1

Chinese Launchers / Re: ? - CZ-11? - Xichang? - July 31, 2025 (~04:20 UTC)

« Last post by TheKutKu on Today at 11:12 pm »

There is little confusion on the launch site, it is very likely Xichang, when tracing the line from the center of the notam it is only a minor deviation from Xichang (0.3°), the deviation with Jiuquan is larger (10°)

Furthermore the NOTAM is very similar to the KZ-1A Pro (KZ-1B) upper stage NOTAM of the Dec 4 2024 launch from Xichang (pic 4)

We know that a KZ-1A series launcher is close a launch campaign from this Expace communique (Jul 12) https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/VN4sC8cSWAkjh4fmyDds9A and a KZ-1A series launcher was also seen in final assembly in a recent visit of the Party Secretary of Hubei to Expace (Jun 25), I believe KZ-1A series is most likely.
 
As for CZ-11, informations  say that it should fly in October, not that soon.

2

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) / Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion

« Last post by Tywin on Today at 10:42 pm »

IF the SLS is cancel is the future, can this tower and pad, launch other big rockets?

Which other big rocket? ML-2 is part of a complicated system for stacking and launching. This system includes the VAB.  For SLS/Orion, the ML-2 is dedicated to a specific launch for many months. This is not consistent with the way other big rockets are launched. It's not clear that the ML-2/VAB system could ever support high cadence.

New Armstrong could use the current infrastructure for SLS. The VAB doors are 12 meters wide so NA could be 10-11 meters in diameter.

That is the exactly rocket I was thinking...

3

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

« Last post by TheRadicalModerate on Today at 10:24 pm »

Turns out that you are right, no way HLS has enough fuel to land on moon and return to HEEO. In fact with shielding mass added, a full HLS doesn't even have enough fuel to land and return to LLO. I re-ran my requests with Grok and added some requirements, the main one being the 100 tons of PE shielding required for the HLS. This would give astronauts in the HLS about 15% better protection than Orion. Assuming no shielding equals suicide. Also I agree with your concerns about refueling while orbiting through the Van Allan belts, too risky. Grok has suggested that refueling in a circular orbit between the two belts would be safe. Anyhow, coming up with a new plan.

Grok is no way to design something like this.

I wouldn't go overboard on shielding.  I'm pretty sure that one extra pass through the VA Belts will be OK.

That said, think about all the trouble you're going to, just to avoid having two HLS Starships, instead of one?  With the two-Ship architecture:

1) Mass margins are more than generous.
2) Crew certification is an extremely minor delta beyond crew certification of Option A.
3) There are more abort options.
4) All refueling happens in LEO.
5) The HLS contract line items don't have to change at all.
6) Multiple providers can participate in the architecture.

It's not as sexy as a single-ship architecture, but it's a lot more practical--especially since everything changes when Starship gets crew-certifed for launch and EDL.

4

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

« Last post by TheRadicalModerate on Today at 10:16 pm »

Is it the same answer (or similar with added problems) for
Starship to LEO, fully refuel, to slightly/intermediate? elliptcal orbit, fully refuel, dock dragon (with falcon S2 still attached if needed to recover this empty dragon?), Starship to LLO, LSurface, LLO, TEI, dock with a different dragon (still attached to falcon S2?. before? an atmospheric capture?). Dragon launches with ASDS or even expendable?

You can't just send a D2 to an arbitrary apogee.  The best we've seen is Polaris Dawn, which was about 200 x 1200km.  That's not nearly high enough to do the minimum LEO-LLO-LS-LLO-LEOpropulsive flight that would be needed--even if you ignore the RAAN problem.

However, you can almost do the following:

0) LSS (aka HLS Starship) boosts to something just barely reachable by the D2.  200 x 1900 is about the minimum, but we've only seen Polaris Dawn do 200 x 1200.  Still... close?
1) LSS fully refueled in the refueling orbit.
2) F9/D2 launched and does RPOD with LSS (just barely).
3) LSS goes to LLO, keeping the D2 on its nose.
4) D2 is undocked (uncrewed) and loiters in LLO.
5) LSS takes the crew LLO-LS-LLO, re-RPODs with the D2.
6) LSS+D2 goes to TEI (not LEOpropulsive).
7) Before entry interface, crew gets into D2, undocks, and then does direct EDL at translunar speed.
8 ) LSS does... something else.  Could be it aerobrakes back into LEO over a period of months, or it could be expendable.  (It doesn't have enough delta-v left to do much).

This is:

a) A lot of work:  You'd have to certify D2 for high-speed crewed EDL, higher radiation loads (1900km is getting pretty toasty), avionics radiation-hardened to withstand BEO, etc.

b) Barely possible:  We know that Polaris Dawn went to 200 x 1200km (ish).  200 x 1900 is really pushing it, and that's the bare minimum for an LSS with 1550t of prop.

c) Easier (but still pretty challenging) if you assume the "future" Starship propulsion module, with the super-high Isp RVacs and the ~2300t tankage.

