Author Topic: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion  (Read 515092 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #320 on: 03/23/2023 11:11 am »
question what are the chances of 2 starship launches in 2023 and 5 in 2024
personally i think that three in 2023 and 5 2024 i guess
Gwynne Shotwell thinks Starship may launch 100 times in 2025. So perhaps 4 this year and 10 or more in 2024.  There are those who are certain that won't happen but only time will tell.
https://spacenews.com/shotwell-says-spacex-ready-for-starship-static-fire-test/

Gwynne Shotwell also stated Starships would "definitely" have been landing on the Moon for 1.5 years by now: https://futurism.com/the-byte/spacex-land-starship-moon-2022

Adjust your expectations accordingly.

Not accurate, she say they definitely WANT to land Starships on the Moon by 2022:
Quote
“Aspirationally, we want to get Starship to orbit within a year," Shotwell said at this year's International Astronautical Congress in Washington DC, as quoted by TechCrunch. "We definitely want to land it on the Moon before 2022."
Emphasis mine.

I agree they likely won’t be anywhere near 100 Starship launches by 2025, but you do seem to have this habit of taking it upon yourself to rephrase quotes about aspirational timelines into “NLT” type claims and then using your own rephrasing as evidence that SpaceX keeps making “No Later Than” type claims…
« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 11:16 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #321 on: 03/23/2023 01:18 pm »
question what are the chances of 2 starship launches in 2023 and 5 in 2024
personally i think that three in 2023 and 5 2024 i guess

I think they'll do way more than 3 in 23 and 5 in 24.  (Unless an attempt takes out the OLM)

Getting all the pieces of the chain established has been the hardest part.  But now that they are on the cusp of having Raptor, Superheavy, Starship, OLM ready I think the flight cadence could go from 2-3 months between flight 1 and 2 to a month or less by early 24.

I think successfully recovering Superheavy and maturing that design is key.  IT's a massive vehicle and the sooner they can start reusing it, the sooner they can pour everything in Starship and its variants (Especially the tanker, depot and HLS, which NASA is paying and waiting to use)
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
  • Liked: 4098
  • Likes Given: 2773
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #322 on: 03/23/2023 02:43 pm »
Sorry eeergo, but Robotbeat is right, you definitely misrepresented Shotwell's statement. 

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #323 on: 03/23/2023 03:40 pm »
This might be what you are looking for. Last update was July 2022.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34802.0

Ned

Thanks Ned. I've bookmarked it. :)
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #324 on: 03/23/2023 06:20 pm »
Thank you for bringing back the exact same pedantic lawyeristic semantics [...]
Words have meaning.  Stop misquoting people to suit your agenda.

Separately, spaceflight is aspirational.  If we filled every SLS, Vulcan, and New Glenn thread with all of the aspirational statements companies and/or organizations make about their aspirational timelines and then complain when they are not met, we'll drown in a sea of uselessness.  SpaceX is, as Jim likes to say, not special in many things, and they are not special in this thing either.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2023 06:23 pm by abaddon »

Offline eeergo

Thank you for bringing back the exact same pedantic lawyeristic semantics [...]
Words have meaning.  Stop misquoting people to suit your agenda.

Separately, spaceflight is aspirational.  If we filled every SLS, Vulcan, and New Glenn thread with all of the aspirational statements companies and/or organizations make about their aspirational timelines and then complain when they are not met, we'll drown in a sea of uselessness.  SpaceX is, as Jim likes to say, not special in many things, and they are not special in this thing either.

There are actual *threads* about basically every LV program delay that spans more than a few percent points from its target. Yet for a program whose *very* publicized milestones, aspirational and not, have perpetually been a few weeks to a couple of months away, for 3-4 years already, any attempt to point out this mismatch between expectations, marketing and reality is an "agenda". And a mere statement about keeping in mind corporate aspirational targets being unrealistic is met with semantic loopholes to denature words of their intended meaning. Cool, but I don't have a taste for kool-aid, much less for years of it.
-DaviD-

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Liked: 1590
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #326 on: 03/23/2023 09:52 pm »

This might be Zack's best deep dive yet.
Jax is quite good as the ring watcher guy. His study of the reinforcements they've made to the aft barrel sections and qd panel on all the ships through 30 was most enlightening. If 24 fails in flight at that section of the structure, then they'll have to redo them all again, or skip to 31.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #327 on: 03/23/2023 11:57 pm »
Oh, you love to drink the kool-aide, just not this flavor.
The Blue one?  (Apologies)
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

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 25 : Discussion
« Reply #328 on: 03/24/2023 01:05 am »

This might be Zack's best deep dive yet.
Jax is quite good as the ring watcher guy. His study of the reinforcements they've made to the aft barrel sections and qd panel on all the ships through 30 was most enlightening. If 24 fails in flight at that section of the structure, then they'll have to redo them all again, or skip to 31.
Yes, a most excellent video. I've a hunch they're already deep in a structural redesign and only waiting for the input from a launch before they start bending metal.


If correct, it follows that if the launch goes south for a reason other than structure, they'll do the next launch with something we see, probably modified to address the shortcoming. If structure kills it we may see more reinforcement on what's out there or another dry spell while they turn out a new air (space?) frame.
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.

