Space - The Final Frontier

[ERD50]

Below is the SpaceX summary of the 2nd test of Starship. I could not copy the text so I copied the entire photo. Click or tap on it to expand and read.

Yes, very informative and concise!

Originally Posted by stephenson .... I was expressing my belief that the SpaceX (Musk) team is not doing the required amount of engineering for this particular project ...

You have never worked in R&D even the simples things have failures and multiple revisions, this is how you learn.... baby steps.... failures tell you a lot of what is going on both good and bad.

stephenson, I don't follow Space-X closely, but clearly they are pushing the envelope and have had a great deal of success. When you push the envelope in this way, and with these energy levels, failures are to be expected, and they are often very dramatic.

But I don't get the sense at all that the Space-X team is lacking in engineering preparedness. From what I've seen, they are very disciplined in their planning, and put tremendous energy and thought into collecting and analyzing data so they can learn from their successes and failures, and implement fixes and improvements.

When Musk talks about "move fast and break things", I'm certain he doesn't mean in a reckless way. I take it to mean he's willing to push things fast, realize you may have failures, and learn from them. If you take the time to engineer every detail of a prototype to take your confidence level of success to 99.99%, your progress will likely be much slower than accepting the occasional failure. That's the theory at least, and I think it holds.

And (from my own engineering background), I'll add that a 'success' is not enough. You need to collect the data to learn if you were veering towards the edge of failure, is everything in control, responding as expected, and will it be repeatable. A 'success' can be luck. Many consecutive successes of a complex task takes deep insight into the variables behind success/failure.

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

If you take the time to engineer every detail of a prototype to take your confidence level of success to 99.99%, your progress will likely be much slower than accepting the occasional failure. That's the theory at least, and I think it holds.

I am wondering if that is the problem with NASA's Space Launch System rocket. They have had a successful launch, but are many years behind schedule, and many billions of dollars over budget. It will cost billions for one launch. Really? That's not the way to increase space exploration and make humans a multi-planetary species. If SpaceX can get their Starship rocket working reliably, the SLS may never leave the ground except for another test flight or two.

 

[tulak]

I am wondering if that is the problem with NASA's Space Launch System rocket. They have had a successful launch, but are many years behind schedule, and many billions of dollars over budget. It will cost billions for one launch. Really? That's not the way to increase space exploration and make humans a multi-planetary species. If SpaceX can get their Starship rocket working reliably, the SLS may never leave the ground except for another test flight or two.

IMO, that’s exactly the problem. Another twist to the saying, “perfect is the enemy of good.”

Definitely a balance that needs to be found and maintained, but SpaceX has demonstrated that it can work.

I would love to see an alternative to SpaceX, but I’m skeptical with SLS, especially when Starship becomes a reliable launch vehicle.

 

[Chuckanut]

IMO, that’s exactly the problem. Another twist to the saying, “perfect is the enemy of good.”

Definitely a balance that needs to be found and maintained, but SpaceX has demonstrated that it can work.

I would love to see an alternative to SpaceX, but I’m skeptical with SLS, especially when Starship becomes a reliable launch vehicle.

For now I am hoping the Boeing gets its act together and has a successful test of its Starliner in April. At some point SpaceX will have an issue with it's manned spacecraft. When that happens we may need the Starliner. The Crew Dragon has done a great job so far, but nothing is perfect.

 

[ERD50]

I am wondering if that is the problem with NASA's Space Launch System rocket. They have had a successful launch, but are many years behind schedule, and many billions of dollars over budget. It will cost billions for one launch. Really? That's not the way to increase space exploration and make humans a multi-planetary species. If SpaceX can get their Starship rocket working reliably, the SLS may never leave the ground except for another test flight or two.

I suspect a big government and mega-corp bureaucracy and "old way of doing things" are a big part of it. Space-X is running like a start-up, very different attitudes. Which could spell disaster, but it appears they have a good level of discipline as well.

I recall a very early interview, I think it was Musk pointing out that the Space Shuttle still used these desk sized hard drives (or maybe tape machines?), while a thumb drive could do the job at that time. Well, the old system was already qualified, and qualifying new hardware was such an arduous task, they just went with the old stuff (that they had to maintain spares, since they were no longer manufactured).

-ERD50

 

[CaptTom]

I think the big risk to Spacex is complacency. I'm hoping that doesn't happen, but one major disaster could sink the whole program.

 

[Chuckanut]

Here's an interesting article about how and why the International Space Station must eventually be taken down and destroyed, and the issues involved.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/...oy-the-international-space-station-heres-why/

The laboratory’s doom comes from its location in low-Earth orbit, within the tenuous upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere. There, whatever goes up must come down, pulled back to our planet by a steady wash of speed-sapping atmospheric particles.
Without periodic boosts, as a spacecraft in low-Earth orbit loses speed, it loses altitude as well, eventually sinking deep enough to break apart and burn up as it plunges through our planet’s atmosphere. Most of the ISS’s orbit-maintaining boosts come from a steady supply of Russian Progress cargo vehicles that, once docked with the station, periodically fire their engines to counteract the space station’s constant sinking.

