1

Blue Origin / Re: How could winning the HLS second contract change the Blue company?

« Last post by trimeta on Today at 12:08 am »

It's surprising that Blue didn't anticipate that SpaceX's Option A bid would end up being much lower than their bid. The prices of the base period bid were public information (see the post below), so they should have know that SpaceX's price would be around $2.25B (the base period price) or slightly more (it ended up being $2.9B for Option A):

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46645.msg2103598#msg2103598

I don't think they were surprised by SpaceX being cheaper. They were surprised by NASA not having enough money to back two bids. They figured "with two winning bids, we only need to beat Dynetics and we're good, so we can basically ignore SpaceX and not worry about how much better they are than us." Which arguably is exactly the type of thinking NASA explicitly encouraged with the new split-bid process for landings past the first (e.g. having SpaceX submit a sole-source bid, and separately have everyone else bid against each other).

2

Commercial Space Flight General / Re: AstroForge (Asteroid Mining Company)

« Last post by Danderman on Today at 12:01 am »

Yeah, just hoping that some company will survive in this business is not a great strategy.

IF some company did manage to find a mine some metal in space, there is this big country called "China" that would be exploiting the discovery very quickly.

Given the lack of legal protection for claims, investors will be leery of putting their money in this field. So, absent protection for claims, it is shampoo, rinse, repeat, ie, company announces they are going to mine an asteroid, investors consider but decline, company goes away, posters here claim that there is no need to protect claims, the next company up will do okay.

3

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers

« Last post by docmordrid on 01/30/2023 11:52 pm »

Updated Starship mass to "Earth orbit"

Reusable: 150 metric tons

Expended: 250 metric tons

https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/

On the web page it is stated that the payload capacity is 100-250+ t (orbit dependent)

Presuming the t means metric ton and the Starship is the standard transport variant.

Above the performance table it states,

"SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket – collectively referred to as Starship – represent a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond. Starship will be the world’s most powerful launch vehicle ever developed, with the ability to carry up to 150 metric tonnes to Earth orbit reusable, and up to 250 metric tonnes expendable."

4

Blue Origin / Re: How could winning the HLS second contract change the Blue company?

« Last post by yg1968 on 01/30/2023 11:37 pm »

I think the bigger impact on the company was the entire concept of a HLS contract rather than anything now; we're set in the ways we go. This extract from Amazon Unbound has stuck with me because of how blatant it is.

Blue Origin was now nakedly opportunistic. After Donald Trump won the presidency and announced the goal of returning Americans to the moon by 2024, Blue executives quickly put together a seven-page proposal outlining a lunar service to the Shackleton crater on the moon’s south pole, paving the way for human colonies there. “It is time for America to return to the Moon—this time to stay,” Bezos emailed the Washington Post, after it obtained a copy of the proposal. The idea would evolve into another massive undertaking, called Blue Moon.

You (and Blue Origin execs) look at SpaceX and a big takeaway in their success is that they were able to scale rapidly off the COTS and CRS contracts into the blossoming firm that they were in 2016. Blue on the other hand... so Bezos and co decides 'right that's it, we're going deep on the next big government contract we see.' Trump goes moon, so they open up a lander department and all that. Which is why they were so upset when they lost. Option A was their ideological method to scaling as a firm; to have SpaceX come in with supposed mars launch vehicle with a new paintjob and win was a slap in the face.

If they win, it's not really changing much about the company. Had they won with the design space I thought they might go with that could've shifted it up but probably not to be (given that we received a contractor list for the announcement). I think the large part of the reason they historically talked about their lander on SLS was because it would be more politically popular. So it's not like the current path is a new thing.

On a side note, you can actually hear some of these thoughts of using gov money to subsidize development of vehicles in their complaints. "NASA is providing SpaceX a $3 billion subsidy to convert a heavy-lift launch vehicle into a sustainable lunar lander"

Nevertheless, the story ULA execs eventually heard from employees at Blue, Sowers said, was that Bezos was frustrated that the government was funding Elon Musk’s space dreams and wanted to get in on the action. To compete for those lucrative contracts and to “get paid to practice,” as Bezos put it to colleagues

Which is also hinted at in the supposed National team post option A selection meeting. Not everything here turned out, but there's enough that rings a bell.

It's surprising that Blue didn't anticipate that SpaceX's Option A bid would end up being much lower than their bid. The prices of the base period bid were public information (see the post below), so they should have know that SpaceX's price would be around $2.25B (the base period price) or slightly more (it ended up being $2.9B for Option A):

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46645.msg2103598#msg2103598

5

Russian Launchers - Soyuz, Progress and Unmanned / Re: Soyuz-2.1a/Fregat - Kondor-FKA №1 - Vostochny - 2023

« Last post by Yiosie on 01/30/2023 11:26 pm »

Launch expected in the first half of the year:

Satellite "Kondor-FKA" will be launched in the first half of 2023 [dated Jan. 27]

The Earth remote sensing spacecraft "Kondor-FKA" will be launched in the first half of this year. This was announced to journalists by the General Director - General Designer of NPO Mashinostroeniya (part of KTRV) Alexander Leonov on the sidelines of the XLVII Academic Lectures on Cosmonautics.

