Starship Flight 6 today (November 19) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 05:31:02 pm
content: Launch window opens at 4:00 p.m. CT, 4:00 p.m. UTC.SpaceX livestream:https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1RDGlydZAeOJL(don't search on youtube, it will be a crypto scam).Everyday Astronaut livestream:NASASpaceflight Livestream:

author: Chicane
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 07:11:58 pm
content: I hope they'll do a teardown of the rockets or boosters, otherwise not sure why is this here.I would buy tickets but boarding is complete by now, I'm sure.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 07:20:53 pm
content: Quote from: Chicane on November 19, 2024, 07:11:58 pmThere were several live teardowns of the Starships and the Boosters in past, so we all are well educated already..Waiting on the launch!

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 07:21:27 pm
content: I am 100% certain that nearly every part of that Starship, and the prior one, will be examined to understand the stress that the ship went through. They will probably then preserve Starship for display somewhere... though its shear size excludes many locations. I went to see the one at LA in person and the scale of even a Falcon 9 is incredible, Superheavy booster is almost twice that size.Quote from: iMo on November 19, 2024, 07:20:53 pmAh yes, rapid unscheduled disassembly, including of the pad in one case. Really useful!

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 07:27:15 pm
content: The Starship should splash down during the day time, so hopefully we will see it clearly today..

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 07:30:13 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on November 19, 2024, 07:27:15 pmYeah, no smoke and mirrors this time. Just smoke.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 09:27:08 pm
content: It's live, launch in 33 minutes.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 10:02:39 pm
content: Well, it didn't blow up on the pad at least.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 10:11:04 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on November 19, 2024, 10:02:39 pmThe booster looked really good as it came down. No firey bits at the side this time. Maybe the tower suffered during launch, and was not considered fit to try to catch the booster.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 10:13:32 pm
content: They said the tower was "go" before the boostback, so presumably it was something on the rocket, though the water touchdown looked perfect.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 10:16:14 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on November 19, 2024, 10:13:32 pmIt probably could land on tower just fine. Apparently some parameter was off of predefined window so it diverted to ocean instead of doing landing attempt on tower.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 10:28:23 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 19, 2024, 10:11:04 pmI actually posted that before they aborted to ocean, accidentally prescient.Some others noticed that at the moment of offshore divert the booster was travelling about 600km/h slower than IFT-5, suggesting something was off, perhaps they weren't enough-nines confident they could get it towards the pad safely.Given the pad is also where many of the facilities to build, and of course launch Starship are, a crash there would be pretty bad for SpaceX and would likely set them back months.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 10:29:34 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on November 19, 2024, 10:16:14 pmThere is what looks like an antenna mast on the launch tower which is bent. Dodgy comms would be a good reason not to trust the tower for a catch.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 11:10:45 pm
content: Starship itself landed nicely, despite all the handicapping they did to the heat shield for experimental purposes.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2024, 11:20:53 pm
content: Pretty large damage at the top of the tower, it seems, not only the antenna mast..Otherwise nice splash down, also the more aggressive reentry went smooth, imho..

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 20, 2024, 03:49:18 pm
content: It was a launch tower problemQuote

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 20, 2024, 09:24:34 pm
content: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1859305986760245641Quote

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2024, 11:02:03 pm
content: I wonder how that damage happened? Engine exhaust pushed it over?

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2024, 03:28:00 am
content: If it was the exhaust, why didn’t it happen on the previous launch? More thrust on this launch? Or lax tower inspection?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2024, 04:21:41 pm
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on November 21, 2024, 03:28:00 amStressed by previous launches, and finally broke on this one?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2024, 06:53:04 pm
content: Probably hold down bolts had been stressed before, or a weld on the base was cracked, and the side force during launch blew it out of alignment. lots of stress on that tower top, you would not like to be there during launch, even in a fully armoured room.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 03:27:31 am
content: So prior to launch, do we know whether the tower was inspected at all?If the tower stress fracture is invisible, then you'd probably have to resort to a "replace tower after XYZ number of launches" type of maintenance schedule.That, or redesign the tower entirely.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 09:21:35 am
content: Must be a lot of fun testing new rockets. Only a very simple minded person would call something Starship that did not even go to the moon. We all know they want to go to Mars, yet that's a planet again, sorry.Who knows whether they can really do any better than the NASA with its Space Shuttle. It failed about 40 years after it's initial program start, including 30 years of operation. If somebody could land a Space Shuttle on the moon and come back, that would be some meaningful progress. Now think about bringing a Space Shuttle to Mars or to Proxima Centauri. All fairy tales.Regards, Dieter

