User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:21:53 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: If 15 and 16 are successful at making multiple launches (and landings), there's probably not much else to test in the limited flights they are already doing, and it would be time to move on to orbital tests (SN20). Already been stated that Musk expects failures on the road to success, so the schedule was planned with more sacrificial prototypes than were apparently needed. It'll be interesting to see how many times this 'skipping over obsolete prototypes' happens before they switch to production models. Yep, we could see sn20,21,22 and then a skip to 25 for one with cargo door and more improvements. Or maybe they will slow down on production and not forecast the SN#s as much |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:31:13 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SGT-Fish: Yep, we could see sn20,21,22 and then a skip to 25 for one with cargo door and more improvements. Or maybe they will slow down on production and not forecast the SN#s as much Once they've made multiple successful orbital flights with a prototype that has a cargo door (with at least one of those flights deploying something), I suspect that production will ramp up, since they would then have their proven cargo model. There would still be prototypes for development and testing of their other versions (tanker, lunar lander, people carrier, etc), but those would likely be mixed into the production schedule of the cargo models. They won't be holding off on production of cargo models, since the cargo models would be a source of income to help fund development of the other models. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:36:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Hesperus]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: If 15 and 16 are successful at making multiple launches (and landings), there's probably not much else to test in the limited flights they are already doing, and it would be time to move on to orbital tests (SN20). Already been stated that Musk expects failures on the road to success, so the schedule was planned with more sacrificial prototypes than were apparently needed. It'll be interesting to see how many times this 'skipping over obsolete prototypes' happens before they switch to production models. I've heard too many stories about big important projects that never panned out because there was no margin for failure. Elon & Companies built a decent margin for failure into this project. It's odd and refreshing to see something like this where they get to a point and they say. "Wow, this really sucks less than we expected."  Switching to stainless steel construction seems to have been a wise decision. They were never going to make that big sucker work if it was made of carbon fiber. Rocket Lab seems to have had enough of carbon fiber construction in their small rockets. Perhaps someday, decades from now. Starships will be made of graphene. But for now good old stainless steel is getting the job done. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:44:44 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: I've heard too many stories about big important projects that never panned out because there was no margin for failure. Elon & Companies built a decent margin for failure into this project. It's odd and refreshing to see something like this where they get to a point and they say. "Wow, this really sucks less than we expected." Switching to stainless steel construction seems to have been a wise decision. They were never going to make that big sucker work if it was made of carbon fiber. Rocket Lab seems to have had enough of carbon fiber construction in their small rockets. Perhaps someday, decades from now. Starships will be made of graphene. But for now good old stainless steel is getting the job done. I've seen online discussions where potential customers bashed a product of one of my former employers, because it wasn't carbon fiber (designed and made with older tech). They loved a similar product that a competitor was coming out with, that was being designed (apparently from the start) in carbon fiber, but I did notice one person asking a few very valid questions about issues that could be 'fatal flaws' in the design, if they hadn't found acceptable solutions. Last I heard, the carbon fiber product still wasn't in production. Each material has it's strengths and weaknesses. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:49:34 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: I've seen online discussions where potential customers bashed a product of one of my former employers, because it wasn't carbon fiber (designed and made with older tech). They loved a similar product that a competitor was coming out with, that was being designed (apparently from the start) in carbon fiber, but I did notice one person asking a few very valid questions about issues that could be 'fatal flaws' in the design, if they hadn't found acceptable solutions. Last I heard, the carbon fiber product still wasn't in production. Each material has it's strengths and weaknesses. Carbon fiber looks very nice, aesthetically and from a lightness perspective. But yeah, it makes a nice trim material but I don't see too much wide scale industrial application. Even in the industries that can afford it. Part of the reason why Rocket Lab has such a good track record with carbon fiber is because they are using machines and technicians with experience from building Americas Cup yachts. That's nice for the highest end of racing yachts and other such low rate production items. But for something to be genuinely mass produced? I'll believe the carbon fiber hype when it lives up to it. For now it's largely a decorative material in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:51:12 AM EDT
