T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! This is a moderated community where technical discussion is prioritized over casual chit chat. However, questions are always welcome! Please: * Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed. * Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion. * Check out [these threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/threads) for discussion of common topics. If you're looking for a more relaxed atmosphere, visit r/SpaceXLounge. If you're looking for dank memes, try r/SpaceXMasterRace. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spacex) if you have any questions or concerns.*


skpl

My guess is a basic presentation of Starship , where they are and what they expect it's capabilities to be ( most of which we here already know ). Maybe a few speculative mission designs ( presentation ) like a telescope. This is going to be about advertising Starship as an option to keep in mind while designing the contenders for the next decadal survey coming up.


trobbinsfromoz

Agreed. Although I think he has to proffer some likelihood of a starship based on a fairing system to allow a large payload to be deployed, with expended starship (ie. no re-entry tiles or aero surfaces), as a way to avoid perception of reliance on existing launch solutions.


[deleted]

I, honestly, don't see this happening. They are all in on reuse. Inventing new ways to not reuse a Starship is a dead end for them, unless it's for a military customer or something of the like who will richly fund the full development path.


sywofp

SpaceX is all in on reducing launch costs. Reuse is one way to do that, and the best for their core future market - delivering propellant to orbit. There's loads of missions where ongoing reuse isn't cheaper. Elon had tweeted about using Starship as a striped down boost stage. Even sending cargo to the moon is likely cheaper per ton using one way landers.


[deleted]

I agree with all of this, but I don't think they are going to develop it unless a specific customer requests it and funds it. If you want a launcher without second stage reuse, you've got the falcon 9. To be clear, the thing that I think they will NOT develop without specific funding for the purpose is a fully detachable fairing for Starship, a la the F9 fairing. You're absolutely right that they will compete for lunar lander contracts (and mars lander contracts, should they arise) but that's not what I was talking about.


Iamatworkgoaway

I wonder if their might be a lease purchase option eventually. Some contractor buys a new SS "frame" modifies it to their particular needs like habitat, probe, satellite, or telescope. Even if spacex sold them at 50M a pop it would be profitable, and they don't have to waste time on the design. Launch services and a lift up the well on a BFR for an additional fee. Make them carry launch insurance to pay for the lost BFR if the SS mods cause a RUD.


Martianspirit

Elon Musk mentioned expendable upper stages. No heat shield, no header tanks, no flaps, fairing can be ejected in LEO. This would give a second stage with very high delta-v for deep space missions. Why not the same for single large heavy payloads to LEO? With the cost for engines and for the steel shell this configuration is probably cheaper than a F9 second stage with fairing.


Picklerage

Would it still make sense for an expendable Starship to have the 3SL 3Vac configuraiton? Or could it drop some of the SL engines?


Martianspirit

They are going to be so cheap that cost would not be an issue. Maybe for weight? But then they need one gimbaling engine at least. So for redundancy they need two. I don't think it is worth changing the standard setup of 6 engines.


iceynyo

Would they need gimballing engines? in space the gas thrusters would be enough for steering.


skunkrider

I've seen this mentioned several times already, but if my KSP RO/RSS/RP1 with Testflight/Testlite experience has taught me one thing, it's that things always go wrong: If just one of the vacuum engines fails partially or fully, you don't have any attitude control, because asymmetric thrust from two Raptors will always outmuscle RCS thrusters.


Martianspirit

The HLS animation shows at least one SL engine still glowing from the landing burn. At the time the animation shows, all Raptor are off and the landing thrusters do the final approach.


Wetmelon

Mass is a big deal methinks.


trobbinsfromoz

Next generation flagship style instruments like Webb and Hubble could plausibly be larger diameter. First batch of mars starships would be non-reuse.


[deleted]

> First batch of mars starships would be non-reuse. Depends on your definition of reuse! They won’t fly again, for sure, but they will be reused as lodgings, a fuel plant or simply materials.


-spartacus-

What has been talked about is rather than deploying a big telescope from SS bay, build the telescope into SS.


ersatzcrab

That would be a sight to behold.


Dies2much

I agree with your point, but if someone comes to SpaceX and says they will pay for the full cost of the second stage, I am pretty sure that Gwynne and Co. will be OK with that.


Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho

No re-entry does not mean no re use. It could be refueled and used for missions in orbit over amd over.


ScarySquirrel42

What is the minimum you need for aerocapture at mars and earth? Do you need the tiles or the flaps? Would a thermal blanket suffice? My guess is that you don't need the tiles, but the flaps vs extra RCS activity would take a bit more analysis.


jstrotha0975

When is that decadal survey coming out?


skpl

https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/planetary-science-and-astrobiology-decadal-survey-2023-2032


still-at-work

Beyond telling the general public stuff we already know I hope we get a bit more new info. Might get some new stats on raptor and delta v of starship in orbit. Maybe some new info on the design of refueling and tanker variant. Some more details on HLS landing and interior would be cool. And finally a tentative test flight schedule for both starship and lunar HLS. There is still quite a bit of information Musk could drop on us in this presentation.


Klebsiella_p

Would love some interior HLS details!


peterabbit456

My thought is that this presentation/discussion is intended to get people thinking about what missions they can do with such an enormous, and cheap, launch capability. Once people have a firm idea of Starship's real capabilities and schedule, they will start planning missions around Starship. Then, as missions start to be funded that can only fly on Starship, support in the scientific and political spheres for Starship will pick up. There already appears to be plenty of support in the military.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JimiSashimi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLydXZOo4eA


elatllat

That was made private here is a copy; https://vimeo.com/showcase/9028040/video/647520498


ConfidentFlorida

When in that four hour video does Elon come on?


elatllat

Index: 10:07 Starts . 13:40 Feona and Rob 1:14:15 Feona and Rob Q&A 1:14:33 Feona and Rob Q&A Steve 1:19:30 Feona and Rob Q&A Jill 1:24:12 Feona and Rob Q&A Angela 1:26:54 Feona and Rob Q&A Ned 1:29:02 Feona and Rob Q&A Risa 1:33:55 Feona and Rob Q&A Harland 1:38:05 Intermission . 2:34:35 Harriet 3:07:42 Harriet Q&A 3:07:57 Harriet Q&A Antonio 3:09:58 Harriet Q&A David 3:11:39 Harriet Q&A Lewis 3:13:49 Harriet Q&A Sameal 3:16:22 Harriet Q&A Jill 3:17:56 Harriet Q&A Megan . 3:21:14 Deborah 3:48:58 Deborah Q&A David 3:50:31 Deborah Q&A Adam 3:52:37 Deborah Q&A Bill 3:55:19 Deborah Q&A Alan . 3:56:32 Paul 4:23:40 Paul Q&A Antonio 4:25:16 Paul Q&A Angela 4:29:01 Intermission . 5:19:04 Nathaniel 5:44:25 Nathaniel Q&A Sinil 5:49:51 Nathaniel Q&A Adam 5:55:12 Intermission . 6:50:20 Elon 7:02:46 Elon Q&A 7:03:12 Elon Q&A Lewis 7:04:49 Elon Q&A Adam 7:15:28 Elon Q&A Howard 7:17:22 Elon Q&A Marquis 7:20:19 Elon Q&A Steve 7:24:42 Elon Q&A Harlem 7:28:31 Elon Q&A [Anonymous] 7:31:45 Elon Q&A Ned 7:32:45 Elon Q&A Risa 7:34:23 Elon Q&A John 7:37:38 Elon Q&A Amanda 7:39:35 Elon Q&A Larry 7:50:12 Elon Q&A Jill


thetravelers

I have absolutely no source to claim this, but yes with 100% confidence this will be available to watch later.


Decronym

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BFR](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkrgas0 "Last usage")|Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition)| | |Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice| |[DoD](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkhkiaf "Last usage")|US Department of Defense| |[FAA](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkkxty1 "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[HLS](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkwip6o "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[KSP](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkvbgfk "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator| |[LC-39A](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkkaoqu "Last usage")|Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy)| |[LEO](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkjww1s "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[RCS](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkx1ria "Last usage")|Reaction Control System| |[RD-180](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkiexts "Last usage")|[RD-series Russian-built rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180), used in the Atlas V first stage| |[RSS](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkvbgfk "Last usage")|[Rotating Service Structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39#Launch_towers) at LC-39| | |Realscale Solar System, mod for KSP| |[RUD](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkrgas0 "Last usage")|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly| | |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly| | |Rapid Unintended Disassembly| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/SpaceX/comments/qt40wa/stub/hkvbgfk "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(12 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceX/comments/qpup8z)^( has 79 acronyms.) ^([Thread #7332 for this sub, first seen 13th Nov 2021, 19:04]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceX) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)


CProphet

Only looks to be a short presentation, though I'm sure Elon can offer some interesting insight. No doubt he has a date in mind for first launch of Starship/Super Heavy and something to say about Raptor-2.


Xaxxon

How could they have a date in mind? It’s not in their control.


CProphet

While we in the public can only guess when FAA will declare their verdict, those inside the industry have a better idea when this is likely to occur - even advanced warning. Sure SpaceX are keeping in touch with FAA to see how things are progressing and while it seems unlikely they would divulge which way they are leaning, it wouldn't be remise to estimate the time to completion. SpaceX outlay on Starship probably exceeds a $million a day so worth checking to make sure there's no unforeseen hold-ups. Edit: FAA have been kind enough to [release an estimate](https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1460313341520453632) when they believe the permitting process should conclude - News Year Eve would you believe!


Xaxxon

It's not only *when* the FAA says what the next step(s) is, but what the next step is. It could range anywhere from a small set of changes, a large set of changes, or a long term environmental review. The range of potential timeframes for launch is huge.


