Please continue to post your news and your discussion here.

Link to previous thread:

SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments - 2020

Screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5l9ZxsG9M

SN9's flight will soon take place.

The FAA has issued a TFR, from the surface to "unlimited", for the 8th, 9th and 10th of January, 14:00 till 23:59 UTC.

flyingturtle wrote:

Screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5l9ZxsG9M

SN9's flight will soon take place.

The FAA has issued a TFR, from the surface to "unlimited", for the 8th, 9th and 10th of January, 14:00 till 23:59 UTC.

Just two hours ago they told me they were shooting for the 11th.

Is that a shark attacking SN9?

nomadd22 wrote:

Is that a shark attacking SN9?

Yes. That just shows how exciting launch business has become.

About the TFRs... well, we'll see in time.

nomadd22 wrote:

Is that a shark attacking SN9?

This is spaceX's way of gently 'reminding' SNine that it would be in its best interest if the flight were to go according to plan... or else.

Guess the damaged fin was easily replaced!

Really amazing to see. I can only imagine the months, probably years of delay such a situation would have caused in a more "established" space contractor/development process.

Tugg

Anyone know what the objectives are for SN9? Are they pushing for orbit?!

Armodeen wrote:

Anyone know what the objectives are for SN9? Are they pushing for orbit?!

Highly unlikely since it has no heat tiles. It'll probably be similar to SN8, possibly a bit higher.

12.5 km test flight per https://everydayastronaut.com/starship- ... er-flight/

Slug71 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

Anyone know what the objectives are for SN9? Are they pushing for orbit?!

Highly unlikely since it has no heat tiles. It'll probably be similar to SN8, possibly a bit higher.

Needs a first stage for orbit...

zanl188 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

Anyone know what the objectives are for SN9? Are they pushing for orbit?!

Highly unlikely since it has no heat tiles. It'll probably be similar to SN8, possibly a bit higher.

Needs a first stage for orbit...

If they retuned the center engines with bigger nozzles, and upgraded thrust by removing deep throttling requirement, deleted header tanks, legs and all that reuse stuff and went down to 3mm they might make orbit. Not much point with no return and no payload though.

About what can expect us in 2021.
As you know, there are 52 weeks a year. SpaceX will complete 48 launches in those 52 weeks.
Falcons launches and landings have become a routine event. I think that next year, reports of SpaceX launches will go in just one line, like, "another launch."
It is very likely that they will actually be able to land an unmanned lunar Starship on the surface of our natural satellite in 2022 and in 2023 conduct a manned flyby of the moon with tourists and a manned landing under the Artemis program in 2024.
Journalists write that this team needs to be tested for doping)

TommyJ wrote:

Journalists write that this team needs to be tested for doping)

Well, SpaceX literally is a crack team...

A couple of F9 flights are coming up.

The first one is a Starlink mission tentatively on the 17th, then the Transporter-1 mission slated for the 21st.

Interestingly, Booster B1051 has been assigned to give the Transporter-1 mission a lift. This will be flight #8 for B1051, breaking B1049's and its own previous record for reuse, and at the same time possibly breaking the record for turnaround time at just over 1 month and 1 week if it lifts off on time. B1051 last flew on December 13.

This would be an impressive feat for a veteran booster that has already flown 7 times, and a sign that the 10 cycles target should be easily reached fairly soon, then likely exceeded.
...Way to go.

Francoflier wrote:

This will be flight #8 for B1051

The other rokkits: "You don't need us anymore... we'll leave you for ULA!"

Francoflier wrote:

A couple of F9 flights are coming up.

The first one is a Starlink mission tentatively on the 17th, then the Transporter-1 mission slated for the 21st.

Interestingly, Booster B1051 has been assigned to give the Transporter-1 mission a lift. This will be flight #8 for B1051, breaking B1049's and its own previous record for reuse, and at the same time possibly breaking the record for turnaround time at just over 1 month and 1 week if it lifts off on time. B1051 last flew on December 13.

