Remove ads

Space, Rockets, Satellites, oh my!

I don't know why anybody puts any worth in projected goals. Aerospace projects are notorious for being delayed.

And it seems 10ish years for a development regardless of projections sound about right for a full heavy lift rocket stack seems to be about par. Falcon 9 did initially launch only have 5 years of development, but did take another 5ish to finalize in its current form

Blue Origin: started 2013, about to launch 2024, approximately 11 years.

SLS: started 2011, launched 2022, approximately 11 years.

Starship: started 2016, current year is 2024, ongoing at 8 years. But has done 4 launch tests.

(Sort of cheating with SLS since it really had a bunch of development inherited from Constellation.)

Compared to the competition, Starship is about average.
 
Delirium said:
I think there's a strong argument that Starship is off-track at this point. We're more than five years on from Starhopper in 2019, and eight years on from the first prototype for BFR in 2016. In that time the profile of Starship has also changed considerably from 300t to LEO to 100-150t to LEO. This is a rocket that was originally 'projected' by Musk to launch a fleet of ships to mars in 2022 -- now two years ago. If you're only comparing it to chronically slow NASA projects like SLS then maybe this looks fine, but I do think it's worth pointing out when SpaceX is not hitting their own milestones.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The original BFR was more like a proposal in hopes of drawing in investment sufficient to finance it. That actually failed.

The current smaller Starship design is thus a scaled down version of the original BFR idea, it was scaled down so that SpaceX could actually afford to develop it by themselves alone. Thus real development of the spacecraft is closer to the 2019 date then 2016. The only exception to this is the Raptor engine which was started earlier already and so was already available, though it has gone through two full redesign since then, the third design now in testing.


As for Starship changing shape over time, that's actually not that unusual in aerospace. For instance the original Rocket Lab idea for their Neutron rocket looks very different from what they ended up with as well. This is due to that once you start serious engineering work, you actually have to solve the engineering problems you encounter, and some times your first idea turned out not to be the best. Also in SpaceX case they're some what more open on their design process then many groups, usually you don't see nearly so much the iteration process one goes through to reach the final design.


In any case, Starship already reached orbital ability this year really. So first usable design was completed in 6-7 years time I guess. Which isn't bad for a super heavy lifter I think, truthfully that's on the quick side really I think. Especially as unlike other super heavies this one is designed with reusable features in to it from the start. How ever, the reusable side isn't proven yet of course, we will have to see how well that side of it goes.
 
Blue Origin is pushing ahead with New Glenn's debut, which would be the first orbital launch in the company's 24 year history:

arstechnica.com

Blue Origin to roll out New Glenn second stage, enter final phase of launch prep

The large rocket will attempt to land on its debut flight.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
Article:
Blue Origin plans to enter the final phase of its launch preparations for the New Glenn rocket on Monday by rolling the vehicle's second stage to Launch Complex 36 in Florida. Pending weather and other final considerations, a rollout could occur as early as Monday afternoon.

This is the flight version of the vehicle, with the exception of a fixed adaptor for weather protection during a test campaign. The launch company is targeting a hot fire test of the upper stage, which is powered by two BE-3U engines, within the next week or so.

[ . . . ]

The company's plan is to mate the second and first stages of the rocket, and add the payload fairing with the spacecraft inside of it, before conducting a short hot fire test of the first stage. If all goes well, Blue Origin plans to attempt a launch during the October window for ESCAPADE. These spacecraft arrived at the company's launch facilities a couple of weeks ago.

This seems like an ambitious timeline for the new rocket, as final integration of stages is often where issues are discovered with new launch vehicles. However, Blue Origin has found a new sense or urgency under chief executive Dave Limp, who joined the company in December—hence the frenetic activity with the second stage over the Labor Day holiday weekend in the United States.

[ . . . ]

Bezos and Blue Origin are determined to gather all of the data possible from New Glenn's initial flight in order to reach reusability of the larger booster as soon as possible. The attempt, whether successful or not, should make for compelling viewing.

Successfully testing and integrating both stages, launching a NASA payload, and landing the booster on a drone ship seems like a tall order for the first launch of a new rocket in less than two months.

But it's good to see Blue Origin finally picking up the pace. I wish their team luck.
 
