In the future, when "Mission Success" involves launching a Deep Space Transport (starship) into LEO, followed by ~10 tankers (plus a few spares) in rapid succession into the same plane, expecting the weather (and GSE!) to cooperate for a dozen opportunities (possibly over a week or two in real-time), is probably an excessive amount of mission risk.
In the future, when "Mission Success" involves launching a Deep Space Transport (starship) into LEO, followed by ~10 tankers (plus a few spares) in rapid succession into the same plane, expecting the weather (and GSE!) to cooperate for a dozen opportunities (possibly over a week or two in real-time), is probably an excessive amount of mission risk.>
Why do people transform "aiming for three flights a day for a Starship" into "aiming for three flights a day for a Starship WEATHER BE DAMNED!"? It makes no sense.It doesn't make sense. Envelopes will be expanded eventually, but bad weather can still ground commercial aircraft, even though they are designed to spend the majority of the time in the air. Nobody (including SpaceX) will risk a reusable craft in this way just because someone way back said that we should be able to fly three flights per day.
Assuming that the primary launch sites would end up as the two converted oil rigs (or any further ones developed). Would there be better locations that are statistically less likely to see adverse weather yet maintain similar benefits? Assuming you could set them up pretty much anywhere.
Realistically ITAR considerations mean the other locations will likely have to be in the US which means either Wallops or somewhere completely new like the Carolinas or even the Maine Coast.
Quote from: Rich_Zap on 03/23/2021 05:13 pmAssuming that the primary launch sites would end up as the two converted oil rigs (or any further ones developed). Would there be better locations that are statistically less likely to see adverse weather yet maintain similar benefits? Assuming you could set them up pretty much anywhere.No memeing but if we're talking "pretty much anywhere" then it'd probably be somewhere like Madagascar or Mauritius or the east coast of Africa that's arid with minimal inclement weather and close to the equator for maximum payload, but still has thousands of miles of ocean downrange.Maybe if $TSLA hits $3000 a share Elon can just buy Somalia and rename it to "SpaceXia".
Or, you know, Phobos and Deimos. And probably other platforms. Concur with ITAR concerns, at least in the beginning, but I think that'll eventually be sorted as some other countries develop Raptor analogues.
This later part of the thread has me thinking of coming up with a route that Phobos and Deimos and future platforms can take throughout a year to stay in the best weather areas possible. Every time a starship or booster gets rolled off the assembly line do the pressure tests and static fires in BC then fly it over to whatever launch platform it's going to be used on, preferably suborbital transfer. Those ones can wait on weather in Texas to be preferable then, once they get to Launch Platform 69420 sitting off the coast of Virginia where the weather is calculated to be good for a couple weeks, it can land and be integrated with a booster to be sent up to orbit.
Quote from: schuttle89 on 03/23/2021 09:32 pmThis later part of the thread has me thinking of coming up with a route that Phobos and Deimos and future platforms can take throughout a year to stay in the best weather areas possible. Every time a starship or booster gets rolled off the assembly line do the pressure tests and static fires in BC then fly it over to whatever launch platform it's going to be used on, preferably suborbital transfer. Those ones can wait on weather in Texas to be preferable then, once they get to Launch Platform 69420 sitting off the coast of Virginia where the weather is calculated to be good for a couple weeks, it can land and be integrated with a booster to be sent up to orbit.What if there is no payload in Virginia?
Quote from: Barnalby on 03/23/2021 02:07 pm1. They launch in those conditions as well. It mostly has to do with the fact that the Soyuz family of boosters has its origins in the R-7 ICBM and it's, uhhh, "not really acceptable" to have an ICBM system that can be scrubbed because of bad weather. Real "screen door on a submarine" energy.2. Lack of all-weather launches in the west is mostly a function of the pathological risk-aversiveness that permeates NASA and western spaceflight in general and it's that pathological risk-aversiveness that has so hindered our expansion into the cosmos that SpaceX is trying so hard to move away from.Soyuz can night launch astronauts to the ISS in whiteout blizzard conditions while NASA scrubs due to high altitude wind shear on otherwise clear days. If SpaceX wants to hit their launch cadence targets for Starship, it's going to need to be able to safely launch during snowfall and tropical storms, etc.not true1. Atlas and Titan were ICBMs and still had those constraints. Soyuz doesn't not launch in the thunder storms like in Florida. Soyuz in Kourou doesn't launch in them.2. just an inane comment. The constraints haven't changed in decades. It has nothing to do with " pathological risk-aversiveness". Nor has it hindered "our expansion into the cosmos "3. High altitude wind shear is only happens on clear days. It is the reason for clear days. Launch probability (wind shear) and launch vehicle performance is a trade. It is one or the other. Airliners don't fly in tropical storms. Airliners aren't serviced in lightning storms. Airliners can't even taxi to gates in lightning storms since ground crews are not allowed outside.
1. They launch in those conditions as well. It mostly has to do with the fact that the Soyuz family of boosters has its origins in the R-7 ICBM and it's, uhhh, "not really acceptable" to have an ICBM system that can be scrubbed because of bad weather. Real "screen door on a submarine" energy.2. Lack of all-weather launches in the west is mostly a function of the pathological risk-aversiveness that permeates NASA and western spaceflight in general and it's that pathological risk-aversiveness that has so hindered our expansion into the cosmos that SpaceX is trying so hard to move away from.Soyuz can night launch astronauts to the ISS in whiteout blizzard conditions while NASA scrubs due to high altitude wind shear on otherwise clear days. If SpaceX wants to hit their launch cadence targets for Starship, it's going to need to be able to safely launch during snowfall and tropical storms, etc.
I really didn't start this thread to watch people chat about how SpaceX could avoid bad weather.I'd love to understand more about, for example, high-level wind shear, what could be done to better cope with (not avoid) it, and what the penalties of those mitigations would be.
Quote from: steveleach on 03/24/2021 06:54 amI really didn't start this thread to watch people chat about how SpaceX could avoid bad weather.I'd love to understand more about, for example, high-level wind shear, what could be done to better cope with (not avoid) it, and what the penalties of those mitigations would be.Right now Starship is in development. Once it is operational we should expect SpaceX to expand the envelope, no? I don't think it is a good idea to be more aggressive with constraints at this point, don't you think?For all we know Starship may be able to greatly expand the envelope.