This would be an impressive feat for a veteran booster that has already flown 7 times, and a sign that the 10 cycles target should be easily reached fairly soon, then likely exceeded.
...Way to go.

Very interesting. thanks for sharing. I have to admit, I am quite impressed by the quick turns SpaceX is able to achieve. What a good job.

flyingturtle wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

This will be flight #8 for B1051

The other rokkits: "You don't need us anymore... we'll leave you for ULA!"

lol. I bet ULA would part with quite a bit of cash to dissect one of these...

B1049 is probably a bit jealous, since it flew earlier and is older than 1051. Not sure why they bypassed the seniority list there.
As for the other boosters, they're all actually quite busy doing their own things. Some lucky slackers are reserved for NASA missions and only fly on those once in a blue moon. All of the others have flown quite recently and are getting their windshield washed, tire pressure checked and an oil change (or whatever they do to them between flights).

In fact, if SpaceX wants to fly as many F9 missions as they aim to in 2021, they're actually going to need a few more boosters even if they keep reusing all the existing ones.

That launch pace is rather amazing, especially when considering that most other commercial orbit mongers seemed pretty happy launching a rocket every few months in the decades before SpaceX came along.

Yesterday, there were three (!) static fires of Eileen Dover/SN9. One guess is they were firing the engines separately, in order to gather and correlate engine data.

Francoflier wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

The other rokkits: "You don't need us anymore... we'll leave you for ULA!"

lol. I bet ULA would part with quite a bit of cash to dissect one of these...

...but... would ULA have any use for such a rocket? Their entire business model relies on sending pork barrels into space. ULA's only real customers seem to be politicians who can afford to spend other people's money.

Francoflier wrote:

All of the others have flown quite recently and are getting their windshield washed, tire pressure checked and an oil change (or whatever they do to them between flights).

Don't forget vacuuming the stardust...

flyingturtle wrote:

...but... would ULA have any use for such a rocket? Their entire business model relies on sending pork barrels into space. ULA's only real customers seem to be politicians who can afford to spend other people's money.

Exactly... If ULA could spend as little as SpaceX for a launch, their lobbyist would still charge Congress the same. Quit being greedy with your tax dollars and think of all the politician bribes, corporate bonuses and shareholder dividends!



There's a bit of shuffling going on with the Starlink/Transporter-1 missions... B1051 is still slated to fly in the next few days, but now unsure of whether it'll fly the Starlink or the Transporter mission. In fact, a few DARPA sats seem to have been damaged during transport and will miss their flight. SpaceX will apparently fill the empty seats with a few Starlink sats...

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comment ... gn_thread/

That would be interesting since the Transporter-1 mission calls for a southbound launch to a Sun synchronous orbit (via the newly inaugurated Cuban Space Turnpike), which I believe is not where they usually send the space Wifi routers?

In any case, this amount of last minute flexibility in terms of booster and payload assignment is another very impressive achievement.

Ah, nevermind. Here's the answer to the polar orbit Starlink riddle:

https://spacenews.com/fcc-grants-permis ... atellites/

They were planning it all along...

I'll stop rambling now.

Francoflier wrote:

Ah, nevermind. Here's the answer to the polar orbit Starlink riddle:

https://spacenews.com/fcc-grants-permis ... atellites/

They were planning it all along...

I'll stop rambling now.

Thank you for the article. To be honest, this is a bit unexpected. On the other hand, it shows more serious competition in this market. And the fact that even if you know what you are doing, you will not always be able to do it.
I have a feeling that now all companies want to launch satellites.
People can get good services if it doesn't turn into fierce competition.

Airlines and military are both very interested in polar coverage.
Falcons could probably handle the initial 4400 sat system. More will likely need Starship.

Another successful Starlink launch just now, with another right-on-the-mark booster landing on the droneship, amid fairly agitated and windy seas... Impressive.

What's more impressive is that this was the 8th flight for that booster after a record 1 month and 1 week turnaround time. They're really starting to have this down to an art.

Francoflier wrote:

Another successful Starlink launch just now, with another right-on-the-mark booster landing on the droneship, amid fairly agitated and windy seas... Impressive.

