Presumably it won't end up in someone's territory in the first place.
The SpaceX Thread
- Thread starter daveklingler
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aerospace rockets satellites spacex
SpaceX asked the FAA to let it launch F9s during the mishap investigation - https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/07/...for-return-to-flight-for-its-falcon-9-rocket/
This is very reasonable. If the cause was systemic rather than flukey, I think that would be pretty obvious on such a well understood system. Given the F9’s record, one launch failure (resulting in no loss of life, injury, or property damage outside of SpaceX) should not result in a long term grounding of the entire F9 fleet. Similar to how one door popping off of a 737 didn’t ground all the 737s, but two 737MAXs killing people because of an undisclosed control system did.
This is very reasonable. If the cause was systemic rather than flukey, I think that would be pretty obvious on such a well understood system. Given the F9’s record, one launch failure (resulting in no loss of life, injury, or property damage outside of SpaceX) should not result in a long term grounding of the entire F9 fleet. Similar to how one door popping off of a 737 didn’t ground all the 737s, but two 737MAXs killing people because of an undisclosed control system did.
I mean inspections of door plugs was ordered for the same types. I think for older planes (-900) they were just recommended.
Some good analysis, explanation, and pics of the improvements to the ship heatshield implemented following the previous test flight.
Ringwatchers
Ringwatchers
View: https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1819772716339339664?s=46&t=u9hd-jMa-pv47GCVD-xH-g
If it runs as good as it looks
Comments over at NSF suggest it's not a complete engine.
The test stand has pumping controllers and computer modules installed on it that would ordinarily be components up top of the engine. So expect to see more stuff installed above the shield line on engines to be attached to a vehicle dome.
While it's possible it's missing a few bits, I think it's basically the whole thing. One of the main goals of v3 was to eliminate need for the heat shield between the engines, so everything exposed has to be able to handle the exhaust blowback during landing.
On the lower end. Up top, there are no controllers or pump connections.
It's stripped down for the photo op.
Engine in action:
x.com
Assuming its got the number 1 painted on opposite sides, so the right hand side of the previous photo is hidden behind the engine on this photo, and its still cropped so that we can't see what might be attached to the top.
x.com
Anyone have any idea how long the wait for regulatory approval for the next flight might be, or the time needed between approval and launching?
x.com
x.com
Assuming its got the number 1 painted on opposite sides, so the right hand side of the previous photo is hidden behind the engine on this photo, and its still cropped so that we can't see what might be attached to the top.
x.com
x.com
Engine in action:
x.com
Assuming its got the number 1 painted on opposite sides, so the right hand side of the previous photo is hidden behind the engine on this photo, and its still cropped so that we can't see what might be attached to the top.
It in fact may actually be the whole thing. Its only an inch or two shorter than Raptor 2. Adding anything significant above it would require elongating the engine skirt and also the launch mount interfaces to the outer engine ring
Edit: Apparently this was a response to Tory Bruno
x.com
x.com
Additional running photos
x.com
x.com
x.com
x.com
Last edited:
Yes, I just mean that every photo so far is cropped at the top, so we can't tell simply from these photos what might be attached to the top of the engine in the test stand, which might be be attached to the side of the engine in flight and might have been attached to the older versions of the raptors in the photo of them side by side.
It sure looks pretty, but when Tory Bruno says "So, there is no need to exaggerate this by showing a partially assembled engine without controllers, fluid management, or TVC systems", I've got no idea which of the controllers, fluid management or TVC systems are integrated into the sleek looking raptor v3, and which are just out shot on the test stand. And even if they posted all the photos imaginable of the test stand, I'd still need someone else to tell me what I was looking at
It sure looks pretty, but when Tory Bruno says "So, there is no need to exaggerate this by showing a partially assembled engine without controllers, fluid management, or TVC systems", I've got no idea which of the controllers, fluid management or TVC systems are integrated into the sleek looking raptor v3, and which are just out shot on the test stand. And even if they posted all the photos imaginable of the test stand, I'd still need someone else to tell me what I was looking at
Even if some things are moved into the booster that's not the same as the engine being partially assembled. SpaceX already shared full mass figures including induced booster mass which went down tremendously (1,155kg/40% savings)
x.com
x.com
Thats primarily from the elimination of shielding and fire suppression but weight is weight.
