Author Topic: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion  (Read 1160787 times)

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #400 on: 12/01/2021 12:30 am »
Don't confuse Starlink v2 (with laser links) and the Starlink "Gen2" proposed for some time in the future. I may have missed something, but I don't think the specs for Gen2 have been disclosed, or even fixed at this time. There was some mention of "three times as big" though that could be based on mass or volume, not largest dimension. So discussion of a 9-meter flat disc form factor is just speculation.

The satellite with laser link is Starlink v1.5.

Elon Musk has confirmed v2 is the satellite optimized for launching on Starship.

From SpaceX FCC filing, Gen2 constellation will use "next-generation satellite" that launches on Starship. Most people assume Gen2 constellation will use V2 Starlink satellite, which I think it's a safe assumption.

Also from FCC filing, the satellite in Gen2 constellation (assumed to be V2) can be launched on Falcon 9, but SpaceX would prefer to launch it on Starship.

Gen2 constellation hasn't been approved yet, not sure when it can be approved. But I don't think there's anything preventing SpaceX from using V2 satellite in the current LEO constellation (the one with 4,400 satellites).

More details can be discussed in the Starlink thread.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2021 12:31 am by su27k »

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11172
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8802
  • Likes Given: 7821
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #401 on: 12/01/2021 02:05 am »
SpaceX Starship/Superheavy Launch and Catch Animation

Quote
With the first Starship orbital flight attempt scheduled for early next year, we're now starting to look forward to one of the wildest parts of the Starship program to date: catching the Super Heavy booster instead of using landing legs. Very little is known about the exact catch sequence, so I decided to animate how I think it may look.

The actual first catch attempt will likely be on the second or third launch attempt, so the booster is shown as the upgraded 33-engine version.

Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9329
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #402 on: 12/01/2021 12:35 pm »
And if you can not monetize that investment, because you need Starship up and running at this point, since the new better and more efficient satellites (I assume longer life + more bandwidth + laser links) can only be launched using starship, things can go downhill quite fast.

On the plus site. If all of the above it is true, any competitor will have an extremely hard time to play catch up with SpaceX. Not good for rest, but quite good for SpaceX and it's investors.
...There is no way their V2 satellites are individually too heavy for an F9, you just may not be sending up 60/launch. ...

That is a bold claim. e.g. Assume that the v2 are flat 8m disks, stacked on one another. No way to get them into the F9 cargo bay.
F9 uses fairings, so it does not have a cargo bay. Basically all single-stick launchers with a fairing can support an oversize fairing. I do not know if F9 has ever done this before, but is is a very standard practice in the industry and I (an uneducated outsider) know of no reason F9 could not do this.


If I am not mistaken, a LENGTHENED fairing for NatSec F9/FH launches is in work. A widened fairing is not, and it would take years of lead time to get one designed, built and ready to fly.
Given the rather sturdy nature of the Starlink birds ('just stack them right on top of each other, and deploy them by spinning around and letting them bump together until they separate. Maybe stack some customer satellites on top of all that too, why not?') I would half expect SpaceX to just ditch the fairing altogether, stack an small nose on top of the topmost satellite(s) in the stack, and eat the aerodynamic losses from turbulence with excess performance. I would not be in the least surprised is tucked somewhere on SpaceX servers there is already a simulation of edge heating of exposed Starlinks during ascent.

Offline capoman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
  • Ontario Canada
  • Liked: 1441
  • Likes Given: 1330
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #403 on: 12/01/2021 03:01 pm »
I can't comment on whether this e-mail is legit or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is SpaceX's equivalent of "production hell".

Thing is, the situation as it stands is that SpaceX will be completing several boosters and ships by the time they are flying next year, and I wouldn't be surprised if Raptors are the bottleneck as production of vehicles seems to be going quite well. With throwing engines in the drink, a raptor production shortage is going really bog down the ability to even test vehicles, let alone launch Starlinks, slowing down the entire program, and they may need to slow down vehicle production until Raptor production ramps up. Everything is so interdependent, and the reason Elon appears to be focusing on Raptor, the current bottleneck. Aside from this e-mail, whether real not, Elon has mentioned this several times publicly that it's one of their biggest challenges and the reason they are looking to build a simpler version (as well as cost).

Offline tssp_art

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Fairfax Station, VA
  • Liked: 627
  • Likes Given: 440
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #404 on: 12/01/2021 03:44 pm »
In light of the new focus on Raptor production issues, a conservative strategy to help preserve schedule might also include testing/flying/landing the SH booster in a separate campaign that precedes or parallels the orbital launch campaign. Sending a booster up a few hundred (or a few thousand) meters and catching it successfully would go along way to minimizing the loss of boosters - and the 33 raptors that go with each one. And if it were launched using only a few Raptors it might not require any special FAA permissions as it would stay within the existing EA and FAA guidelines. This may be a quick and (relatively) easy way to refine the positioning and landing algorithms of both the booster and "Stage 0", especially if the FAA orbital launch license is delayed in any way.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2021 03:49 pm by tssp_art »

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #405 on: 12/01/2021 04:03 pm »
In light of the new focus on Raptor production issues, a conservative strategy to help preserve schedule might also include testing/flying/landing the SH booster in a separate campaign that precedes or parallels the orbital launch campaign. Sending a booster up a few hundred (or a few thousand) meters and catching it successfully would go along way to minimizing the loss of boosters - and the 33 raptors that go with each one. And if it were launched using only a few Raptors it might not require any special FAA permissions as it would stay within the existing EA and FAA guidelines. This may be a quick and (relatively) easy way to refine the positioning and landing algorithms of both the booster and "Stage 0", especially if the FAA orbital launch license is delayed in any way.