What's more impressive is that this was the 8th flight for that booster after a record 1 month and 1 week turnaround time. They're really starting to have this down to an art.

That booster has lifted about as much as a Saturn V now. Just a little at a time.

Francoflier wrote:

Another successful Starlink launch just now, with another right-on-the-mark booster landing on the droneship, amid fairly agitated and windy seas... Impressive.

What's more impressive is that this was the 8th flight for that booster after a record 1 month and 1 week turnaround time. They're really starting to have this down to an art.

Indeed, and dead center or as near as you can tell.

GDB wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Another successful Starlink launch just now, with another right-on-the-mark booster landing on the droneship, amid fairly agitated and windy seas... Impressive.

What's more impressive is that this was the 8th flight for that booster after a record 1 month and 1 week turnaround time. They're really starting to have this down to an art.

Indeed, and dead center or as near as you can tell.

Contrast that to Bezos' tiny suborbital booster which almost missed the mark the other day and had to hover itself back to the very edge of a terra firma landing pad with no winds...

I sense some bruised ego in this thinly disguised equivalent of a Billionaire's d*ck waving contest.

Francoflier wrote:

GDB wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Another successful Starlink launch just now, with another right-on-the-mark booster landing on the droneship, amid fairly agitated and windy seas... Impressive.

What's more impressive is that this was the 8th flight for that booster after a record 1 month and 1 week turnaround time. They're really starting to have this down to an art.

Indeed, and dead center or as near as you can tell.

Contrast that to Bezos' tiny suborbital booster which almost missed the mark the other day and had to hover itself back to the very edge of a terra firma landing pad with no winds...

I sense some bruised ego in this thinly disguised equivalent of a Billionaire's d*ck waving contest.

Well there is the shape of that Bezos booster, (for all the plans they have for 'New Glenn' and 'New Armstrong' this little sub orbital booster seems to be going at a snail's pace, we know how traditional contractors and political interference constrain NASA, what's Bezos excuse? Money? Hardly).
Although Virgin have succeeded with their air launched rocket, Virgin Galactic are quiet, that whole program makes SLS look like a rapid Falcon 9 booster turnaround.

I am wondering if Bezos is quietly concentrating on engines, getting them on the new ULA booster is a coup for them, along with things like Blue Moon.
Maybe the whole sub orbital ride market is no longer seen as so viable now, which might have something to do with the success of Crew Dragon?

GDB wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

GDB wrote:

Indeed, and dead center or as near as you can tell.

Contrast that to Bezos' tiny suborbital booster which almost missed the mark the other day and had to hover itself back to the very edge of a terra firma landing pad with no winds...

I sense some bruised ego in this thinly disguised equivalent of a Billionaire's d*ck waving contest.

Well there is the shape of that Bezos booster, (for all the plans they have for 'New Glenn' and 'New Armstrong' this little sub orbital booster seems to be going at a snail's pace, we know how traditional contractors and political interference constrain NASA, what's Bezos excuse? Money? Hardly).
Although Virgin have succeeded with their air launched rocket, Virgin Galactic are quiet, that whole program makes SLS look like a rapid Falcon 9 booster turnaround.

I am wondering if Bezos is quietly concentrating on engines, getting them on the new ULA booster is a coup for them, along with things like Blue Moon.
Maybe the whole sub orbital ride market is no longer seen as so viable now, which might have something to do with the success of Crew Dragon?

It seems to me that this is a very complex and multi-component issue. This includes funding, government policy, and, damn it, some kind of fear of risk. Because failure can be a big rollback. In this, private companies have more flexibility and dynamics. Therefore, young aerospace companies are gradually catching up with NASA in terms of developments in one direction or another.

While we're scoffing at SLS' fizzled test fire the other day, SpaceX doesn't appear to be having much more luck with SN9...

They've done a series of test fires now (5 or 6 I think), with several aborts and Raptor swaps in between and all appeared to have ended prematurely, including the one they did today.
Either Snine is having cold feet or the Raptor engine is proving to be a bit of a troublesome child.

