Space and Science BS Thread

https://x.com/airandspace/status/1816638336821313981?s=46

The pic is spectacular, but what really strikes me is the tiny command capsule, the only module to return home. Juxtaposing that with Starship is mind blowing…
And the intended reuse of the whole Starship stack, doubly mind blowing.

 

The price is fuel, a lot of fuel. You have to compare the Apollo stack to however many Starship stacks it ends up taking to get the one with the HLS on it there and back. Still mind blowing but it kinda runs both ways.

 

Fuel is the cheapest component, though.

 

F9 RTF
https://x.com/launchphoto/status/1817096431330587090?s=46

Polaris Dawn’s got to be getting close!

 

Still no Starliner return date.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/boeing-crew-flight-test/.

I read, then lost a tweet, reporting credible sources in NASA saying consideration is being given to sending Crew-9 with two astronauts. It also said Butch and Suni have been fitted to SpaceX suits..

Edit:
A deep dive into the thrusters and contingency plan here- https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/...o-with-boeings-troubled-starliner-spacecraft/

 

It’s the service module…Crewed splashdowns heading to the west coast.
https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-9-iss-astronaut-space-junk-dragon

 

And time the most expensive yet they managed to do it more than 50 years ago.
In addition we are painfully learning that up front cost is not the only “cost” we pay for using “the cheapest” of anything.

 

I'm not sure I follow. A dozen fueling launches is cheap if they're fully reusable. Or if the rockets are assembly line mfg'd vs bespoke one of a kind things.

 

Didn't someone say "the best part is no part"

 

'changes are expensive and need recertification' ... but yes.

 

Zactly!!

 

https://x.com/spacex/status/1817312715758862485?s=46

 

Methane is cleaner than kerosene but it’s still a fossil fuel unlike hydrogen and every ship that actually leaves orbit will require the burning of a stupendous quantity of it. The consequences of that go far beyond the simple price paid to fuel them. We do many things with little thought of the consequences and call ourselves “masters” of the planet. To me mastery means you have the ability to fix things not just break them. I support the endeavor but not trashing this planet in the name of calling ourselves a multi planet species. This is part of why I don’t think that in the long term Starship is the right choice for making ten thousand launches to get a thousand payloads there. If we can improve our ability to master the use of hydrogen and transition raptors to its use that would improve things but I remain stubborn in my belief that Starship’s best use is as a heavy lift/reentry vehicle rather than an interplanetary one. The design and engineering requirements are completely different.

 

It /can/ be a fossil fuel, but given electricity and water and CO2, it can be formed ISRU'd. Ex: https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/making-methane-co2-carbon-capture-grows-more-affordable

As for 'a stupendous quantity', SH has 3400T of prop, Ship has 1200T of prop, for a total of 4600T. The stochiometry is CH4 (mass 16) + 2O2 (mass 32) = CO2 + 2H2O, so the fuel/oxidizer ratio is 16:64 by mass, or 16/80th of the 4600T, or 920T of CH4 being used. You can also calculate that into CO2 values, so a launch generates 2500T of CO2. That sounds like a lot, except for comparison, a transatlantic flight makes about 300T of CO2. So, roughly ten planes worth per launch. Or, a 20MPG tacoma driving the average 15k miles per year emits about 7T of CO2, so 360 tacomas worth.

Seeing that going from Earth to Mars, requires a reentry at both ends...

Is it the best architecture for lunar exploration? Likely not, but HLS is a stripped down starship without needing the entry requirements. Plus, being able to fuel FROM starships will be a huge advantage for any architecture.

 

Now multiply by 10 per flight then again by ten thousand to get the job done. Numbers add up. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and we are finding water/ice just about everywhere which means both fuel and oxidizer. Yes, we’ll need reentry on Mars but we’ve gone over this before, we don’t need ten thousand reentry vehicles if they are supposedly reusable so we don’t need ten thousand of them to make the voyage and won’t need the hundred thousand launches those would need for supply. Use most of those launches instead to build permanent infrastructure which stays in space and is designed for space/transits/orbit.

