with taxpayer dollars, either we figure out how to reduce the price tag per payload, or as time wears on scientists will count themselves lucky to get one telescope every twenty years.
.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't as bad as you think. There isn't a problem. And it is true about JWST. There just was no truth in initial cost estimates. There was a lot of development needed in the mirrors and sun shade.
 
Byeman said:
And it is true about JWST. There just was no truth in initial cost estimates. There was a lot of development needed in the mirrors and sun shade.
Click to expand...
One of the worst things was just finding materials that can withstand differential heating—which is fine for SR-71, but not optics.

I don’t see a world where that gets much cheaper.

BlueAbyssal is making the same arguments in favor Starship that I made for SD-HLLVs…monolithic builds, perhaps less deployment steps. He thinks that killing SLS would free up funds for other things.

The problem with that is the Stepford Wife and the Coach might not play ball even with the bone that’s been thrown them.

Even now they could be talking with folks in Colorado with a reverse plan to keep SLS by supporting legislation to keep mil-space in nose-candy country. Some in California like space solar and some Red SLS states might go along.

If nothing else, the SLS states could simply vote for less NASA funding making the cost savings from killing SLS vanish.

Blue is an optimist—I’m a pessimist—and Byeman is a realist.
 
Last edited:
Good they are making progress—but SH isn’t the hold-up.

NewSpacers need to admit they and OldSpace have a common enemy--legal animism:

Old and NewSpace could work together:
spacenews.com

How carrying enough water to make return-trip propellant simplifies a Starship mission to Mars

How carrying enough water to make return-trip propellant simplifies a Starship mission to Mars
spacenews.com spacenews.com
https://twitter.com/x/status/1966248962202943799

On space markets

Problems with propellants?
In a new twist, UC San Diego researchers Guru K. Jayasingh and Nigel Goldenfeld have now predicted that if the pipe is sufficiently curved, the transition can become discontinuous, with the turbulent fraction undergoing a jump beyond a critical flow velocity. This jump is mathematically similar to the way in which water can suddenly and discontinuously turn into ice if cooled below the freezing temperature.

The new framework—so-called tricritical directed percolation—encompasses both the emerging consensus and very recent experiments, as well as making new predictions.

The study is published in Physical Review Letters.
phys.org

Turbulence with a twist: New work shows fluid in a curved pipe can undergo discontinuous transition

Turbulence is everywhere, yet much about the nature of turbulence remains unknown. During the last decade, physicists have discovered how fluids in a pipe or similar geometry transition from a smooth, laminar state to a turbulent state as their speed increases.
phys.org phys.org
 
Last edited:
If i had know SpaceX sell share
i would have buy like hell in 2015...
From USD20 to now 236.43 !!!
 
"Ellie in Space" called the replacements "crunchwrap tiles."

Starship heat shield

Starship heat shield
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

Her most delightful lines concerning IFT-10 was not on Starship.

Instead, she reported SuperHeavy having a "bumblebees can't fly but they do" moment that flummoxed the CFD gnords--though not in so many words.

One of the reasons I pushed so hard for an Energiya/Buran type Shuttle-2 was because of the core having engines--meaning the orbiter could be swapped out with other designs ...in the same way the exterior payload pods of the final VentureStar could be released. Had such a modular Shuttle-2 concept been build---we might have already perfected tile designs using unmanned side-mount test articles.

My hope was for different designs to be released by an Energia-type core for LARGE SCALE aerodynamics testing---because I *never* trusted CFD.

My Shuttle-2 dream looks unlikely to say the least---but the best thing Elon ever did was to punch the CFD geeks in the mouth...and for that--I thank him.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1965749726982402314
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
One of the reasons I pushed so hard for an Energiya/Buran type Shuttle-2 was because of the core having engines--meaning the orbiter could be swapped out with other designs ...in the same way the exterior payload pods of the final VentureStar could be released. Had such a modular Shuttle-2 concept been build---we might have already perfected tile designs using unmanned side-mount test articles.
Click to expand...

That is foolish reasoning. Don't need such a vehicle to test TPS testing. TPS can and has been tested on vehicles such as the X-37, HTV, Dragon, Orion, Starliner, sounding rockets, ICBMs, etc

publiusr said:
My hope was for different designs to be released by an Energia-type core for LARGE SCALE aerodynamics testing---because I *never* trusted CFD.
Click to expand...