[#6]
Has a Super Heavy booster been built yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:56:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: woodsie]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vmpglenn: Which Starship will make possible to build in orbit... It'd be cool to see Starship as a ferry shuttle, dwarfed in size by interplanetary cyclers or whatever. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vmpglenn: Originally Posted By Hesperus: And yet as big as this sucker is. The future will likely demand far larger spacecraft. Which Starship will make possible to build in orbit... It'd be cool to see Starship as a ferry shuttle, dwarfed in size by interplanetary cyclers or whatever. Exactly. Starship will probably end up working just like Semi-Truck here on earth. Think about it for a second. Pretty much every structure or machine in this country larger than the width of a road lane is brought in pieces and assembled in place. I'll take it one step further and bet right now that the foreseeable future of Starship is going to be as an unmanned delivery truck to LEO with Falcon / Dragon delivering the humans. Stage your mission in LEO and then go from there. If Falcon Heavy can take Dragon to Lunar Orbit, then maybe that works too. They'll arrive at this realization eventually simply on the fact that putting humans in a Starship and attempting a bellyflop, flip, and powered landing on Earth is going to take hundreds if not thousands of successful unmanned Starship missions before anyone has that kind of confidence and by then they'll probably come to the realization that the there's no little necessary benefit to trying to combine the meat and the mission hardware/supplies into the same launch system. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:58:02 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TacticalGarand44: Has a Super Heavy booster been built yet? If I haven't gotten confused, they already built the first one, but it was something of an engineering mockup, to see what problems they may have in assembling everything. Second one will be the first functional one, and it hasn't yet been completed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:02:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By woodsie: Exactly. Starship will probably end up working just like Semi-Truck here on earth. Think about it for a second. Pretty much every structure or machine in this country larger than the width of a road lane is brought in pieces and assembled in place. I'll take it one step further and bet right now that the foreseeable future of Starship is going to be as an unmanned delivery truck to LEO with Falcon / Dragon delivering the humans. Stage your mission in LEO and then go from there. If Falcon Heavy can take Dragon to Lunar Orbit, then maybe that works too. They'll arrive at this realization eventually simply on the fact that putting humans in a Starship and attempting a bellyflop, flip, and powered landing on Earth is going to take hundreds if not thousands of successful unmanned Starship missions before anyone has that kind of confidence and by then they'll probably come to the realization that the there's no little necessary benefit to trying to combine the meat and the mission hardware/supplies into the same launch system. In one year. Nick |
|
|
|
ZWE
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:08:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: Once they've made multiple successful orbital flights with a prototype that has a cargo door (with at least one of those flights deploying something), I suspect that production will ramp up, since they would then have their proven cargo model. There would still be prototypes for development and testing of their other versions (tanker, lunar lander, people carrier, etc), but those would likely be mixed into the production schedule of the cargo models. They won't be holding off on production of cargo models, since the cargo models would be a source of income to help fund development of the other models. You will see a tanker very soon in the lineup. Part of the mission requirement for lunar ss. I don't know that spacex is even making cargo missions a top priority. Like yeah that'll be great but it's not like anyone has a satelite they need to fly on starship yet. Tankers will probably be the least complicated of designs and without them most of the plans dont work. Ultimately modifying the payload section is pretty simple though so i expect once they land a couple orbital flights we'll see all the variants pretty quickly. Lunar may be one of the last to actually fly since the government will be so intimately involved. We will probably see some sort of deat moon prototype very shortly after tanker development to showna safe flight around the moon before sending up one of the biggest financers so far. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:09:16 PM EDT
[#11]
The newest sections of the launch tower have vertical rails on three of the four corners. Look like sliding type rails as if a giant version of a linear bearing and rail system.