At least it doesn't take them 3 weeks to reset.

Francoflier wrote:

While we're scoffing at SLS' fizzled test fire the other day, SpaceX doesn't appear to be having much more luck with SN9...

They've done a series of test fires now (5 or 6 I think), with several aborts and Raptor swaps in between and all appeared to have ended prematurely, including the one they did today.
Either Snine is having cold feet or the Raptor engine is proving to be a bit of a troublesome child.

At least it doesn't take them 3 weeks to reset.

But then that SLS booster is intended for spaceflight, to human rate it.
Does that really bear comparison with a sub scale test bed that in it's current form won't go anywhere near space, being proof of concept for the aerodynamics of Starship.
A bit like comparing the 1960's NASA lifting bodies with the Shuttle.

I was simply and generically comparing the hiccups both testing programs were going through, somewhat simultaneously. Not really comparing the programs or even the test articles which, as you say, aren't comparable.

Space is hard...

Though as I type, another static fire is about to happen over at Boca Chica. Let's see if that one goes as planned.

Francoflier wrote:

I was simply and generically comparing the hiccups both testing programs were going through, somewhat simultaneously. Not really comparing the programs or even the test articles which, as you say, aren't comparable.

Space is hard...

Though as I type, another static fire is about to happen over at Boca Chica. Let's see if that one goes as planned.

Yes, looking forward to see SN9 go and hopefully ace the landing.
I just think there a lot of people who fail to see the difference, in part it's due to SpaceX helping to popularize space so much, a good thing which ultimately helps all of the players.

Yesterday's static fire was fine. They don't always need to be six seconds long. They're mostly working on starting procedures this week.
Look for flight next week.

Nomadd wrote:

Yesterday's static fire was fine. They don't always need to be six seconds long. They're mostly working on starting procedures this week.
Look for flight next week.

Thanks, that explains the series of short burns.
Apparently, Snine is ready for flight this coming week...


Another successful F9 launch just now. The transporter-1 rideshare mission is in the process of pushing 143(!) small satellites into orbit.
Booster B1058 (of crewed Dragon Demo-2 fame) is back on the barge, for a 5th time, for those still counting.

The next launch is already scheduled for a few days from now (Starlink 17) with B1049 (flight #8).

What a cadence... I wasn't around then, but I doubt the Cape ever saw this many launches, even at the height of the space race.

Francoflier wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Yesterday's static fire was fine. They don't always need to be six seconds long. They're mostly working on starting procedures this week.
Look for flight next week.

Thanks, that explains the series of short burns.
Apparently, Snine is ready for flight this coming week...


Another successful F9 launch just now. The transporter-1 rideshare mission is in the process of pushing 143(!) small satellites into orbit.
Booster B1058 (of crewed Dragon Demo-2 fame) is back on the barge, for a 5th time, for those still counting.

The next launch is already scheduled for a few days from now (Starlink 17) with B1049 (flight #8).

What a cadence... I wasn't around then, but I doubt the Cape ever saw this many launches, even at the height of the space race.

Agreed. I think I caught one of the commentators noting that this particular F9 (1049) also was turned around in around 40 days, having just flown last month. As they keep adding frames and landing them quickly I could see them exceeding the goal this year for launches (which is what, 21 from the cape?).

While not manned, this has to be like the height of the Gemini program, as well as the Surveyors, Lunar Orbiters, Early weather and Comsats all going up in a two year period.

texl1649 wrote:

As they keep adding frames and landing them quickly I could see them exceeding the goal this year for launches (which is what, 21 from the cape?).

I count over 30 launches from Florida this year on the provisional schedule, not counting the 3 which have already happened.
About 8 more from California as well...

They're definitely going to need more boosters. I'm not even sure they'll have enough recovery drone ships at this rate, especially if they need one in the Pacific for some of the Vandenberg launches.

What I've also found amazing with the Transporter-1 mission (and upcoming similar ones) is that they seem to be able to grab a lot of the small sat market with their rideshare missions, despite the mounting competition from smaller, more specialized rockets.