"LARGE SCALE" testing of what? There isn't enough of a need to support your "hope". Economics plays a role in everything. Everything has a cost and it has there has to be enough of a return for it. Things are not done because it would be cool or neat to have. There has to be a payoff and it has to be enough to make it worth it. Not every investment in technology pays off. There are dead ends and the risk has to be managed whether it is private investors or taxpayer money. And right now, there is no hot or cold war and no need for soft power projection, so no urgent need for large or risky gov't investment in spaceflight technology. The industry and marketplace are the drivers.
 
Byeman said:
TPS can and has been tested on vehicles such as the X-37, HTV, Dragon, Orion, Starliner, sounding rockets, ICBMs, etc
Click to expand...
Those are all small. And even with something like capsules, institutional knowledge has slipped to where folks have trouble with something that should have been perfected--and remembered--long ago. Fogbank wasn't all that was lost.
Byeman said:
The industry and marketplace are the drivers.
Click to expand...
"Let the market do it." Famous last words.
No, I want institutions and industries both, thank you.

The fact remains that SuperHeavy surprised the computer geeks.

Now, had you run Boeing, and I suggested something hardware rich like Starship/SuperHeavy---you would have told me "no" there too--wouldn't you?

Aren't we glad somebody like Elon has "foolish reasoning?"
Too bad it took him to do it.

If all America ever did was launch the occasional GPS/weather-sat atop Delta II, you would have been perfectly fine with that.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Those are all small. And even with something like capsules, institutional knowledge has slipped to where folks have trouble with something that should have been perfected--and remembered--long ago. Fogbank wasn't all that was lost.
Click to expand...
wrong. Large pieces could have been flown. There was no need. No knowledge was lost.

publiusr said:
"Let the market do it." Famous last words.
No, I want institutions and industries both, thank you.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. And just clueless.
What institutions? Do we have a National Automotive and Transportation Administration? No, we have the DOT, a regulatory and infrastructure agency. (also nothing for ships and railroads).
A National Portable and Home Electronics Administration? No, the FCC and FTC.

Why should spaceflight be any different? The government doesn't need to take a lead role, it should be in a support role like it is for every other industry.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
If all America ever did was launch the occasional GPS/weather-sat atop Delta II, you would have been perfectly fine with that.
Click to expand...
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I never said anything like that. Just another case of you spreading misinformation.

A. Larger payloads cost more. NASA started cost capping missions. This is one thing Golden did right. By keeping missions small, NASA could do more with less. That is why Delta II was great for NASA* and why there was a rebirth of the planetary and space science fields. More than 30 missions from 1995-2010 vs 6 Atlas II/V and 1 Titan IV. NASA still cost caps missions and they can fly on Falcon 9 with huge amounts of unused launch vehicle capability (TESS, IXPE, etc). NASA has received the budget for occasional flag ship missions. Cassini, MSL, M2020, JWST, Europa Clipper, PSP, etc. NASA was never limited by launch vehicle capability.

B. I have always said payload drives launch vehicle requirements. That has been the way since the early 1960's. Only our earliest satellites were designed around the capabilities of early launch vehicles. When payloads grew bigger, the launch vehicles were modified to increase performance (strap-on boosters, larger upper stages, stretched stages, uprated engines, etc) or they jumped to a larger launch vehicle class. SLS was done wrong. A rocket without a mission. The rocket came first and with a spacecraft designed for another rocket, we get the Artemis kluge missions.

c. BIig rockets are great if there is a requirement for them. And government doesn't have to be involved since most of the US Launch vehicle expertise now resides in industry and not with NASA. Starship exists because Musk has a requirement to go to Mars. New Glenn exists because Bezos wants to industrialize LEO. And the size is not as important as reducing costs has much as possible by going reusable. Size is not what opens up the heavens but low cost does. This is what the marketplace and industry wants and not what government "institutions" want. Government "institutions" want to spend money in many congressional districts as possible. SpaceX and Starship is the worse thing for Alabama because they leave out Marshall and Michoud and their contractors.