You can actually see quite a bit on the test stand photos
The three black bars are the support struts. I dont know if this stand is setup to gimble or not but it probably can
The large central input into the engine is the oxygen supply and the large input on the right is the methane feed through the turbopump
The smaller cables/hoses in front of the methane feed are going to be for nitrogen,methane helium, and power/data
This graph from Reddit shows what was required to connect a Raptor1
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/cxkrtb/detailed_diagram_of_the_raptor_engine_er26_gimbal/
Possibly a couple of those connections are obscured by the oxygen feed or possibly some of them have been eliminated. Still, if fluid management had been moved to the booster I'd expect to see more small pipes and not less.
As for the engine controllers, I dont think its worth quibbling over where a relatively small box of electronics gets mounted. Protecting them inside the booster skirt would probably make the rocket more resilient
edit: fixed an oopsie
x.com
x.com
x.com
x.com
Thats primarily from the elimination of shielding and fire suppression but weight is weight.
In the lineup of the 3 raptor revisions only the Raptor1 is shown with TVC components. I think they made components of the R1 TVC integral to the engine because it was a bulkier hydraulic system. With the switch to electric 2 and 3 just have mount points on them which can accommodate either fixed support struts or the pivoting TVC struts
You can actually see quite a bit on the test stand photos
The three black bars are the support struts. I dont know if this stand is setup to gimble or not but it probably can
The large central input into the engine is the oxygen supply and the large input on the right is the methane feed through the turbopump
The smaller cables/hoses in front of the methane feed are going to be for nitrogen,
This graph from Reddit shows what was required to connect a Raptor1
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/cxkrtb/detailed_diagram_of_the_raptor_engine_er26_gimbal/
Possibly a couple of those connections are obscured by the oxygen feed or possibly some of them have been eliminated. Still, if fluid management had been moved to the booster I'd expect to see more small pipes and not less.
As for the engine controllers, I dont think its worth quibbling over where a relatively small box of electronics gets mounted. Protecting them inside the booster skirt would probably make the rocket more resilient
edit: fixed an oopsie
Last edited:
That's a fake SpaceX account. Falcon 9 is currently grounded due to the landing failure, NET for Polaris Dawn is 8/30 currently.
And while I get wanting to understand anything that doesn't go according to plan with a certified rocket, 'grounding' a booster because something broke when landing it doesn't have anything to do with flight or mission operations. It's economic recovery. Especially given that every landing past the promised 10 was, I thought, considered entirely experimental.
The root cause analysis should be 'it broke on the 23rd landing attempt' and corrective action should be 'land 22 times.'
Not so fast. If there was something amiss with the center engine, then it has a direct bearing, as that engine is used for launch and ascent. Until they explain what was the problem, the pause in launching is not unreasonable.
I see your point, but I'm of two minds about it. I thought the issue was a failed landing leg, but if it was the engine then looking at that and making sure it wasn't an issue that started on the way up is worthwhile.
On the other hand, it still smacks of punishing a company for having more information and capability than it's competitors, who would have just discarded the booster.
Obviously my bias is being some guy on the Internet who likes watching rockets launch. If I was actually going up on one of the things I'd probably have a different attitude.
I think if SpaceX were really concerned they wouldn't have gone along with a revised launch license that included landing. I believe the relationship between SpaceX and FAA is pretty tight, so I'm not concerned about this being an overly reactionary event, just everyone going through the process and growing pains of what is still an essentially brand new process.
If SpaceX hadn't filed a flight plan that included the booster landing and the associated NOTAMs and such, then the landing failure wouldn't have been an problem (see "discarding the booster"). But SpaceX has been trying to fly like a commercial airliner and written such in it's various FAA filings. If there's an incident on landing for an aircraft that leads to vehicle loss, all aircraft of that type are grounded. When the booster fell over and went "boom!", it was a vehicle loss, so proceed to step "FAA grounds vehicle until issue is investigated".