Success.
spacenews.com

Final original Vega launches Sentinel-2C

The final flight of the original version of Europe’s Vega rocket successfully placed an Earth observation satellites into orbit Sept. 4.
spacenews.com spacenews.com
The Vega rocket lifted off from the European spaceport at Kourou, French Guiana, at 9:50 p.m. Eastern. The launch was delayed a day because of an electrical issue with ground systems that halted the countdown a few hours before the scheduled liftoff time.

Vega deployed its payload, the Sentinel-2C satellite, into a sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of about 775 kilometers nearly an hour after liftoff.

Sentinel-2C is a 1,143-kilogram spacecraft built by Airbus Defence and Space for the Copernicus Earth observation program of the European Commission and European Space Agency. The spacecraft carries a camera that provides imagery in 13 visible and shortwave infrared bands at a resolution of 10 meters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
mistakenot said:
Blue Origin is pushing ahead with New Glenn's debut, which would be the first orbital launch in the company's 24 year history:

arstechnica.com

Blue Origin to roll out New Glenn second stage, enter final phase of launch prep

The large rocket will attempt to land on its debut flight.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
*snip*

Successfully testing and integrating both stages, launching a NASA payload, and landing the booster on a drone ship seems like a tall order for the first launch of a new rocket in less than two months.

But it's good to see Blue Origin finally picking up the pace. I wish their team luck.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Update: Blue Origin's plans to send ESCAPADE to Mars on New Glenn's first launch have slipped.

ESCAPADE will now launch NET spring 2025, or as late as 2026.

However, Blue Origin is still moving ahead with New Glenn's debut this year. The first launch is now set for November, carrying a Blue Origin satellite.


View: https://x.com/NASA/status/1832128248030863698
NASA's ESCAPADE (Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers) mission is now targeting a launch in 2025. ESCAPADE's two satellites will investigate how solar wind interacts with the magnetic environment of Mars. Learn more: NASA Stands Down from October Launch for ESCAPADE to Mars – ESCAPADE


View: https://x.com/blueorigin/status/1832128490625180038
We're supportive of NASA's decision to target the ESCAPADE mission for no earlier than spring 2025 and look forward to the flight. We plan to move up New Glenn's second flight, originally scheduled for December, into November. New Glenn will carry Blue Ring technology and mark our first National Security Space Launch certification flight. We'll provide more details on these launch plans in the coming weeks. To learn more about Blue Ring, please visit: Blue Ring | Blue Origin.

Blue Ring | Blue Origin

www.blueorigin.com www.blueorigin.com

NASA Stands Down from October Launch for ESCAPADE to Mars – ESCAPADE

blogs.nasa.gov blogs.nasa.gov
Article:
NASA announced Friday it will not fuel the two ESCAPADE (Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers) spacecraft at this time, foregoing the mission's upcoming October launch window. While future launch opportunities are under review, the next possible earliest launch date is spring 2025.

The agency's decision to stand down was based on a review of launch preparations and discussions with Blue Origin, the Federal Aviation Administration, and Space Launch Delta 45 Range Safety Organization, as well as NASA's Launch Services Program and Science Mission Directorate. The decision was made to avoid significant cost, schedule, and technical challenges associated with potentially removing fuel from the spacecraft in the event of a launch delay, which could be caused by a number of factors.

[ . . . ]

The alignment of Earth and Mars constrains ESCAPADE's windows of launch opportunities to the Red Planet. This means that small schedule changes can result in months-long delays in launch. The mission team is analyzing larger planetary window opportunities. NASA and Blue Origin are discussing an additional opportunity to launch the spacecraft to Mars no earlier than spring 2025.


arstechnica.com

Faced with a tight deadline, NASA and Blue Origin agree to delay New Glenn debut

"We can’t take our foot off the pedal here."
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
Article:
Blue Origin appears to have worked with some urgency this year to prepare the massive rocket for its initial launch. However, when the company missed a key target of hot firing the rocket's upper stage by the end of August, NASA delayed fueling of the ESCAPADE mission. Now, with the closing of a Mars launch window next month, NASA will not fuel the spacecraft until next spring, at the earliest.

Founded by Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin successfully rolled the New Glenn second stage to its launch pad at Launch Complex-36 in Florida on Tuesday. The company is now targeting Monday, September 9, for a hot fire test of the second stage.

