Author Topic: SpaceX Starship : First Flight : Starbase, TX : 20 April 2023 - DISCUSSION  (Read 532618 times)

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9104
  • Likes Given: 885
Big SpaceX Starship will splash down near Kauai -- with a bit of uncertainty built into first test

Quote from: The Honolulu Star-Advertiser
U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said the Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai "is in discussions (with SpaceX ) for limited support and use of their range " for the ocean landing.

Quote from: The Honolulu Star-Advertiser
PMRF "is included in discussions with SpaceX and the Federal Aviation Administration on plans for a mission to terminate in waters NW of Kauai, " spokesman Tom Clements said in a statement in response. "The FAA has the lead on licensing, including the environmental review, and public safety."

Clements said PMRF "is providing details on capabilities related to conducting a safe operation. All customers of PMRF must meet stringent safety requirements in order to receive our support."

Offline Everything Space

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Space Editor
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 22
« Last Edit: 09/17/2021 05:44 pm by Everything Space »
Avid Starship and all space stuff fan

Offline Everything Space

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Space Editor
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 22
« Last Edit: 09/17/2021 05:59 pm by Everything Space »
Avid Starship and all space stuff fan

Offline geza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Budapest
    • Géza Meszéna's web page
  • Liked: 445
  • Likes Given: 76
I'll be very disappointed if SpaceX doesn't at least try to recover the upper and lower stages from this launch. If nothing else, I'm sure they learn a lot more from actual recovered stages than they do from telemetry.

Assume perfect landing of SH and/or SS to the water. Then, the question is, whether they can survive the belly flop into the water intact. (If I remember correctly, the Falcon 9 stages could not.) If anything remains floating, then SpaceX will be obliged to deal with it - otherwise it would become a navigation hazard. There are two options: (1) activation of the range safety explosives to guaranty sinking, or (2) sending boat(s) to tow it into harbor. The first option is the simpler, but the second one is the nicer.

Any thought?

Offline Greg Hullender

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 460
  • Likes Given: 349
Well, six months later, :-) I'd say that, at this point, I'll be happy to see them launch it at all--I'm no longer picky about whether they recover anything other than data.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6019
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4736
  • Likes Given: 2011
I'll be very disappointed if SpaceX doesn't at least try to recover the upper and lower stages from this launch. If nothing else, I'm sure they learn a lot more from actual recovered stages than they do from telemetry.

Assume perfect landing of SH and/or SS to the water. Then, the question is, whether they can survive the belly flop into the water intact. (If I remember correctly, the Falcon 9 stages could not.) If anything remains floating, then SpaceX will be obliged to deal with it - otherwise it would become a navigation hazard. There are two options: (1) activation of the range safety explosives to guaranty sinking, or (2) sending boat(s) to tow it into harbor. The first option is the simpler, but the second one is the nicer.

Any thought?
An F9 booster is not designed for strong lateral forces. An SS is designed to withstand strong aerodynamic forces during re-entry. A properly-control flop is very likely to result in a floating SS, and if I were SpaceX, this would be part of the process for a crewed launch or in-flight abort.
The SH is  designed for RTLS, so they can splash it down in the ocean very close to the launch site. I suspect it's at least as likely to break up as an F9 booster, but it will be nearby and thus easier to recover fore analysis than a mid-ocean splashdown.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
This might be a stupid question but recently I haven't followed SpaceX very closely so I don't know:

Is it likely that the first orbital launch will carry actual starlinks for deployment?

I know that SN24 has the payload deployment mechanism ("pez dispenser") but don't know if they're going to try to launch an actual satellite. Since there are major changes in the new satellite version and they can't be launched with Falcon there is significant value in testing them on orbit as soon as possible, even if you lose a few of them. And failure on ascent hasn't even happened for any starship prototype yet.

Offline Bob Niland

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Kansas
    • For Those Still On Earth
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 25
First launch or first orbital launch?
The first launch is so far reported to be a fractional orbit, so won't get high enough to deploy any sort of sats.
Working for SX could be exhilarating, as long as the job description doesn't include Master PERT Chart.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6019
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4736
  • Likes Given: 2011
This might be a stupid question but recently I haven't followed SpaceX very closely so I don't know:

Is it likely that the first orbital launch will carry actual starlinks for deployment?