*that is more along the lines of what I said. You were the one that made the inane poll "Resolved: Delta II is a crutch". It just goes back to the lack of understanding the spaceflight industry and how cost matters more that launch vehicle performance.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Now, had you run Boeing, and I suggested something hardware rich like Starship/SuperHeavy---you would have told me "no" there too--wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
Boeing has public shareholders, SpaceX does not.
Just like ABMA and Marshall didn't like Atlas. ABMA legacy didn't live past 1975 and Atlas/Titan lives on.
 
Byeman said:
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I never said anything like that. Just another case of you spreading misinformation.
Click to expand...
You don't remember the exchange when I joked about Hillary wanting 10,000 weather-sats atop Delta II where you asked "What's wrong with that?"

Never mind.

Hypergolic cryogenic mixtures etc etc

Hypergolic cryogenic mixtures etc etc
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

People losing the spark?
spacenews.com

The grief of a fandom: on Starship, Musk and losing the spark

Why do people defend someone who has done things that are frankly terrible?
spacenews.com spacenews.com
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
You don't remember the exchange when I joked about Hillary wanting 10,000 weather-sats atop Delta II where you asked "What's wrong with that?"
Click to expand...
nothing was wrong with that at the time.
Update:
Nothing is still not wrong with that.
No different than what Falcon 9 and Starlink are doing now. Or Cubesats on Electron or Falcon 9 Transporter launches. You must hate all these new small launchers and cube and nanosats.
 
Last edited:
No, I feel sorry for them the most... what with ride-share. SpaceX is hard to beat on that.

So what would your suggestions be to Elon about how to improve Starship?

Perhaps this new alloy
A study published in the journal Nature describes a new way to design metal alloys so they stay strong and tough even at super low temperatures. The big idea is to create an alloy with two different types of perfectly arranged atomic structures inside it. These structures are called subnanoscale short-range ordering (SRO), which are tiny islands of organized atoms and nanoscale long-range ordering (NLRO), which are slightly larger.
 
publiusr said:
No, I feel sorry for them the most... what with ride-share. SpaceX is hard to beat on that.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel sorry for them? They have no issues with rideshare. Cost matters and they are getting a cheap ride

publiusr said:
So what would your suggestions be to Elon about how to improve Starship?

Perhaps this new alloy
A study published in the journal Nature describes a new way to design metal alloys so they stay strong and tough even at super low temperatures. The big idea is to create an alloy with two different types of perfectly arranged atomic structures inside it. These structures are called subnanoscale short-range ordering (SRO), which are tiny islands of organized atoms and nanoscale long-range ordering (NLRO), which are slightly larger.
Click to expand...

Not new untested alloys. It doesn't need any exotic materials or major changes. Just tweaks on the design as they learn on each test flight. F9 now internally doesn't look like the first one.
 
Last edited:
One of the more interesting morsels of information is how SpaceX cleans some rocket components with…walnuts:

Flight 11 (Booster 15-2, Starship 38) pre-flight preparations

Flight 11 (Booster 15-2, Starship 38) pre-flight preparations
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

That reminds me of a passage in a book on the Atlas missile where workers’ use of horse manure to insulate water-lines in the LOX pits was dismissed as “rural engineering.”

That’s often the best kind ;)
 
publiusr said:
One of the more interesting morsels of information is how SpaceX cleans some rocket components with…walnuts:

Flight 11 (Booster 15-2, Starship 38) pre-flight preparations

Flight 11 (Booster 15-2, Starship 38) pre-flight preparations
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

That reminds me of a passage in a book on the Atlas missile where workers’ use of horse manure to insulate water-lines in the LOX pits was dismissed as “rural engineering.”

That’s often the best kind ;)
Click to expand...
Crushed walnut husks are a standard material used in cleaning spent rifle & piston casings for reloading - most reloading manuals list them and describe their use.
 
Last edited:
So when will Ship 38 be launched after the static fire? Sometime before the end of the year? After the success of the last launch.
 
Last edited:
I have noticed earlier, how the design choices here are fairly curious. Even with the benefits of the relaxed Lunar gravity and a much lightened vehicle at the end of a mission, the probability to make it easier and lighter to anchor the pulling lines solidly in the Lunar ground versus any other alternatives are... low.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom