Have the Karmens stopped fighting about orbital/suborbital?Joking aside, there was some informative bits in the midst of it.
Plus, the fact that Starship is not going to try a controlled landing indicates that S24 is either not prepped to relight its engines or that SpaceX is still not confident that S24 will relight reliably. Either way, without relight, it is impossible to raise the perigee enough to maintain an orbit.
Quote from: Legios on 04/16/2023 01:57 pmPlus, the fact that Starship is not going to try a controlled landing indicates that S24 is either not prepped to relight its engines or that SpaceX is still not confident that S24 will relight reliably. Either way, without relight, it is impossible to raise the perigee enough to maintain an orbit.The sentence fatted by me is the actual reason why SpaceX chose the suborbital trajectory. Starship has the capability to go orbital, but for safety reasons it will not do so on its first spaceflight.
Have the Karmens stopped fighting about orbital/suborbital?...
Quote from: PM3 on 04/16/2023 03:02 pmQuote from: Legios on 04/16/2023 01:57 pmPlus, the fact that Starship is not going to try a controlled landing indicates that S24 is either not prepped to relight its engines or that SpaceX is still not confident that S24 will relight reliably. Either way, without relight, it is impossible to raise the perigee enough to maintain an orbit.The sentence fatted by me is the actual reason why SpaceX chose the suborbital trajectory. Starship has the capability to go orbital, but for safety reasons it will not do so on its first spaceflight.That's why they are using the free-return trajectory: it wil hist the landing zone without ever relighting after SECO. It does not explain why they are not at least trying for a sea-level vertical landing. You don't need high confidence for that. You just need to believe it has a chance of working. The published plan is for the belly flop to end in a small explosion. Worst case if relight failed during a flip-and-land would be a bigger explosion (more propellant) out there in the middle of the ocean.
Quote from: clongton on 04/16/2023 01:48 pmQuote from: envy887 on 04/15/2023 11:48 amThe confusion is because we don't have a good word to describe trajectories that have orbital speed and energy but also have a velocity vector direction that will result in entering the atmosphere before a complete revolution.Such trajectories are much better described as "orbital" than "suborbital", but neither is completely accurate.Why not just say "orbital velocity on a suborbital trajectory".The European Space Agency had a (failed) launch some years back that in fact had orbital energy, but alas not quite the right trajectory, hence a crash. In what I think was a brilliant (and accurate) attempt at face saving, they said the craft had entered an Earth Intersecting Orbit (EIO) :-) I nominate 'Earth Intersecting Orbit' as our descriptor for the upcoming flight.
Quote from: envy887 on 04/15/2023 11:48 amThe confusion is because we don't have a good word to describe trajectories that have orbital speed and energy but also have a velocity vector direction that will result in entering the atmosphere before a complete revolution.Such trajectories are much better described as "orbital" than "suborbital", but neither is completely accurate.Why not just say "orbital velocity on a suborbital trajectory".
The confusion is because we don't have a good word to describe trajectories that have orbital speed and energy but also have a velocity vector direction that will result in entering the atmosphere before a complete revolution.Such trajectories are much better described as "orbital" than "suborbital", but neither is completely accurate.
Quote from: clongton on 04/16/2023 01:56 pmQuote from: sebk on 04/15/2023 12:35 pmICBMs dont fly more than half around the globe.They do if you don't want the target to see them coming. For example a Eurasian nation that wants to hit something in North America could launch due south, over the South Pole, and the ICBM would approach the target from the south, a direction that is not being monitored for ICBMs. Just correcting the misstatement. Back to the topic now.Fractional Orbit Bombardment. IIRC, the Soviets were afraid the Shuttle was a first strike FOBS [size=78%]disguised as a white project, now the US is worried about China using hypersonic glide weapons doing the same thing.[/size]Is China gliding toward a FOBS capability?https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis//2021/10/is-china-gliding-toward-a-fobs-capability
Quote from: sebk on 04/15/2023 12:35 pmICBMs dont fly more than half around the globe.They do if you don't want the target to see them coming. For example a Eurasian nation that wants to hit something in North America could launch due south, over the South Pole, and the ICBM would approach the target from the south, a direction that is not being monitored for ICBMs. Just correcting the misstatement. Back to the topic now.