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 11:03:09 am
content: Quote from: dietert1 on November 22, 2024, 09:21:35 amIt's hard to do worse than Space Shuttle.It wasn't able to fly further than LEO, could stay in space for 2 weeks maximum, refurbishment was so long and complicated/expensive, they'd be better with building a new spacecraft for each flight, killed 14 astronauts.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 11:15:30 am
content: I do expect that SpaceX fun will stop before 2050 after it killed "passengers", without ever having reached the moon. For me Musk appears to be a similar genius as that Oceangate CEO.Regards, Dieter

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 11:41:54 am
content: I believe the shortest time between two flights of the same Space Shuttle was 54 days by Atlantis, between STS-51-J (October 3, 1985) and STS-61-B (November 26, 1985). There was a LOT of work to do in that time.The shortest time between two flights of the same Falcon 9 booster so far is 21 days, achieved by booster B1062 with both flights in April 2022. There have been quite a few other 25-30 day turn-arounds -- especially recently -- though 40 days is probably the average.The Shuttle cost $196 billion (2020 dollars) for 135 flights, or about $1.45 billion per flight.Falcon 9 flights sell for around $60 million in expendable mode, presumably at a good profit.Shuttle's maximum payload was 27,500 kg, Falcon 9's 22,800 kg, both to LEO, so they are quite comparable in that. Shuttle could take a maximum of 8 crew, but typicaly had 7. Falcon 9 with Dragon can take a maximum of 7 crew, but typically flies with 4 e.g. for ISS crew rotation flights.Apart from the cost, the biggest difference is Shuttle could take crew and significant cargo at the same time. Crew Dragon can take only 1500 kg of pressurised cargo and 2000 kg of unpressurised cargo to ISS in addition to the crew.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 11:54:36 am
content: Quote from: dietert1 on November 22, 2024, 11:15:30 amWait ... it is your opinion that SpaceX will not land on the moon? Do you mean crewed, or uncrewed? Like ... ever? Or at least not before 2050?Do you care to put money on that opinion? I will happily take your money.Are you aware that SpaceX has a firm $2.89 billion contract with NASA for two Starship HLS landings on the moon, the first uncrewed and the second crewed?I think the official schedule still calls for those to be in 2025 and 2026. I'm sure the timeline will slip ... but *never* happen? I don't think so.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 01:27:47 pm
content: 2025 uncrewed and 2026 crewed Moon landing is unrealistic, imho. Unless the Contract says they shall just crash the Starship on the Moon surface..Frankly, the shape of the ship is not suitable for Moon or Mars landings, imho. Her center ofgravitymass is extremely high positioned, to be honest. It would be easier to land there on Moon with the Eiffel tower..Also you have to build a communication infrastructure around the Moon and Mars first, like "Moonlink" and "Marslink" satellites network, as well a kind of Moon/MarsGPS.My guess would be they will do many LEO and perhaps higher cargo flights with Starship uncrewed in 2026-2030. The uncrewed landing on the Moon in 2029-2030, 2035 crewed. Mars landings 2040+.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 01:37:43 pm
content: After getting part of the new US government, Musk won't have to invent space fantasies in order to access public money.Let's see when they bring back Butch Wilmore, 61, and Sunita Williams, 59, from the ISS. I won't live until 2050 and i guess SpaceX won't either. Their stuff may be more reusable than the Space Shuttle was. We don't know yet whether it will be more reliable. Maybe it doesn't need to be.Regards, Dieter

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 01:29:52 am
content: Quote from: iMo on November 22, 2024, 01:27:47 pmCertainly, and I said that. The timeline will slip. But they will do it. Unless NASA cancels, or can't do their part.QuoteI think you vastly underestimate the mass of the engines (and associated structure), and the fact that only very little fuel load is needed at landing in order to be able to take off from the moon.You could make the same argument about the Falcon 9 booster, and as you'll observe from many many successful landings on a barge at sea, you would be wrong about it too, for the same reasons.QuoteCould well be, in which case I'd win the bet.But I think a bit sooner than that, and only a 1 year gap.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 01:32:22 am
content: Quote from: dietert1 on November 22, 2024, 01:37:43 pmYou doubt that? I'm happy to take your money on a bet on that too.QuoteProbably me either, I'd be 88.I'm happy to specify a time limit of 2035. But I think I'll win your money before 2030.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 07:22:43 am
content: Quote from: brucehoult on November 23, 2024, 01:29:52 amYep, that may work provided the Aliens will create a perfectly flat and clean concrete landing pad and, as well as a Moon/Mars_GPS with a 10cm precision prior the landing (and perhaps a set of beacons near the pad). Otherwise it would be a lottery with such a tall Jules Verne like contraption..But perhaps I am wrong about it..

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 07:42:18 am
content: Quote from: iMo on November 23, 2024, 07:22:43 amWell you certainly don't seem to understand the physics of the situation!At landing, a Falcon 9 booster's CofG is around 20m up. The leg span is about 18m to the outer edges of the feet.I'll leave it to you to calculate the needed slope before it will tip. Or make a paper model or something, if you can't calculate atan((18/2)/20).