banner
banner

25 May 2022, 11:51 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Garmin International (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2021, 18:14 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 14821
Post Likes: +18382
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Good news- it'll weigh only 16 something tons on the moon!

And 38 tons on Mars.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2021, 18:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 2784
Post Likes: +885
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... rn+on+Mars

http://youtu.be/j1zXN9JMRt4



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmXR46TrbA8

_________________
switching gears..


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2021, 18:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/31/12
Posts: 3038
Post Likes: +5344
Company: French major
Location: France
Aircraft: Ejet
It's not just "competitors who can't keep up", but the IAU, for instance:
https://www.iau.org/news/announcements/ ... 9035/?lang

I would put a lot more faith into them than into Musk. They don't send tweets, they post studies.

Your point about the Russians blowing a satellite is well made and well-taken, but I fail to see how it does anything but deflect the fact that crowding lower orbit is obviously making things more difficult.
For instance, your calculation of the volume of starlink's satellite is, in my opinion, irrelevant. The area they cover would make for a better point of reference, and you would need to add a fairly important margin to guarantee that you avoid anything on the way up [edit: although I see your point after reconsidering it]. In the same way that we keep a bit more distance despite tcas....
Not to mention that, as you nicely point out, very few countries have the tech for tracking. The US, France, Russia, China most likely...Who else am I forgetting.

Finally, your point about sending more for less money is, for me, a really poor put-down, and the narrative you thread of cry-babies is surprising, I've known you more polite and respectful.
SpaceX may send more for less money, but they only send stuff that they find relevant for them, without any interest for the greater good or science.

Those orbits are the far-west, and it would be good to remind everyone that they belong to more than a few billionaires with a big ego.

_________________
Singham!


Last edited on 07 Dec 2021, 18:49, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2021, 18:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/26/15
Posts: 8719
Post Likes: +7424
Location: Florida panhandle
Aircraft: Travel Air,T-6B,CRJ
Username Protected wrote:
If you really want to talk about who is blocking space, ask the Russians about blowing up a satellite. That creates hugely more issues than the Starlink system with lots of random debris in all directions and some of it too small to track but having enough kinetic energy to kill a satellite.

... or poke a hole in a pressure vessel, which can effectively kill it just the same.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2021, 19:07 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 14821
Post Likes: +18382
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
It's not just "competitors who can't keep up", but the IAU, for instance:

They have their own axe to grind.

Namely, they are annoyed by objects whizzing past their telescope views. If it wasn't SpaceX, it would be somebody else, but blaming SpaceX makes for a good narrative.

Quote:
Your point about the Russians blowing a satellite is well made and well-taken, but I fail to see how it does anything but deflect the fact that crowding lower orbit is obviously making things more difficult.

Only 6% of the stuff in LEO is Starlink and the system didn't go from easy to hard because of that. The reason SpaceX gets the blame is that the cry babies can't keep up. SpaceX also is VERY GOOD at cleaning up after itself, leaving very little dead orbital junk floating around, which is not always the case for others.

This also applies to the IAU. Most of the stuff that gets in their way isn't SpaceX. It is also relatively easy to computationally remove the fast moving objects from the images. They already do more intensive computations to correct for upper atmosphere than this will require.

And, SpaceX, unlike any other space company, has worked to reduce the albedo of their spacecraft to try and help. ESA ever do that?

Funny that they IAU never complains about the ISS. It causes a huge optical problem when it flies into your view.

Quote:
Finally, your point about sending more for less money is, for me, a really poor put-down, and the narrative you thread of cry-babies is surprising, I've known you more polite and respectful.

This is an example of "cry baby" type response:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12 ... ief-warns/

Basically, we aren't good enough and we need to stop SpaceX. Boo hoo.

Quote:
Those orbits are the far-west, and it would be good to remind everyone that they belong to more than a few billionaires with a big ego.

I see you can be disrespectful, too. Having big ideas and ambition is not the same as having a big ego.

Personally, I don't know of any other human that deserves a bigger ego than his. Who would that be, exactly?

If Europe wants space, go get it. Nothing is holding you back except your own ponderous and obsolete space industry.

Arianne 6 is obsolete before it flies, for example. ESA's own rockets are too expensive, so they buy Russian Soyuz, a 50+ year old design, to launch their Galileo satellites into orbit as they just did recently.

Musk has taken a stale slow industry stuck in the mud and radically changed the rules. Stop whining and adapt or die.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2022, 19:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 10415
Post Likes: +9954
Company: Midwest Chemtrails LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
SuperHeavy landing details …
http://youtu.be/_DXwsUJMO40


Apparently the desired launch cadence is 3x/day each, for three boosters … nine daily launches per launch site. Wow!

_________________
!neercs eht dniheb deppart ma I !PLEH


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2022, 10:05 
Online



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 13970
Post Likes: +12738
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
SuperHeavy landing details …
Apparently the desired launch cadence is 3x/day each, for three boosters … nine daily launches per launch site. Wow!

It will be interesting to see the flight testing phases and how they unfold. Assuming it's anything like Starship, it will be exciting either way.

With FAA's slow motion at Boca Chica, combined with their proposal only allowing something like a half dozen launches per year, I'm questioning the viability of that location as their primary construction and launch site. It is going to take a change of more than an order of magnitude to make that location work in any practical way. While they're building a launch site at the cape, it's not going to be practical to deliver boosters and Starships to Canaveral from Texas. I'm not sure how they're going to get around that.

Of course they first have to make it work, and that means getting the FAA's foot off the hose. I'm looking forward to those first flights, hopefully starting in late February or early March.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2022, 11:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/07/17
Posts: 6386
Post Likes: +5138
Company: Malco Power Design
Location: KLVJ
Aircraft: 1976 Baron 58
Username Protected wrote:
SuperHeavy landing details …
Apparently the desired launch cadence is 3x/day each, for three boosters … nine daily launches per launch site. Wow!

It will be interesting to see the flight testing phases and how they unfold. Assuming it's anything like Starship, it will be exciting either way.

With FAA's slow motion at Boca Chica, combined with their proposal only allowing something like a half dozen launches per year, I'm questioning the viability of that location as their primary construction and launch site. It is going to take a change of more than an order of magnitude to make that location work in any practical way. While they're building a launch site at the cape, it's not going to be practical to deliver boosters and Starships to Canaveral from Texas. I'm not sure how they're going to get around that.

Of course they first have to make it work, and that means getting the FAA's foot off the hose. I'm looking forward to those first flights, hopefully starting in late February or early March.


I wonder about the viability of flying the boosters and ships from Boca Chica to the Cape.

Assemble them at Boca Chica. Launch one fairly expendable cargo from there on the new booster as a test flight. Then land at the Cape.

At that point you only need enough launch permits from Boca Chica to cover the construction rate.

If this becomes a problem that threatens the viability of the Boca Chica site as an assembly facility I would expect the Texas state government to start pushing on the Feds. They want those jobs in south Texas not Florida.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2022, 11:38 
Online



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 13970
Post Likes: +12738
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
I wonder about the viability of flying the boosters and ships from Boca Chica to the Cape.

Assemble them at Boca Chica. Launch one fairly expendable cargo from there on the new booster as a test flight. Then land at the Cape.

At that point you only need enough launch permits from Boca Chica to cover the construction rate.

If this becomes a problem that threatens the viability of the Boca Chica site as an assembly facility I would expect the Texas state government to start pushing on the Feds. They want those jobs in south Texas not Florida.

I thought about that; flying them to Florida, but it's undoubtedly cheaper to send them by barge. If the issue is flight permits out of Boca Chica, then you have the same frequency problem. If you need a hundred flights per year, and you need to launch all but five of them from the cape, flying them from Boca Chica isn't going to work unless you want to take 20 years to get them all over there.

The construction rate at Starbase is impressive. If they really want to push, they'll be able to crank out ships and boosters at a pretty quick pace. Right now they've been 'distracted' by construction of the launch site. Once that's complete and functional and all energy can be directed to building rockets, those should come pretty quickly.

I agree that the state of Texas may be interested in the outcome, but the FAA is following the script, conducting their environmental impact survey, getting input from interested parties (so far seemingly 2/3 favoring SpaceX), but <- and it's a big 'but'; SpaceX's proposal itself spoke to only a few orbital launches per year. I don't know if this was part of an initial plan, later to be expanded, or another example of "just do it and let them try to stop us", but it looks like a problem from my perspective. I can't reconcile that against the magnitude and pace of construction at that site. They have a lot invested, and a lot at stake. I hope there's a better plan than what I see on the table.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2022, 14:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/17
Posts: 162
Post Likes: +173
Being a bit of an amateur sky watcher. I find it funny about all this talk of “preserving” the night sky by people who mostly live in cities where anything but the brightest planets and stars are visible. I had a clown friend going on about skylink the other night. I asked him to identify the north star to me. …crickets. There is something about successful people that bring out the jealousy of the less able. I bet the average western living person born in the last 40 years has never seen the milky way or even a naked eye nebula. The hate and complaining, it plays well to the twitterarti. We are worried about lights at -1 magnitude while standing under a dome of light. But hey we have nice parking lots.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2022, 14:50 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/13/07
Posts: 2430
Post Likes: +2214
Location: DFW, TX (KGKY)
Aircraft: B55, Stearman
A lengthy, but interesting, recent talk between Lex Fridman and Elon Musk. A tremendous amount to unpack here, but I was intrigued by the 23 second pause between the question “How long before we land a person on Mars?” and the answer from Musk. He should be required to say the word “processing” every five seconds when he does things like that.