Yes, it's probably bogus (esp. with Polaris Dawn waiting in the wings), but SpaceX and FAA are trying to write the book on how
The engine bells apparently struck the barge. The broken leg was likely a consequence. So it might be the case that propulsion or guidance control were involved.
It might also be the case that an errant swell brought the barge surface up to something above predicted 0.0 altitude for landing.
So, could be rocket, could be ocean, could be all kinds of things. --They'll tell us shortly, I suspect. Pretty sure they already know what happened.
Pre-IFT3 wind tunnel testing via NASA
www.nasa.gov
No telling how the IFT2 booster would have done if it had survived relight but it sounds like they got good data
I really want one of the wind tunnel test articles on my mantle
Starship Super Heavy Breezes Through Wind Tunnel Testing at NASA Ames - NASA
SpaceX, the commercial Human Landing System (HLS) provider for Artemis III and Artemis IV, recently tested a 1.2% scale model of the Super Heavy rocket, or booster, in the transonic Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley.
www.nasa.gov
No telling how the IFT2 booster would have done if it had survived relight but it sounds like they got good data
I really want one of the wind tunnel test articles on my mantle
WInd tunnel models are awesome. And heavy.
Does anyone know if that tunnel does cryogenic testing? Didn't look like it in a quick search. Testing that fast is nice, but at 1.2% scale the Reynolds number will be way off, right?
Also, that model looks pretty sizable, and only 1.2%? The size of Super Heavy is mind boggling.
Does anyone know if that tunnel does cryogenic testing? Didn't look like it in a quick search. Testing that fast is nice, but at 1.2% scale the Reynolds number will be way off, right?
Also, that model looks pretty sizable, and only 1.2%? The size of Super Heavy is mind boggling.
For your consideration from bluesky:
The WaPo article is from late 2023, but the post is a sign of what happens when you pick sides. If anyone reported that 9 out of 10 aerospace executives vote Republican, i’d wonder why the numbers were so low.
But they keep it to themselves.
Musk has allied himself so closely with Trump/Vance that he’s risking everything on a total GOP victory. And that puts SpaceX at risk.
If the Trump campaign collapses as non-MAGA Republicans turn away from racially charged Haitians-eat-cats messaging (and sheer exhaustion with * waves hands *), then there’s a non-trivial chance of a Blue Wave that puts Harris in the White House and flips Congress to the Democrats.
In that scenario, Musk’s pro-Trump weaponization of X-Twitter becomes a liability that could impact SpaceX. In the grand scheme of things, space isn’t a big deal to the public (cf John Logsdon’s research) so targeting SpaceX won’t cause much blowback for Dems out for revenge.
It also gives the traditional primes and New Space competitors like Rocket Lab an opening. A Democratic Washington would let the knives come out - behind the scenes of course.
With air cover from the White House, Congress, and industry the next NASA administrator will have the air cover to reduce the space agency’s reliance on SpaceX. The defense/intelligence establishment will also read the writing on the wall and shift its priorities.
What would this possible future look like?
We could see a dramatic shift in the space industry in 2025.
The WaPo article is from late 2023, but the post is a sign of what happens when you pick sides. If anyone reported that 9 out of 10 aerospace executives vote Republican, i’d wonder why the numbers were so low.
But they keep it to themselves.
Musk has allied himself so closely with Trump/Vance that he’s risking everything on a total GOP victory. And that puts SpaceX at risk.
If the Trump campaign collapses as non-MAGA Republicans turn away from racially charged Haitians-eat-cats messaging (and sheer exhaustion with * waves hands *), then there’s a non-trivial chance of a Blue Wave that puts Harris in the White House and flips Congress to the Democrats.
In that scenario, Musk’s pro-Trump weaponization of X-Twitter becomes a liability that could impact SpaceX. In the grand scheme of things, space isn’t a big deal to the public (cf John Logsdon’s research) so targeting SpaceX won’t cause much blowback for Dems out for revenge.