Add to this the fact that Earth’s atmosphere is a remarkably fickle beast: it thins and thickens with the sun’s 11-year activity cycle and changes with the passage from day to night and back. “When you [deorbit] a big object like the International Space Station, it is very, very reliant on what is happening with the atmospheric density,” says David Arnas, an aerospace engineer at Purdue University. “It is basically impossible to predict that with a lot of time.”

 

[Alan]

Here's an interesting article about how and why the International Space Station must eventually be taken down and destroyed, and the issues involved.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/...oy-the-international-space-station-heres-why/

Good read. Thanks for posting.

 

[audreyh1]

I saw images of the new Chinese space station on a Weather Channel video the other day. Pretty big.

This will probably run an annoying ad at first - https://www.weather.com/science/spa...photographed-in-its-entirety?pl=pl-the-latest

I have an annual subscription to the ap.

 

[Fermion]

I saw images of the new Chinese space station on a Weather Channel video the other day. Pretty big.

This will probably run an annoying ad at first - https://www.weather.com/science/spa...photographed-in-its-entirety?pl=pl-the-latest

I have an annual subscription to the ap.

A bit worrying when they have to de-orbit it. The Chinese are not usually caring much about incidental damage to their actions (baby food and cat food poisoning as examples)

 

[Chuckanut]

Two private moon landing vehicles are scheduled for launch in early 2024.

https://cdn.mc-weblink.sg-mktg.com/...nzCJdsYM2cMxVVhP0WHQXzZrgA5NJjBViv-SPQBzmRg==

Specifically, for two private missions that are set to liftoff in January 2024, each bound for touchdowns on our nearest, dearest natural satellite. First up is Astrobotic’s Peregrine mission, which may launch as early as January 8 carrying a lander with the same name. Then, as soon as January 12, Intuitive Machines’s IM-1 mission may launch the company’s Nova-C lander. Both carry multiple instruments and experiments with a diverse set of scientific objectives, but their most exciting aspect is something more fundamental. A successful landing for either mission would be a milestone; never before has any commercial spacecraft successfully soft-landed on the moon.

 

[Chuckanut]

That Falcon 9 booster rocket that set a record for 19 launches and landings is no more. This is the booster that returned manned space flight to the USA after the Shuttle was grounded.

While being towed back to port on the barge where it landed choppy seas caused it to tip over. It’s too far gone to repair. Imagine, reusing a booster stage 19 times. I wonder if the guys who built that booster ever thought it would make 19 flights and landings.

FWIW, newer boosters have a new leg design that makes them far more resistant to tipping over.

A portion of the record-setting Falcon 9 booster remains on board the Just Read the Instructions droneship. After its 19th launch and landing, the vehicle tipped over in rough seas during the transit back to Port Canaveral, and its top portion broke off.

On May 30, 2020, B1058 launched Demo-2, the mission that returned orbital human spaceflight to the United States after the retirement of the space shuttle. It went on to fly hundreds of Starlink satellites and other payloads into orbit over its roughly 3.5-year flight history. It brought back the iconic NASA worm logo, and in the time since became a notable and sentimental booster for much of the spaceflight community.

While its loss is disappointing, it’s worth remembering that it flew 18 more missions than every expendable rocket that’s ever flown, and the lessons learned from B1058 will contribute to further learnings about Falcon 9 and its recovery and reflight operations. Its 19 flights contributed to an incredible track record of over 250+ orbital class rocket landings, unparalleled by any other entity in the industry.

 

[CaptTom]

They must have known this could happen. I can't imaging balancing a tall, spindly thing like those boosters on the deck of a ship in any kind of weather. At some point I assume the cost of scrubbing the mission due to potentially high seas outweighs the risk of losing the booster. Oh well.

 

[Chuckanut]

More info from SpaceX……

“ The remains of B1058 on the deck of Just Read The Instructions.

I'll add here a comment about this from SpaceX's Kiko Dontchev posted on twitter:

Super disappointing and sad to lose booster 1058.

Tippy boosters occur when you get a certain set of landing conditions that lead to the legs having uneven loading. Heavy wind or sea state then cause the booster to teeter and slide which can lead to even worse leg loading. In this state, securing with the OG is super challenging and often only partial successful.

We came up with self leveling legs that immediately equalize leg loads on landing after experiencing a severe tippy booster two years ago on Christmas (first flight of 1069). The fleet is mostly outfitted, but 1058, given its age, was not. It met its fate when it hit intense wind and waves resulting in failure of a partially secured OG less than 100 miles from home.

One thing is for sure… we will make lemonade out of lemons and learn as much as possible from historic 1058 on our path to aircraft like operations.

SpaceX's Jon Edwards adds another comment saying:

We are planning to salvage the engines and do life leader inspections on the remaining hardware. There is still quite a bit of value in this booster. We will not let it go to waste.

As you can see in these pictures, one of the arms on Octagrabber was not connected, something usual when the conditions don't allow for it and it was partially chained to the deck, you can see one of these chains still connected. The sea states were probably a lot worse than the booster and partially connected Octagrabber can handle and it all tipped over. The LOX tank, with is NASA worm logo, has been lost to the sea but the RP-1 tank remains giving us some eerie views of the leftovers of B1058.