 

Hydrogen's big issue is that it's just not very dense, losing lots of efficiency in tankage mass. H2 isn't a great fuel at this point, except in some specialized applications where you need to use combustion (instead of electric) and still be relatively efficient. Plus, even if you can source water ice from say, the moon, getting back to LEO is gonna use up a lot of that fuel.

ISRU methane works for the Mars use case. Heck, you can even ISRU the earth parts. Literally carbon negative in that case (a good fraction of the carbon gets sent out to space, out of the ecosystem).

Also, re: Mars - entry is also free braking, otherwise you'll need to use thrust to do the job.

 

Til they spot this

 

Just got this email:

Dear Interested Party:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is announcing the availability of the Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) concerning SpaceX’s proposal to increase the number of launches and landings of its Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle at the Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas. The FAA is holding public meetings and seeking public comments in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code § 4321 et seq.). An electronic version of the Draft EA is available on the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation website: https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship.


The Draft EA will analyze SpaceX’s proposal to increase its launch and landing cadence as follows:

• Up to 25 annual Starship/Super Heavy orbital launches,
• Up to 25 annual landings of Starship,
• Up to 25 annual landings of Super Heavy.

The Draft EA will also address vehicle upgrades.


The FAA invites interested parties to submit comments on the Draft EA. Public comments can be submitted electronically to www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2006 by postal mail to Ms. Amy Hanson, SpaceX EA, c/o ICF 1902 RestonMetro Plaza Reston, VA 20190, or delivered in written or verbal form during a public meeting. The public comment period for the Draft EA will close on August 29, 2024.


Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the FAA in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, the FAA cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so. All comments received during the comment period will be given equal weight and be taken into consideration in the preparation of the Final EA.


The FAA will hold public meetings on the Draft EA on:

• Tuesday, August 13, 2024; 1:00 PM–3:00 PM & 5:30 PM–7:30 PM CDT at the City of South Padre Island Convention Center, 7355 Padre Blvd, South Padre Island, TX 78597.
• Thursday, August 15, 2024; 1:00 PM–3:00 PM & 5:30 PM–7:30 PM CDT at the Port Isabel Event & Cultural Center, 309 E Railroad Ave, Port Isabel, TX 78578.
• Virtually on Tuesday, August 20, 2024; 5:30 PM–7:30 PM CDT. Registration Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_XiuGxJWtTkK3a84d8yFhVw. Dial-in phone number: 888-788-0099 (Toll Free), Webinar ID: 857 9139 8585, Passcode: 864394. Registration is only required for the virtual public meeting.

During the in-person meetings, the FAA will provide a pre-recorded presentation during the first half hour of the in-person public meetings. The meetings will then transition to an open house information-station format where the FAA will provide information describing the project. At any time during the open house portion of the meeting, the public will have the opportunity to provide verbal comments to a court reporter or written comments via a written comment form at one of several commenting stations. English-Spanish translation services will be provided at the in-person meetings.


During the virtual meeting, the FAA will provide a pre-recorded presentation during the first half hour of the public meetings. The public can provide oral comments for up to three minutes during the virtual meeting. A moderator will facilitate verbal comments. English-Spanish translation services will be provided.


Both English and Spanish versions of the presentation will be made available to the public on August 13, 2024, on the website listed above.


If any accommodation for the public meetings is needed (such as additional translation services), please submit a request by August 2, 2024, to the project email address: SpaceXBocaChica@icf.com.


For any media inquiries, please contact the FAA Press Office at pressoffice@faa.gov.


Thank you,

The FAA SpaceX Boca Chica Project Team


Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Commercial Space Transportation | SpaceX Boca Chica c/o ICF, 1902 Reston Metro Plaza | Reston, VA 20190 US

Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice

 

It’s not sequestered carbon that’s the problem (aka methane) it’s the converted form of CO2. And the braking on Mars isn’t free, it requires an even longer period of heating (atmosphere is thinner but extends much higher) and more thrust to actually land since terminal velocity is also MUCH higher so landing will require more fuel there than here.

 

https://www.reuters.com/technology/...rship-rocket-off-australias-coast-2024-07-29/