Space and Science BS Thread

It’s what we do while watching and waiting. It’s a different way of doing it akin to the difference between arthropods and vertebrates while gaining the benefits of concrete without the form work. I wonder what happens to it when exposed to the shock waves during a launch. Any inspection hatches?

 

I don't think they'll need to inspect the concrete after launches?

 

From a few years ago.
Starlink 4-35 9-24-22

 

Not as a routine measure but over an extended period to see how it’s affected by the shock waves. Wouldn’t want it to turn into gravel over time. I suppose they could torch a hole instead. The towers are also breaking new ground so it’s necessary to validate new construction methods with them as well.

 

Interesting news.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/20/g...-generation-of-giant-spacecraft/?guccounter=1

 

https://x.com/arstechnica/status/1804325470881677322?s=46

From the article:
two significant issues with the Starliner spacecraft: five separate leaks in the helium system that pressurizes Starliner's propulsion system and the failure of five of the vehicle's 28 reaction-control system thrusters as Starliner approached the station.

It’s got a 45 day limit to the time it can spend docked.

I wonder if Butch and Suni were fitted for Dragon suits before they left?

It wouldn’t surprise me if they can’t get the crew home in Starliner, this is the end of the program. Boeing has taken a bath, a decades worth of baths, and isn’t corporately structured for fixed cost contracts. If the program doesn’t get canned, can NASA even certify CFT-1 for operations?

 

My expert opinion- larger ships will be built in space for travel to Mars and beyond. Gravity is a bitch….

 

I totally agree. Also, methalox may be a good compromise for getting to orbit but then having to send an order of magnitude more ships up with fuel for interplanetary transit flips that on its head. Better to use that capability to assemble the interplanetary ships in orbit made for that environment that use more efficient propulsions better suited to the task. No need for high g burns, max Q stresses, or reentry shielding, other factors are more critical and should drive designs. It won’t start out that way but it should move in that direction.

 

Wow. I wanted it to work...I really did.

 

Just noticed this is up! A Spacex factory tour!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFqjoCbZ4ik

 

https://x.com/scienceworld224/status/1804846876576854236?s=46

 

Thanks for the link. I heard Zack mention it and you’ve saved me some search time.

 

https://x.com/spacex/status/1804927092175630746?s=46

What’d they say a few years ago, a pair of fairing cost $6,000,000 new?

 

Just finished watching it, and there was SOOO much information.

Also, I think you guys are wrong a out the massive ships being built in space for interplanetary travel. Everyone likes to knock the idea of sending up refueling tankers, but that it literally the way every piece of transportation we use works. For example, the Tacoma can carry enough fuel to drive from San Diego to New York without needing a fueling stop. (yes it would be a bit over rating for highway safety standard, but it could do it). Besides the reduced mpg you'd get from carrying around a literal ton of fuel, you'd also get significantly less cargo to NY. So lets compare Starship to Apollo. Apollo landed 10,000 lbs on the lunar surface. About 2 Tacomas. Starship is aiming for 1-200 tons to the lunar surface. 20-40 Tacos. This means they need to keep it under 10-20 refueling launches to beat Apollo's efficiency. And that's actually a very skewed number because Apollo would have a lot of waste. The 10k was not all cargo. There would be a LOT of things that would be useless, like most of the descent stage, and that equates to 30-50% of the landed mass, meaning a single Starship is closer to 20-40 Apollo missions.

As for efficiencies for interplanetary such as Mars. There aren't many more options that would be more efficient. Solar sails would have to be massive, are extremely slow to deploy, and have a ton of potential for failure. Too unreliable. Nuclear is an option, but the question becomes if it's good enough for a ship being built in space, why not just put it on the ship going to space. Elon has even hinted at that in the past. Other than that, as far as I'm aware there are not other more efficient options that aren't purely theoretical. That means the only real benefit would be for things like artificial gravity rings. And considering their intention is to eventually send 1,000+ ships every 2 years, I just don't see them building hundreds of these for the ships to dock to, transfer cargo and fuel to and from, etc. I just don't see it happening in the next 20-50 years. The benefits just can't justify the cost.

 

If it's good enough fora ship being built in space, why not just put it on the ship going to space? This is the whole point why Starship is not best suited for interplanetary travel. It’s built to get payloads through the atmosphere and up a gravity well. Neither high thrust nor plasma shielding are needed for the transit. A fuel that takes less space, doesn’t boil off, and can sustain low thrust for months instead of minutes is.

 

Better to cancel than have your helmet fill with water…
https://x.com/space_station/status/1805235143235568073?s=46

 

But then when you get to Mars you need that high thrust and shielding again in order to land. They chose these fuels because they can be manufactured on Mars, and I'm sure they have some idea of a solution to keep enough fuel in the tanks during the voyage for that landing. And if they need a low thrust solution, there is room for a couple mini raptors under Starship.

 

Watching this Starliner thing with a lot of interest. If it's unable to return, what happens to the ship? Does it become part of the space station or does it get scuttled?

 

I assume they’d pack it with trash and try re-entry, if just for the data point.

 

If Boeing can't come up with a fix they can do in space they'll likely send a dragon to rescue the astronauts and dump the Starliner on its originally planned path and see what happens. Hopefully they bill Boeing for the SpaceX rescue. And then Boeing will have to jump through a ton of hoops if they want to stay in the program for another attempt.