 

[JackJester]

Cool video of Big Rockets firing (SpaceX Super Heavy Rocket):
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-flight-3-engine-tests-video

"The test, which lasted about 10 seconds, successfully fired all 33 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy booster, which serves as the first stage of the Starship rocket, the world's largest and most powerful booster."

Damn I want to see a human step on Mars before I die. It is ridiculous we can't even get back to the moon in what? ... 50+ some years. Go Musk Go!

 

[Chuckanut]

It looks like the Peregrine lunar lander won’t successfully land anywhere. Current reporting says they are looking at an alternate mission plan so as to squeeze some science work out of the mission.

Space travel is still hard no matter how easy they make it look.

 

[aja8888]

Cool video of Big Rockets firing (SpaceX Super Heavy Rocket):
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-flight-3-engine-tests-video

"The test, which lasted about 10 seconds, successfully fired all 33 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy booster, which serves as the first stage of the Starship rocket, the world's largest and most powerful booster."

Damn I want to see a human step on Mars before I die. It is ridiculous we can't even get back to the moon in what? ... 50+ some years. Go Musk Go!

Jack, the moon is old news, and it's a big rock like we all thought.

 

[stephenson]

Oh, for Pete's sake! NASA designed and built the thing and now they can't figure out how to get it open? Did the low-bid builder in Bangladesh retire? Did someone lose the keys? Sheesh. Just go down to Harbor Freight, get an angle grinder and a cut-off wheel for $25 and get on with it.

But no, they've got to figure out a way to make it cost $859,636.87....

I'm late to the game - I thought I read that LMC built Osiris - not NASA? (a really not so fine point?)

 

[stephenson]

Stumbled on this - pretty good, actually!

 

[stephenson]

Thoughts on the ULA stack?

 

[JoeWras]

It looks like the Peregrine lunar lander won’t successfully land anywhere. Current reporting says they are looking at an alternate mission plan so as to squeeze some science work out of the mission.

Space travel is still hard no matter how easy they make it look.

I haven't been paying attention. Didn't know about this mission. Turns out there's criticism of this mission because the Navajo nation doesn't all approve of the depositing of human remains on what they consider heritage ground.

Anyway, technically there are issues. Here's a summary from Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_Mission_One
Roughly seven hours after the launch, Astrobotic reported an anomaly which "prevented [the lander] from achieving a stable sun-pointing orientation",[42] and further explained that a propulsion issue was the probable cause of the anomaly. The company attempted to troubleshoot by performing an unplanned maneuver of the spacecraft to orient the solar panels.[43] After an expected communications blackout, Astrobotic confirmed that the spacecraft had oriented towards a sun-pointing, power-positive state. However, the propulsion issue was identified as a gradual propellant leak that required constant depletion of fuel to counteract. In a statement issued at 21:16 EST, Astrobotic stated that thrusters were operating "well beyond their expected service life cycles" and that the "spacecraft could continue in a stable sun-pointing state for approximately 40 more hours" before propellant depletion would cause the spacecraft to lose attitude control and subsequently power.[44]

 

[Sunset]

I haven't been paying attention. Didn't know about this mission. Turns out there's criticism of this mission because the Navajo nation doesn't all approve of the depositing of human remains on what they consider heritage ground.

..............

What heritage ground ?

 

[JoeWras]

What heritage ground ?

The moon. I don't want to get off the rails here, but some cultures consider the moon part of their heritage.

NPR discusses it: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/07/1223...uman-remains-on-the-moon-the-navajo-nation-ob

Further discussion by us here on this forum is similar to discussing the Middle East conflict. Not really allowed.

 

[Gumby]

Looks like there could be another Starship launch in late February.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-targeting-february-starships-3rd-211905710.html

 

[Chuckanut]

Interesting news about Falcon 9, Starship and the future return to the Moon.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/...ting-at-spacex-was-full-of-interesting-news/?

Musk said SpaceX is working on extending the life of Falcon 9's reusable first-stage boosters. Originally, SpaceX said each Falcon 9 booster could fly up to 10 times without a major overhaul. Some Falcon 9s have now flown almost twice that number of missions.

“We’ve done a 19th re-flight," Musk said. "We’re now qualifying Falcon 9 to be able to do 40 flights, and we’re aiming for maybe as much as 150 flights this year."

“Flight 2 actually almost made it to orbit," Musk said. "The reason that it actually didn’t quite make it to orbit was we vented the liquid oxygen, and the liquid oxygen ultimately led to a fire and an explosion. We wanted to vent the liquid oxygen because we normally wouldn’t have that liquid oxygen if we had a payload. Ironically, if it had a payload, it would have reached orbit.”

The Starship will come in different configurations, such as the lunar lander, tanker, propellant depot, and satellite deployer. But they will all use the same basic design, with Raptor engines and stainless steel structures. The terms of NASA's Starship lander contract call for SpaceX to employ two Super Heavy boosters, four Starship tankers, one Starship depot, and one Starship lander for each Artemis launch campaign. SpaceX will also build a spare Super Heavy booster and two spare Starship tankers to support each Artemis mission, according to Watson-Morgan.