twitter.com/teslaownerssv/status/1392989623169667073QuoteStarship to do an orbital flight from Texas to Hawaii. 🤯🤯🤯 @elonmuskhttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1393064162335485952Quote3/4 of the way around the Earth
Starship to do an orbital flight from Texas to Hawaii. 🤯🤯🤯 @elonmusk
3/4 of the way around the Earth
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/14/2021 05:35 amtwitter.com/teslaownerssv/status/1392989623169667073QuoteStarship to do an orbital flight from Texas to Hawaii. 🤯🤯🤯 @elonmuskhttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1393064162335485952Quote3/4 of the way around the EarthWhy only 3/4 of the orbit? Why to not do 1 orbit + 3/4? Is keeping propellant tmperature the problem because they aren't going to do this?
Why only 3/4 of the orbit? Why to not do 1 orbit + 3/4? Is keeping propellant tmperature the problem because they aren't going to do this?
Quote from: DistantTemple on 05/13/2021 11:36 pmQuote from: Framryk on 05/13/2021 11:18 pmReading Eric Berger's excellent book (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52010.0), I note the early history of SpaceX used Kwajalein Atoll (and specifically, Omelek Island) during the Falcon 1 days. Does this and the associated ballistic missile tracking capability on the islands aid in following the first Starship orbit? Is this on the track from a Boca Chica launch to NW Kauai splashdown? (I'd love to simulate the flight path but don't have the skill or software!)Yes that makes logical sense. Kwajalein Atoll seems to be about 100km from the track of the apparent SS "orbit". PerfectHow about the uninhabited Johnston Atoll that have a runway and a post super-fund area. Is it close to the flight path?Johnston Atoll is where they disposed the remaining stock of U.S. chemical agents/weapons by incineration in the late 1990s.
Quote from: Framryk on 05/13/2021 11:18 pmReading Eric Berger's excellent book (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52010.0), I note the early history of SpaceX used Kwajalein Atoll (and specifically, Omelek Island) during the Falcon 1 days. Does this and the associated ballistic missile tracking capability on the islands aid in following the first Starship orbit? Is this on the track from a Boca Chica launch to NW Kauai splashdown? (I'd love to simulate the flight path but don't have the skill or software!)Yes that makes logical sense. Kwajalein Atoll seems to be about 100km from the track of the apparent SS "orbit". Perfect
Reading Eric Berger's excellent book (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52010.0), I note the early history of SpaceX used Kwajalein Atoll (and specifically, Omelek Island) during the Falcon 1 days. Does this and the associated ballistic missile tracking capability on the islands aid in following the first Starship orbit? Is this on the track from a Boca Chica launch to NW Kauai splashdown? (I'd love to simulate the flight path but don't have the skill or software!)
Quote from: Alberto-Girardi on 05/14/2021 05:36 pmWhy only 3/4 of the orbit? Why to not do 1 orbit + 3/4? Is keeping propellant tmperature the problem because they aren't going to do this? More than likely because doing a 1 + 3/4 orbit of the earth changes landing location, incurs in having to support additional tracking ansd support facilities, and bercause it is not necessary for what they want to do
I was in the camp that SH would hop and then quickly try for orbit.Instead, SpaceX went all Saturn V on us and is going for an all up full stack orbital attempt, albeit with likely fewer SH raptors, maybe ~16 or so.
I have my doubts that SN20 will survive re-entry, but my gosh wouldn't it be a sight.
Quote from: Framryk on 05/14/2021 06:42 pmI have my doubts that SN20 will survive re-entry, but my gosh wouldn't it be a sight.It will probably be even more photogenic if it *doesn't* survive re-entry.
They could actually try landing on one of their regular droneships. They’re building a third one, and so they’ll have a bit of a spare (soonish).Similar height as a Falcon 9 booster, so for the same stability, the landing footprint would be about the same. The weight of the booster shouldn’t be too much for the barge. Although it might be a bit of a hazard to have such a huge booster with crew on board trying to secure it. But 20 miles off the coast of Texas should have much calmer waters than the middle of the Atlantic, so that would help keep it safer.It seems more Starshippy to try to sprint to get Phobos finished in time, but I’m not sure it’s really that feasible.My real opinion is they haven’t actually decided yet to splash SH or land it on some droneship (ASDS or Phobos), and so they wrote the FCC document to keep open all those possibilities (to spur their crew to work more quickly if nothing else).BTW, just as a complete shot in the dark, but has anyone checked if there’s an existing platform on the spot on the map where SH is shown to be landing? What’s the water depth there?