ICBMs dont fly more than half around the globe.
Quote from: matthewkantar on 04/15/2023 05:38 pmQuote from: sferrin on 04/15/2023 01:15 pmAnd there it is. Wonder if it was the elevator. Launch ain't happening this week. Best to cancel the whole program, butter fingers company obviously not going to hunt.No but they will have to do a bunch of inspections to make sure nothing propellant, electrical, or hydraulic related was damaged. Kind of important, no?
Quote from: sferrin on 04/15/2023 01:15 pmAnd there it is. Wonder if it was the elevator. Launch ain't happening this week. Best to cancel the whole program, butter fingers company obviously not going to hunt.
And there it is. Wonder if it was the elevator. Launch ain't happening this week.
Quote from: sferrin on 04/15/2023 05:45 pmQuote from: matthewkantar on 04/15/2023 05:38 pmQuote from: sferrin on 04/15/2023 01:15 pmAnd there it is. Wonder if it was the elevator. Launch ain't happening this week. Best to cancel the whole program, butter fingers company obviously not going to hunt.No but they will have to do a bunch of inspections to make sure nothing propellant, electrical, or hydraulic related was damaged. Kind of important, no? Already done.The incident looked a lot more spectacular than it was because: night.The incident also sounded a lot more spectacular than it was because: night (less activity, less background noise)OHSA is not involved because: No people were harmed.It wasn't the elevator that dropped.Neither was it a counter weight.My source says that you can take that to the bank.And I say that the concern trolls can go home and cry about it. End of story.
Quote from: PM3 on 04/16/2023 03:02 pmQuote from: Legios on 04/16/2023 01:57 pmPlus, the fact that Starship is not going to try a controlled landing indicates that S24 is either not prepped to relight its engines or that SpaceX is still not confident that S24 will relight reliably. Either way, without relight, it is impossible to raise the perigee enough to maintain an orbit.The sentence fatted by me is the actual reason why SpaceX chose the suborbital trajectory. Starship has the capability to go orbital, but for safety reasons it will not do so on its first spaceflight.That's why they are using the free-return trajectory: it wil hist the landing zone without ever relighting after SECO. It does not explain why they are not at least trying for a sea-level vertical landing. You don't need high confidence for that. You just need to believe it has a chance of working.The published plan is for the belly flop to end in a small explosion. Worst case if relight failed during a flip-and-land would be a bigger explosion (more propellant) out there in the middle of the ocean.
Quote from: JAFO on 04/16/2023 03:17 pmQuote from: clongton on 04/16/2023 01:56 pmQuote from: sebk on 04/15/2023 12:35 pmICBMs dont fly more than half around the globe.They do if you don't want the target to see them coming. For example a Eurasian nation that wants to hit something in North America could launch due south, over the South Pole, and the ICBM would approach the target from the south, a direction that is not being monitored for ICBMs. Just correcting the misstatement. Back to the topic now.Fractional Orbit Bombardment. IIRC, the Soviets were afraid the Shuttle was a first strike FOBS [size=78%]disguised as a white project, now the US is worried about China using hypersonic glide weapons doing the same thing.[/size]Is China gliding toward a FOBS capability?https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis//2021/10/is-china-gliding-toward-a-fobs-capabilityPlease take this geopolitical stuff to the Policy Forum, not this thread. It's messy enough with all the pissing at each other regarding the definitions of "orbital" and "suborbital."
Looking at the SpaceX test flight timeline.Anyone know why the ships fuel/methane load starts before the LOX load? The boosters LOX loading and methane loading start at the same time.
It wasn't the elevator that dropped.Neither was it a counter weight.My source says that you can take that to the bank.And I say that the concern trolls can go home and cry about it. End of story.