At the same time, preparations for the rocket's first stage are nearing completion. All seven of the rocket's BE-7 engines have arrived at the launch site following acceptance testing. Engineers and technicians are presently attaching the engines to the first stage of the vehicle.

Blue Origin will now pivot to launching a prototype of its Blue Ring transfer vehicle on the debut launch of New Glenn, with the intent of testing the electronics, avionics, and other systems on the vehicle. Blue Origin is targeting the first half of November for this launch. This test flight will also serve as the first of three "certification" flights for New Glenn, which will allow the vehicle to become eligible to carry national security payloads for the US Space Force.

[ . . . ]

As for ESCAPADE, the mission could launch in the spring of 2025. Although the "Mars window" only opens every 18 to 24 months, there are complex trajectories by which a payload launched in the spring of 2025 could reach the red planet. It's also possible that NASA and Blue Origin could ultimately wait until the next Mars window opens in November 2026 to launch the mission.
 
Well, if Blue Origin can have successful launches beforehand, the ESCAPADE team will probably be much less stressed. Better late than never for space probes. (Unless you really need multiple planets to align, like the Voyager launches.)
 
www.space.com

Boeing Starliner capsule lands back on Earth, without astronauts, to end troubled test flight (video)

Starliner has finally come home, more than three months after it launched on a planned 10-day mission.
www.space.com www.space.com
The Boeing capsule, named Calypso, returned to Earth early this morning (Sept. 7), touching down in the New Mexico desert at 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT; 11:01 p.m. local time on Sept. 6).

...

Starliner undocked from the ISS on Friday (Sept. 6) at 6:04 p.m. EDT (2204 GMT) as planned. It performed a series of burns to set itself up for the uncrewed landing, which occurred under parachutes in New Mexico's White Sands Space Harbor just after midnight today.

It was the third touchdown overall for Starliner. The capsule also flew two uncrewed test flights to the ISS, one in December 2019 and one in May 2022. Starliner failed to meet up with the orbiting lab on the first flight after suffering several glitches. The second uncrewed mission was a success, though Starliner experienced some thruster issues on that flight as well. (These were a different set, associated not with the RCS but with Starliner's orbital maneuvering and control system.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
After reaffirming 2028 as the launch date of China Mars sample return attempt at recent conferende.

Here is what there sample return timeline could look like.

View: https://x.com/CNSAWatcher/status/1832339607293133082
Liu Jizhong, chief designer of Tianwen-3, shared plans for consecutive launches using Long March 5 rockets. Mission may launch components in Nov-Dec 2028, land on Mars in Aug-Sep 2029, and return samples by July 2031. Source:https://m.weibo.cn/status/OvT9Wto3Y
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Plan 1

Mars Orbiter/Returner launch on Long March 5 in November of 2028
Lander/Ascender launch on Long March 5 in December 2028
Orbiter/Returner arrive in Mars orbit in August 2029
Lander make landing on Mars in August or September 2029
Ascender took off with sample around February-March 2030
Returner return to Earth in October or November 2030, and arrive on Earth in July 2031

Plan 2
Lander/Ascender Launch on Long March 5 in May 2028
Mars Orbiter/Returner Launch on Long March 5 in November 2028
Orbiter/Returner arrive in Mars orbit in September 2029
Lander make landing in July 2030
Ascender took off in October 2030
Returner make it way back in November 2030 arriving on Earth in July 2031

This two plan seems drastically different timeline wise, but I am not knowledgeable enough to know why. I guess in plan 2 Lander and Ascender spend drastically less time on Mars surface, so perhaps less thing can go wrong?
 
Last edited:
Seems like they're progressing fairly well on making a reusable first rocket stage then. Though considering this is described as a hopper, I'll presume this isn't anything close to a flight article and more a test bench to get the eventual hardware designed correctly. So might be some years out still.
 
Quickshot0 said:
Seems like they're progressing fairly well on making a reusable first rocket stage then. Though considering this is described as a hopper, I'll presume this isn't anything close to a flight article and more a test bench to get the eventual hardware designed correctly. So might be some years out still.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Their goal is first launch in mid 2025, which they moved up from late 2025. Originally they said they will try recovery on maiden launch, but apparently they change it to be expected in 2026 (but I am not sure if this mean they will try in 2025 but try to actually nail recovery in 2026).

