Space X - another successful mission...

Void · 2018-12-05 20:32:09

O.F. yes. I have other strange hunches as well.

Elon said something about how if you were in a water crash, you had better chances of survival than an explosion of a crashed rocket.

Was it an experiment, to speculate on saving in part a crippled "Starship"? Maybe not, but it could be pertinent.

Here is a landing video from the perspective of the 1st stage.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1070399755526656000

I have speculated on what happens when the engines fire into water before. I think they aerated. Therefore the water becomes very soft and cushiony.

While I expect the hot landing engine to be damaged beyond recovery by quenching, the rest of the rocket potentially may with future innovations only suffer the need for recovery to a maintenance area, and a maximum overhaul. I think.

It does ask the question if landing in a fresh water lake will be a better plan. That is immersion in part in the waters of it and then to float on it. It also asks after that question, if that is a plan, how can you design that landing method to be optimal for the survival of the hardware?

Last edited by Void (2018-12-05 20:37:46)

louis · 2018-12-06 18:14:14

Seems like it was a failure of a non-redundant pump...and they will be looking to build in redundancy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge1_6MUWAYg

SpaceNut · 2018-12-06 18:41:41

That is correct Void on the engine air ration of the Ocean but now the rocket is junk unless its totally refurbished.

It was spiraling long before the pumps take over from what can be seen...so it could not find its target visually or via radio I would think.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-12-07 12:58:32

No. The spiraling was caused by pump controlling a grid fin which did NOT deploy properly. There was no software or computer issue that was in error.

Void · 2018-12-07 16:48:36

I recall that the grid fins are very expensive, so they should at least be able to get some valuable parts from the sea crashed rocket. And perhaps not intentional in the doing but some hints on how to ditch a rocket with crew and/or passengers in water with better hopes of human survival and even to a degree hardware salvage.

So, something to gain even in failing.

Last edited by Void (2018-12-07 16:50:54)

SpaceNut · 2018-12-07 18:56:36

Hypersonic grid fins help the booster steer its way back for a precision touchdown. Each Falcon 9 first stage sports four of these waffle-iron-looking things, which are installed close to the top of the booster.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRY3PsMz_WaRu2a1fC0I9rSS0w4GAlpxVAXHk6w82ROt8nlLz3NpqB1RK8

Grid fin shows extended in this still for one of them so it seemed to be working....

But in either case Musk stated that this system will get redundancy most like in the near future...

louis · 2018-12-08 18:11:57

Nice new video from Mic of Orion who I think nicely balances optimism and pragmatism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIZN4v3Ktu8

louis · 2019-02-21 19:49:05

Looking like another good Falcon 9 launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9BKP9c52-E

louis · 2019-04-11 16:29:08

Live video on the Falcon 9 Heavy launch...postponed from yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPfHHls50-w

Let's hope it's another successful mission...and we get a view of the returning boosters...

louis · 2019-04-11 16:30:50

The actual Space X link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXMGu2d8c8g

louis · 2019-04-11 16:43:46

Both side boosters back safely - great sight seeing them come in! Fingers crossed for third!

louis · 2019-04-11 16:45:56

All three boosters down!

What a spectacular achievement.

SpaceNut · 2019-04-11 17:45:47

Great success one step further but we still are not seeing the lauch rate for the heavy as of yet.

Had seen earlier that cross winds had put it in a hold, so it must have died down for the launch to happen.

louis · 2019-04-12 18:16:43

Yep - wind shear is the official term they use I think...

For me Falcon 9 Heavy is the wonder of the age. Seeing those boosters do their pinpoint landings is spectacular.

Seems like the F9H might have a role in NASA's lunar programme. Elon and NASA have been doing some heavy smooching on twitter recently.

SpaceNut wrote:

Great success one step further but we still are not seeing the lauch rate for the heavy as of yet.
Had seen earlier that cross winds had put it in a hold, so it must have died down for the launch to happen.

SpaceNut · 2019-04-12 18:31:13

2 if by landing on land and 1 by sea barge at least all were successful...