Yes
Another thing, Starship orbital and re-entry tests can be done using boosters with far less than 33 or 29 engines.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline Okie_Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1886
  • Oklahoma, USA
  • Liked: 1141
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #406 on: 12/01/2021 04:06 pm »
In light of the new focus on Raptor production issues, a conservative strategy to help preserve schedule might also include testing/flying/landing the SH booster in a separate campaign that precedes or parallels the orbital launch campaign. Sending a booster up a few hundred (or a few thousand) meters and catching it successfully would go along way to minimizing the loss of boosters - and the 33 raptors that go with each one. And if it were launched using only a few Raptors it might not require any special FAA permissions as it would stay within the existing EA and FAA guidelines. This may be a quick and (relatively) easy way to refine the positioning and landing algorithms of both the booster and "Stage 0", especially if the FAA orbital launch license is delayed in any way.

The problem is that testing landing also risks the only currently existing SS/SH launch facility and push to orbit seems to be the priority for Musk at this time.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2021 04:14 pm by Okie_Steve »

Offline Alvian@IDN

In light of the new focus on Raptor production issues, a conservative strategy to help preserve schedule might also include testing/flying/landing the SH booster in a separate campaign that precedes or parallels the orbital launch campaign. Sending a booster up a few hundred (or a few thousand) meters and catching it successfully would go along way to minimizing the loss of boosters - and the 33 raptors that go with each one. And if it were launched using only a few Raptors it might not require any special FAA permissions as it would stay within the existing EA and FAA guidelines. This may be a quick and (relatively) easy way to refine the positioning and landing algorithms of both the booster and "Stage 0", especially if the FAA orbital launch license is delayed in any way.
The reason why the OIG schedule is actually more realistic is that they didn't bother with people insisting they need to fly the booster separately first. Real world data is important to be received quick
My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #408 on: 12/01/2021 04:53 pm »
Could it simply be an elaborate trick by Elon so he can justify ...

If you knew anything about Elon you would know that that is not his style.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online friendly3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liege. BELGIUM.
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 8567
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #409 on: 12/01/2021 05:25 pm »
Could it simply be an elaborate trick by Elon so he can justify ...

If you knew anything about Elon you would know that that is not his style.

I was joking.

Offline tssp_art

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Fairfax Station, VA
  • Liked: 627
  • Likes Given: 440
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #410 on: 12/01/2021 05:31 pm »
The reason why the OIG schedule is actually more realistic is that they didn't bother with people insisting they need to fly the booster separately first. Real world data is important to be received quick

Agree, but that planning was assuming that Raptor production would keep up - but it doesn't synch with the current rate of production. At the current rate, each Booster loss consumes almost 3 months of production. And my guess is that they will lose at least three in the current campaign plan for orbital testing. If testing the booster separately can reduce those losses that is a significant impact to the schedule.

Offline _MECO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Central KY, USA
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #411 on: 12/01/2021 05:40 pm »
The reason why the OIG schedule is actually more realistic is that they didn't bother with people insisting they need to fly the booster separately first. Real world data is important to be received quick

Agree, but that planning was assuming that Raptor production would keep up - but it doesn't synch with the current rate of production. At the current rate, each Booster loss consumes almost 3 months of production. And my guess is that they will lose at least three in the current campaign plan for orbital testing. If testing the booster separately can reduce those losses that is a significant impact to the schedule.
Maybe that's the driver behind the ridiculous demand. How many Falcon 9s did SpaceX blow up again in the name of perfecting first stage recovery? Like seven or eight? For the sake of simple argument let's say that SpaceX's increased experience and the increased difficulty of catching a booster on giant robot arms cancels out. Including this launch which we know will have no booster recovery, that would mean we can expect the first several launches to return basically zero working engines back to the company. When you consider they now need Starship launches to construct phase two of their yet-to-be-money-making Starlink constellation it starts to make sense they would be sweating over expensive engines in the near term. At 33 engines a booster and 10 RUDded boosters that's already 330 engines expended hoisting Starships towards orbit.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Liked: 1590
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #412 on: 12/01/2021 06:36 pm »
Quote
sweating over expensive engines
He's already said that they're going to make them at a pretty low cost.  Expense just confuses the issue. 

The need volume, not low cost-of-production.

