Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re-using rockets isn't revolutionary?
I think it might have been back when the shuttle did it in 1981.
The shuttle that cost 450 million per launch? (And disposable boosters)
Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
361–370 of 413 posts
Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do. SLS, Vulcan, and most other rockets from reputable space companies have worked first time.
Those are also: - More expensive than Starship, or - Took longer to develop than Starship, or - Are significantly less ambitious than Starship (and those are definitely not exclusive ORs)
Going by total program cost, both of those are cheaper than Starship. SpaceX does this sleight of hand where they don't count their R&D cost in their calculations, but they do count it in other peoples' programs when comparing. SLS so far is about $2 billion in, and Starship seems to be at $2-3 billion. Vulcan is way cheaper than both.
Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it might have been back when the shuttle did it in 1981.
The shuttle that cost 450 million per launch? (And disposable boosters)
The boosters parachuted to the ocean and were reused. Only the external fuel tank was not reusable. However, you're correct that the Shuttle failed utterly to realize the point of reusability, that being low cost and quick turnaround.
Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
#364It's in orbit! ( "...and we have a callout for nominal orbit insertion..." ) edit: Not actually in orbit! This is a suborbital flight. Mea culpa
Close enough. If the ship had to ignore the flight plan and press to orbit, there's no doubt that it would've succeeded.
Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
#365The test is essentially a success at this point. Starship can take payload to orbit and open/close the payload doors. The remaining things are icing on the cake. They can refine re-usability while flying payloads.
the open and close of the payload doors was a failure.
Not that i think its a big deal... but its important to acknowledge failures so we can learn from them.
Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparable to Falcon 9? Unlikely - they've got three dozen Raptor engines on that thing, which alone account for the entire cost (not price) of a Falcon 9 flight. Maybe it is comparable to legacy launch providers, such as the Deltas and Atlases. But unlikely comparable to a Falcon 9 launch, even considering the larger payload.
You are launching 8x more payload vs ~15 reuses of Falcon9
the weights isn't the only upgrade, the SIZE is another very important metric....
They'll be able to get much larger objects up there without having to piece them together up there. Especially important for habitable objects and factory objects.
Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, breaking up in-air during re-entry (at 65 km going by last telemetry) seems like a potential big issue to fix.
bright side: booster made it all the way to splashdown
haha, it was travelling at 1100 km/h...
Not so much a splashdown but a smashdown :-D
Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but HLS is just one example. In, say, ten years it may look very possible that Starships with people will fly on LEO. Is it beyond foreseeable future?.. I just don't understand why such a pessimistic estimate.
In my view, since I was the one that said it, anything more than 5 years away is perpetually 5 years away until it's been proven. Yes, eventually when Starship has enough launches and a track record it will get human rated by NASA to carry astronauts. This is the only actual certification for human space flight worth paying attention to right now. It's possible to get on a rocket otherwise, but the US government isn'…
I just looked it up.
The first Falcon 9 flight was June 2010.
The first Falcon 9 with astronauts was May 2020.
10 years to get human certified.
Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are also: - More expensive than Starship, or - Took longer to develop than Starship, or - Are significantly less ambitious than Starship (and those are definitely not exclusive ORs)
Going by total program cost, both of those are cheaper than Starship. SpaceX does this sleight of hand where they don't count their R&D cost in their calculations, but they do count it in other peoples' programs when comparing. SLS so far is about $2 billion in, and Starship seems to be at $2-3 billion. Vulcan is way cheaper than both.
- Source for Vulcan total program cost? All I can find is their per-launch pricing. Tory Bruno himself apparently said that "new rockets typically cost US$2 billion, including US$1 billion for the main engine."
- Not sure where you're getting the SLS number, the GAO report at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105609.pdf claims, "Since 2011, NASA has spent $11.8 billion to develop the initial SLS capability."
- I think the marginal cost is a fair question. The whole party line out of NASA was that this time Moon exploration would be sustainable. If each trip costs > $1B before you even put a payload on the rocket that's a big problem.
Re: Starship's Third Flight Test [video]
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. Yes, I figured that real life engines could not throttle enough for the maneuver as stated. I am familiar with the gravity turn, but I just don't see how energy can be added continuously, uniformly right up to a circular orbit. But I've not really put much effort into trying to understand that, I'll start looking more at real life pitch angles at various altitudes. Maybe I just need to start that gravity t…
In vanilla KSP1 with a reasonable orbital launcher, fly up to 1000m altitude and tap D on your keyboard 1 to 10 times. Then hands off until 2nd stage and then throttle down to avoid overshooting the apoapsis. Finding the correct number of key taps to get the right pitch angle is the key. The throttle can only help so much.
Will do, thanks. 1000 m is in fact much lower than I usually pitch. Off the pad I've been giving just a touch of pitch to ensure that the rocket is on the right trajectory, but didn't start the gravity turn until maybe 5000 m or so to get out of the thick atmosphere sooner. Yes, I would have quite the AoA for a little while.
Thank you. Though I don't expect to open KSP any time in the near future, I love to know how the real rockets do it.