Also, beware of the smarts here. I can’t say I understood it all, but I definitely think my IQ went up ten points just from hearing the words flow by. I was reminded of the old meme that said Dolly Parton wrote both “Jolene” and “I will Always Love You” in one afternoon and I’m still thinking about unloading my dishwasher. And implied in all this is his capacity for aggregating talent. His operation(s) are the equivalent in our time of NASA’s Apollo program in the mid-1960s. Doing interesting things now, for sure, but there will be an incredible downstream effect as all those smart people keep leveraging off this for decades. For someone dismissed as just another egotistical billionaire, he sure is focused on creating better world(s) for humanity.

http://youtu.be/DxREm3s1scA


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2022, 19:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 10415
Post Likes: +9954
Company: Midwest Chemtrails LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
Username Protected wrote:
SuperHeavy landing details …
Apparently the desired launch cadence is 3x/day each, for three boosters … nine daily launches per launch site. Wow!

Musk has also apparently mentioned that he will need 1,000 Starships. That will require a rocket manufacturing operation unlike any other to date.

Reminded me of the debriefing of Herman’s Goring … that the Reich was astounded at our ability to build, launch and crew Liberty ships so rapidly.

_________________
!neercs eht dniheb deppart ma I !PLEH


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2022, 12:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 10415
Post Likes: +9954
Company: Midwest Chemtrails LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02 ... difficult/

TL;DR:

- Stretch goal is to fly each "ship" every six to eight hours. These "ships" are the Starship launch system's upper stage, which is 50 meters tall and designed to carry payloads into orbit or be refilled there to fly to the Moon or Mars.

- The first-stage "booster" could fly even more frequently, as much as once an hour. The first stage makes a six-minute flight to space and back and is intended to be loaded with propellant on the ground in just 30 minutes.

- The original Raptor engine produced 185 tons of thrust, but Raptor 2 will have at least 230 tons. It will also cost half as much to build and should be considerably more robust. Some problems remain, however, as the engine chambers have a propensity to melt with the intense output.

_________________
!neercs eht dniheb deppart ma I !PLEH


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2022, 17:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 10415
Post Likes: +9954
Company: Midwest Chemtrails LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
SLS:Orion costs … $4.1 billion USD per launch … and this does not include amortization of the R&D. Wow.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03 ... stainable/

_________________
!neercs eht dniheb deppart ma I !PLEH


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2022, 17:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 5309
Post Likes: +8732
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
In my recent tour at Boca Chica my mind was blown. All the numbers about launch rate and numbers of ships etc seem like hype until you see what they can do up close.

They can build a Starship or a Booster faster than Textron can build a King Air. And they could build another production facility like Boca Chica in less than a year. Most of what they have at Boca Chica has been built in the last 18 months. What they are building at the Cape right now is massive.

We have all seen videos and pictures of the NASA clean rooms etc. Well the production facility at Boca Chica is reminiscent of an industrial/agricultural welding/fab shop. Wire welders, chop saws, and angle grinders, with sparks flying in all directions all the time. Incredibly sophisticated where needed, and incredibly simple wherever possible.

Our tour guide was a USAF test pilot who's working on basically doing away with the mission control aspect of spaceflight. They call the launch facility "Stage 0." It is part of the vehicle and they plan for the pilots/automation to run it during launch. Think corporate flight department, maybe airline operation with dispatch, but the pilots are really going to operate the vehicle. That's refreshing.

Hopping the boosters to Florida for launch is a very real possibilty, they seem to have real concerns about the shockwave problems with bringing a booster back to Boca Chica.

They have the courage to try and fail, learn, and repeat. That's what got NASA to the Moon in the 60's and it is refreshing to see that spirit.

_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Flight B-25 PBY 61.58,
Ground B25 GS, P-51 GS DPE renewal


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next



PWI, Inc. (Banner)

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2022

.wilco-85x100.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.forge-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Latitude.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aopa-85x200.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.komn-85x50.png.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.blr-85x200.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.nexus-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.ssv-85x50.jpg.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.jetshades-85x150.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.xnaut-85x50.jpg.
.echelon-85x50.png.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.greenwich-85x50-2020-08-10.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.