Their placement makes it seem like they are for the booster catch system. But there are a few other uses that they may be used for. The hard part of making Starship to the booster will be stabilizing and lining them up while it hangs in the open air. Mr. Musk has already said they will need a stabilizer of some sort. So sliding arms (robotic?) to turn and place the booster together seem very logical. Mating needs to be extra precise because fuel, LOX, and electrical connection will be between the two rather than a detatchable umbilical setup like most rockets. Presumably. All fueling will be done to the booster with starship's fuel traveling up the booster to supply it. |
|
|
ZWE
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:14:11 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: If I haven't gotten confused, they already built the first one, but it was something of an engineering mockup, to see what problems they may have in assembling everything. Second one will be the first functional one, and it hasn't yet been completed. bn1 was built as a pathfinder for assembly and transport. Looked pretty good. Bn2 is a test tank. Bn3 it looks like they have most of the sections ready and mostly just need to start stacking. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:14:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: You will see a tanker very soon in the lineup. Part of the mission requirement for lunar ss. I don't know that spacex is even making cargo missions a top priority. Like yeah that'll be great but it's not like anyone has a satelite they need to fly on starship yet. Tankers will probably be the least complicated of designs and without them most of the plans dont work. Ultimately modifying the payload section is pretty simple though so i expect once they land a couple orbital flights we'll see all the variants pretty quickly. Lunar may be one of the last to actually fly since the government will be so intimately involved. We will probably see some sort of deat moon prototype very shortly after tanker development to showna safe flight around the moon before sending up one of the biggest financers so far. Very true about the tanker versions. Especially with orbital refueling demonstration being part of the HLS contract. The next generation of starship very well could be orbital tankers doing practice fuel swaps. |
|
|
ZWE
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:19:53 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SGT-Fish: Mating needs to be extra precise because fuel, LOX, and electrical connection will be between the two rather than a detatchable umbilical setup like most rockets. Presumably. All fueling will be done to the booster with starship's fuel traveling up the booster to supply it. Where are you getting this from? I dont see why you would bother fueling starship through the booster |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:24:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: You will see a tanker very soon in the lineup. Part of the mission requirement for lunar ss. I don't know that spacex is even making cargo missions a top priority. Like yeah that'll be great but it's not like anyone has a satelite they need to fly on starship yet. Tankers will probably be the least complicated of designs and without them most of the plans dont work. Ultimately modifying the payload section is pretty simple though so i expect once they land a couple orbital flights we'll see all the variants pretty quickly. Lunar may be one of the last to actually fly since the government will be so intimately involved. We will probably see some sort of deat moon prototype very shortly after tanker development to showna safe flight around the moon before sending up one of the biggest financers so far. The tanker version is also needed to demonstrate the capability to do orbital refueling, which NASA awarded SpaceX a contract to do, if my memory isn't off. The cargo version would likely take on some of the cargo work that the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are currently doing, which would end up with that work expanding, due to the lower cost per pound of putting stuff in orbit. NASA will likely be the cause of the biggest delay in the lunar version, but if it's delayed too much, SpaceX could move forward with a separate (but very similar) lander for their own purposes. Would be a bit embarrassing for NASA, if that happened, though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:29:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: NASA will likely be the cause of the biggest delay in the lunar version, but if it's delayed too much, SpaceX could move forward with a separate (but very similar) lander for their own purposes. Would be a bit embarrassing for NASA, if that happened, though. Dew it!  They have it coming after this lander contract protest clusterfuck. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:32:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Dew it! They have it coming after this lander contract protest clusterfuck. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Originally Posted By JPN: NASA will likely be the cause of the biggest delay in the lunar version, but if it's delayed too much, SpaceX could move forward with a separate (but very similar) lander for their own purposes. Would be a bit embarrassing for NASA, if that happened, though. Dew it! They have it coming after this lander contract protest clusterfuck. I wouldn't be too surprised if SpaceX ended up with an unmanned/robotic lunar version (for dropping materials and supplies on the moon, in advance of building a manned station) ready for testing, before the NASA lunar version is making manned landings on the moon. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:34:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: not a huge fan of these robo narrated foreign videos but check out sn15s landing legs around 0:25  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKRjETty600It may be that landing legs are a huge obstacle to overcome when it comes to superheavy. It would not surprise me to see them attempt to catch a pretty early version of the booster. The grid fins will already have a lot of structural support built in as they take a lot of force. Catching it from the top also makes for a tension load instead of compression on the entire structure which is a lot stronger. It makes a ton of sense. Not sure what sort of designs for cathing arms spacex is kicking around but it will need to have a lot of margin for error as to where the booster will land. Have seen some neat animation ideas from youtube fans. This concept was pretty neat with 3 rings with the inner two having an offset so that it can adjust to a pretty wide area and then recenter the booster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etm5BgSsZbEWith their push to get the vertical integration tower constructed I wouldn't be surprised to see them attempt a catch with a very early booster flight. Maybe try to make sure the first couple are landing within a margin of error while completing the construction and then go for it... I guess we'll see though The most sought after solution in engineering is the elegant solution. It's a design where everything works in harmony in a complementary fashion to arrive at a robust, light, compact, easy to produce and operate design that boils down into something that is elegantly simple. The various material properties complement each other, mechanisms waste little and potentially serve multiple purposes. You know it when you see it, but it may take some time and research to fully grasp what has been achieved. Untrained eyes will miss it completely. There is another solution that occasionally makes it's way. A solution that grabs your attention. A solution that no one will miss. A solution of inspiration that stirs the soul and motivates action. This solution is known as the, Fuck Yeah. SpaceX is all about Fuck Yeah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:41:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: I wouldn't be too surprised if SpaceX ended up with an unmanned/robotic lunar version (for dropping materials and supplies on the moon, in advance of building a manned station) ready for testing, before the NASA lunar version is making manned landings on the moon. It would make landing later, manned Starships much easier if they had nice smooth surfaces to touch down on and not have to worry about tipping over. More than that, people have this persistent image in their minds eye of space colonization being this incredibly marginal thing. Not enough oxygen, not enough water, never enough food and the food is always awful. Land a few cargo Starships before your colonists and they have all sorts of useful things waiting for them when they arrive. There's plenty of oxygen on the moon. It's just locked up in rocks. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:43:11 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: Where are you getting this from? I dont see why you would bother fueling starship through the booster It has been discussed in multiple videos and I think some tweets from Mr. Musk himself. You can see that even the current starship prototypes are fueled through the bottom, this is so that no tower is needed to fuel them (as will also be the case on Mars. Also the fuel connections on the bottom will allow for bottom to bottom fuel transfer in orbit as demonstrated by SpaceX's own renderings. Also, due to the design relying on tank pressurizarion for strength, you need to fuel the booster first anyway or else the whole thing will collapse like SN3 or SN4, whichever one it was. While complicating the ship design slightly, it greatly simplifies the launch infrastructure. I'm not making this stuff up. The info is out there if you look. Problem is that there is so much info that you can miss some details and have to go back a while to find it. I catch a lot that the popular YouTubers miss and they catch a lot that I miss. Thats why these forums are great. There are 173 pages on a gun forum discussing this. Imagine how many are on space forums 
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:46:57 PM EDT
[#21]
shotwell has said that all their current and future orbital delivery contracts state that the cargo will fly on EITHER a F9 OR a starship
So a cargo version is definitely in their sights and won't be far behind. It will also give them chances to practice landings for cheap or free like they did with F9 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:49:42 PM EDT
[#22]
I kind of hope .gov fucks with them so hard on the lunar lander that elon says fuck it and launches his own mission for lulz.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:55:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Houstons_Problem]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: I wouldn't be too surprised if SpaceX ended up with an unmanned/robotic lunar version (for dropping materials and supplies on the moon, in advance of building a manned station) ready for testing, before the NASA lunar version is making manned landings on the moon. Dear NASA, Please chose landing sites to avoid damage to our power, habitat, fuel, food, water, air, mobile equipment and communications modules. Thanks, SpaceX P.S. Please check back with us as your launch dates slip, as it is likely that other modules will be placed by then and we can suggest a more favorable landing location. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:55:17 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: I kind of hope .gov fucks with them so hard on the lunar lander that elon says fuck it and launches his own mission for lulz. It's probably just a question of which will be ready for testing first, NASA lander, or SpaceX robotic lander, since SpaceX would need a robotic lunar lander to test out systems for robotic missions to Mars (to prepare for the later manned mission to Mars). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:58:19 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Dear NASA, Please chose landing sites to avoid damage to our power, habitat, fuel, food, water, air, mobile equipment and communications modules. Thanks, SpaceX Kinda wonder how far they have gotten with the issue of discussions, between NASA and SpaceX, on site selection. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 12:59:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: Kinda wonder how far they have gotten with the issue of discussions, between NASA and SpaceX, on site selection. Had to update my post while you were typing this because similar thoughts occurred to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 1:06:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JPN]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Had to update my post while you were typing this because similar thoughts occurred to me. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Originally Posted By JPN: Kinda wonder how far they have gotten with the issue of discussions, between NASA and SpaceX, on site selection. Had to update my post while you were typing this because similar thoughts occurred to me. It does raise the question of what the right distance is, to be good neighbors. Close enough to provide help in emergencies or agreed upon mutual projects, but far enough apart that they don't interfere with each other's independent projects. First thought is that it shouldn't be too far a distance for someone in a suit to walk (or bunny hop/skip) from one to the other, with their normal air supply. But I can see an argument that even that could be too close for some things, unless they each build initial modules at that distance, with all/most expansion planned to be in the direction away from the other party's initial module. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 1:10:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: It does raise the question of what the right distance is, to be good neighbors. Close enough to provide help in emergencies or agreed upon mutual projects, but far enough apart that they don't interfere with each other's independent projects. First thought is that it shouldn't be too far a distance for someone in a suit to walk (or bunny hop/skip) from one to the other, with their normal air supply. But I can see an argument that even that could be too close for some things, unless they each build initial modules at that distance, with all/most expansion planned to be in the direction away from the other party's initial module. Interesting thoughts. I would think several miles at least for a few reasons. Safety, rocket launches/landings, asteroid impacts, expansion. Probably the rocket launches and landings alone would warrant multiple miles away. Debris will travel wayyyyy further on the moon depending on speed and trajectory. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 1:22:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Houstons_Problem]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: It does raise the question of what the right distance is, to be good neighbors. Close enough to provide help in emergencies or agreed upon mutual projects, but far enough apart that they don't interfere with each other's independent projects. First thought is that it shouldn't be too far a distance for someone in a suit to walk (or bunny hop/skip) from one to the other, with their normal air supply. But I can see an argument that even that could be too close for some things, unless they each build initial modules at that distance, with all/most expansion planned to be in the direction away from the other party's initial module. Tunnel vs Surface access. There is a need to conform to a plan. Otherwise, we end up with a mess. Hopefully, we can avoid 4 way stops and create nice, effectively sized traffic circles. Noise not much of a problem, but stirring up dust might be a concern. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 1:36:22 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Tunnel vs Surface access. There is a need to conform to a plan. Otherwise, we end up with a mess. Hopefully, we can avoid 4 way stops and create nice, effectively sized traffic circles. Noise not much of a problem, but stirring up dust might be a concern. Dust, anything that could create seismic activity that could interfere with readings in delicate experiments at the neighbor's place, anything blocking sunlight or line of sight for radio (voice or data) transmissions... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 1:43:14 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: Interesting thoughts. I would think several miles at least for a few reasons. Safety, rocket launches/landings, asteroid impacts, expansion. Probably the rocket launches and landings alone would warrant multiple miles away. Debris will travel wayyyyy further on the moon depending on speed and trajectory. Launches and landings are likely to be moved farther away from the site, fairly soon after manned missions start. Something like the usual plans of building new airports in undeveloped areas out at the edge of town (or outside of town), to get them away from more densely populated areas. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 1:53:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: You will see a tanker very soon in the lineup. Part of the mission requirement for lunar ss. I don't know that spacex is even making cargo missions a top priority. Like yeah that'll be great but it's not like anyone has a satelite they need to fly on starship yet. Tankers will probably be the least complicated of designs and without them most of the plans dont work. Ultimately modifying the payload section is pretty simple though so i expect once they land a couple orbital flights we'll see all the variants pretty quickly. Lunar may be one of the last to actually fly since the government will be so intimately involved. We will probably see some sort of deat moon prototype very shortly after tanker development to showna safe flight around the moon before sending up one of the biggest financers so far. Starship will be the cheapest option to launch a cube sat on its own. You don't have to max out Starship. You can launch something that masses way less than its capacity and pay for your fuel usage and some overhead thus paying way less than basically any other launcher... including the small rockets that have been made to service the small sats. |
