User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/20/2024 1:34:38 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By redoubt: Bolo. For tanks, it's Bolo. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By redoubt: Originally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Originally Posted By fox2008: Pretty impressive .kinda like IFT1 stack tumbling at speed without breaking apart .thing is obviously built like a tank. You know he's gotta wind up naming a booster Dinochrome at some point... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2024 7:30:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Most people haven't figured it out yet, but cybertruck has very similar construction as starship. It's even shaped like a lifting body. I am sure that the first few Starships that reach Mars will be dropping squadrons of manned cyber trucks with crew served weapons mounted in the truck beds on Mars. The astronauts manning the cyber trucks will be mobile infantry popularly known as starship troopers. The purpose of the initial beach head landings will be to demonstrate prompt inner solar system strike capability to potential threats that will no doubt be watching. Cyber truck body panels and glass offering limited protection from projectile weapons as strong as current pistol calibers may not seem like much until you consider that is the heaviest armor available in any space based drop vehicle in the system. Basically to understand what is happening today all you need to know is that Elon Musk is a real life D. D. Harriman as foretold by Robert A. Heinlein and damn near everything is earily proceeding in multiple parallels with various themes from Robert A. Heinlein novels. None of it became easily apparent until Elon Musk finally started falling in line with the D. D. Harriman character. It's the only thing out of the modern era that isn't an absolute mess. The worst parts of the various messes are also proceeding as predicted by Ayn Rand and Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. Posts like this make me wish for an upvote feature on arfcom. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2024 8:13:04 AM EDT
[#3]
Funny part - I think I mentioned Harrison Bergeron in a post yesterday as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2024 8:27:49 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: F9 comes in so it will miss the drone ship and corrects at the last moment to land on it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: Originally Posted By mousehunter: I suspect that eventually the final burn will be optimized as much as possible. That said, letting atmospheric friction do as much work as possible is probably the most efficient. The only real problem then is at some point efficiency will limit your options - if you start to late on the burn and things don't work perfectly - you are going to hit hard. Last thing Musk will want is to take out the launch tower. F9 comes in so it will miss the drone ship and corrects at the last moment to land on it. Not a lot of places at Starbase where you want to intentionally aim for in order to miss stage 0 in the event of a failure. A landing failure at stage 0 would have the FAA way up their ass worse than IFT1. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2024 8:35:19 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Not a lot of places at Starbase where you want to intentionally aim for in order to miss stage 0 in the event of a failure. A landing failure at stage 0 would have the FAA way up their ass worse than IFT1. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Originally Posted By Obo2: Originally Posted By mousehunter: I suspect that eventually the final burn will be optimized as much as possible. That said, letting atmospheric friction do as much work as possible is probably the most efficient. The only real problem then is at some point efficiency will limit your options - if you start to late on the burn and things don't work perfectly - you are going to hit hard. Last thing Musk will want is to take out the launch tower. F9 comes in so it will miss the drone ship and corrects at the last moment to land on it. Not a lot of places at Starbase where you want to intentionally aim for in order to miss stage 0 in the event of a failure. A landing failure at stage 0 would have the FAA way up their ass worse than IFT1. I'm sure the fish cops would join the party too |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/20/2024 8:36:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Houstons_Problem]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mousehunter: Funny part - I think I mentioned Harrison Bergeron in a post yesterday as well. I have also been thinking that Elon Musk is D. D. Harriman and the only thing working to John Galt this mess every now and then and here and there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2024 8:37:13 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: I'm sure the fish cops would join the party too Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: Originally Posted By woodsie: Originally Posted By Obo2: Originally Posted By mousehunter: I suspect that eventually the final burn will be optimized as much as possible. That said, letting atmospheric friction do as much work as possible is probably the most efficient. The only real problem then is at some point efficiency will limit your options - if you start to late on the burn and things don't work perfectly - you are going to hit hard. Last thing Musk will want is to take out the launch tower. F9 comes in so it will miss the drone ship and corrects at the last moment to land on it. Not a lot of places at Starbase where you want to intentionally aim for in order to miss stage 0 in the event of a failure. A landing failure at stage 0 would have the FAA way up their ass worse than IFT1. I'm sure the fish cops would join the party too Based the track record I doubt the first attempt at this will be successful. It will be entertaining but it won’t be successful. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/20/2024 9:41:28 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kill-9: Posts like this make me wish for an upvote feature on arfcom. As the boring machines move on to greater scale projects, new rockets arrive curiously having a diameter a bit larger than a Virginia class submarine. For the first time, Arfremen who are religiously opposed to the lithium power sources that light their basements and drive their drone copters and cyber mobiles, have a new source of energy. That's right, the Arfbasements are Nuclear powered courtesy of the US Navy. Cooling the reactor was the biggest bitch of that mess, but ultimately years of practice hording proved to be an invaluable skill in storing all things including the water scrounged from the poles. These people measured worth by two things; Your water and your ammo. There was considerable unending debate as to which was the ultimate possession of wealth. In this way, the Arfremen became inseparable from the red sands of Mars. The old questions of 9mm vs .45 and beans vs no beans had never been settled. They were merely left behind on earth as the scarcity of Mars always simplified all things to the barest necessities of life. Cats were still wildly popular and fucking with everything as they pleased. It is a celebrated military fact that the very first drop ship to land alive brought cats stowed away in secret. When the drop ship doors opened, the opposing forces weren't expecting a burst of troopers and cats in powered suits with razor claws on all 4 powered paws to spring forth in 3 dimensions and be seemingly everywhere all at once. Mobile infantry with armored and powered cat platoons ruled the day on Mars as the longbowman ruled the day at Agincourt. It's a proud history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 12:41:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: They need to rethink the idea of catching boosters and ships with the chopsticks in the short term to keep the project moving forward. That should be a future goal, not an immediately necessary milestone before they are able to recover and reuse ships. If they don't, they are going to have to keep dumping ships in the ocean until they are reliably landing them on a literal dime and that could take years. I don't know what the positional and rotational tolerance is of the chopstick system but I bet it's a lot tighter than a large concrete landing pad. That is quite the assumption, given that they have already perfected falcon 9 landing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 12:47:00 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Not a lot of places at Starbase where you want to intentionally aim for in order to miss stage 0 in the event of a failure. A landing failure at stage 0 would have the FAA way up their ass worse than IFT1. It's on the fucking beach. Hmm crash in to the ocean or into your multimillion dollar launch facility. Sure not ideal and would be a setback with various abc boys but i expect a similar maneuver. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 12:51:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DK-Prof]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: It's on the fucking beach. Hmm crash in to the ocean or into your multimillion dollar launch facility. Sure not ideal and would be a setback with various abc boys but i expect a similar maneuver. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: Originally Posted By woodsie: Not a lot of places at Starbase where you want to intentionally aim for in order to miss stage 0 in the event of a failure. A landing failure at stage 0 would have the FAA way up their ass worse than IFT1. It's on the fucking beach. Hmm crash in to the ocean or into your multimillion dollar launch facility. Sure not ideal and would be a setback with various abc boys but i expect a similar maneuver. Maybe use the Boring company to just dig a giant deep pit (big enough for the booster) close to the tower. If a landing goes awry, direct the booster into the pit, and it will hopefully contain and redirect much of the blast/debris. ... not a rocket scientist. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 12:57:43 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Maybe use the Boring company to just dig a giant deep pit (big enough for the booster) close to the tower. If a landing goes awry, direct the booster into the pit, and it will hopefully contain and redirect much of the blast/debris. ... not a rocket scientist. Not a terrible idea except for the water table which would only really be an issue for digging. That and the tbms they have would comfortably fit in starship. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 1:00:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DK-Prof]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: Not a terrible idea except for the water table which would only really be an issue for digging. That and the tbms they have would comfortably fit in starship. It'll be good practice for the boring company.  . Also, I imagined some kind of concrete sleeve in the pit, to stabilize itI also figured that: (a) they already have huge pumps for the deluge system, so maybe those could be used to pump out water before a launch, and (b) if there's some water in the giant pit, that might actually HELP contain or mitigate a blast/RUD, so that may not even be a bad thing ... also not an engineer.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 6:21:11 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: It'll be good practice for the boring company. . Also, I imagined some kind of concrete sleeve in the pit, to stabilize itI also figured that: (a) they already have huge pumps for the deluge system, so maybe those could be used to pump out water before a launch, and (b) if there's some water in the giant pit, that might actually HELP contain or mitigate a blast/RUD, so that may not even be a bad thing ... also not an engineer. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By Obo2: Not a terrible idea except for the water table which would only really be an issue for digging. That and the tbms they have would comfortably fit in starship. It'll be good practice for the boring company. . Also, I imagined some kind of concrete sleeve in the pit, to stabilize itI also figured that: (a) they already have huge pumps for the deluge system, so maybe those could be used to pump out water before a launch, and (b) if there's some water in the giant pit, that might actually HELP contain or mitigate a blast/RUD, so that may not even be a bad thing ... also not an engineer. Don't forget to they'll have to mitigate environmental impacts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 10:46:37 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: It'll be good practice for the boring company. . Also, I imagined some kind of concrete sleeve in the pit, to stabilize itI also figured that: (a) they already have huge pumps for the deluge system, so maybe those could be used to pump out water before a launch, and (b) if there's some water in the giant pit, that might actually HELP contain or mitigate a blast/RUD, so that may not even be a bad thing ... also not an engineer. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By Obo2: Not a terrible idea except for the water table which would only really be an issue for digging. That and the tbms they have would comfortably fit in starship. It'll be good practice for the boring company. . Also, I imagined some kind of concrete sleeve in the pit, to stabilize itI also figured that: (a) they already have huge pumps for the deluge system, so maybe those could be used to pump out water before a launch, and (b) if there's some water in the giant pit, that might actually HELP contain or mitigate a blast/RUD, so that may not even be a bad thing ... also not an engineer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 10:50:02 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Maybe use the Boring company to just dig a giant deep pit (big enough for the booster) close to the tower. If a landing goes awry, direct the booster into the pit, and it will hopefully contain and redirect much of the blast/debris. ... not a rocket scientist. They need a designated Potter’s Field to direct unrecoverable vehicles to if they can’t be grappled. And they need an alternate grappler in cast the primary S’sTB. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 12:43:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: David0858]
[#17]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 11:23:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By David0858:  https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/14727/Screenshot_20240321-114755_kindlephoto-7-3165303.JPG I member |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 11:35:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: woodsie]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By J_Von_Random: That is quite the assumption, given that they have already perfected falcon 9 landing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By J_Von_Random: Originally Posted By woodsie: They need to rethink the idea of catching boosters and ships with the chopsticks in the short term to keep the project moving forward. That should be a future goal, not an immediately necessary milestone before they are able to recover and reuse ships. If they don't, they are going to have to keep dumping ships in the ocean until they are reliably landing them on a literal dime and that could take years. I don't know what the positional and rotational tolerance is of the chopstick system but I bet it's a lot tighter than a large concrete landing pad. That is quite the assumption, given that they have already perfected falcon 9 landing. Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 11:55:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AmericanPeople]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. Perhaps they place a drone ship out a mile or so and have the booster hover over it for TBD seconds to verify performance as if it were at the launch structure. After that it drifts over several hundred feet and ditches in the ocean. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 12:08:42 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. The components of Starship will have the ability to hover and maneuver. So it doesn't have to be perfect. It should be a lot easier than a Falcon 9 landing. (Once they figure out how to get the engines to re-ignite, that is.) I'm sure they will test this by targeting a GPS co-ordinate and have the booster return to that point and hover and maneuver before soft landing in the water. Once they do this two or three times, they'll be ready to try a catch. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 12:10:31 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Originally Posted By J_Von_Random: Originally Posted By woodsie: They need to rethink the idea of catching boosters and ships with the chopsticks in the short term to keep the project moving forward. That should be a future goal, not an immediately necessary milestone before they are able to recover and reuse ships. If they don't, they are going to have to keep dumping ships in the ocean until they are reliably landing them on a literal dime and that could take years. I don't know what the positional and rotational tolerance is of the chopstick system but I bet it's a lot tighter than a large concrete landing pad. That is quite the assumption, given that they have already perfected falcon 9 landing. Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. The whole point of the chopsticks is to provide error margin for landing. They can easily handle a 20 foot translation error. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 12:11:29 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. Falcon 9 can only conduct a suicide burn to shut down it's engine right at touchdown while booster has the ability to hover and make corrections. I have to imagine that SpaceX will use the time hovering prior to the soft water landing to explore it's control limits and figure out how to precisely position it so that the chopsticks can catch it... or figure out that the method is not viable and then put legs on it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 12:15:16 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Perhaps they place a drone ship out a mile or so and have the booster hover over it for TBD seconds to verify performance as if it were at the launch structure. After that it drifts over several hundred feet and ditches in the ocean. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Originally Posted By woodsie: Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. Perhaps they place a drone ship out a mile or so and have the booster hover over it for TBD seconds to verify performance as if it were at the launch structure. After that it drifts over several hundred feet and ditches in the ocean. I think that's an immediate goal sans drone ship on every upcoming test flight. I just think the bar to for them to say that it's reliable and repeatable enough to attempt a catch at Stage 0 later on is going to be very high. Dialing back their aspirations to pad landings on landing legs allows them to get those iterations in without chucking boosters I'm the ocean and getting the reps in that they are going to need in order to try catching one at a later date. Happy to be wrong but my money is on them making some kind of pivot on that plan this year in order to get Starship operational with reusable ships and boosters flying actual paid missions in the next year or two. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 8:06:11 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkGray:
3D Animation synced up with video of starship's attitude throughout re-entry That is amazing |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 8:36:13 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: I think that's an immediate goal sans drone ship on every upcoming test flight. I just think the bar to for them to say that it's reliable and repeatable enough to attempt a catch at Stage 0 later on is going to be very high. Dialing back their aspirations to pad landings on landing legs allows them to get those iterations in without chucking boosters I'm the ocean and getting the reps in that they are going to need in order to try catching one at a later date. Happy to be wrong but my money is on them making some kind of pivot on that plan this year in order to get Starship operational with reusable ships and boosters flying actual paid missions in the next year or two. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: Originally Posted By woodsie: Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. Perhaps they place a drone ship out a mile or so and have the booster hover over it for TBD seconds to verify performance as if it were at the launch structure. After that it drifts over several hundred feet and ditches in the ocean. I think that's an immediate goal sans drone ship on every upcoming test flight. I just think the bar to for them to say that it's reliable and repeatable enough to attempt a catch at Stage 0 later on is going to be very high. Dialing back their aspirations to pad landings on landing legs allows them to get those iterations in without chucking boosters I'm the ocean and getting the reps in that they are going to need in order to try catching one at a later date. Happy to be wrong but my money is on them making some kind of pivot on that plan this year in order to get Starship operational with reusable ships and boosters flying actual paid missions in the next year or two. I still think that's a large factor in building the second OLM, they obviously get some other advantages from it too but only having 1 OLM to catch an experimental booster performing a hover catch for the first time is risky even for SpaceX. If it goes wrong, they'd be out of commission for a long time. It would be cool to set up an OLM on a big dock in the water with a bridge connecting to land....it could be stripped down since it wouldn't need the fuel connections. The booster could land without risking any of the critical infrastructure on land, get set off on the truck and hauled back. I know it's way more complicated than that and probably opens the door to more environmental shit.....but it would be cool
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 9:40:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: ... I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. I think they can. Keep in mind that once they get Starship operational, it will basically make everything else completely obsolete, because it lowers the cost to orbit (and outer space) by at least an order of magnitude, which will allow SpaceX to completely own the commercial and government launch market. So even if they lose a bunch of boosters and ships, the "investment" is presumably worth it, IMO. On top of that, their manufacturing is getting cheaper and cheaper as they scale up - I don't know how close they are to the goal of building a Raptor for 250K, but I am (wildly) guessing that they are probably close to a million, if not already below that - so even losing 33 or 6 engines each time a vehicle is lost, is not as serious a kick in the wallet as it could be. The ships themselves were very clearly designed to be cheap to manufacture, so that obviously helps them immensely as well. |
|
|
|
ND, USA