Quote from: ugordan on 05/13/2021 08:09 pmQuote from: equiserre on 05/13/2021 07:53 pmIt is a pity to loose all those Raptors, but let´s remember that they still need to validate booster reentry without the reentry burn. They have good data on the rest of the booster flight profile, but this. I mean, it's not like the whole stack successfully getting to staging is a slam dunk IMHO.Expecting the first launch to sail through all the way to booster reentry is a tall order. This isn't a campaign like the F9 development one was. There are no extended static tests of an integrated booster propulsion unit (with however many Raptors they're planning to fit on it) planned or even possible. There's a real chance the whole flight goes the way of an N1 so already worrying about dunking perfectly good Raptors into the drink is maybe a tad premature?I don't see why if there's a chance it will explode on ascent then they shouldn't worry about the case where it doesn't...F9 and FH first flights didn't fail on ascent, right? How about older EELVs? Saturn? STS?
Quote from: equiserre on 05/13/2021 07:53 pmIt is a pity to loose all those Raptors, but let´s remember that they still need to validate booster reentry without the reentry burn. They have good data on the rest of the booster flight profile, but this. I mean, it's not like the whole stack successfully getting to staging is a slam dunk IMHO.Expecting the first launch to sail through all the way to booster reentry is a tall order. This isn't a campaign like the F9 development one was. There are no extended static tests of an integrated booster propulsion unit (with however many Raptors they're planning to fit on it) planned or even possible. There's a real chance the whole flight goes the way of an N1 so already worrying about dunking perfectly good Raptors into the drink is maybe a tad premature?
It is a pity to loose all those Raptors, but let´s remember that they still need to validate booster reentry without the reentry burn. They have good data on the rest of the booster flight profile, but this.
Quote from: CMac on 05/14/2021 04:20 pmhow would it work to have a few high altitude blimps in position along track to monitor. Tow them out East from Hawaii and release. Have some station keeping ability. Fairly equatorial so maybe upper level winds not very strong?Good idea. WorldView did stuff like that, but is struggling/laying off? It seems that the high altitude balloon market enjoyed a renaissance, then is kinda fading away again. Seems like logistics would be weird; how long can it loiter on station (able to take slip days), how many days before hand do you have to deploy it to get in position and verify it's working? Might actually be cheaper to just pay for some flight hours.These guys seem to be doing "Sky Range" via Reaper and Global Hawk drones, but not positive if it's operational or not, the press release is pretty recent so guessing not yet: https://i3-corps.com/technology-solutions/skyrange/
how would it work to have a few high altitude blimps in position along track to monitor. Tow them out East from Hawaii and release. Have some station keeping ability. Fairly equatorial so maybe upper level winds not very strong?
Quote from: meekGee on 05/13/2021 08:19 pmQuote from: ugordan on 05/13/2021 08:09 pmQuote from: equiserre on 05/13/2021 07:53 pmIt is a pity to loose all those Raptors, but let´s remember that they still need to validate booster reentry without the reentry burn. They have good data on the rest of the booster flight profile, but this. I mean, it's not like the whole stack successfully getting to staging is a slam dunk IMHO.Expecting the first launch to sail through all the way to booster reentry is a tall order. This isn't a campaign like the F9 development one was. There are no extended static tests of an integrated booster propulsion unit (with however many Raptors they're planning to fit on it) planned or even possible. There's a real chance the whole flight goes the way of an N1 so already worrying about dunking perfectly good Raptors into the drink is maybe a tad premature?I don't see why if there's a chance it will explode on ascent then they shouldn't worry about the case where it doesn't...F9 and FH first flights didn't fail on ascent, right? How about older EELVs? Saturn? STS?All did static firings before their first flights.