Offline steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
  • Liked: 2779
  • Likes Given: 961
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #413 on: 12/01/2021 07:54 pm »
Quote
sweating over expensive engines
He's already said that they're going to make them at a pretty low cost.  Expense just confuses the issue. 

The need volume, not low cost-of-production.
While that's likely true, it is also likely that one of the reasons they need volume is to get the cost of production (per unit) down, and one of the reasons they need low unit cost is so that they can afford high volumes.

Offline djh

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Vancouver, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 368
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #414 on: 12/01/2021 08:00 pm »
In light of the new focus on Raptor production issues, a conservative strategy to help preserve schedule might also include testing/flying/landing the SH booster in a separate campaign that precedes or parallels the orbital launch campaign. Sending a booster up a few hundred (or a few thousand) meters and catching it successfully would go along way to minimizing the loss of boosters - and the 33 raptors that go with each one. And if it were launched using only a few Raptors it might not require any special FAA permissions as it would stay within the existing EA and FAA guidelines. This may be a quick and (relatively) easy way to refine the positioning and landing algorithms of both the booster and "Stage 0", especially if the FAA orbital launch license is delayed in any way.

The problem is that testing landing also risks the only currently existing SS/SH launch facility and push to orbit seems to be the priority for Musk at this time.


Taking a leaf out of the early Starhopper test campaign, they could do a simple 3ft/1m test hop (straight up off the launch table, hover, then catch and lower). Using the catching arms for the first hop just to test that the catch-and-release mechanism works, from such a small height (1m) should have very low risk of damaging Stage 0, and would also prove the technology. It would also help suggest improvements or tweaks that would go into the next iteration.


Yes, the higher tests would be much more risky, but just proving that the catching arms operate as expected should definitely increase trust in the system for when they are actually ready to do a real orbital catch. Plus, hopefully by that point, the second orbital launch pad and tower would have been constucted.

Offline flexbuffchest

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #415 on: 12/01/2021 09:56 pm »
So this is kind of a dumb question, but what are the most common reasons why a static fire might be aborted? Presumably all these engines have been tested before and haven't they been hooked up to SN20 for a while now?

I'm kind of a rube to all of this.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #416 on: 12/01/2021 10:01 pm »
I don't think SpaceX will lose a booster on launch, or even getting Starship to orbit.  Landing at the launch mount is the kicker.  Also, the belly flop landing of the Starship has only had one 100% successful landing.  One other one did land, but the fire below it caused it to fall over. 

Current rate of Raptor production only gives you two boosters and about 12 Starships per year.  Enough for testing, but once the landings are mastered, Musk wants to ramp up production rapidly. 
« Last Edit: 12/01/2021 10:02 pm by spacenut »

Online ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 770
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #417 on: 12/01/2021 10:06 pm »
So this is kind of a dumb question, but what are the most common reasons why a static fire might be aborted? Presumably all these engines have been tested before and haven't they been hooked up to SN20 for a while now?

I'm kind of a rube to all of this.

There are so many things....pressure sensor (one of many) saying to high/low, temp sensor (one of many) saying to high/low, valve not reporting open/closed, valve not actually opening/closing, pumps spinning to fast/slow, GSE sensors showing leaking pipes, power bus reporting issues, and the list can go on and on....ALL of them common reasons!

For this SF as a quick example...sitting so long...a valve might of stuck on startup...only SpaceX can answer the real reason however.

Offline flexbuffchest

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #418 on: 12/01/2021 10:19 pm »
So this is kind of a dumb question, but what are the most common reasons why a static fire might be aborted? Presumably all these engines have been tested before and haven't they been hooked up to SN20 for a while now?

I'm kind of a rube to all of this.

There are so many things....pressure sensor (one of many) saying to high/low, temp sensor (one of many) saying to high/low, valve not reporting open/closed, valve not actually opening/closing, pumps spinning to fast/slow, GSE sensors showing leaking pipes, power bus reporting issues, and the list can go on and on....ALL of them common reasons!

For this SF as a quick example...sitting so long...a valve might of stuck on startup...only SpaceX can answer the real reason however.

Thanks a million!

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6006
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 23 : Discussion
« Reply #419 on: 12/01/2021 11:25 pm »
I can't comment on whether this e-mail is legit or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is SpaceX's equivalent of "production hell".

Thing is, the situation as it stands is that SpaceX will be completing several boosters and ships by the time they are flying next year, and I wouldn't be surprised if Raptors are the bottleneck as production of vehicles seems to be going quite well. With throwing engines in the drink, a raptor production shortage is going really bog down the ability to even test vehicles, let alone launch Starlinks, slowing down the entire program, and they may need to slow down vehicle production until Raptor production ramps up. Everything is so interdependent, and the reason Elon appears to be focusing on Raptor, the current bottleneck. Aside from this e-mail, whether real not, Elon has mentioned this several times publicly that it's one of their biggest challenges and the reason they are looking to build a simpler version (as well as cost).
Sounds like a good reason to prioritize booster return. Luckily that can run parallel with everything else that has to be developed but it gives a focus on where to spend the money.
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0