|
|
|
ME, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 2:02:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Tunnel vs Surface access. There is a need to conform to a plan. Otherwise, we end up with a mess. Hopefully, we can avoid 4 way stops and create nice, effectively sized traffic circles. Noise not much of a problem, but stirring up dust might be a concern. Musk plans on tunnels... Why else would he have founded a tunnel boring company that uses boring machines the perfect diameter to fit in a starship.... |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 2:12:57 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise: Musk plans on tunnels... Why else would he have founded a tunnel boring company that uses boring machines the perfect diameter to fit in a starship.... That's the point and the most useful daily route. But scenic routes will be a desirable option at times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 4:01:53 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 4:06:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: I've heard too many stories about big important projects that never panned out because there was no margin for failure. Elon & Companies built a decent margin for failure into this project. It's odd and refreshing to see something like this where they get to a point and they say. "Wow, this really sucks less than we expected." Switching to stainless steel construction seems to have been a wise decision. They were never going to make that big sucker work if it was made of carbon fiber. Rocket Lab seems to have had enough of carbon fiber construction in their small rockets. Perhaps someday, decades from now. Starships will be made of graphene. But for now good old stainless steel is getting the job done. Reminds me of Mike Rowe's saying, "Safety third." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 5:06:30 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Brohawk: Reminds me of Mike Rowe's saying, "Safety third." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Brohawk: Originally Posted By Hesperus: I've heard too many stories about big important projects that never panned out because there was no margin for failure. Elon & Companies built a decent margin for failure into this project. It's odd and refreshing to see something like this where they get to a point and they say. "Wow, this really sucks less than we expected." Switching to stainless steel construction seems to have been a wise decision. They were never going to make that big sucker work if it was made of carbon fiber. Rocket Lab seems to have had enough of carbon fiber construction in their small rockets. Perhaps someday, decades from now. Starships will be made of graphene. But for now good old stainless steel is getting the job done. Reminds me of Mike Rowe's saying, "Safety third." My job is not to get you home safe. It’s to get you home RICH. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 6:53:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: It would make landing later, manned Starships much easier if they had nice smooth surfaces to touch down on and not have to worry about tipping over. More than that, people have this persistent image in their minds eye of space colonization being this incredibly marginal thing. Not enough oxygen, not enough water, never enough food and the food is always awful. Land a few cargo Starships before your colonists and they have all sorts of useful things waiting for them when they arrive. There's plenty of oxygen on the moon. It's just locked up in rocks. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Originally Posted By JPN: I wouldn't be too surprised if SpaceX ended up with an unmanned/robotic lunar version (for dropping materials and supplies on the moon, in advance of building a manned station) ready for testing, before the NASA lunar version is making manned landings on the moon. It would make landing later, manned Starships much easier if they had nice smooth surfaces to touch down on and not have to worry about tipping over. More than that, people have this persistent image in their minds eye of space colonization being this incredibly marginal thing. Not enough oxygen, not enough water, never enough food and the food is always awful. Land a few cargo Starships before your colonists and they have all sorts of useful things waiting for them when they arrive. There's plenty of oxygen on the moon. It's just locked up in rocks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 9:25:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Fan render of Starship staging:
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 9:26:54 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Neotopiaman: Fan render of Starship staging: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1d4xGLXsAAu9Jw?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 Hawt My LEGO model is coming along. Doing the multi curve parabolic shaped nose is giving me a lot of trouble, especially while fitting motors and internals in. Once I get the nose it’s all a big cylinder essentially. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 9:46:28 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 10:15:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1ceRQ4WQAA4jr6?format=jpg&name=4096x4096  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:14:16 PM EDT
[#43]
This interview is almost exactly three years old.
