[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Earth-Sun L4 and L5 Lagrange points

I understand these are at 60 degrees ahead of, and behind, Earth (respectively). Does anyone know how much harder it is to keep satellites at other 'offsets' from Earth? Could we realistically also have one at 30 degrees, one at 90 degrees, one at 120 degrees, and one at 150 degrees?

And could it be beneficial to send data via that route? Could they play a role analogous to something like this?:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_communications_repeater
Or would it just be a pointless increase in latency for no benefit?

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

My uneducated guesses:

  1. Starlink's existing provision for Earth could be achieved for Mars too, using a very similar system
  2. In some ways, Mars will be easier.
    1. Much thinner atmosphere
    2. Far fewer of the constraints needed to 'play nice' with an existing high-tech civilization, like minimizing reflections of sunlight to the ground, or avoiding radio interference.
  3. But the first generation system for Mars will be different in an important way: significantly higher altitude
    1. Thus higher ping times
    2. And fewer satellites than would otherwise be needed for continuous coverage, which in turn means lower total bandwidth capability, and less redundancy, but much cheaper & quicker to set up and maintain.
  4. None of the above covers the actual NASA requirement/aspiration for new interplanetary comms (which seems to be referred to as "DRM 4").
    1. For one thing, an in-space laser link that can cover 100s of miles efficiently, is qualitatively different from one that can cover 100s of millions of miles.
    2. But as NASA has already achieved over 6 Mbps across 240 million miles, SpaceX will also be able to create a usable interplanetary link
  5. SpaceX will equip some of their Earth-orbiting Starlink satellites, and all of their Marslink satellites, with this qualitatively different, and outward-facing, laser comms tech.
    1. Having, as your endpoints, devices that are orbiting around planets, is disadvantageous in some ways, such as the fact they spend about half the time on the wrong side.
    2. But SpaceX will find a way to make it into an advantage. (Multiple simultaneous connections?)

Any thoughts?

Also, you need a relay capability when the sun is in the way. But are such relays expected to be beneficial even at other times? Will SpaceX find a way to make them beneficial?

P.S. It's interesting that Spaceflight Now did a tweet thread on this NASA presentation, but didn't consider it worth an article. Yet PC Mag made a whole article primarily out of 1/3 of a slide from one of those tweets by Spaceflight Now! (And I'm glad they did!)

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Interesting! They're talking about unnecessary aborts, and how they want to do as much analysis as possible of the abort criteria, to prevent them.

This will remain an issue for Flight 6 which, it seems, will happen the moment SpaceX decides it's sufficiently ready. Unlike previous flights ...

"Given this is the first launch in a long time ... well really ever ... that we've not been FAA driven ..."

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This would be a nuclear option and, in reality, probably would do more harm than good to SpaceX,

It would probably set back their more ambitious targets by decades. But even Starship is now far enough along to no longer really need Musk's stewardship, and the US government would be happy enough just with control of the Falcon programme. They don't care much / at all about Making Life Multi-Planetary.

So I consider a move like this pretty plausible.

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

Not really. There's a hover test vid uploaded in 2016 but they cheated. (It's held up by a rope!)

Or you could play the first 17 seconds of the pad abort test in reverse ...

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

At 52:05, Stephen Clark asked about this. The start of Gerst's answer is:

We've actually flown it on several other dragon flights before this. This is the first time it flies on a NASA mission.

So, perhaps Inspiration 4? Presumably Polaris Dawn? And I guess the Axiom missions are being counted as non-NASA in this context, so some of those?

Before doing something like this I think you should ensure that it reduces the overall risk to the crew. So you'd need to have an estimate of how likely it is that all the parachutes fail, and how likely it is that the SuperDracos could save lives in that situation, but also an estimate of how likely this capability is to go wrong. For example, could there be a bug in the software or in some sensor(s), that causes the SuperDracos to fire when they weren't needed? Would the SuperDracos otherwise be in an inactive state during re-entry, and if so, what are the risks of having them active? Etc..