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #329 on: 03/24/2023 05:59 am »
With all the lists of what Starship might do on launch day I'd want to add variant:

0. Aborts before launch clamp release - leading to scrub.

I think this is by far the most likely event. To the point that I highly doubt the rocket will launch on the first launch day.
SpaceX will then do mitigations - maybe just recycle and try again, maybe check some valves or even swap some raptors and try again - rinse and repeat.

The likelihood for this to happen is so high, I would dare to add a poll how often this is gonna happen.


Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #330 on: 03/24/2023 07:13 am »
Ditto. Suspect we will see many many aborts as they debug and get comfortable. This thing is a beast and you want to be sure it will clear the tower/area before pressing Go.

With all the lists of what Starship might do on launch day I'd want to add variant:

0. Aborts before launch clamp release - leading to scrub.

I think this is by far the most likely event. To the point that I highly doubt the rocket will launch on the first launch day.
SpaceX will then do mitigations - maybe just recycle and try again, maybe check some valves or even swap some raptors and try again - rinse and repeat.

The likelihood for this to happen is so high, I would dare to add a poll how often this is gonna happen.

Offline CMac

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Ireland
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #331 on: 03/24/2023 04:58 pm »
I'll suggest vertcle slots, e.g. 4 with redesigned cartridge batches, e.g 4 to a batch. Vertically stacked batches. How to virtualise the cartridge so its a mechanism rather than a box?

Offline CMac

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Ireland
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #332 on: 03/24/2023 05:02 pm »
Could have 4x4 array of slots with launch at slightly different radial/spherical angles to avoid collisions.

Offline CMac

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Ireland
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #333 on: 03/24/2023 05:14 pm »
===================
   ---    ---   ---   ---               
   ---    ---   ---   ---
                                           Nose ---->
   ---    ---   ---   ---
   ---    ---   ---   ---
===================

Offline BT52

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #334 on: 03/24/2023 06:28 pm »
What about airplane cargo doors?



This would be most universal design for many payload versions. Surely there are many many problems with this.

Nosecone header dome would get quite complicated. Also down comers design would became interesting at hinge point. Also heatshield interface would became quite juicy.



« Last Edit: 03/24/2023 09:34 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline BT52

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #335 on: 03/24/2023 06:30 pm »
I'll suggest vertcle slots, e.g. 4 with redesigned cartridge batches, e.g 4 to a batch. Vertically stacked batches. How to virtualise the cartridge so its a mechanism rather than a box?

Was kinda mine idea also. Just do one longitudinal slot and satellites are aligned as bullets in revolver. Expect they eject radially and not axially.  Sorta rotating drum mechanism.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11169
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8787
  • Likes Given: 7815
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #336 on: 03/24/2023 06:59 pm »
I'll suggest vertcle slots, e.g. 4 with redesigned cartridge batches, e.g 4 to a batch. Vertically stacked batches. How to virtualise the cartridge so its a mechanism rather than a box?

Was kinda mine idea also. Just do one longitudinal slot and satellites are aligned as bullets in revolver. Expect they eject radially and not axially.  Sorta rotating drum mechanism.

How about a verticle slot with a rotating dispenser similar to 1950-era 45` rpm vinal record jukeboxes?  Instead of playing, the mechanism would eject it outward and then grab another.  The rotating carriage would occupy the interior of the starship.


« Last Edit: 03/24/2023 07:24 pm by catdlr »
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 wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #337 on: 03/24/2023 08:20 pm »
What about airplane cargo doors?


This would be most universal design for many payload versions. Surely there are many many problems with this.

Nosecone header dome would get quite complicated. Also down comers design would became interesting at hinge point. Also heatshield interface would became quite juicy.





Other than putting a seam and hinge through the heat shield?

I still thing that eventually there will be a cargo bag door on the top side not dissimilar to the shuttle
« Last Edit: 03/24/2023 09:34 pm by Chris Bergin »
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline RamsesBic

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #338 on: 03/24/2023 10:25 pm »
What about airplane cargo doors?


This would be most universal design for many payload versions. Surely there are many many problems with this.

Nosecone header dome would get quite complicated. Also down comers design would became interesting at hinge point. Also heatshield interface would became quite juicy.





Other than putting a seam and hinge through the heat shield?

I still thing that eventually there will be a cargo bag door on the top side not dissimilar to the shuttle

Whatever design they chose it needs to be a door that reinforces the hull, not weakens it. I am not sure why they chose to make the door be on the inside - other than it would be easy to open and close. But it caused the hull to sag. Then they try to help shore it up with stringers and what not.
I guess they were worried that if the door was inline with the hull it could get stuck. But solving that has to be easier. It will be fun following how they design the doors on later ships (S34 or S35?).

Offline Action

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #339 on: 03/24/2023 11:15 pm »
This might be Zack's best deep dive yet.

Wow, what a great video.  A few things come to mind:

Starship is paying a large mass penalty for staging, being long and skinny, reentering sideways, the mode switch at landing, and needing to cover the base of the first stage in engines.  To the point where I'd be surprised if a Bono-style single stage vehicle built around a Raptor that meets specs wouldn't actually have a lower payload fraction than the two-stage Starship.  You're paying such a high price for the shape and concept of operation, maybe those propellant consumption efficiency arguments aren't so strong.

However, man oh man is stainless steel an advantage in terms of debugging.  And wow, what a team!

Imagine how awful Skylon's structural problems would be!

And appreciate how good Stoke's configuration is!
« Last Edit: 03/25/2023 12:45 am by Action »

Tags: Super-heavy 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1