 SpaceX's plan to fly you across the globe in 30 minutes | Gwynne Shotwell Back when the project was called Big Fffffffffffffffalcon Rocket and they were still planning on whittling it out of carbon fiber. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:22:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Neotopiaman: Fan render of Starship staging: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1d4xGLXsAAu9Jw?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 Neat, but I wish people would put more time into researching how things actually happen before they spend tons of time drawing this stuff up. The grid fins would not be deployed during staging. Just like the guy that made a rendering super heavy doing a landing flip. What a waste of time when 2 minutes of Google go will show you how its really supposed to happen. I appreciate the art effort. But it just adds to the confusion of all the development |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:52:04 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Perhaps someday, decades from now. Starships will be made of graphene. No. Trust me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2021 11:54:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: I've seen online discussions where potential customers bashed a product of one of my former employers, because it wasn't carbon fiber (designed and made with older tech). They loved a similar product that a competitor was coming out with, that was being designed (apparently from the start) in carbon fiber, but I did notice one person asking a few very valid questions about issues that could be 'fatal flaws' in the design, if they hadn't found acceptable solutions. Last I heard, the carbon fiber product still wasn't in production. Each material has it's strengths and weaknesses. Strengths and weaknesses? Sure. But one of these things, i.e., carbon fiber composite, is completely useless from a reuse perspective. It sounds sexy and fancy because it has a high strength-to-weight ratio, but its thermal tolerances suck and, more importantly, it is shit against fatigue. CF composites and "reuse" are incompatible. The moment they switched from CF to steel is the moment they succeeded. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2021 12:03:20 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By zonan: Strengths and weaknesses? Sure. But one of these things, i.e., carbon fiber composite, is completely useless from a reuse perspective. It sounds sexy and fancy because it has a high strength-to-weight ratio, but its thermal tolerances suck and, more importantly, it is shit against fatigue. CF composites and "reuse" are incompatible. The moment they switched from CF to steel is the moment they succeeded. Also seems to cause some corrosion issues, when in contact with at least some metals. |
|
|
|
ZWE
|
Posted: 5/16/2021 3:51:03 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SGT-Fish: Neat, but I wish people would put more time into researching how things actually happen before they spend tons of time drawing this stuff up. The grid fins would not be deployed during staging. Just like the guy that made a rendering super heavy doing a landing flip. What a waste of time when 2 minutes of Google go will show you how its really supposed to happen. I appreciate the art effort. But it just adds to the confusion of all the development Would be kind of useful to bellyflop with the booster too but i dont think it can unless they did some voodoo with the grid fins |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2021 8:15:12 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: Would be kind of useful to bellyflop with the booster too but i dont think it can unless they did some voodoo with the grid fins It would have to be redesigned with header tanks and go through the same growing pains starship has seen to date. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2021 8:29:34 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dusten: It would have to be redesigned with header tanks and go through the same growing pains starship has seen to date. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dusten: Originally Posted By Obo2: Would be kind of useful to bellyflop with the booster too but i dont think it can unless they did some voodoo with the grid fins It would have to be redesigned with header tanks and go through the same growing pains starship has seen to date. And would seem, at first glance, to be a redesign that would be very difficult to justify, since it would be a redesign of the first stage system (though a much larger version of it) that has been working so well with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. |
|
|
|
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.
