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.
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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 11/30/2021 04:58 pmQuote from: volker2020 on 11/30/2021 04:46 pmQuote from: Reynold on 11/30/2021 04:40 pmQuote from: volker2020 on 11/30/2021 03:35 pmAnd 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.
Quote from: volker2020 on 11/30/2021 04:46 pmQuote from: Reynold on 11/30/2021 04:40 pmQuote from: volker2020 on 11/30/2021 03:35 pmAnd 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.
Quote from: Reynold on 11/30/2021 04:40 pmQuote from: volker2020 on 11/30/2021 03:35 pmAnd 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.
Quote from: volker2020 on 11/30/2021 03:35 pmAnd 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. ...
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.
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.
Could it simply be an elaborate trick by Elon so he can justify ...
Quote from: friendly3 on 11/30/2021 11:39 pmCould 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.
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
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 12/01/2021 04:17 pmThe 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 quickAgree, 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.
sweating over expensive engines
Quotesweating over expensive enginesHe'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.
Quote from: tssp_art on 12/01/2021 03:44 pmIn 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.
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.
Quote from: flexbuffchest on 12/01/2021 09:56 pmSo 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.
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).