burble @ burble @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

10

Comments

284

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I agree for most other companies, but SpaceX's whole MO is to keep pushing limits and prototyping and testing. They probably could have stabilized the Raptor design and had something more reliable if they stopped trying to push the performance limits. This booster has some other big changes that are worth testing, so as long as they can get through stage separation, flying it as-is would have a lot of value.

I'm still worried about the Raptor shutdowns, but I'm crossing my fingers that it's just extra conservative limits during the testing. As long as there isn't really a risk to the pad, though, I hope they go for it and launch regardless of some flaky engines.

I get your point, but can you honestly go through the SpaceX contracts and tell me which ones should have gone to someone else, especially on the launch side? The only thing I can really think of is the initial Artemis HLS, but NASA was so budget constrained that they were between a rock and a hard place on that one. SpaceX has the most launch availability and best prices right now, so it would be irresponsible, if not literally impossible, to launch most payloads with anyone else.

China is on there 6 times if you count CAS Space, i-Space, ExPace, and Space Pioneer. Those smaller companies don't add a ton, but it drops to "only" 6.5x if you include them.

They were also selling Starlink terminals at a big loss early on, so either that has turned around with the new production lines or they make enough money to offset the loss. They're moving some serious quantities of those things.

set expectations accordingly

Got it: skyhigh, blocking off my calendar, starting the watch party planning

I'm looking forward to some journalist FOIAing this report so we don't have to keep guessing about what's in it.

Same. I like starting with almost random combinations of class/race/skills that aren't close to min/maxed together, then discovering the character at the table.

I get that some people have a harder time improvising or really want to play essentially a character from some media they like. And that's fine. Different strokes for different folks. The essay backstories just wear me out and don't seem appropriate for low level characters, though.

But I have a component pouch??

Four Bandwagon missions are currently scheduled. According to SpaceX’s rideshare website, those missions are scheduled for April and November 2024 and February and May 2025.

So that's even fewer payloads for the dedicated smallsat launchers. Some of them have a decent backlog and/or are diversifying (Rocket Lab, Firefly, Relativity), but I don't see how Astra and ABL could end up with viable rockets.

I don't really see a point in flying Artemis 3 without at least going to Gateway, which won't be ready in NRHO until probably late 2026. Plus, Artemis 4 will be NET 2028 because of EUS/ML2 development, so I don't see what the big hurry would be for the "cadence" schedule.

I'm not trying to excuse Starship delays just because other contractors are also behind. All these delays suck. There's just so much work to do.

Has 2025 for Starliner-1 been confirmed anywhere? I think it's right, but I don't think they officially said so.

They seemed noncommittal about timing and made it sound like Starliner-1 could still be late 2024, but that feels impossible. If Crew 8 is Feb-Aug '24 and Starliner CFT-2 is NET March '24, during Crew-8, then Crew-9 would have to be on a Dragon to give enough time to turn around Starliner certification and get the next capsule ready.

Here's a link that isn't paywalled:

https://spacenews.com/first-starliner-crewed-flight-delayed-to-2024/

It came out after the press conference today, too, so it might have more info (idk, I can't read the Bloomberg one).

I'm hoping this test was mostly for the deluge system, not the booster, so they were running with extra safe engine shutdown limits. That's just blind hope, though.

I mean, I get the hardware rich testing mindset, but I thought the engine design was supposed to be stabilizing and getting more reliable. You have to admit that losing 4 engines in under 3 seconds isn't great.

The engine shutdowns and early test end aren't my favorite if Booster 9 is still supposed to be used for the next orbital test flight.

It's kind of a mixed blessing that the FTS approval process is so drawn out, because now they have all this time with nothing better to do than keep improving the pad.

I half expect the next move will be space-based datacenters.

The thermal management would be a nightmare

I don't think an Orion-light LEO vehicle is a good idea. That was part of the original Constellation program (Orion on an Ares I to the ISS), and luckily we got Commercial Crew instead. An Orion launch, not counting the rocket, is $1.8 billion, the Artemis 1 Orion already flew with obsolete parts, and they're procuring a lot of the same components for Artemis 6-8 which won't fly until at least 2030. I suppose they have to be allowed to bid on a hypothetical new Commercial Crew phase, but Lockheed's Orion cost and development or manufacturing timelines just can't be allowed anywhere near a viable, scalable, sustainable program.

My hope for the next generation of space stations is that NASA will certify vehicles that their astronauts are allowed to fly on, but not handle procuring rides, and essentially just book time on a station and let the operator figure out crew and cargo transit. There can be multiple stations being serviced by Dragons, Starliners, Dreamchasers, Blue Origin capsules, Gaganyaan, and Starship, conceptual vehicles like the Rocket Lab capsule and SUSIE, and my daydreams like a Stoke Space and Relativity crewed vehicle. There are so many options on the horizon that we shouldn't keep getting bullied into accepting Lockheed.

I'm a little surprised. Who knows what they consider the main dev tree vs a distraction for Starship, and I don't really see what this agreement adds that they wouldn't have already gotten from NASA through the human landing system contract. It sounds like SpaceX really phoned it in when they bid a Starship station as an ISS replacement, so, to me, that signalled that Starship stations weren't on their main path. I'm glad this is happening, but, yeah, I'm kinda surprised.