I don’t quite have the patience to sort by country, but it seems 1967 is the high water mark for orbital launches. Which is interesting, as due to Apollo 1, the US didn't have any manned launches that year.

The whole period between 1965 and about 1972 is mind boggling, with how many launches there were worldwide

Can't help but wonder how metaphorically close to the sun spacex is flying. Sooner or later one of those high use boosters will fail.

Francoflier wrote:

What I've also found amazing with the Transporter-1 mission (and upcoming similar ones) is that they seem to be able to grab a lot of the small sat market with their rideshare missions, despite the mounting competition from smaller, more specialized rockets.

Quite simply, rideshare is much cheaper than getting your own smaller rocket. The primary payloads pay for most of the launch. In this case, Starlink but also the CubeSats from Spire and Planet. Most of these small missions don't require a particular orbit so they'll go with whatever gets them to space for the least money, though sun-synchronous orbits are popular.

Electron (and other small launchers) only make sense for higher value small satellites that have more stringent requirements.

FGITD wrote:

Can't help but wonder how metaphorically close to the sun spacex is flying. Sooner or later one of those high use boosters will fail.

Sush now, there are fans of the “test, explode, fix, test again” design philosophy that don’t want to hear that.

On the other hand, payloads flying on high cycle boosters either belong to SpaceX or, I bet, are getting a really good deal on launch price.

zanl188 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Can't help but wonder how metaphorically close to the sun spacex is flying. Sooner or later one of those high use boosters will fail.

Sush now, there are fans of the “test, explode, fix, test again” design philosophy that don’t want to hear that.

On the other hand, payloads flying on high cycle boosters either belong to SpaceX or, I bet, are getting a really good deal on launch price.

I don’t follow your logic. Why would a factory fresh booster be any kind of more reliable? After all, having flown a booster multiple times will give access to very useful wear & weaknesses data on a design. And those data will be on a level a one shot booster will never provide, even after successful launch.

Od course at one point a booster will fail, but I don’t see a reason that shouldn’t be a new one, really.

When astronauts go up on a F9, are they always using a brand new booster? Just curious what the human rating for NASA might be.

texl1649 wrote:

When astronauts go up on a F9, are they always using a brand new booster? Just curious what the human rating for NASA might be.

Until now, the astronauts have flown on new F9 boosters. NRO launches had to be on new boosters, too - until end of last year.

texl1649 wrote:

When astronauts go up on a F9, are they always using a brand new booster? Just curious what the human rating for NASA might be.

The Crew-2 mission, scheduled for March 30th, is slated to fly on booster B1061, which pushed Crew-1 into orbit last November. It will also use Dragon C-206, which flew Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley to the ISS last May.

The only unflown parts on the Rocket will pretty much be the second stage and the capsule trunk...

zanl188 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Can't help but wonder how metaphorically close to the sun spacex is flying. Sooner or later one of those high use boosters will fail.

Sush now, there are fans of the “test, explode, fix, test again” design philosophy that don’t want to hear that.

On the other hand, payloads flying on high cycle boosters either belong to SpaceX or, I bet, are getting a really good deal on launch price.

I would think that boosters are extensively checked before being reflown. I believe SpaceX used to test fire every single booster before launch as well, but not sure if they still do it.
In any case, they will surely get to a point where the boosters are not flight worthy anymore, but I think they will be able to determine that before flight.
If it does fail, there is a good chance that it might fail during descent and landing, in which case they won't care much, and they'll get all the data they crave for their iterative design and improvement philosophy.
Plus, as said above, brand new rockets fail too... pretty often in fact.

Any vehicle has a bell curve of reliability throughout its operational life. Rockets are unreliable because they used to perennially sit at the very left of that curve where it is low (well, that and the fact that they are giant flying bombs). SpaceX is now on its way to explore how far out to the right that curve goes before it goes down again...

Also:
Snine flies today... maybe. Stay tuned.

texl1649 wrote:

When astronauts go up on a F9, are they always using a brand new booster? Just curious what the human rating for NASA might be.

