91

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink group 11-2 : VSFB SLC-4E : 7 December 2024 (~21:24 UTC)

« Last post by zubenelgenubi on 12/03/2024 05:11 pm »

The launch preceding this launch, Starlink 9-14, has been delayed by one day to December 5 UTC.  The usual turnaround time for SLC-4E launches with OCISLY recovery is approximately 6 days.

I deduce this launch will be delayed as well.

92

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9/Crew Dragon : Axiom AX-4 : KSC LC-39A : NET late April 2025

« Last post by ddspaceman on 12/03/2024 05:10 pm »

Axiom Space
@Axiom_Space
When on orbit, astronauts have a unique vantage point that offers an entirely fresh perspective of our planet. The assigned #Ax4 crew honed their camera skills, learning techniques and skills to prepare them for capturing images during their mission.

https://twitter.com/Axiom_Space/status/1864006800967610671

93

Space Policy Discussion / Re: Public-Private Partnership Ideas for Human Exploration of Mars

« Last post by yg1968 on 12/03/2024 05:10 pm »

I was thinking about this some more and I think that Greg Autry is right, the Mars human exploration program needs to be structured very differently than most other NASA public-private partnerships for it to work in 4 years (I know that 4 years is optimistic but I think that it is important to get the program started as soon as possible). Ideally, there should be ways of certifying a crewed system just by flying it often enough which is how NASA decided to accept Soyuz as a crewed transportation system. NASA could initially buy either cargo missions to Mars or Mars sample return missions until the Mars transportation system has been proven enough for crew.

94

SpaceX General Section / Re: SpaceX corporate fundraising rounds

« Last post by MechE31 on 12/03/2024 05:08 pm »

It looks like they may have upped the numbers on the tender offer to $350b valuation

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-02/spacex-discusses-tender-offer-at-roughly-350-billion-valuation

I'm confused, as usual. A tender offer is an offer to purchase outstanding shares, so this is SpaceX offering to buy back outstanding shares, presumably from existing investors and employees. Where is SpaceX getting the money for this? I can berlieve that Starlink is cash-fkow-positive. I can even believe Falcon 9 is cash-flow-positive, but I thought the general consensus is that SpaceX as a whole is investing more than it earns.

Maybe this tender offer is just intended to set the price for current shareholders that need to cash in now?

Without getting into specifics, I can say that most purchasers are from outside the company. Think of it as SpaceX connecting shareholders with investors they've vetted.

95

ISS Section / Re: Expedition 72 thread

« Last post by ddspaceman on 12/03/2024 05:03 pm »

Don Pettit
@astro_Pettit
Star trail from ISS; I think these are a blend of both science and art. There is so much techno-geek stuff to see, or you can simply sit back and think “How cool”.

This one shows atmospheric airglow, yellow-green at 120km and the fainter upper red at 400km, star trails moving in arcs on the left and straight lines on the right, Starlink satellites flashing sunlight off their solar panel, the Cygnus cargo vehicle (left), my Soyuz vehicle (center), and the Russian laboratory module MLM (right).

So full of techno-cool and art-cool.

https://twitter.com/astro_Pettit/status/1863996097456169079

96

Advanced Concepts / Re: Humanoid Robots for Moon and Mars

« Last post by InterestedEngineer on 12/03/2024 04:53 pm »

Mars will start out with cargo being stored out in the open on their shipping pallets until needed, then likely slowly migrate into storing pallets in semi-protected shelters until pressurized shelters can be built. Even then, there will be inventory that will just stay "outside" until it is needed.

You have noticed the rough ground on Mars photographs, right?

97

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Larger Starships

« Last post by Action on 12/03/2024 04:50 pm »

I don't think conical is a meaningful increase in the complexity of manufacture, but perhaps you mean something else and could clarify?

The nosecone is conical, and it's a PITA, which they've iterated on multiple times

The nosecone is an ogive (roughly, at least), and it's not a propellant tank.  It's a harder structural problem.

98

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Larger Starships

« Last post by InterestedEngineer on 12/03/2024 04:45 pm »

I don't think conical is a meaningful increase in the complexity of manufacture, but perhaps you mean something else and could clarify?

The nosecone is conical, and it's a PITA, which they've iterated on multiple times

99

Missions To Mars (HSF) / Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth

« Last post by yg1968 on 12/03/2024 04:42 pm »

Moderator:
Are we learning anything in this thread?  Or are the same people arguing the same contested items repeatedly?

Ehat we're learning is that there's enough leeway in the treaties/legislation/regulations/precedence that an administration can choose to either support or hinder whatever it wants to. 

There's no ironclad language anywhere that would actually bind an administration to a certain course of action.

And that's usually the case anyway, it's just hard hard the lawyers and politicians have to wiggle in order to justify what they want to do.

It's on purpose. More and more international law is soft law including the Artemis Accords (which is essentially a non-binding multilateral political agreement). It's harder and harder to get countries to sign international treaties, so the solution is to have non-binding international agreements which are easier for countries to accept.

100

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Larger Starships

« Last post by Action on 12/03/2024 04:40 pm »

Conical buys you height but not payload...  it just becomes longer and thinner.

We can normalize the variations and just talk about cylindrical.

If you want an 18 meter diameter cylindrical Starship, you can have a conical booster with an 18 meter diameter top and a 24 meter diameter bottom.  This is just taking "flare the bottom" to an extreme.

As you get really big, cylinders begin to have problems, which is what people are noticing when they ask about the amount of thrust you can fit on the bottom.

Conical is a pain to do. Keep the sides cylindrical, whatever the diameter.

I don't think conical is a meaningful increase in the complexity of manufacture, but perhaps you mean something else and could clarify?