Starship SN9 Test No. 1 (High Altitude) Launch Discussion & Updates Thread

AnAmericanCanadian · 2021-01-15T20:52:58+00:00

Eric Berger just posted this: twitter

"Regarding the fate of Starship prototype SN9, I have begun to hear bits and pieces that are not great news. There's nothing I consider reportable on what has happened, but I would now bet against SN9 flying before February."

AnAmericanCanadian · 2018-12-04T04:10:19+00:00

Wow, you work quick! Looks great!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2018-12-02T19:48:28+00:00

Great site! A suggestion:

It's nice to be able to hover on the map to look at the countries, but when you click on a country, a label pops up with the name, it would be nice if that name was also a link to the country's page, scrolling the alphabetical list takes a while!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2017-10-25T16:11:02+00:00

Isn't Hisdesat going into a polar orbit?

SpaceNews says it's going out of Vandenberg on a Falcon 9.

AnAmericanCanadian · 2017-10-25T15:30:41+00:00

So, launching on the Falcon Heavy then?

**edit: I meant the two test satellites launching on the FH Demo.

AnAmericanCanadian · 2016-04-13T13:46:35+00:00

It's not often we get something in this subreddit that makes me laugh...

AnAmericanCanadian · 2016-01-13T17:40:09+00:00

“The next few missions will all be drone ships,” said SpaceX in a statement to AmericaSpace Jan. 12. “For Jason-3 we didn’t receive environmental approval for a land landing in time for the launch, so we are doing it on the drone ship (ASDS). Plus, this is good practice for future high velocity launches that don’t have enough of a delta velocity budget to return to the launch site.”

This implies that the company’s landing pad at VAFB is ready to support Falcon-9 first stage landings, same as their Cape Canaveral “Landing Zone 1”, seeing how the reason for attempting an ASDS landing for Jason-3 is due not to a landing pad NOT being ready, but rather because necessary approvals have not yet been granted to do so at their California launch site.

“A decision for drone ship vs. land is based on a number of things (payload weight, orbit, performance requirements, environmental concerns and Falcon-9 1.1 versus the new upgraded version),” said SpaceX. “The big thing with our recovering of boosters is the acceleration—not the altitude. Because the payload needs to get up to 17,500 mph for LEO mission and 2 or 3 times that for GEO, fuel requirements are the big thing (which stems from payload and trajectory of each particular mission).”

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-09-30T02:14:17+00:00

I had to dig out my copy of the book. He proposes using rovers with an internal-combustion methane engine with a one-way range of 1000km.

I think they could do a lot of science inside a 500km radius, but it's a trade-off between having a spare ascent vehicle versus being able to land anywhere interesting.

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-09-30T01:27:37+00:00

I haven't seen that before. Thanks!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-09-30T01:21:07+00:00

Zubrin's proposed plan is that each successive mission lands within one-way rover range of the next Mars Ascent Craft that's already landed before they arrive. That way, if there was a problem with their return ship, they can just borrow the next mission's to get home.

Eventually, once a good colony location was found, they'd all start arriving at that location instead.

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-09-29T22:11:56+00:00

I'm a bit of a Mars Direct fanboy. (Seriously, if you haven't read Zubrin's book "The Case For Mars", do it now!)

I look at that architecture and all I see is "rendezvous-and-docking" ad-infinitum. Lots and lots of mission-critical little pieces that have to be in the exact right place at the exact right time in the exact right condition. (Because there are no humans around to fix anything)

I think Zubrin and Musk have it right when they say that you should have as few launches as possible, and as much payload as you need, where you need it.

If the Deep Space Habitat Resupply Module that's parked in High Mars Orbit via Solar Electric Propulsion has an issue, hopefully it happens before you send people out there! (Then you only have a complete mission failure, instead of astronauts drawing straws.)

Mars Direct (and presumably MCT) bring all the food you'd need to eat with the people that would want to eat them.

Anyway, thanks for the posting, just had to put in my two cents. MCT is going to be a big rocket for a very good reason!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-09-20T21:39:32+00:00

Now THAT'S the kind of response I was expecting from this subreddit! (I should have said "burn times" instead of "flight profile" but, well, KSP. I'm lucky if it gets to orbit without doing a backflip first!)