Nope. They have clearance to use both used boosters and capsules. That was added on after the contract to compensate them for voluntarily going way beyond contract terms and having the ability to step up and take care of things when Boeing had delays.
SpaceX used the term "Tested booster" almost as a joke early on, but customers are starting to notice that used rockets seem to be having fewer issues than brand new ones.

Francoflier wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

As they keep adding frames and landing them quickly I could see them exceeding the goal this year for launches (which is what, 21 from the cape?).

I count over 30 launches from Florida this year on the provisional schedule, not counting the 3 which have already happened.
About 8 more from California as well...
They're definitely going to need more boosters. I'm not even sure they'll have enough recovery drone ships at this rate, especially if they need one in the Pacific for some of the Vandenberg launches.

I never did understand why they're being so stingy with drone ships. One lost booster is worth more than the entire barge, and if one of those barges is down for a couple of months for a serious issue at this years flight rate, they're going to have a major problem.

Nomadd wrote:

SpaceX used the term "Tested booster" almost as a joke early on, but customers are starting to notice that used rockets seem to be having fewer issues than brand new ones.

ROFL, this is funny!

Well, it's true. There are failure modes that can occur only once, and thus a reflown rocket is 100% safe from them.

flyingturtle wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

SpaceX used the term "Tested booster" almost as a joke early on, but customers are starting to notice that used rockets seem to be having fewer issues than brand new ones.

ROFL, this is funny!

Well, it's true. There are failure modes that can occur only once, and thus a reflown rocket is 100% safe from them.

Might turn into the same way ships or aircraft are tested. Give the booster a shakedown flight, work out the issues, then into the general fleet rotation.

Would certainly be an interesting flip in space flight philosophy if suddenly the older equipment is considered more trustworthy.

FGITD wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

SpaceX used the term "Tested booster" almost as a joke early on, but customers are starting to notice that used rockets seem to be having fewer issues than brand new ones.

ROFL, this is funny!

Well, it's true. There are failure modes that can occur only once, and thus a reflown rocket is 100% safe from them.

Might turn into the same way ships or aircraft are tested. Give the booster a shakedown flight, work out the issues, then into the general fleet rotation.

Would certainly be an interesting flip in space flight philosophy if suddenly the older equipment is considered more trustworthy.

More likely it will be priced into the contract. Want a cheaper flight? You can be the first payload on the booster. Want a more reliable flight? You can pay more for a booster that has had a few good launches.

FGITD wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

SpaceX used the term "Tested booster" almost as a joke early on, but customers are starting to notice that used rockets seem to be having fewer issues than brand new ones.

ROFL, this is funny!

Well, it's true. There are failure modes that can occur only once, and thus a reflown rocket is 100% safe from them.

Might turn into the same way ships or aircraft are tested. Give the booster a shakedown flight, work out the issues, then into the general fleet rotation.

Would certainly be an interesting flip in space flight philosophy if suddenly the older equipment is considered more trustworthy.

Well wasn’t that already the case with Soyuz? Very old and for a long time very reliable?

Getting to see weaknesses of designs by recovering the booster over and over again might do wonders for reliability. That, after all, is how safety improvements in aviation work on the design reliability side.

CRJockey wrote:

FGITD wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

ROFL, this is funny!

Well, it's true. There are failure modes that can occur only once, and thus a reflown rocket is 100% safe from them.

Might turn into the same way ships or aircraft are tested. Give the booster a shakedown flight, work out the issues, then into the general fleet rotation.

Would certainly be an interesting flip in space flight philosophy if suddenly the older equipment is considered more trustworthy.

Well wasn’t that already the case with Soyuz? Very old and for a long time very reliable?

Getting to see weaknesses of designs by recovering the booster over and over again might do wonders for reliability. That, after all, is how safety improvements in aviation work on the design reliability side.

It is true for Soyuz, but I think the value lies in the details. Soyuz has proven itself as a reliable system. Falcon is taking that a step higher, and proving that individual boosters are reliable. The difference of course is that with Soyuz you know the whole process has a good reputation, whereas with a Falcon you can look at the reputation that the individual booster has.