Those 2 sentences from Gerstenmaier suggest to me that SpaceX had already decided that, on balance, this capability should be enabled. Whereas NASA have only just reached that conclusion.

27

Steve Stich states at today's Crew-9 news conference that Dragon has a new contingency capability if all 4 parachutes fail; the SuperDracos will ignite prior to splashdown.

The Crew-8 return to Earth will also have this capability.

(He said this about 20 minutes after the start of the stream.)

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago

Departure will be televised.

(I looked it up because I was vaguely wondering whether broadcasting this would be too embarrassing!)

9

A Youtuber called Ellie in Space claims that a NASA source sent her the following message. It was in response to a question about when NASA knew that the Boe-CFT mission's Starliner vehicle would not be able to undock and return to Earth autonomously without being reconfigured.

So if you want to know when??? Well always, but it wasn't a reasonable consideration to retain the unmanned Starliner capsule software to work in the manned version of the capsule as a contingency. Would you call that a mistake?? Maybe, but let's think about the need to really ever plan to send folks up to space and leave them there with no way to fly home... they would always chose to risk the ride vs having no way home.

No one really considered this very unique and dynamic situation would happen.

Background

I believe this issue was first brought to light by Eric Berger.

Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.

A couple of days later, NASA held a press teleconference in which they emphasized that what was needed was merely a "data load", not a software change. But they indicated timelines that do seem consistent with the "up to four weeks" claim by Berger's source.

My questions

Aren't there several realistic scenarios where you'd want to undock a crew vehicle, without its crew (or at least without them being in a fit state to operate the vehicle), in less than 4 weeeks?

Can Crew Dragon do it? Soyuz?

19
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by ptfrd@sh.itjust.works to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

Relevant portion of the video is 18:06 - 22:22.

Key quote: "We'll move a Dragon recovery vessel to the Pacific some time next year, and we'll use SpaceX facilities in the Port of Long Beach for initial post-flight processing".

Although this was revealed in a Crew-9 briefing, it doesn't actually apply to Crew-9.

The announcement has just now been posted to the SpaceX website.

Key excerpts:

During Dragon’s first 21 missions, the trunk remained attached to the vehicle’s pressurized section until after the deorbit burn was completed. Shortly before the spacecraft began reentering the atmosphere, the trunk was jettisoned to ensure it safely splashed down in unpopulated areas in the Pacific Ocean.

After seven years of successful recovery operations on the U.S. West Coast, Dragon recovery operations moved to the East Coast in 2019, enabling teams to unpack and deliver critical cargo to NASA teams in Florida more efficiently and transport crews more quickly to Kennedy Space Center. Additionally, the proximity of the new splashdown locations to SpaceX’s Dragon processing facility at Cape Canaveral Space Force Base in Florida allowed SpaceX teams to recover and refurbish Dragon spacecraft at a faster rate [...]

This shift required SpaceX to develop what has become our current Dragon recovery operations, first implemented during the Demo-1 and CRS-21 missions. Today, Dragon’s trunk is jettisoned prior to the vehicle’s deorbit burn while still in orbit, passively reentering and breaking up in the Earth’s atmosphere in the days to months that follow. [...]

When developing Dragon’s current reentry operations, SpaceX and NASA engineering teams used industry-standard models to understand the trunk’s breakup characteristics. These models predicted that the trunk would fully burn up due to the high temperatures created by air resistance during high-speed reentries into Earth’s atmosphere, leaving no debris. The results of these models was a determining factor in our decision to passively deorbit the trunk and enable Dragon splashdowns off the coast of Florida.

In 2022, however, trunk debris from NASA’s Crew-1 mission to the International Space Station was discovered in Australia, indicating the industry models were not fully accurate with regards to large, composite structures such as Dragon’s trunk. [...]

After careful review and consideration of all potential solutions – coupled with the new knowledge about the standard industry models and that Dragon trunks do not fully burn-up during reentry – SpaceX teams concluded the most effective path forward is to return to West Coast recovery operations.

To accomplish this, SpaceX will implement a software change that will have Dragon execute its deorbit burn before jettisoning the trunk, similar to our first 21 Dragon recoveries. Moving trunk separation after the deorbit burn places the trunk on a known reentry trajectory, with the trunk safely splashing down uprange of the Dragon spacecraft off the coast of California.

27
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by ptfrd@sh.itjust.works to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

That's 27 hours from now.

SpaceX is targeting Saturday, July 27 for a Falcon 9 launch of 23 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Liftoff is targeted for 12:21 a.m. ET, with backup opportunities available until 4:21 a.m. ET.

And here is their blogpost, dated 2024-07-25, announcing that the mishap report has been submitted to the FAA, and discussing some of the details.

During the first burn of Falcon 9’s second stage engine, a liquid oxygen leak developed within the insulation around the upper stage engine. The cause of the leak was identified as a crack in a sense line for a pressure sensor attached to the vehicle’s oxygen system. This line cracked due to fatigue caused by high loading from engine vibration and looseness in the clamp that normally constrains the line.

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

Cost Plus contracting (including hybrids thereof) should probably be banned (in anything other than a war economy).

If companies can't compete and that's undesirable, subsidize them - but be up front about it.

One option would be to have them bid as normal, but then have central government pay X% of the money so that it doesn't come out of the budget of the specific department (e.g. NASA), if the struggling company wins the contract. And so the department would be incentivized (and required) to treat the struggling company's bid as if it was actually X% lower.

Keep increasing X until you're satisfied with the level of dissimilar redundancy.

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

A tweet from Musk

Upper stage restart to raise perigee resulted in an engine RUD for reasons currently unknown. Team is reviewing data tonight to understand root cause.

Starlink satellites were deployed, but the perigee may be too low for them to raise orbit. Will know more in a few hours.

38
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by ptfrd@sh.itjust.works to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

During tonight’s Falcon 9 launch of Starlink from Space Launch Complex 4 East at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, the second stage engine did not complete its second burn. As a result, the Starlink satellites were deployed into a lower than intended orbit. SpaceX has made contact with five of the satellites so far and is attempting to have them raise orbit using their ion thrusters.

There's also a tweet saying the same thing in fewer words.

This is the affected mission: Starlink 9-3 launch bulletin

Let's hope it was due to SpaceX pushing the envelope on their in-house Starlink missions in some way, though I have no specific guesses along those lines. Perhaps a manufacturing defect or an operational mistake are more likely to be the leading candidates for the cause.

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 months ago

In recent months it became clear that if Maezawa's mission happened, it would not occur until at least the early 2030s—at least a decade after the original plan.

The original target was 2023, so is Berger saying he already had inside information that it wouldn't fly before 2033?

If, yesterday, you'd told me 2027, I'd have believed you!

We might actually find out, because there was a 2nd circumlunar tourist trip planned. If that's still going ahead, maybe it'll just be promoted to the 'slot' that was previously allocated to Dear Moon?

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago

I don’t mean SpaceX, I mean Elon Musk

Neither your comment, nor the article you are commenting about, mentions Elon Musk once! What am I supposed to think?

And if it's him you're talking about, then what does your term "disgusting extravagance" apply to? All those super yachts and private islands he owns and spends so much time on? /s

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago

Are all rocket missions a "disgusting extravagance" or just the SpaceX ones?

The dozens of launches to the ISS? The Intuitive Machines moon lander from couple of months ago? All those TV satellites servicing various parts of the world? The hundreds of communications satellites?

13
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by ptfrd@sh.itjust.works to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

Quote from Bill Nelson:

... SpaceX, by having the return of the first stage, has brought the cost down significantly. That has affected the entire launch industry. We'll be seeing attempts at bringing the second stage down on some missions.

The key sentence is (currently) 52 minutes and 48 seconds into the video. Approximately 49 minutes after the event started.

No other mention is made of this. Should we assume he's specifically referring to the 2nd Stage of the Falcon 9? What is the likelihood that he is mistaken? Could he just be thinking of the existing deorbit procedure? Or could SpaceX be putting parachutes on some of their 2nd Stages in the near future?

view more: next ›

ptfrd

joined 8 months ago