It also gives the traditional primes and New Space competitors like Rocket Lab an opening. A Democratic Washington would let the knives come out - behind the scenes of course.
With air cover from the White House, Congress, and industry the next NASA administrator will have the air cover to reduce the space agency’s reliance on SpaceX. The defense/intelligence establishment will also read the writing on the wall and shift its priorities.
What would this possible future look like?
- Operations at Boca Chica could come under closer regulatory scrutiny, slowing Starship development and giving BO time to catch up with New Glenn and Blue Moon. (Given the issues with SLS and lunar EVA suits, this may happen regardless.)
- Congress could give FAA authority to regulate in-space operations, a big expansion from today’s launch/re-entry scope. SpaceX would have to meet rules for crew/passenger safety and space debris mitigation beyond what it does today.
- Other FAA rules could impose restrictions on Starship’s deep space operations, from meeting minimum life support requirements to planetary protection should Musk deliver on his Mars promise.
- DOD/Space Force could be ordered to shift the balance between SpaceX and other launch providers. Granted this depends on the others getting their acts together, but if Congress grants permission to spend more for more launch diversity SpaceX would no longer have a cost advantage.
- Similarly, Starlink could face stiffening regulatory and competitive headwinds as Musk becomes persona non grata, constraining SpaceX’s ability to independently finance its goals.
- Finally, a more antagonistic relationship between DC and SpaceX would signal to international customers that shifting their business to other launch providers might be in their best interests.
We could see a dramatic shift in the space industry in 2025.
Well, first there needs to be some viable competitors who can handle the volume of launches. Vulcan is unlikely to hit a high operational tempo for years, if ever - and will still cost far more per kilo to orbit. While 2-years older than SpaceX (and having a working hopper first) - Blue Origin has yet to reach orbit, let alone have any history of a rapid operational tempo of their sounding rocket. Even if we go to Europe, Ariane 6 is... problematic, let's say. It will always be even more expensive than Vulcan and is having serious teething problems.
Smaller rocket competitors wanting to grow (Rocket Lab, Firefly, etc) seem to have a bit more opportunity.
Who else can provide rides to the ISS?
Laudable goals though since SpaceX is safer and more responsible than anyone else that wont really help the competition
Thats probably more than four years out from mattering to anything, regardless
Umm, have you looked at the various launch awards lately? DoD is already able to employ any number of reasons to pay ULA lots and lots of money
We could very well close out this year with SpaceX having launched more in a good two or three weeks than ULA, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and Arianespace combined.
That is, the yearly total of all four of those combined wont come close to what SpaceX does in a month
ULA has already had obscene amounts of money thrown its way by congress and BO hasn't had a funding issue either. In fact all the other providers have substantial launch backlogs (Kuiper alone responsible for the lion's share). Their slow pace is purely their own fault
So yes, next year could be very different if congress decides to disrupt the industry out of spite but its not really going to make for more launches by other providers
I'm wary of a SpaceX monopoly, but nobody else really seems interested at all. For the near and medium future SpaceX's position is secured because there's literally nobody else that can do what they do. Another few years and the global economy will be tied into Starlink so intimately that having it disappear would have a huge economic impact (all commercial and private shipping, all civilian airliners, pretty much all remote industrial sites, oil wells, etc). Similarly, once Starship gets fully operational, prices and timelines are going to get so low nobody except the military will be willing to pay the premium in money and time to launch on old space. Why spend hundreds of millions or billions and years on a satellite that's perfect when you could just throw a prototype together and send it up in a week or so on a Starship, then bring it down after some testing and make a better one.
There's really no solution other than competition, but I don't see what more can be done. We already have the billionaires that could fund such a thing out of pocket trying with Blue Origin. NASA has tried to fund competition to SpaceX but old space just wants the check and has no interest or it seems capability to actually compete. There's no sign any of the small commercial rocket launchers are trying to scale up to full reuse. Russia is a joke. ESA has its head in the sand. China is make a good show of trying, but for as many projects as they have going, they are still at best where SpaceX was 15 years ago (before most of the really hard bits), and are basically back in the 60s with their active space program.