Quote from: Jim on 05/14/2021 07:53 pmQuote from: meekGee on 05/13/2021 08:19 pmQuote from: ugordan on 05/13/2021 08:09 pmQuote from: equiserre on 05/13/2021 07:53 pmIt is a pity to loose all those Raptors, but let´s remember that they still need to validate booster reentry without the reentry burn. They have good data on the rest of the booster flight profile, but this. I mean, it's not like the whole stack successfully getting to staging is a slam dunk IMHO.Expecting the first launch to sail through all the way to booster reentry is a tall order. This isn't a campaign like the F9 development one was. There are no extended static tests of an integrated booster propulsion unit (with however many Raptors they're planning to fit on it) planned or even possible. There's a real chance the whole flight goes the way of an N1 so already worrying about dunking perfectly good Raptors into the drink is maybe a tad premature?I don't see why if there's a chance it will explode on ascent then they shouldn't worry about the case where it doesn't...F9 and FH first flights didn't fail on ascent, right? How about older EELVs? Saturn? STS?All did static firings before their first flights.Agreed - there's certainly risk on ascent..But the OP was "why bother thinking about landing if there's a chance it'll fail on ascent.
Quote from: meekGee on 05/14/2021 08:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 05/14/2021 07:53 pmQuote from: meekGee on 05/13/2021 08:19 pmQuote from: ugordan on 05/13/2021 08:09 pmQuote from: equiserre on 05/13/2021 07:53 pmIt is a pity to loose all those Raptors, but let´s remember that they still need to validate booster reentry without the reentry burn. They have good data on the rest of the booster flight profile, but this. I mean, it's not like the whole stack successfully getting to staging is a slam dunk IMHO.Expecting the first launch to sail through all the way to booster reentry is a tall order. This isn't a campaign like the F9 development one was. There are no extended static tests of an integrated booster propulsion unit (with however many Raptors they're planning to fit on it) planned or even possible. There's a real chance the whole flight goes the way of an N1 so already worrying about dunking perfectly good Raptors into the drink is maybe a tad premature?I don't see why if there's a chance it will explode on ascent then they shouldn't worry about the case where it doesn't...F9 and FH first flights didn't fail on ascent, right? How about older EELVs? Saturn? STS?All did static firings before their first flights.Agreed - there's certainly risk on ascent..But the OP was "why bother thinking about landing if there's a chance it'll fail on ascent.No, it wasn't. My post was about managing expectations of Super Heavy recovery as some people on this forum already seem to think it's a given, as if there's nothing that can possibly go wrong. I said nothing whatsoever about SS and its recovery odds. Maybe, just maybe, SpaceX are aware of the likely odds of successful SH recovery and that weighed into their decision on what to do with the booster after reentry, *if* it gets that far.This is like complaining that SpaceX should have had considered success and had landing legs and barges ready just in case for all flights starting with CASSIOPE onward. That's not how they operate. They're more of the "dog-catching-the-vehicle" operation. Come to think of it, I can see some parallels with CASSIOPE here, the SH legs are not there and there's no safe place to land without at least risking the public's ear drums.Finally, If I may inject some proverbial cold water into this forum optimism that a SH safe splashdown is a given, how many more tries would you have guessed it would take SpaceX to actually safely land a Starship, immediately after the, seemingly better-than-anyone-hoped-for, SN8 flight? I bet hardly anyone would have bet 4 more flights. That's my point. Don't even take SH ascent for granted and worry over "spilled" Raptors just yet. These are still very early days.
Quote from: philw1776 on 05/14/2021 05:42 pmI was in the camp that SH would hop and then quickly try for orbit.Instead, SpaceX went all Saturn V on us and is going for an all up full stack orbital attempt, albeit with likely fewer SH raptors, maybe ~16 or so.I guess I fail to see the difference. Or were you one of the "Starship can do SSTO" crowd? They pretty much need a full(ish) stack to get it to orbit with margin to spare.
Quote from: Lars-J on 05/14/2021 06:43 pmQuote from: philw1776 on 05/14/2021 05:42 pmI was in the camp that SH would hop and then quickly try for orbit.Instead, SpaceX went all Saturn V on us and is going for an all up full stack orbital attempt, albeit with likely fewer SH raptors, maybe ~16 or so.I guess I fail to see the difference. Or were you one of the "Starship can do SSTO" crowd? They pretty much need a full(ish) stack to get it to orbit with margin to spare.I have no idea what you're talking about. Said nothing about SS SSTO. The SH can orbit a SS with far fewer than 28 engines. I've run the #s and so have many others here.