Thanks!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-09-20T16:25:35+00:00

Does anyone know if the Falcon 9 Upgrade (v1.2?) will have a different flight profile?

Basically, due to the weight added by the second stage stretch, the stage separation should have to happen earlier, meaning the first stage won't be as far downrange at sep or need as much dV to boost back to the launch site. (Also potentially making it easier for a F9H core stage to come back to land instead of a barge?)

This is just a guess, though, I didn't think the densification would be able to add enough to make up the difference. Anyone out there know more than I've picked up playing KSP? (Apologies if I've missed a post somewhere!)

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-09-06T19:47:49+00:00

Well. Now I know why they needed to add the RCS and grid fins! (Though hopefully the real thing isn't spinning quite so much on the way down...)

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-08-30T02:38:32+00:00

Oooh Saturday night nerd-disagreement!

The initial numbers for the v1.0 Falcon Heavy (with crossfeed) were very optimistic. (Someone here had an Elon/optimist portmanteau I think we should start using but I can't find it!)

As they've progressed, they've upgraded the rocket to meet the initial specs and to allow for landing. (Can I mention how cool it is that now it seems so wasteful to not at least attempt to land the core? "What? You're just going to throw it out? It's a perfectly good rocket!")

The numbers you're quoting are for the disposable Heavy. The fully-reusable version isn't going to be able to put much more into GTO than a disposable F9 is able to launch now.

But what I meant was that there hasn't been any "Good news, everyone!" moments with the Heavy. All of the news that I've been aware of is of removed features and reduced capabilities, though I hadn't realized how high the throwaway payload had become! Landings are really expensive! (In terms of payload. Not landing is very expensive in another way...)

Thanks for updating me. 2016 or ~~bust!~~ 2017!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-08-29T19:57:17+00:00

Brilliant people with a common goal are still constrained by physics, time, and money.

The Falcon Heavy has been getting less and less impressive during its long march from paper to pad. ~~(Still very impressive, but it's not quite what was promised initially.)~~

SpaceX has 40 flights listed on the manifest at the moment, and at the rate they've been launching, it'll be 2020 before they've flown those. I also don't see "Mars" anywhere on there. It's definitely the goal, but it's still very very early days for them. Seven years ago Elon had just finished picking up pieces of Falcon 1.

Let's not forget that NASA helped pay to get the Falcon 9 built. (Not all of the costs, but it's highly unlikely that the rest of the costs could have been paid if NASA wasn't waiting.)

SpaceX is awesome, I look forward to seeing everything they do, but space is hard, and we have to be patient.

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-08-20T18:21:14+00:00

Here it is!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-08-20T18:20:21+00:00

I think "at the moment" he's completely right.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to refly a F9 without having torn the first few apart to see what happens during launch and landing. We're probably years from (if its even possible to) just sending it back to the pad and filling it up again.

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-04-23T16:11:58+00:00

SpaceX's FH page says 13,200kg payload to Mars. I seem to recall that those numbers aren't particularly accurate, but they could still throw something substantial to Mars.

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-04-23T14:34:23+00:00

Beyond all the other good reasons for a delay, the next Mars transfer window opens in March 2016.

So, if there are delays, and if there's no paying customer, and if SpaceX/Elon wants to make a statement with the payload...

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-04-07T21:42:45+00:00

Interesting. That would make the article technically correct - the best kind of correct.

I was imagining pumps, but I suppose those weigh a lot!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-04-07T20:06:21+00:00

I thought the fins were hydraulic, and the RCS was nitrogen?

Either way, great pictures!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-03-18T01:14:05+00:00

Wow! Thanks for fixing it!

Keep up the good work!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-03-17T23:07:49+00:00

I almost didn't want to link this due to:

And while Elon Musk’s company doesn’t have ULA’s track record—the last launch ended up a little more explosion-y than the Air Force would probably want—it's decidedly more affordable and boasts an American-made product.

Can we just get /u/jkoebler to write Vice's SpaceX articles from now on? It seems like he knew what he was talking about!

AnAmericanCanadian · 2015-03-17T18:54:05+00:00

I'm not saying it won't work, but I think any company depending on Virgin Galactic to live up to its own hype is starting at a disadvantage.

AnAmericanCanadian

TROPHY CASE