Yes this is far from actual rocket. This is just a hopper with 1 TQ-12A engine which is around 80 tons thrust. Actual Zhuque-3 rocket will used the uprated TQ-12B which have 100 tons thrust, 9 of them to be specific. The actual rocket will be Stainless steel (which this hopper is also made out of), it will have diameter of 4.5 meters and 76.6 meters in height, decent size bigger than Falcon 9 albeit still have similiar payload (I guess tradeoff of using Methane compare to kerosene).

Chinese company share a lot less about their development, and in many case many of them have just manifest nearly complete hardware seemingly outa nowhere to us Chinese space program watcher who can't speak chinese well enough to search for leak. So what we seen here might not be indicative of the level of progress they actually at.

I know there are picture of them already manufacturing some part of stainless steel fuselage for Zhuque-3 already.
 
@thanix01 Right, that's informative on the matter. So probably in a year or two then till they can land their boosters.

And I would guess the performance issue might actually be in part due to the stainless steel, it's a heavier material which impacts how much you can move to orbit. The reason why the rocket industry moved away from it for awhile, it just made a bit of a comeback because it's a cheap material to work with and it's actually really heat resistant, which is good in surviving high speed recoveries.

The methane engines 'should' actually be more efficient then kerosene, if you can get the pressure high enough in them that is, in which case you can get pretty good thrust to weight ratios with them. RP-1 engines have no efficiency advantage at all, only hydrogen rich fuels are good at efficiency combustion wise. Instead what they do best is brute force, but if you can ramp up your efficient engine enough via superior manufacturing technology... then their reason for existence becomes a lot more thin in a sense.
 
mistakenot said:
A batch of defective chips may endanger NASA's Europa Clipper mission, currently scheduled to launch in October on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy:



NASA Continues Assessing Electrical Switches on Europa Clipper – NASA's Europa Clipper Mission

blogs.nasa.gov blogs.nasa.gov

arstechnica.com

NASA’s flagship mission to Europa has a problem: Vulnerability to radiation

"What keeps me awake right now is the uncertainty."
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

The author of the NYT article also commented on reddit:


Sounds like the "non-NASA customer" with the "classified satellite" who tipped them off was a defense or intelligence agency.

It's a good thing they learned of the problem. Seems like NASA is debating whether the risks can be mitigated if they go ahead with the launch, or if they'll need to delay the mission for a hardware fix.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Good news, Europa Clipper will be able to proceed:

arstechnica.com

NASA will proceed with final preps to launch Europa Clipper next month

After a four-month review, NASA says suspect transistors on Europa Clipper are good to go.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
Article:
After four months of testing similar transistors on the ground, engineers determined the transistors on Europa Clipper could withstand the extreme radiation the spacecraft would encounter around Jupiter, without any changes to the mission's flight plan or trajectory.

[ . . . ]

The most sensitive electronics on Europa Clipper are mounted inside a vault with walls of aluminum-zinc alloy to shield the components from Jupiter's radiation. Many of the transistors on the spacecraft are located within this vault, but others are built into science instruments located on the outer edges of the spacecraft.

The transistors have a self-healing property known as annealing, allowing them to recover much of their capacity after exposure to intense radiation. For most of Europa Clipper's orbit around Jupiter, the spacecraft flies in a more benign radiation environment, allowing time for the transistors to repair themselves between close flybys of Europa, where the radiation is worst. The only change mission managers will make on Europa Clipper will be to adjust heater settings around some of the suspect transistors on two instruments outside of the vault. Warmer temperatures allow the components to self-heal more efficiently.


Glad they got the green light. Looking forward to the launch next month.
 
Interactive 360 degree Footage of the entire Landspace VTVL-1 hop. Seems like they made this with partnership with Insta360.

View: https://youtu.be/j650uJqMfmk?feature=shared

It was originally Douyin exclusive footage, I guess someone just ripped it and upload it to youtube.

At 2:35 you can see the turbulence from engine relight that ripped apart pipe cover on the hopper. I guess it is one of the less bad problem.
 
Last edited:
The most recent SpaceX fine situation is interesting. FAA is considering fining them $633,000 over two Falcon 9 launch license violations in 2023. One has to do with not following countdown procedures and the other with using an unapproved propellant farm.

It doesn't have anything to do with the current Boca Chica situation, but it is at a rather unfortunate time.

I am a bit concerned about the vocal reactions of some SpaceX supporters. I do see where they are coming from in terms of complaints about over/poorly-considered regulation but at the same time, Boeing's 737 Max situation shows just how important it is to have independent regulators.

I think it's important to hold companies responsible to following regulations, but for many industries including Aerospace and Nuclear, we need better regulations too. There are ways to maintain safety without being nearly as obstructive, but it will require political will and increased funding.
 
NTKV said:
The most recent SpaceX fine situation is interesting. FAA is considering fining them $633,000 over two Falcon 9 launch license violations in 2023. One has to do with not following countdown procedures and the other with using an unapproved propellant farm.

It doesn't have anything to do with the current Boca Chica situation, but it is at a rather unfortunate time.

I am a bit concerned about the vocal reactions of some SpaceX supporters. I do see where they are coming from in terms of complaints about over/poorly-considered regulation but at the same time, Boeing's 737 Max situation shows just how important it is to have independent regulators.

I think it's important to hold companies responsible to following regulations, but for many industries including Aerospace and Nuclear, we need better regulations too. There are ways to maintain safety without being nearly as obstructive, but it will require political will and increased funding.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the actual civil complaints, the FAA specifically said that for the license modifications they were seeking would not be ready for those flights, and proceeded to do it anyway, and this is per the Falcon 9 for the new license modification for use of new communications plan (an all new site and removal/change of existing procedures) per here from the FAA, and then per the Falcon Heavy for the new license modification of an all-new propellant farm which was specifically not included in the explosive-site plan, per here from the FAA. The case of an all-new propellant farm being used without approval is serious and I can honestly imagine it pissed off NASA since it is legally still their launch site (LC-39A).

What is utterly fucking ridiculous is Musk's statement that he is intended to sue the FAA over this, since like, that really isn't going to make the FAA happy at all in filing suit over such a total fine amount especially considering the sheer amount of work the Commercial Space Transportation Office is forced to handle b/c of SpaceX's stuff... with nearly 80% of their overtime being specifically per them (which is hundreds of hours per month), per this Bloomberg article.
 
thanix01 said:
This two plan seems drastically different timeline wise, but I am not knowledgeable enough to know why. I guess in plan 2 Lander and Ascender spend drastically less time on Mars surface, so perhaps less thing can go wrong?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It has to do with whether they can launch two Long March 5s from Wenchang SLC in such short interval. Previous LM-5 launches has always had a staggered period of preparation/assembly before and after the launch. The infrastructure for it may or may not exist, especially given how much construction activity is scheduled for Wenchang in the next decade. If they choose to do a simultaneous launch and they aren't able to quickly launch LM-5s, the second payload may just use a Long March 7 instead.

The alternative option is also Long March 10s, which are scheduled to come operational a year or so before Tianwen-3 starts, but that's also a pretty tough hypothetical. The only thing concrete so far is that CNSA is confident in hitting the 2028 launch window given the progress of the overall program.
 
Last edited:
Usili 2.0 said:
In the actual civil complaints, the FAA specifically said that for the license modifications they were seeking would not be ready for those flights, and proceeded to do it anyway, and this is per the Falcon 9 for the new license modification for use of new communications plan (an all new site and removal/change of existing procedures) per here from the FAA, and then per the Falcon Heavy for the new license modification of an all-new propellant farm which was specifically not included in the explosive-site plan, per here from the FAA. The case of an all-new propellant farm being used without approval is serious and I can honestly imagine it pissed off NASA since it is legally still their launch site (LC-39A).

What is utterly fucking ridiculous is Musk's statement that he is intended to sue the FAA over this, since like, that really isn't going to make the FAA happy at all in filing suit over such a total fine amount especially considering the sheer amount of work the Commercial Space Transportation Office is forced to handle b/c of SpaceX's stuff... with nearly 80% of their overtime being specifically per them (which is hundreds of hours per month), per this Bloomberg article.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Great points and thank you for expanding on it. I clearly haven't been following this closely enough and didn't realize Musk was considering suing over this fine as well. Truly wild stuff.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top