The bottom line is that everything is hard, and requires compromises.  LEO-Moon-LEO is just a buttload of delta-v, and doing Von Braun's old Earth Orbit Rendezvous thing is just as hard as it ever was.

The thing that makes the most sense to me is to enshrine in the architecture three legs:  ES-LEO-EDL, LEO-LO-LEO, and LO-LS-LO.  You get style points if you can combine the ES-LEO-EDL and LEO-LO-LEO legs, but getting multiple vendors to build low-cost implementations of those three legs breaks the problem into manageable pieces, and provides ample opportunity for competition.

5

Advanced Concepts / Re: Moving "the cloud" to orbit

« Last post by Coastal Ron on Today at 10:14 pm »

If 5 year lifespan were a show-stopper, there'd be no point in building terrestrial data centers either. That's pretty typical.

Yeah, but you can relatively easily re-hardware them.  On-orbit, that's a whole bunch harder - many orders of magnitude harder.

Exactly, not economical. The hardware is just a thin "shell" around the compute hardware, mostly just power and thermal and a bit of structure. Nothing terribly worth saving once the compute hardware is end-of-life.

You are only talking about the compute side, but there is also the storage side. A manufacturer like Seagate has a general warranty of 2 years, but in reality you can expect them to last 3-5 years. Of course that is in an environment here on Earth, but we don't know what environment "the cloud" would experience.

Here on Earth you can just swap out a bad drive, or swap out a good drive to upgrade it. More factors to consider...

The structure and thermal are going to be tightly integrated with the compute...

Why is that? Servers here on Earth don't do that, the compute hardware is separate from the cooling system. Of course you are looking at this from a single disposable unit, but there are alternatives.

...so you wouldn't want to reuse those elements anyway because it would hold back the design.

If we're thinking in terms of Starlink type design, then it would be disposed of. But if the design is a big server farm on a station, then replacing hardware becomes easier. Not sure how economical, but could be.

If the batteries are EOL and obsolete besides, then the only sensible "re-hardware" concept is really just to unbolt the solar panels and move them to the new satellite.

Well again, for Starlink type disposable hardware, you only build for a defined lifespan, with no need to consider upgrades. But if you are doing this on a space station, then everything could be replaceable - and would be designed that way from the start.

6

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) / Re: ML-2 Updates and Discussion

« Last post by jstrotha0975 on Today at 09:59 pm »

IF the SLS is cancel is the future, can this tower and pad, launch other big rockets?

Which other big rocket? ML-2 is part of a complicated system for stacking and launching. This system includes the VAB.  For SLS/Orion, the ML-2 is dedicated to a specific launch for many months. This is not consistent with the way other big rockets are launched. It's not clear that the ML-2/VAB system could ever support high cadence.

New Armstrong could use the current infrastructure for SLS. The VAB doors are 12 meters wide so NA could be 10-11 meters in diameter.

7

Polls Section / Re: When will Artemis II and III fly?

« Last post by JulesVerneATV on Today at 09:51 pm »

Trump’s big bill has billions added for Artemis

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-big-bill-billions-added-120000671.html

8

Spaceflight Entertainment and Hobbies / Re: Andor **** SPOILER Discussion ****

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 09:21 pm »

9

Advanced Concepts / Re: Moving "the cloud" to orbit

« Last post by Twark_Main on Today at 09:05 pm »

Anyway, you get the point. Starlink Solution: no upgrades in space, you just replace the constellation over time.

But you're talking about something that's millions of times bigger than a Starlink satellite.  In fact, it's probably bigger than an entire Starlink constellation.

First, I don't subscribe to your pulled-from-your-backside number right there.

Second, if so, and?? The fundamental economic tradeoff between the two options doesn't care about size, because the null hypothesis is that the cost of both options scales roughly with size (so it cancels out).

Do you have any reason (preferably something not utterly contrived merely for the sake of winning the argument) to think otherwise? 

10

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

« Last post by Roy_H on Today at 08:54 pm »

Turns out that you are right, no way HLS has enough fuel to land on moon and return to HEEO. In fact with shielding mass added, a full HLS doesn't even have enough fuel to land and return to LLO. I re-ran my requests with Grok and added some requirements, the main one being the 100 tons of PE shielding required for the HLS. This would give astronauts in the HLS about 15% better protection than Orion. Assuming no shielding equals suicide. Also I agree with your concerns about refueling while orbiting through the Van Allan belts, too risky. Grok has suggested that refueling in a circular orbit between the two belts would be safe. Anyhow, coming up with a new plan.