The stuff Nasa would launch is not going to work for space x without some restructuring in order to be on top of a falcon heavy.

Other parts woud be possible to just barely launch to leo on an Atlas such as a cygnus but its the number of much small launches that is problematic as that will require many more hatch conection to mate them up with.

louis · 2019-04-13 09:08:11

Interesting video from Cloudlicker...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x0lq_Wj2Cg

Seems like the prototype Starship is being built at Boca Chica, as far as I can make out. Being built in 5 sections! It's a 1:1 version.

This seems like a good rate of progress to me. the 2022/2024 Mission One deadline is still not impossible.

SpaceNut · 2019-04-13 14:06:05

Well the full scale must be made to finish proving out the lift capability of the engines even if this is the transport version which is intended for coast to coast service without the huge first stage.

Void · 2019-04-13 17:27:50

One thing that bears mentioning again, is that their method of constructing their spaceships outside, without buildings, and perhaps in the end without vehicles to carry the Super Heavy and Starship.

If it works they vastly reduce costs of production. Working with Stainless also, a lower cost material.

I would think that once they have the correct recipe for each device, and type of Starship, they should be able to mass produce as many as they will need, and if these things work out, the emergence of this capability will likely broadly expand the customer base, as if they can get the costs down, many more things to do in space will emerge.

My understanding is that Starship can go orbital by itself. It isn't expected to be worthwhile to bring payloads up to orbit with it at this time. However, such an orbital capability should allow them to start with hops, and then sub-orbital, and then even orbital, without Super-Heavy. I think that this will allow them to progressively test out the heat shield methods, and the belly flop methods.

I am going to guess that a fully loaded test starship should have enough propellants on board to rescue itself, if the hydraulic fins don't work right at first. I should think that if simulation of belly flop goes wrong, they maybe then might be able to do a more Falcon 9 type landing, provided that the test was only a humble sub-orbital.

I am going to hedge bets on what the performance of Starship will ultimately be. Falcon Heavy is now 10% more powerful than the first one that took the roadster up. Should Starship eventually develop some percentage of gain like that, I think the ship might have a version that will go orbital without Super-Heavy.

And as for Super-Heavy, I am not thinking that it will only be used for Starship boosting. Should SpaceX successfully nail all of this down, I should think that they might get more creative about what Super-Heavy will boost.

I could be wrong, but this is my current thinking.

They de seem to be making radically new history, with a combination of High-Tech, and Low-Costs methods. I will be very surprised if they don't pull it off in some fashion.

If it were not for international players, and the American Governments interest of not allowing a strong monopoly, I think SpaceX might have taken everything eventually. They will be allowed to gather a lot to themselves though, I think.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-04-13 17:43:43)

louis · 2019-04-14 06:19:14

Thanks Void - an interesting sketch of how the future might unfold with Starship testing.

If they are going to get humans to Mars by 2024 (!) they will likely need something like 48 launches (6 Mars craft and 42 fuelling launches) - based on previous discussions. There will of course be lots of proving flights before that, so maybe add in another 24. 72 launches over say a four year period. I'm thinking they might need a fleet of about 20 Starships to accomplish the mission with pre-testing and orbital fuelling. I am presuming it takes several weeks to refurbish a Starship/Super Heavy, so you can't just have one Starship doing all the fuelling and the launch windows are quite narrow. Taking everthing into consideration, 20 seems like a reasonable estimate. So if production of the first operational model begins in 2020, that would mean about 4 to 5 being produced per annum. Seems reasonable.

Void wrote:

One thing that bears mentioning again, is that their method of constructing their spaceships outside, without buildings, and perhaps in the end without vehicles to carry the Super Heavy and Starship.
If it works they vastly reduce costs of production. Working with Stainless also, a lower cost material.
I would think that once they have the correct recipe for each device, and type of Starship, they should be able to mass produce as many as they will need, and if these things work out, the emergence of this capability will likely broadly expand the customer base, as if they can get the costs down, many more things to do in space will emerge.
My understanding is that Starship can go orbital by itself. It isn't expected to be worthwhile to bring payloads up to orbit with it at this time. However, such an orbital capability should allow them to start with hops, and then sub-orbital, and then even orbital, without Super-Heavy. I think that this will allow them to progressively test out the heat shield methods, and the belly flop methods.
I am going to guess that a fully loaded test starship should have enough propellants on board to rescue itself, if the hydraulic fins don't work right at first. I should think that if simulation of belly flop goes wrong, they maybe then might be able to do a more Falcon 9 type landing, provided that the test was only a humble sub-orbital.
I am going to hedge bets on what the performance of Starship will ultimately be. Falcon Heavy is now 10% more powerful than the first one that took the roadster up. Should Starship eventually develop some percentage of gain like that, I think the ship might have a version that will go orbital without Super-Heavy.
And as for Super-Heavy, I am not thinking that it will only be used for Starship boosting. Should SpaceX successfully nail all of this down, I should think that they might get more creative about what Super-Heavy will boost.
I could be wrong, but this is my current thinking.
They de seem to be making radically new history, with a combination of High-Tech, and Low-Costs methods. I will be very surprised if they don't pull it off in some fashion.

If it were not for international players, and the American Governments interest of not allowing a strong monopoly, I think SpaceX might have taken everything eventually. They will be allowed to gather a lot to themselves though, I think.

Done.

Void · 2019-04-14 08:01:53

This is a very good read that may be liked.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/02/e … con-9.html

I will just say that it indicates some very important information.
-The intent is to build 1000 Starships / Super Heavy's.
-Eventually the cost per set???, may be less than to build a Falcon 9.
-The will be building 30,000 raptor engines a year supposedly.
-The cost for weight of mass to orbit is expected to drop by a factor of 10 (At least).

I will directly quote one thing:
Quote:

Elon Musk
✔
@elonmusk
Starship & Super Heavy will press tanks autogenously even in version 1. Very important, as helium costs more than oxygen on Falcon, even though liquid oxygen is 2/3 vehicle mass & helium weighs basically nothing.

The highlight shows a very important factor. If Oxygen and other consumables can come from above surface sources for a better price, then it makes all the sense in the world(s) to utilize that for the overall plan(s).

Viewed in this manner, a narrow focus on Mars only is probably not the way to go.

I am going to copy this and put it under "Alternate BFR", as I have a desire not to muddy up every thread with wild speculations. I will do wild speculation there.

Done

Quote Louis:

Thanks Void - an interesting sketch of how the future might unfold with Starship testing.
If they are going to get humans to Mars by 2024 (!) they will likely need something like 48 launches (6 Mars craft and 42 fuelling launches) - based on previous discussions. There will of course be lots of proving flights before that, so maybe add in another 24. 72 launches over say a four year period. I'm thinking they might need a fleet of about 20 Starships to accomplish the mission with pre-testing and orbital fuelling. I am presuming it takes several weeks to refurbish a Starship/Super Heavy, so you can't just have one Starship doing all the fuelling and the launch windows are quite narrow. Taking everthing into consideration, 20 seems like a reasonable estimate. So if production of the first operational model begins in 2020, that would mean about 4 to 5 being produced per annum. Seems reasonable.

Last edited by Void (2019-04-14 09:16:55)

louis · 2019-04-14 13:51:19

Thanks for the link. Taking the estimate of $400 million per Starship, that would be $8 billion for 20 craft. So they would need to find up to $2 billion per annum in the build up to a human landing.

Time for Musk to announce his commercial sponsorship plans? Maybe they are already all in place but subject to NDAs?

Void wrote:

This is a very good read that may be liked.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/02/e … con-9.html
I will just say that it indicates some very important information.
-The intent is to build 1000 Starships / Super Heavy's.
-Eventually the cost per set???, may be less than to build a Falcon 9.
-The will be building 30,000 raptor engines a year supposedly.
-The cost for weight of mass to orbit is expected to drop by a factor of 10 (At least).

