** The Official Space Flight Thread - The Space Station and Beyond **

@N0ddie Thanks for that, I don't do the Twitter although the only thing I'd want it for would be SpaceX updates:-D
Beautiful images but the video didn't make it look like it was stable enough for a ctach to this uninformed eye. Maybe they'll go for a hover next time.
 
PlacidCasual said:
@N0ddie Thanks for that, I don't do the Twitter although the only thing I'd want it for would be SpaceX updates:-D
Beautiful images but the video didn't make it look like it was stable enough for a ctach to this uninformed eye. Maybe they'll go for a hover next time.
Click to expand...

I thought that myself, a lot of work to do on the control of the ship before they can attempt a catch.

With it being the final block 2 and the pad being unfit in its current state for block 3 I was kind of hoping for a catch next time but not with that level of control.
 
XPE said:
I thought that myself, a lot of work to do on the control of the ship before they can attempt a catch.
Click to expand...
I agree. Would it have faired better without the rear flap damage? Unknown at this point.

We've got 1 more block 2 ship left to sacrifice remember.
 
XPE said:
I thought that myself, a lot of work to do on the control of the ship before they can attempt a catch.

With it being the final block 2 and the pad being unfit in its current state for block 3 I was kind of hoping for a catch next time but not with that level of control.
Click to expand...
I agree. I assume a full orbit then another splashdown for the next test, I think they will want a bullet proof re-entry before they go for a catch. So maybe a re-entry and stable hover is the next goal. Because until you're really really confident on the heatshield and ship condition there is a lot of risk to a borked catch attempt.
 
N0ddie said:
I agree. Would it have faired better without the rear flap damage? Unknown at this point.
Click to expand...

Is this the first time they had issues with the bottom flaps? I remember the top ones having issues (which looked to have been fixed) but not the bottom ones.
 
i think the energetic event half way through the flight in the engine bay likely contributed a lot to the rear flap issues. but they are trying so may things at onec hopefully once they home in on best options they can nail a coupel of block 3 flights before a catch attempt.
i think speculation around this is possable forozen over bleed vent that may have then failed. idk
lets see what they say on flight 11., ship 38 staticc fire on OLM1 first/next i think!
some real starlink v3s seems possable too.
 
I've just come across this article that I hadn't seen before, which was a great read:

Whilst it's inherently biased, it goes a good way in dissecting the program and illustrating the huge complexity of it, which I hadn't fully comprehended.

The risk factors seem massive, considering how far we "should" have come since the Apollo program.
 
@Armageus Good article it's odd that they don't mention the common denominator between the 2 decisions that hamper NASA the most. Congress. SLS is legally mandated to fly the astronauts tot he moon, NASA hasn't got a choice in the matter. The HLS decision was entirely driven Congress only providing enough money to fund HLS StarShip which is nothing like a low risk option, and it was never designed to be.
 
PlacidCasual said:
@Armageus Good article it's odd that they don't mention the common denominator between the 2 decisions that hamper NASA the most. Congress. SLS is legally mandated to fly the astronauts tot he moon, NASA hasn't got a choice in the matter. The HLS decision was entirely driven Congress only providing enough money to fund HLS StarShip which is nothing like a low risk option, and it was never designed to be.
Click to expand...

The whole contract stunk to be honest - the award of HLS to SpaceX by one person followed by that person leaving NASA to take up employment at SpaceX.

Haven’t seen anything of the HLS Starship since the contract was awarded 4 years ago either…

It might all be above board and work out in the end but I have my doubts.
 
Armageus said:
I've just come across this article that I hadn't seen before, which was a great read:

Whilst it's inherently biased, it goes a good way in dissecting the program and illustrating the huge complexity of it, which I hadn't fully comprehended.

The risk factors seem massive, considering how far we "should" have come since the Apollo program.
Click to expand...


Artemis is lunacy, that's completely correct but if Artemis is lunacy then Starship is beyond the pale

And yet these two are now intertwined in an unlikely path to success anytime soon

Artemis was already criticised years ago because of how Congress design the approval for it, a lot of Artemis is political - such as politicians demanding their state's manufacturer of shuttle SRBs be reused again instead of whatever the actual best design for a next gen rocket would be. Due to this type of thing Artemis is not just insanely expensive but is a hodge podge of old and new components Jammed together to make a Frankenstein to appeal to politicians


"Early on, SLS designers made the catastrophic decision to reuse Shuttle hardware, which is like using Fabergé eggs to save money on an omelette. The SLS core stage recycles Space Shuttle main engines, actual veterans of old Shuttle flights called out of retirement for one last job. Refurbishing a single such engine to work on SLS costs NASA $40 million"

That's not by choice, that's because the politicians in Congress told them they needed to reuse as much as possible to keep the existing entrenched space companies employed - for example reusing Thiokol/Gruman shuttle SRB's so that the plant in Utah can keep its 15,000 employees employed without having to go through an actual competitive tender or invent new designs in a bid process
 
Last edited:
Another major issue Space X faces is fuel, with its launch plans requiring the supply of 500 million gallons of fuel annually. Currently fuel is delivered via trucks but to meet Space X's requirements would require 273 trucks to deliver fuel each day. So they are having to build their own fuel production facilities


arstechnica.com

Fuel supply is a bottleneck for Starship—here’s how SpaceX will get around it

SpaceX has flirted with the idea of propellant generation plants at Starbase before.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
 
Last edited:
aDbgzg7.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom