SpaceX Tuesday...

[HughG]

thanks

[Beati Dogu]

Coming up on Wednesday - Starlink-28 Falcon 9

60 more "Space Roaches" as someone recently called them.

Launch time: 7.59 pm UK time (2.59 p.m. local - EDT)
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida



Looks like the Falcon Heavy that was due to launch in July has been put back to October now. This will see dual ship landings for the boosters and an deliberately expendable center stage for the first time.

This is not down to SpaceX, but because the military satellite has been delayed. So they're moving both this USSF-44 mission and the following one that was due later this year (USSF-52) into 2022 as a result.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/05/23/falcon-heavy...

[Dog Star]

Regarding Starlink - how on earth are any of these other companies like Oneweb or even Bezos meant to even get within a million miles of competing with this? It’s nuts. There’s no way they are going to get within an order of magnitude of the launch cost (at least until New Glenn works - how long before that is reliably chucking up dozens of satellites at a go reliably? Years? Ever?).

It just looks like someone in a Fiat Panda having a pop at a Porsche to me.

[FurtiveFreddy]

More ground stations added recently

[Beati Dogu]

Oooh, some in the UK & Germany now too.

Goonhilly being one of them doesn't surprise me. It has been a main comms center for a long time.

You hear them getting a call out in SpaceX Dragon tracking sometimes too.

[MartG]

100th successful Falcon 9 flight, and 89th booster recovery

[Beati Dogu]

It’s actually better than that: 100th consecutive successful F9 launch. 119th overall

I had to look it up and they haven’t had a launch failure since CRS-7 back in June 2015. (The Amos-6 Falcon 9 rocket blew up on the pad back in Sept 2016).

After this last launch, that’ll be the first Starlink shell complete once these satellites get into operational orbit in a few months.

Edited by Beati Dogu on Wednesday 26th May 22:51

[Beati Dogu]

Starship SN15 has been wheeled back to the build site now. Future uncertain but certainly slight.

[Dog Star]

Beati Dogu said:

Starship SN15 has been wheeled back to the build site now. Future uncertain but certainly slight.

Obviously they're blocking up the launch site building the tower and humungous cranes, but there now seems to be - to me - that they have amassed such a lot of data that they're not too fussed about 16 and 17 now; will they even launch them, or go straight to the biggie: SN20.

I also noted that ViaSat are wailing and trying to get Starlink stopped from launching more sats on some ridiculous environmental grounds, really a thinly veiled excuse for the fact that they're going to go bust because who would choose them over Starlink.

Musk is surely shaking up a few market sectors; astonishing to watch.

[GTO-3R]

Dog Star said:

Obviously they're blocking up the launch site building the tower and humungous cranes, but there now seems to be - to me - that they have amassed such a lot of data that they're not too fussed about 16 and 17 now; will they even launch them, or go straight to the biggie: SN20.

I also noted that ViaSat are wailing and trying to get Starlink stopped from launching more sats on some ridiculous environmental grounds, really a thinly veiled excuse for the fact that they're going to go bust because who would choose them over Starlink.

Musk is surely shaking up a few market sectors; astonishing to watch.

Yep, he's doing it better and cheaper and the current guard don't like it.

[RizzoTheRat]

I do kind of have some sympathy with the argument for keeping other players in the game. If SpaceX put all the other companies out of business and have a monopoly they'll be able to charge what they want. On the other hand that's the American Dream so a bit amusing when other huge US companies are crying foul.


16 launches this year, an average of one every 9 days, and about a third of all launches globally

[anonymous-user]

Dog Star said:

Obviously they're blocking up the launch site building the tower and humungous cranes, but there now seems to be - to me - that they have amassed such a lot of data that they're not too fussed about 16 and 17 now; will they even launch them, or go straight to the biggie: SN20.

I realise it is impossible to keep up with everything going on, so don’t take this as a correction SN17 has already been cancelled according to NSF.

NSF also said they strongly believe that SN16 will not be launched either as it’s nearly identical to 15.

[Dog Star]

Aaaaaand another thing: in this day and age shouldn’t the likes of NASA and others that put out bids for space launches actually be specifying that x% of the hardware be reusable? It’d spur the old guard on to get some development done, ultimately reduce costs (as SpaceX are amply demonstrating) and stop the waste. I’ve always been aghast at the expensive and beautifully crafted machinery often made of exotic materials that has been dropped into the ocean or left to burn up. It’s not like the stuff can even be salvaged in any useable form. What a waste!

The likes of NASA need to be putting it out there that they won’t be accepting bids using expendable hardware after, for example, 2026 (unless unavoidable). That gives providers a cushion, and also a kick up the arse - no more drawing jobs out for decades, delivering what is by then overpriced, obsolete tech.

[CraigyMc]

Dog Star said:

Aaaaaand another thing: in this day and age shouldn’t the likes of NASA and others that put out bids for space launches actually be specifying that x% of the hardware be reusable? It’d spur the old guard on to get some development done, ultimately reduce costs (as SpaceX are amply demonstrating) and stop the waste. I’ve always been aghast at the expensive and beautifully crafted machinery often made of exotic materials that has been dropped into the ocean or left to burn up. It’s not like the stuff can even be salvaged in any useable form. What a waste!

The likes of NASA need to be putting it out there that they won’t be accepting bids using expendable hardware after, for example, 2026 (unless unavoidable). That gives providers a cushion, and also a kick up the arse - no more drawing jobs out for decades, delivering what is by then overpriced, obsolete tech.

Boeing/Northrop/ULA/oldguard don't want a kick up the arse. They want to continue to charge a lot and have to rebuild every time. They've evolved to be leeches on contracts.
Compare with the new wave guys.

[MiniMan64]

CraigyMc said:

Dog Star said:

Aaaaaand another thing: in this day and age shouldn’t the likes of NASA and others that put out bids for space launches actually be specifying that x% of the hardware be reusable? It’d spur the old guard on to get some development done, ultimately reduce costs (as SpaceX are amply demonstrating) and stop the waste. I’ve always been aghast at the expensive and beautifully crafted machinery often made of exotic materials that has been dropped into the ocean or left to burn up. It’s not like the stuff can even be salvaged in any useable form. What a waste!

The likes of NASA need to be putting it out there that they won’t be accepting bids using expendable hardware after, for example, 2026 (unless unavoidable). That gives providers a cushion, and also a kick up the arse - no more drawing jobs out for decades, delivering what is by then overpriced, obsolete tech.

Boeing/Northrop/ULA/oldguard don't want a kick up the arse. They want to continue to charge a lot and have to rebuild every time. They've evolved to be leeches on contracts.
Compare with the new wave guys.

Evolve or die

[Ash_]

MiniMan64 said:

CraigyMc said:

Dog Star said:

Aaaaaand another thing: in this day and age shouldn’t the likes of NASA and others that put out bids for space launches actually be specifying that x% of the hardware be reusable? It’d spur the old guard on to get some development done, ultimately reduce costs (as SpaceX are amply demonstrating) and stop the waste. I’ve always been aghast at the expensive and beautifully crafted machinery often made of exotic materials that has been dropped into the ocean or left to burn up. It’s not like the stuff can even be salvaged in any useable form. What a waste!

The likes of NASA need to be putting it out there that they won’t be accepting bids using expendable hardware after, for example, 2026 (unless unavoidable). That gives providers a cushion, and also a kick up the arse - no more drawing jobs out for decades, delivering what is by then overpriced, obsolete tech.

Boeing/Northrop/ULA/oldguard don't want a kick up the arse. They want to continue to charge a lot and have to rebuild every time. They've evolved to be leeches on contracts.
Compare with the new wave guys.

Evolve or die

Indeed, they will just remain far too expensive and lose more and more contracts because of it, they have no choice but to try and catch up with the likes of SpaceX now.

[Dog Star]

Ash_ said:

Indeed, they will just remain far too expensive and lose more and more contracts because of it, they have no choice but to try and catch up with the likes of SpaceX now.

This is a bit off-topic, but related as it involves the same pork-barrel, military-industrial complex: I wonder what would happen if a private company started building gigantic aircraft carriers: I wonder how long it would take and how much they'd cost. I suspect there is the same sort of mindset involved.

[hidetheelephants]

Dog Star said:

Ash_ said:

Indeed, they will just remain far too expensive and lose more and more contracts because of it, they have no choice but to try and catch up with the likes of SpaceX now.

This is a bit off-topic, but related as it involves the same pork-barrel, military-industrial complex: I wonder what would happen if a private company started building gigantic aircraft carriers: I wonder how long it would take and how much they'd cost. I suspect there is the same sort of mindset involved.

Shipbuilding is a mature industry; the last big leap forward was modular construction as perfected by Kaiser for building Liberty ships 80 years ago, there aren't any obvious low-hanging fruit to be picked.

[CraigyMc]

hidetheelephants said:

Dog Star said:

Ash_ said:

Indeed, they will just remain far too expensive and lose more and more contracts because of it, they have no choice but to try and catch up with the likes of SpaceX now.

This is a bit off-topic, but related as it involves the same pork-barrel, military-industrial complex: I wonder what would happen if a private company started building gigantic aircraft carriers: I wonder how long it would take and how much they'd cost. I suspect there is the same sort of mindset involved.

Shipbuilding is a mature industry; the last big leap forward was modular construction as perfected by Kaiser for building Liberty ships 80 years ago, there aren't any obvious low-hanging fruit to be picked.

I'd agree with this, but imagine what an iterated design process of fighter jet would be like (in fact, it'd be a drone, but you know what I mean).

[RizzoTheRat]

The USAF claim to have designed, built and tested NGAD, the F22's replacement, in under a year so maybe it's already happening.