I will directly quote one thing:
Quote:
Elon Musk
✔
@elonmusk
Starship & Super Heavy will press tanks autogenously even in version 1. Very important, as helium costs more than oxygen on Falcon, even though liquid oxygen is 2/3 vehicle mass & helium weighs basically nothing.
The highlight shows a very important factor. If Oxygen and other consumables can come from above surface sources for a better price, then it makes all the sense in the world(s) to utilize that for the overall plan(s).
Viewed in this manner, a narrow focus on Mars only is probably not the way to go.
I am going to copy this and put it under "Alternate BFR", as I have a desire not to muddy up every thread with wild speculations. I will do wild speculation there.

Done
Quote Louis:
Thanks Void - an interesting sketch of how the future might unfold with Starship testing.
If they are going to get humans to Mars by 2024 (!) they will likely need something like 48 launches (6 Mars craft and 42 fuelling launches) - based on previous discussions. There will of course be lots of proving flights before that, so maybe add in another 24. 72 launches over say a four year period. I'm thinking they might need a fleet of about 20 Starships to accomplish the mission with pre-testing and orbital fuelling. I am presuming it takes several weeks to refurbish a Starship/Super Heavy, so you can't just have one Starship doing all the fuelling and the launch windows are quite narrow. Taking everthing into consideration, 20 seems like a reasonable estimate. So if production of the first operational model begins in 2020, that would mean about 4 to 5 being produced per annum. Seems reasonable.

Void · 2019-04-14 16:35:15

Well I have a few things. Keep in mind that I don't take myself seriously. The only reason I am on this site is I do like space technology and science, and I do get bored on occasion.

Here are the Scottish, messing with things apparently:
https://advanced-television.com/2018/12 … or-spacex/

And there is this about Starlink which apparently the above Scottish entity liked enough to open the purse strings:
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starli … unch-date/

Funny world. SpaceX may be it's own space customer, may sell internet services to humans. But there will be competitors. Blue Origins is in on it now as well.

So, no guarantees, just chances.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-04-14 16:40:43)

SpaceNut · 2019-04-14 17:07:08

Not trying to rain on the space x parade but Starship is the over grown version of a falcon 9 first stage in this version of a flight plan that can travel 30 min to 1hr half way around the world and land with so far just 100 passengers and maybe some cargo. The engines are design for only 3 ignitions per flight but nothing has been said about the time to go over the rocket before refueling can occur as its going to be the oxygen tank that will take a beating on each flight. Even the first stage of the falcon 9 block 5 has a limit on its reuses before its considered expendable..

Void · 2019-04-14 17:33:37

Alright SpaceNut, I will buy that. A bit of caution could be the right medication just now. Everything tends to go to extremes. Slamming up against giddy, euphoria, or against morbid defeatism.

But they will get as far as they get. Indeed, let us not encourage them to climb so high against there properly understood realities, that their wings should melt, and we should be forced to as has before been experienced, be plunged into morbid defeatism.

Caution is warranted, but so, far things look relatively good, if I should tone euphoria down a bit as a caution.

Done Proper SpaceNut, appropriate.

louis · 2019-04-15 14:56:38

Any idea what Elon is on about here?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1117563679099240449

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2018-12-05 20:32:09

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#27 2018-12-06 18:14:14

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#28 2018-12-06 18:41:41

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#29 2018-12-07 12:58:32

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#30 2018-12-07 16:48:36

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#31 2018-12-07 18:56:36

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#32 2018-12-08 18:11:57

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#33 2019-02-21 19:49:05

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#34 2019-04-11 16:29:08

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#35 2019-04-11 16:30:50

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#36 2019-04-11 16:43:46

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#37 2019-04-11 16:45:56

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#38 2019-04-11 17:45:47

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#39 2019-04-12 18:16:43

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#40 2019-04-12 18:31:13

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#41 2019-04-13 09:08:11

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#42 2019-04-13 14:06:05

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#43 2019-04-13 17:27:50

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#44 2019-04-14 06:19:14

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#45 2019-04-14 08:01:53

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#46 2019-04-14 13:51:19

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#47 2019-04-14 16:35:15

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#48 2019-04-14 17:07:08

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#49 2019-04-14 17:33:37

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

#50 2019-04-15 14:56:38

Re: Space X - another successful mission...

Board footer