“If we talk about the Condor, then we, as planned, should launch in the first half of this year,” Leonov said, answering a question from a TASS correspondent.

6

SpaceX Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink group 5-3 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2023 (08:02 UTC)

« Last post by ZachS09 on 01/30/2023 11:19 pm »

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/7054

Launch is scheduled for 07:37 UTC on February 2, 2023.

7

SpaceX Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink group 5-3 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2023 (08:02 UTC)

« Last post by Ken the Bin on 01/30/2023 11:09 pm »

Postponed to February 2 per this cancel-and-replace NGA notice.

302346Z JAN 23
NAVAREA IV 117/23(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   020737Z TO 021207Z FEB, ALTERNATE
   030711Z TO 031141Z, 040646Z TO 041116Z, 
   050621Z TO 051051Z, 060556Z TO 061026Z, 
   070531Z TO 071000Z AND 080506Z TO 080936Z FEB
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-38.28N 080-37.17W, 28-39.00N 080-36.00W, 
      28-39.00N 080-35.00W, 28-38.00N 080-22.00W,
      28-26.00N 080-02.00W, 28-21.00N 080-05.00W,
      28-27.00N 080-23.00W, 28-31.42N 080-33.48W.
   B. 26-06.00N 075-43.00W, 26-19.00N 075-36.00W,
      26-13.00N 074-29.00W, 25-39.00N 074-11.00W,
      25-19.00N 074-35.00W, 25-20.00N 075-07.00W.
2.CANCEL NAVAREA IV 110/23.
3.CANCEL THIS MSG 081036Z FEB 23.

8

Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers

« Last post by Zed_Noir on 01/30/2023 11:09 pm »

Updated Starship mass to "Earth orbit"

Reusable: 150 metric tons

Expended: 250 metric tons

https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/

On the web page it is stated that the payload capacity is 100-250+ t (orbit dependent)

Presuming the t means metric ton and the Starship is the standard transport variant.

9

SpaceX Super Heavy/Starship (BFR/BFS) - Earth to Deep Space / Re: Starship On-orbit refueling - Options and Discussion

« Last post by Twark_Main on 01/30/2023 11:06 pm »

.This loses some amount of gaseous prop from venting back down from equilibrium to the target low pressure, but that mass loss is relatively small: e.g. for CH4 assuming a 3 Bar sender tank pressure and the absolute worst case of the entire tank volume to be vented, the maximum mass loss is around 1.5 tonnes.

Except that's not the "absolute worst case," because (as you point out) liquid propellant will be constantly evaporating to replenish the ullage gas.

It's also not the "absolute worst case" because we don't know if it will actually reliably transfer 100% of the propellant. If some is missed that needs to be counted, and even a small amount of liquid could exceed 1.5 tonnes.

Only when in a vacuum state. The vents would not be opened again until the tank has reached pressure equilibrium with the sender tank, and then settles, so venting would not lose liquids (settled so no mixed phase) and pressure would not be allowed to drop before the triple point (so no flash boiling).

"Flash boiling" isn't the only kind of boiling. Lower pressure will always cause an increase in evaporation rate, even before hitting the vapor pressure.

You misunderstood my point about liquid. I wasn't saying that liquid would be vented, but rather that some might be left in the tank.

You also missed the ullage thrusters. If the technique works but takes a lot longer, then that additional ullage prop mass should also be accounted for.

By transferring at a high flow rate and then settling with a sealed tank, you can minimise the time at the maximum settling thrust needed (to keep the inlet covered on the sender tank) and then switch to the minimum thrust needed for the post-transfer sealed tank settling (equivalent to a cost-phase settling thrust). This is opposed to needing to keep sufficient thrust to both keep the sender tank inlet covered and keep the receiving tank from geysering for the entire transfer duration.

Again, you're missing my point. It has yet to be shown that this doesn't take more time vs. using pumps. More time = more ullage propellant used.

10

Spaceflight Entertainment and Hobbies / Re: Space Shuttle Launch Pad 39A with Challenger STS-6 (1:144)

« Last post by roma847 on 01/30/2023 10:50 pm »

Hello everybody,

for the remaining three Screw Jacks I came up with a different solution.

In order not to have to glue the tiny Angle holders to the sides of the Double angle holder last, which was a pretty tricky affair, I have this step this time brought forward.

That's why I first drilled the holes for the Spindle protective tubes in the brackets, first with Ø 0,3 mm pre-drilled, and then with Ø 0,5 mm re-drilled.

Then the sides were beveled,



wherefore this time I fixed the holders between four rulers and then cut off the slants on both sides one after the other with a razor blade.

And in this position I also glued the tiny angle holders onto the front side.



To glue the angle holders to the back, however, they had to be carefully re-clamped and precisely aimed with the tiny one on the Tape tweezers.



But now the Double angle holders are finished,



and I can glue in the protective tubes and then move on to the Worm gears and Folding bellows.