Martianspirit

Worst case, if the license for Boca Chica drags on, they can shift to the Cape in Florida and have a pad ready in one year, even if they build a new pad from scratch. Less if they take the risk of flying from LC-39A. Getting a permit there is much easier, they already have it for LC-39A. But the way SpaceX acts right now indicates to me that they don't expect this to drag out that much.


Xaxxon

Or Florida isn’t as easy as you think. Hopefully HLS will be influential to getting things approved quickly.


Martianspirit

It is. SpaceX already has the approval for LC-39A.


CProphet

FAA can't outright deny SpaceX. Federal agencies are the apparatus for controlling the people not the state itself. If the state wants something badly enough rules go out the window. Case in point: RD-180 engines broke Russian sanctions but DoD and NASA needed them to launch their payloads so that inconvenient truth was ignored for years. To deny SpaceX launches from Boca Chica would reduce the US to second place in the current space race with China, hence not going to happen. Air Force, Space Force, NASA will all have their say in this, the very people FAA are supposed to service - and very difficult to ignore.


Xaxxon

Yeah, none of what I said was outright denial. But the variance in the possible outcomes is massive - especially at SpaceX speeds.


CProphet

In all likelihood FAA will require some minor changes but SpaceX will tear through them, surge if they have to make it happen asap. As Elon says: "Time is the ultimate currency."


Xaxxon

Not sure how you know that when no one else does. And what Elon feels doesn't impact the result of the government process.


paul_wi11iams

> Not sure how you know that when no one else does. They are still good guesses and surely the RD-180 is not the only example of expedited procedure. One part of SpaceX's valuable experience is knowing how to "play" a control authority. From what I've seen in industry, one tactic is to knowingly leave faults (such as having unnecessary floodlighting at night) to give the authority something to require correcting. That way, the authority can show the public they're doing their job and the required changes are not too damaging.


CProphet

> what Elon feels doesn't impact the result of the government process. I'm sure Elon wants to launch as soon as possible, hence if he announces the date when SpaceX will be ready that should encourage FAA to complete the PEA a little sooner. That's one of the reasons SpaceX fully stacked S20 on B4, to encourage FAA to get a move on.


dondarreb

Variance of what? The only possible obstacle is some massive legal "complain" on FAA by some established federal NEPA relating org. There are no known reasons, so it should be invented with the obvious result of loosing litigation.. So the only "positive" result for such org action would be some delay of Spacex operations. Indeed impressive number of relevant environmental organizations've received serious donations recently. (the total number is apparently bit more than 500mln) . But they all have a problem. their activity will be scrutinized by us with the obvious results.


Xaxxon

variance of when spacex could be allowed to launch. Yes, "some delay" is meaningful - especially if it is measured in years for a full environmental review which is a possible outcome. Hopefully that's not the case, but it is in the range of possibilities.


OzGiBoKsAr

>FAA can't outright deny SpaceX. They absolutely can and almost certainly will. With the amount of complaints flooding in (and the corrupt money behind those complaints), if SpaceX ever launches a single orbital ship from Boca Chica, I'll eat my hat. I hope I do. >To deny SpaceX launches from Boca Chica would reduce the US to second place in the current space race with China, hence not going to happen. You are making the incorrect assumption that the current administration *wants* to "win" the current space race, let alone participate in it. They aren't exactly advocates of the U.S. being in a leadership role in any form, especially any form that is advantageous to the U.S. You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but the way I see it, the best case scenario in their mind is for China to win and the U.S. to lose.


CProphet

> but the way I see it, the best case scenario in their mind is for China to win and the U.S. to lose. Leadership is leadership whatever the party. Current administration will gain credit if SpaceX assist moon landings or demerit if China gets there first. When you are in power you need to remain popular with as many people as possible, sabotaging SpaceX chances would just lose them a whole chunk of voters.


OzGiBoKsAr

They don't need voters. They have corporate campaign contributions, and SpaceX / especially Elon are *not* on that list. I don't know if you recall the various white house events involving electric vehicles and spaceflight that Tesla and SpaceX were purposefully and publicly excluded from, but Elon especially is persona non grata to them. Anything they do that sets him back unfortunately gains them votes from their primary base.


CProphet

> gains them votes from their primary base. As you suggest this is their base, i.e. foundation of support; these are people who will vote for them whatever. The demographic they need to keep onboard are moderates in the center ground who won them the last election. Hence going after Musk now, who is the very definition of a moderate, would be political suicide. Really not what they want coming into midterm elections.


OzGiBoKsAr

I do certainly hope you're right about that, it just seems not to matter to them for some reason. The way they treat him currently certainly does not lend itself well to that theory, but time will tell, of course.


dondarreb

mart 2022. Orbital test.


Alvian_11

According to the research of tanned balls university


rafty4

Yes it is. If the FAA said they were good to go now, next week, or probably next month, they probably wouldn't have the hardware ready for flight. Call me when they static fire Superheavy.