1

SpaceX Reusability / Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse

« Last post by M.E.T. on Today at 06:54 am »

SpaceX does not optimize for turnaround time. They optimize for cost. Always.

If they threw money at it, I'm sure they could refurbish a booster faster, but why do that if they have a large inventory of used boosters in stock, and the unit cost works out cheaper if they have 10 people spending 9 days on it, rather than 100 people spending 3 days on it. (As a random, probably absurd, example).

The moment the cost-benefit in time and assets invested vs potential returns of an 8 day turnaround exceeds that of a 9 day turnaround, they will do it in 8 days.

As Meekgee has said repeatedly, on this thread and on others, the actual time between current booster reuses tells us very little about what SpaceX's true capabilities are.

2

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) / Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 8

« Last post by Mr. Scott on Today at 06:19 am »

The government wanted a system that centralized development of expensive stuff.  None of it works and never will. 

https://www.youtube.com/live/UVLDANg9oLw?si=ip5eThYiO5HcwbVc

3

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink group 11-2 : VSFB SLC-4E : 13 December 2024 (21:55 UTC)

« Last post by shiro on Today at 06:19 am »

Some reusability stats for this launch (Starlink Group 11-2):

Booster B1082.9 turnaround time:
29 days 16 hours 32 minutes
(its previous mission was Starlink Group 9-11 on Nov 14, 2024 UTC).

FYI: median turnaround time for Falcon 9 / Heavy boosters is currently 33.90 days *
* – based on the last 30 launches, excluding new first stages.

Launchpad SLC-4E turnaround time:
8 days 18 hours 50 minutes
(the previous launch from this pad was Starlink Group 9-14 on Dec 5, 2024 UTC).

FYI: median turnaround time for SLC-4E is currently 6.76 days *
* – based on the last 30 launches.

The same type of stats for previous SpaceX launches may be found on this spreadsheet online.

4

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink group 11-2 : VSFB SLC-4E : 13 December 2024 (21:55 UTC)

« Last post by FutureSpaceTourist on Today at 06:13 am »

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1867758759269085637

Falcon 9 lifts off from pad 4E in California completing our 125th mission of 2024

5

Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

« Last post by Steven Pietrobon on Today at 05:49 am »

Roc was in the air 13 hours ago.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/1hdigi2/cant_say_i_see_this_very_often/?rdt=62915

Here's a link to a video of Roc taking off carrying TA 2.

https://imgur.com/a/oQkcUS6

6

ISS Section / Re: Expedition 72 thread

« Last post by Targeteer on Today at 05:44 am »

No surprise, Suni requested the Army/Navy game be sent to the Station this afternoon with the obligatory "go Navy"

7

Spaceflight Entertainment and Hobbies / Re: Hobby Rocket Topics - BPS Space

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 05:42 am »

I Used Condoms to Make a Rocket Nosecone

8

SpaceX General Section / Re: SpaceX corporate fundraising rounds

« Last post by M.E.T. on Today at 05:37 am »

I am still very suspicious of a $100B increase in valuation in less than a year.  I love SpaceX as a a company and a business but that is wild.  Maybe insiders have more info about SpaceX’s defense and intelligence plans, or something about the V2 constellation?  Could it just be exuberance as Tesla is mooning?

Happy for SpaceX employees if nothing else

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1866789126814699824?s=46&t=cTjC_-DejCAEkjC1ym-Phw

SpaceX is not publicly traded, so there is no market to provide a consensus share price. The price in the tender offer is basically the price Elon is willing to pay to provide liquidity to employees and other insiders who may need to sell shares. It may or may not reflect Elon's valuation of SpaceX.

Incorrect. This is the value the market places on SpaceX stock. Not Elon. Any shares not bought back by SpaceX were bought up by new investors at this price.

It's a private company, By definition, those were private placements and there is not a market. The SEC will come after you if you are offering shares on an open market without becoming a public company.

Semantics. SpaceX has a small group of private investors that are allowed to bid for shares. This is their market. It is a closed one, but a market nonetheless.

Elon does not dictate the share price to them. Current owners are willing to sell their shares at a certain price, and the buyers agree or disagree to buy it at that price. As it turns out, SpaceX themselves are now one of those buyers too, with first option to buy it ALL, which limits the number of shares available to other buyers even more.

In the end, these buyers (the market), decided that SpaceX is worth a valuation of $350B.

Not Elon.

9

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Replacing SLS/Orion using Starship HLS and Crew Dragon

« Last post by TheRadicalModerate on Today at 05:33 am »

You don't need a depot in lunar orbit--at least for the first mission.  The taxi (I've been calling it LSS-OTV, vs. LSS-HLS) has ample tankage to go either LEO-NRHO-LEOpropulsive or LEO-LLO-LEOpropulsive on one tank of prop.

The LSS-OTV is a second copy of the same design as the HLS Starship, used in a different role.  Are there modifications?  It kinda depends.  You could remove some things:  landing legs, elevators, landing thrusters, etc.  But you don't have to.¹  Do you need to add some things?  The only things I can think of are an active/passive docking ring (which is a likely implementation of an Option B requirement, and may already be there for Option A) and a slightly enhanced ECLSS system.  Again, ECLSS for 40-50 crew-days is something that would be a requirement for the SLT program, and may or may not be there for Option A.

I don't understand why you need the LSS-OTV when you can just send HLS and one or more tankers. The only difference that I can see is which Starship-derived vehicle the crew are in for the Earth/Moon transit, and the tanker option seems simpler.

What am I missing?

There are three possible variants of the conops:

1) Use separate LSS-OTV and LSS-HLS, which is what we've concentrated on.
Pros:
- Doesn't change the HLS at all.
- No refueling needed in cislunar space.
- LSS-OTV has a long lifetime, supporting multiple missions, because it never lands.
- Lots of abort options.
Cons:
- Lots of RPODs (4), lots of complexity.
- Not quite as fuel-efficient as a single-LSS mission.

2) Use a single LSS-HLS from LEO, refuel after ascent from the lunar surface.
Pros:
- Minimizes RPODs (only 2).
- Minimizes flight hardware.
- Minimizes prop (but only by a small amount over option #1).
Cons:
- If the refueling post-ascent fails, there's no easy abort option.  There are some ways to work around this, but they're all kludgy and rely on a successful RPOD (probably with the Gateway) and a rescue mission.


3) Use a single LSS-HLS from LEO, but refuel before descent to the lunar surface.
Pros:
- If the refueling fails, you can abort back to LEO without refueling.
- Minimizes RPODs (2).
- Minimizes flight hardware.
Cons:
- Truly, amazingly, horrible in terms of how much prop you need.  Hauling all the prop needed to go from the lunar surface all the way back to a propulsive LEO insertion down to the surface and back is expensive.

If refueling becomes super-reliable, then option #2 is the way to go.  But it seems to me that option #1 minimizes risk, even with the extra pair of RPODs.

10

Discovery (Post-STS-133, T&R) / Re: Malarkey Milkshake footage?

« Last post by Pedro Mira on Today at 05:28 am »

nvm I found it