I know that SN24 has the payload deployment mechanism ("pez dispenser") but don't know if they're going to try to launch an actual satellite. Since there are major changes in the new satellite version and they can't be launched with Falcon there is significant value in testing them on orbit as soon as possible, even if you lose a few of them. And failure on ascent hasn't even happened for any starship prototype yet.
The first flight will deliberately be not quite orbital. SN24 will re-enter the atmosphere and come down near Hawaii without need for a de-orbit burn even if for some reason something goes wrong and it cannot relight its engines. Good for safety, good for testing, bad for placing satellites into orbit.

Offline crandles57

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Sychdyn
  • Liked: 453
  • Likes Given: 142
The first flight will deliberately be not quite orbital. SN24 will re-enter the atmosphere and come down near Hawaii without need for a de-orbit burn even if for some reason something goes wrong and it cannot relight its engines. Good for safety, good for testing, bad for placing satellites into orbit.

I haven't a clue really but ...

It would only take ullage release to circularise startship orbit, so that sounds like it wouldn't take much to circularise and achieve orbit. If they release Starlinks well before apogee when starship has necessary speed but wrong direction (gaining altitude) releasing starlinks into a more circular orbit direction and start the ion drives on the starlinks as soon as they possibly can, could that be enough to keep them in a low orbit? Even if possible, it would presumably take a lot of their fuel so they couldn't reach operational altitude, nor last very long, but for a bit of testing it could be useful?

If that is not possible, just testing the pez dispenser with dummy/mass simulator Starlinks might be useful?

Otherwise why put the pez dispenser in ship 24?

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6019
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4736
  • Likes Given: 2011
The first flight will deliberately be not quite orbital. SN24 will re-enter the atmosphere and come down near Hawaii without need for a de-orbit burn even if for some reason something goes wrong and it cannot relight its engines. Good for safety, good for testing, bad for placing satellites into orbit.

I haven't a clue really but ...

It would only take ullage release to circularise startship orbit, so that sounds like it wouldn't take much to circularise and achieve orbit. If they release Starlinks well before apogee when starship has necessary speed but wrong direction (gaining altitude) releasing starlinks into a more circular orbit direction and start the ion drives on the starlinks as soon as they possibly can, could that be enough to keep them in a low orbit? Even if possible, it would presumably take a lot of their fuel so they couldn't reach operational altitude, nor last very long, but for a bit of testing it could be useful?

If that is not possible, just testing the pez dispenser with dummy/mass simulator Starlinks might be useful?

Otherwise why put the pez dispenser in ship 24?
If they circularize Starship's orbit they lose the failsafe re-entry and risk an uncontrolled reentry of the massive SS at a later time. If they were going to take that risk they would have put it in a higher orbit in the first place.

I speculate without any input that they built  SN24 as a full-up Starlink carrier because that's the most critical design for SpaceX. They want to test its launch, dispensing, and EDL performance. I also speculate that they will dispense a few dummy Starlinks, but I'm not sure about this because those are 1250 kg chunks that would come down in the same area that SN24 come down, or if they use thrusters would maybe come down in the wrong place.  Maybe they could build dummies that will completely burn up, like with most of the mass being a bottle of water.

Offline jketch

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 142
  • California
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 12
The first flight will deliberately be not quite orbital. SN24 will re-enter the atmosphere and come down near Hawaii without need for a de-orbit burn even if for some reason something goes wrong and it cannot relight its engines. Good for safety, good for testing, bad for placing satellites into orbit.

I haven't a clue really but ...

It would only take ullage release to circularise startship orbit, so that sounds like it wouldn't take much to circularise and achieve orbit. If they release Starlinks well before apogee when starship has necessary speed but wrong direction (gaining altitude) releasing starlinks into a more circular orbit direction and start the ion drives on the starlinks as soon as they possibly can, could that be enough to keep them in a low orbit? Even if possible, it would presumably take a lot of their fuel so they couldn't reach operational altitude, nor last very long, but for a bit of testing it could be useful?