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 9:46:04 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkGray: Falcon 9 can only conduct a suicide burn to shut down it's engine right at touchdown while booster has the ability to hover and make corrections. I have to imagine that SpaceX will use the time hovering prior to the soft water landing to explore it's control limits and figure out how to precisely position it so that the chopsticks can catch it... or figure out that the method is not viable and then put legs on it. Damn, that's going to be amazing to watch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 9:56:55 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkGray: Falcon 9 can only conduct a suicide burn to shut down it's engine right at touchdown while booster has the ability to hover and make corrections. I have to imagine that SpaceX will use the time hovering prior to the soft water landing to explore it's control limits and figure out how to precisely position it so that the chopsticks can catch it... or figure out that the method is not viable and then put legs on it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkGray: Originally Posted By woodsie: Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. Falcon 9 can only conduct a suicide burn to shut down it's engine right at touchdown while booster has the ability to hover and make corrections. I have to imagine that SpaceX will use the time hovering prior to the soft water landing to explore it's control limits and figure out how to precisely position it so that the chopsticks can catch it... or figure out that the method is not viable and then put legs on it. My point isn't that they can't figure it out but rather that the time it takes to figure out to precisely position it for a chopstick catch could represent a couple years and dozens of boosters and all for the sake achieving capabilities that at the moment are a bit superfluous to the missions that are right in front of them. The whole point of the chopstick catch idea was to remove the weight of landing legs and facilitate extremely rapid turnaround of ships (like hours, not days). I doubt the extra payload is a deal breaker for anything on their plate right now and the extremely rapid turnaround of ships relies on so many other things other than just having the ship back at the launch pad to the point that it could be decades out if it's even possible at all. I think they are wasting precious time if catching boosters and ships are milestones that lie on the critical path at this point between now and the dozen launches they are going to need for Artemis 3 or the scores of launches they are planning for the next generation of Starlink. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 10:00:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: woodsie]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I think they can. Keep in mind that once they get Starship operational, it will basically make everything else completely obsolete, because it lowers the cost to orbit (and outer space) by at least an order of magnitude, which will allow SpaceX to completely own the commercial and government launch market. So even if they lose a bunch of boosters and ships, the "investment" is presumably worth it, IMO. On top of that, their manufacturing is getting cheaper and cheaper as they scale up - I don't know how close they are to the goal of building a Raptor for 250K, but I am (wildly) guessing that they are probably close to a million, if not already below that - so even losing 33 or 6 engines each time a vehicle is lost, is not as serious a kick in the wallet as it could be. The ships themselves were very clearly designed to be cheap to manufacture, so that obviously helps them immensely as well. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By woodsie: ... I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. I think they can. Keep in mind that once they get Starship operational, it will basically make everything else completely obsolete, because it lowers the cost to orbit (and outer space) by at least an order of magnitude, which will allow SpaceX to completely own the commercial and government launch market. So even if they lose a bunch of boosters and ships, the "investment" is presumably worth it, IMO. On top of that, their manufacturing is getting cheaper and cheaper as they scale up - I don't know how close they are to the goal of building a Raptor for 250K, but I am (wildly) guessing that they are probably close to a million, if not already below that - so even losing 33 or 6 engines each time a vehicle is lost, is not as serious a kick in the wallet as it could be. The ships themselves were very clearly designed to be cheap to manufacture, so that obviously helps them immensely as well. It's not the losing of the ships that I think is the big problem but rather the damage to Stage 0 and the more extensive mishap investigations that will follow when they crash a booster at stage zero. Look at what was involved after IFT1 to get back in a position to launch for IFT2. I think that's what you'd be dealing with or worse every time you had a failed chopstick catch. That costs too much time and it's all for capabilities that likely just aren't that important at this stage of the game. It's not like they are going to be turning ships around and relaunching within hours at any point this decade. Even if they do successfully catch a booster/ship, they are going to go back to the high bay or mega bay every single time to get inspected, refurbished, and made ready for another flight in a process that is going to take time. So all they are accomplishing with the chopsticks in the short term is some incremental increase in payload due to the omission of landing legs. The question then becomes if this is a deal breaker or not for any upcoming missions in the near term. I really doubt that it is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 10:16:54 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: It's not the losing of the ships that I think is the big problem but rather the damage to Stage 0 and the more extensive mishap investigations that will follow when they crash a booster at stage zero. Look at what was involved after IFT1 to get back in a position to launch for IFT2. I think that's what you'd be dealing with or worse every time you had a failed chopstick catch. That costs too much time and it's all for capabilities that likely just aren't that important at this stage of the game. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: It's not the losing of the ships that I think is the big problem but rather the damage to Stage 0 and the more extensive mishap investigations that will follow when they crash a booster at stage zero. Look at what was involved after IFT1 to get back in a position to launch for IFT2. I think that's what you'd be dealing with or worse every time you had a failed chopstick catch. That costs too much time and it's all for capabilities that likely just aren't that important at this stage of the game. I definitely agree with that. A crash and/or explosion at Stage 0/OLM would be a very bad outcome. But I am certain that's something SpaceX is preparing for, in that they are already building a second tower. I also imagine that once they get close to attempting a catch, they might even build some kind of mock-up - maybe just a tower with rudimentary chopsticks (that can open & close, but cannot lower or raise) - just to practice catches at first, so they don't risk a complete Stage 0. As others have pointed out, they will be able to do a LOT of testing with hovering and precise control of a landing booster or Starship without being close to the tower. So presumably they will only actually decide to approach the tower and go for a chopstick catch AFTER they have that level of control fine-tuned. Heck, they don't need to wait for a returning booster to do that. They can presumably fuel up a booster with just the tiny amount of fuel projected to be left after an ascent burn, boostback and re-entry, and then just launch that a few hundred feet, and play around with precise control and hovering. They could do that repeatedly without much cost or risk, and it would give them lots of data and experience. It's not like they are going to be turning ships around and relaunching within hours at any point this decade. Even if they do successfully catch a booster/ship, they are going to go back to the high bay or mega bay every single time to get inspected, refurbished, and made ready for another flight in a process that is going to take time. So all they are accomplishing with the chopsticks in the short term is some incremental increase in payload due to the omission of landing legs. The question then becomes if this is a deal breaker or not for any upcoming missions in the near term. I really doubt that it is. I agree it's ambitious, and perhaps not the optimal way to do it in these early stages. On the other hand, I'd hate to bet against SpaceX. I think it's eminently possible that they will accomplish a fast turnaround launch-catch-re-launch within this decade. Maybe not until late 2029 , but I think it's absolutely possible. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 10:23:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: David0858]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Heck, they don't need to wait for a returning booster to do that. They can presumably fuel up a booster with just the tiny amount of fuel projected to be left after an ascent burn, boostback and re-entry, and then just launch that a few hundred feet, and play around with precise control and hovering. They could do that repeatedly without much cost or risk, and it would give them lots of data and experience. I had never thought about that but it makes a LOT of sense. They could turn out some halfass boosters leaving everything off but what was absolutely necessary for that task and just risk three engines. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 12:25:38 PM EDT
[#33]
What weighs more, the fuel to hover or landing gear? The only place stage zero is relevant is in the gravity well. Are they going to build a stage zero on Mars or the moon? I agree that having it for launch greatly simplifies repeated mounts of the rocket. Landing is a separate process that involves detanking , unloading any cargo on board, inspection, repairs, and reloading for the next launch.
Put a landing zone close to Massey's and it will also streamline the process. They are not going to do a two hour turn around on one airframe. That is why there are multiple airframes in process with a few spares ready to go. Same with SS. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 12:28:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HeavyMetal]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Falcon 9s have a substantially larger positional tolerance for landing than what I presume a chopstick catch requires. Starship has to come in perfect every single time. There's likely little tolerance for it to come in meaningfully off center of the mark whereas the Falcon 9 can be off by 20 feet and still be on the pad. Never mind the fact that plenty of Falcon 9 boosters piled up on landing before they got it as dialed in as it is today. I can't imagine that SpaceX can accept piling up half a dozen boosters or starships at Stage 0 while they are working their way up the learning curve. There was no major launch infrastructure at risk when they were destroying Falcon 9 boosters while learning how to land them. Just drone ships and land based pads far from anything important. Heavy will be able to hover though. Falcon 9 has one split instant to get to right because the T/W is >1. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 12:37:38 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shooter_gregg: What weighs more, the fuel to hover or landing gear? The only place stage zero is relevant is in the gravity well. Are they going to build a stage zero on Mars or the moon? I agree that having it for launch greatly simplifies repeated mounts of the rocket. Landing is a separate process that involves detanking , unloading any cargo on board, inspection, repairs, and reloading for the next launch. Put a landing zone close to Massey's and it will also streamline the process. They are not going to do a two hour turn around on one airframe. That is why there are multiple airframes in process with a few spares ready to go. Same with SS. Booster isn’t going to the moon or mars. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 1:36:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shooter_gregg: What weighs more, the fuel to hover or landing gear? The only place stage zero is relevant is in the gravity well. Are they going to build a stage zero on Mars or the moon? I agree that having it for launch greatly simplifies repeated mounts of the rocket. Landing is a separate process that involves detanking , unloading any cargo on board, inspection, repairs, and reloading for the next launch. Put a landing zone close to Massey's and it will also streamline the process. They are not going to do a two hour turn around on one airframe. That is why there are multiple airframes in process with a few spares ready to go. Same with SS. Would require a complete practically ground up redesign of the vehicle. Nick |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 4:15:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: exDefensorMilitas]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shooter_gregg: What weighs more, the fuel to hover or landing gear? The only place stage zero is relevant is in the gravity well. Are they going to build a stage zero on Mars or the moon? I agree that having it for launch greatly simplifies repeated mounts of the rocket. Landing is a separate process that involves detanking , unloading any cargo on board, inspection, repairs, and reloading for the next launch. Put a landing zone close to Massey's and it will also streamline the process. They are not going to do a two hour turn around on one airframe. That is why there are multiple airframes in process with a few spares ready to go. Same with SS. It's not just the landing gear itself, it's all the structural modifications, redesigns and added weight needed to support SS from the bottom up in Earth's gravity. With 1/3G and 1/6G, on ETA: Mars and the Moon. I play too much KSP. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 5:02:25 PM EDT
[#38]
 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 5:03:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Its all going faster and faster. As a good rocket development program should.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 7:35:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Wangstang]
[#40]
I know the computer models have continued to show the actual launch pad chopsticks being the return landing location for the booster, but there's no real reason why they have to come back to the exact same chopsticks platform. In all reality, maximizing fuel use during launch and while still leaving enough for hovering to adjust for landing, coming back down to a chopsticks platform other than the one launched from would make more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 11:46:07 PM EDT
[#41]
 33 Engines |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2024 2:49:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: mousehunter]
[#42]
going to do some quick googling. At 250k per raptor - a booster has about 8.25m of engines. Even so, high estimates on a booster cost are 10m. A launch tower (per one article) is about 100m - but that might be just a tower, pad, water diffuser and chopsticks, not include all the extra stuff required at a base to fuel the rocket. So economically, while towers are expensive, saving 33 engines might be worth it if the tower can catch even 10 boosters before a RUD. Add to that, you could possibly strip down catch towers even more - not all towers need to be launch towers - If they could check and referbish on the tower, it could make an increased launch cadence - it is not all that necessary to still have the fastest launch cadence in the space industry.
Of course, Stage 0 has a ways to go. Right now it is needing weeks of referb between launches. Another thing to think about is sunk costs. The current boosters are using v2 Raptors I suspect, pretty sure the new raptor engines being produced are already v3 - so they are using obsolete parts, that money is already sunk. Just another odd thought - I know Musk is chasing thrust per engine - but honestly that is only part of a picture. You are still limited by thrust per ton of fuel. The only real benefits of thrust per engine is if you can either reduce total weight by removing engines, or enlarge the Starship to hold more fuel with the same number of engines (or gain some redundancy I guess, if you don't NEED all the engines to get the required thrust). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2024 3:35:31 PM EDT
[#43]
I think the best plan (for the next couple years maybe) is a launch tower and a separate “catch tower”, Catch tower has way less infrastructure and much simpler launch mount, no water deluge system and no refueling or QD systems. Basically catches it and can place it on a transporter. If it gets thrashed, it’s a super simple rebuild.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2024 5:40:35 PM EDT
[#44]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2024 11:47:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Chokey]
[#45]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2024 9:16:07 PM EDT
[#46]
This was just posted on YouTube
 FAA Gives SpaceX Multiple Starship Launch Licenses At Ones! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2024 10:05:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By David0858: This was just posted on YouTube  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_T-IjQMTjYClickbait, the FAA hasn't yet granted a launch license for IFT-4, much less batch licenses for anything past that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2024 10:59:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Yeah, they couldn't even make the header right.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2024 11:36:14 AM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2024 1:11:20 PM EDT
[#50]
If one were to come down towards SpaceX Texas to watch a SS Heavy launch where would be a really good place to view it?
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