As far as Musk's politics hurting SpaceX, I seriously doubt it. Most industry is helmed by Republicans and SpaceX lobbies everyone.
There's really no solution other than competition, but I don't see what more can be done. We already have the billionaires that could fund such a thing out of pocket trying with Blue Origin. NASA has tried to fund competition to SpaceX but old space just wants the check and has no interest or it seems capability to actually compete. There's no sign any of the small commercial rocket launchers are trying to scale up to full reuse. Russia is a joke. ESA has its head in the sand. China is make a good show of trying, but for as many projects as they have going, they are still at best where SpaceX was 15 years ago (before most of the really hard bits), and are basically back in the 60s with their active space program.
As far as Musk's politics hurting SpaceX, I seriously doubt it. Most industry is helmed by Republicans and SpaceX lobbies everyone.
That's really the crux, isn't it. Nobody can do what they do, and nobody really seems all that interested in trying. The barriers to entry and startup costs/risks are enormous, and paying that price/risk just gets you a chance to compete, not a guarantee of success.
China will get there eventually because they're very efficient at copying tech and don't have the slightest care about regulatory, environmental, or safety barriers, and success in space is a major nationalistic validation as well as a strategic advantage. US/EU companies don't have that.
Without the discovery of some massive new profit incentive to LEO it's just going to be all Starship, all the time.
This is a relevant article: Earth observation companies wary of Starshield [SpaceNews]
I definitely believe that Starlink has reached the level of success it has because you only had to convince one guy with all the money it was worth doing. Not a consortium of investors. And aided by the fact that all the launches are done at cost, so no launch profit to pay to SpaceX that outside companies inevitably would have to pay.
Instead of the Carl Sagan "to make an apple pie from scratch first you must invent the universe", for LEO mega-constellations first you have to create a launch service.
Starlink seriously felt like it started out because SpaceX needed to have something as payload for all these test launches. There's only so many Roadsters you can put into space.
I think Starshield is being built to spec for the US DoD/intel agencies; I'm not sure if its going to be on the open market or not. Of course it would take little effort for SpaceX to deploy export-friendly services with separate sats if needed
Clearly though the US government has always been willing to throw massive money at these capabilities. Its an almost bottomless demand.
Neat article - I'd only heard vague references to StarShield. I can see different service offerings between US DOD (maximum resolution, minimum lag time), and degrading both for commercial or foreign intelligence customers.
Though I might shrink that last statement to 'for LEO you have to create a launch service.' Starship moving 150 MT to LEO for low 8 figures per launch enables a lot of interesting stuff, though outside of constellations providing goundside services there's not a well-understood profitable business plan. Supremely well-heeled space tourists aren't going to drive much. Microgravity manufacturing has unknown utility. There's no money on the Moon or Mars.
Building a fleet of Starships ultimately needs a better business plan to capitalize on their utility - I just have no idea what that might be after you've filled LEO orbital shells with tens of thousands of sats. I'm sure a few will gas up in LEO and truck to Mars, but even with relatively cheap round trips it's still 7-8 figures per person to the surface of the red planet.
I'm pretty sure there's money in them thar hills, the problem is finding it. Vesta is (citation needed*) a big lump of metal. Which exact metals? If it's just iron, then it's only useful after there's actual industry to use it. But if it's lots of Group 10 metals (or Au or Li or ...), then there's money to be made just bringing chucks of it down to the surface. I can't find a simple to use chart from where I am right now, but Vesta seems to be about the same amount of dV as Mars, so that's not an issue. (But ISRU on Vesta is behind on research versus Mars, so maybe it is a problem.)
Possibly, though I'm dubious about getting enough of those elements down at a cost lower than what it costs to mine it here on Earth, with enough volume that profits cover the expenditure, but not so much volume that they crash the market.
I worry that Starship may demonstrate that it's possible to have too much lift capacity for existing business models.
I've been wondering if Starship might have enough lifting capacity per dollar to make space tourism a more sustainable model. I can't swing a two comma fare, but I'd give a low-five-figure ticket price a really hard look if it got me into orbit with a window and enough space to float around in.