3 ms·

What kind of ground operations are expected for Starships? The rocket is reusable, the fueling is automated, the in-between flight checks are, what, how do they

by avmich 2y ago

What kind of ground operations are expected for Starships? The rocket is reusable, the fueling is automated, the in-between flight checks are, what, how do they do that in practice? What are intermediate actions which need to happen in a sequence of launches?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> What kind of ground operations are expected for Starships? The rocket is reusable, the fueling is automated, the in-between flight checks are, what, how do they do that in practice? Fuelling, systems checks, clearing the launch area, launching, fuel transfer, re-entry, recovery, diagnostics, repairs, recertification, snacks for the repair crew, lawyers, drinks for the lawyers, et cetera. The goal is automating everything. But even the Falcon family is currently around 3 weeks' sustainable turnaround.
- avmich 2y ago
  > Fuelling, They pump tons of fuel per second, obviously automated. Connecting/disconnecting pipes are with that movable platform. Granted, today it's different, and some more operations might be needed, like, say, more careful stage positioning on the launch system after it landed previously, but they don't seem problematic to include, right? > systems checks, SpaceX vastly increased number of channels collecting data on rocket performance. They have much better understanding of the rocket state after landing because of that. Some checks could be done on earth, but we surely don't do system checks every time we sit in a car, and this comparison is only somewhat stretched, agree? > clearing the launch area, For Super Heavy the landing happens some minutes after launch; don't think there's going to be many people near the pod. The zone below the trajectory will probably be permanently closed, at least for period of intensive pad use, just like it's done for construction projects now. > launching, Of course. > fuel transfer, re-entry, recovery, All in-flight operations are automated, even today, because there's no crew around. Problems and misses today, but we're just testing. > diagnostics, What's the (crucial) difference with system checks? Seems like we're talking about the same goals. > repairs, No repairs for the nominally working system. If checks show repairs are needed, the system - rocket stage - goes to the factory for fixes, that's much longer than the time between flights, but we have spares to use while the repairs happen. > recertification, What do we need here to do that is costly or takes a long time? How long does recertification take for a commercial airliner between flights? > snacks for the repair crew, Well, repairs are supposed to be a relatively exceptional thing, so done in the factory, with full lunches if not dinners. > lawyers, drinks for the lawyers, et cetera. All that for customer's money and time, not on a launch pads. > The goal is automating everything. But even the Falcon family is currently around 3 weeks' sustainable turnaround. Don't you have a suspicion that Falcons aren't being improved that much now because it doesn't make sense for the current mass flow to orbit and given that Starship is planned to become available soon?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > pump tons of fuel per second, obviously automated Sure. Easier said than done, particularly with rapid reuse and when all your equipment is being repeatedly thermal and pressure shocked. > Some checks could be done on earth, but we surely don't do system checks every time we sit in a car, and this comparison is only somewhat stretched, agree? We don't send cars to space and back again. (We've also had cars for a century.) Hopefully by the time we're sending humans to Mars, this will be automated. But not in time for Artemis. > zone below the trajectory will probably be permanently closed You're describing major shipping lanes in the ship-surveillance area. KSC and CC also tends to close off a few popular flight routes into Orlando. > in-flight operations are automated, even today, because there's no crew around Still need people monitoring, including--by law--people ready to abort or order redirect. > What's the (crucial) difference with system checks? You have to open the rocket up. > No repairs for the nominally working system This has never been demonstrated. (Repairs/refurbishment.) > Don't you have a suspicion that Falcons aren't being improved that much now because it doesn't make sense for the current mass flow to orbit and given that Starship is planned to become available soon? No. Falcon launches are currently pad limited. Note: I think Starship is vastly superior to SLS. But that's in part because the ground operations, including infrastructure, are reused and thus amortised across many flights.
    - avmich 2y ago
      I get it, and still would comment on many points. Well, it's probably wrong place to have the discussion here :) .

by avmich 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> What kind of ground operations are expected for Starships? The rocket is reusable, the fueling is automated, the in-between flight checks are, what, how do they do that in practice? Fuelling, systems checks, clearing the launch area, launching, fuel transfer, re-entry, recovery, diagnostics, repairs, recertification, snacks for the repair crew, lawyers, drinks for the lawyers, et cetera. The goal is automating everything. But even the Falcon family is currently around 3 weeks' sustainable turnaround.

avmich 2y ago
> Fuelling, They pump tons of fuel per second, obviously automated. Connecting/disconnecting pipes are with that movable platform. Granted, today it's different, and some more operations might be needed, like, say, more careful stage positioning on the launch system after it landed previously, but they don't seem problematic to include, right? > systems checks, SpaceX vastly increased number of channels collecting data on rocket performance. They have much better understanding of the rocket state after landing because of that. Some checks could be done on earth, but we surely don't do system checks every time we sit in a car, and this comparison is only somewhat stretched, agree? > clearing the launch area, For Super Heavy the landing happens some minutes after launch; don't think there's going to be many people near the pod. The zone below the trajectory will probably be permanently closed, at least for period of intensive pad use, just like it's done for construction projects now. > launching, Of course. > fuel transfer, re-entry, recovery, All in-flight operations are automated, even today, because there's no crew around. Problems and misses today, but we're just testing. > diagnostics, What's the (crucial) difference with system checks? Seems like we're talking about the same goals. > repairs, No repairs for the nominally working system. If checks show repairs are needed, the system - rocket stage - goes to the factory for fixes, that's much longer than the time between flights, but we have spares to use while the repairs happen. > recertification, What do we need here to do that is costly or takes a long time? How long does recertification take for a commercial airliner between flights? > snacks for the repair crew, Well, repairs are supposed to be a relatively exceptional thing, so done in the factory, with full lunches if not dinners. > lawyers, drinks for the lawyers, et cetera. All that for customer's money and time, not on a launch pads. > The goal is automating everything. But even the Falcon family is currently around 3 weeks' sustainable turnaround. Don't you have a suspicion that Falcons aren't being improved that much now because it doesn't make sense for the current mass flow to orbit and given that Starship is planned to become available soon?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > pump tons of fuel per second, obviously automated Sure. Easier said than done, particularly with rapid reuse and when all your equipment is being repeatedly thermal and pressure shocked. > Some checks could be done on earth, but we surely don't do system checks every time we sit in a car, and this comparison is only somewhat stretched, agree? We don't send cars to space and back again. (We've also had cars for a century.) Hopefully by the time we're sending humans to Mars, this will be automated. But not in time for Artemis. > zone below the trajectory will probably be permanently closed You're describing major shipping lanes in the ship-surveillance area. KSC and CC also tends to close off a few popular flight routes into Orlando. > in-flight operations are automated, even today, because there's no crew around Still need people monitoring, including--by law--people ready to abort or order redirect. > What's the (crucial) difference with system checks? You have to open the rocket up. > No repairs for the nominally working system This has never been demonstrated. (Repairs/refurbishment.) > Don't you have a suspicion that Falcons aren't being improved that much now because it doesn't make sense for the current mass flow to orbit and given that Starship is planned to become available soon? No. Falcon launches are currently pad limited. Note: I think Starship is vastly superior to SLS. But that's in part because the ground operations, including infrastructure, are reused and thus amortised across many flights.
  - avmich 2y ago
    I get it, and still would comment on many points. Well, it's probably wrong place to have the discussion here :) .