If that is not possible, just testing the pez dispenser with dummy/mass simulator Starlinks might be useful?

Otherwise why put the pez dispenser in ship 24?
If they circularize Starship's orbit they lose the failsafe re-entry and risk an uncontrolled reentry of the massive SS at a later time. If they were going to take that risk they would have put it in a higher orbit in the first place.

I speculate without any input that they built  SN24 as a full-up Starlink carrier because that's the most critical design for SpaceX. They want to test its launch, dispensing, and EDL performance. I also speculate that they will dispense a few dummy Starlinks, but I'm not sure about this because those are 1250 kg chunks that would come down in the same area that SN24 come down, or if they use thrusters would maybe come down in the wrong place.  Maybe they could build dummies that will completely burn up, like with most of the mass being a bottle of water.

Yeah, it's easy to forget but an uncontrolled reentry of Starship would be terrible for SpaceX's reputation. When it reenters, it will be the second most massive artificial object to have ever reentered from orbit, second only to Mir. If it reenters in an uncontrolled manner, it will be largest such reentry ever. Skylab massed only 76 tons and its reentry is still talked about over 40 years later.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
  • Liked: 1682
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
an uncontrolled reentry of Starship would be terrible for SpaceX's reputation.
Only if it lands somewhere and hits something it shouldn't.  The public memory is short, Skylab notwithstanding.

Still, anything about the flight that isn't perfect or as described by SX in advance will get hater headlines, only because much of the media is focused on Musk and not SpaceX.  The public doesn't give a toss about space.

When a headline begins with "Elon Musk's SpaceX rocket...", or includes any use of the term 'billionaire', then you can bet it's not a friendly piece.

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2050
  • Liked: 2323
  • Likes Given: 2234
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50715
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 85226
  • Likes Given: 38177
twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1545593143633932289

Quote
SpaceX has submitted new FCC filings for Starlink communications during the Starship orbital test flight. Multiple terminals will be mounted on the ship and the booster to ensure clear views with the constellation through all phases of flight. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?id_file_num=1169-EX-ST-2022&application_seq=116809

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1545593415596797952

Quote
Flight profile details:
- Booster will either do a partial return and land in the Gulf of Mexico or do a full return with a catch attempt
- Ship will reach about 250 km in altitude, then powered landing in the Pacific

twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1545593776256692225

Quote
Starlink will allow "high-data rate communications" and remove telemetry blackouts during reentry.

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1545594349395668993

Quote
Super Heavy catch attempt profile.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2022 05:15 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline OneSpeed

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Liked: 5119
  • Likes Given: 2171
Ship to orbit and re-entry profiles.

Offline JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1021
  • Liked: 1033
  • Likes Given: 2044
I've tried to fiddle with Google Earth to get similar view as in the SuperHeavy catch profile and it looks like it's going to stage around 150km downrange. Isn't that very very early? A partial fuel load?

I've tried to fiddle with Google Earth to get similar view as in the SuperHeavy catch profile and it looks like it's going to stage around 150km downrange. Isn't that very very early? A partial fuel load?
or a very steep trajectory.

Offline crandles57

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Sychdyn
  • Liked: 453
  • Likes Given: 142
I've tried to fiddle with Google Earth to get similar view as in the SuperHeavy catch profile and it looks like it's going to stage around 150km downrange. Isn't that very very early? A partial fuel load?
or a very steep trajectory.

How far downrange should we be expecting? Bigger & more powerful rocket = earlier staging ?

Offline AlesH

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Czech Republic
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 9
I've tried to fiddle with Google Earth to get similar view as in the SuperHeavy catch profile and it looks like it's going to stage around 150km downrange. Isn't that very very early? A partial fuel load?
From the picture, I personally estimate a stagging downrange to be around 60 km and a maximum RTLS downrange less than 150 km. This is quite a bit more than for the Falcon 9, which usually has a RTLS stagging downrange around 40 km and a maximum RTLS downrange around 80 km (according to my own simulations and according to https://flightclub.io/ simulations).
« Last Edit: 07/09/2022 03:31 pm by AlesH »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0