• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged SpaceX’s Starship Rocket Explodes After Launch/Starship hop

smartcooky said:
However, there has been been a successful SSTO vehicle that took two astronauts into orbit!
Click to expand...

I am unaware about any existing SSTO that can orbit anything, let alone two astronauts.

One hint: being on certain height (for a moment) is not same thing as orbiting on same height.

In first case, gravity will inevitably drag them down.

In second case, gravity will try that too, but these guys will miss Earth, quite literally. To pull it off, quite a lot of sideways speed is required.
 
Mader Levap said:
I am unaware about any existing SSTO that can orbit anything, let alone two astronauts.

One hint: being on certain height (for a moment) is not same thing as orbiting on same height.

In first case, gravity will inevitably drag them down.

In second case, gravity will try that too, but these guys will miss Earth, quite literally. To pull it off, quite a lot of sideways speed is required.
Click to expand...

Trebuchet said:
<Citation Needed>
Click to expand...

OK, let me drop a clue or two

There were six of these SSTO vehicles that each successfully took two astronauts to orbit along with some additional payload, over a period of just over 3 years.... its never been done again.

ETA: C'mon guys, think outside the square
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
Lunar orbit doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does

Wikipedia: A single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body using only propellants and fluids and without expending tanks, engines, or other major hardware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit

The Free Dictionary: A single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware, expending only propellants and fluids.
https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Single-Stage-to-Orbit

Aviation Dictionary: A single stage to orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware, expending only propellants and fluids
http://aviation_dictionary.enacademic.com/6879/transatmospheric_vehicle

Explosive Rail Launch by Royce Jones on Academia.edu
Single-stage to orbit — A single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware
https://www.academia.edu/26747819/Explosive_Rail_Launch

The Moon is "a body" so that makes the ascent stage of the LM an SSTO. Even the Russian "Luna" and the Chinese "Chang-e5 sample return missions used SSTO vehicles.

Even NASA does not limit the term SSTO to earth orbit
"PROPOSAL NUMBER: 09-2 S3.08-8305
PHASE 1 CONTRACT NUMBER: NNX10CC61P
SUBTOPIC TITLE: Planetary Ascent Vehicles
PROPOSAL TITLE: NOFBX Single-Stage-to-Orbit Mars Ascent Vehicle Engine

https://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/09/sbir/phase2/SBIR-09-2-S3.08-8305.html

MAVs to be used to bring astronauts back from Mars will be SSTO's because Mars' gravity is low enough to allow it, and because it is by far the simplest, most cost effective engineering solution
 
smartcooky said:
OK, let me drop a clue or two

There were six of these SSTO vehicles that each successfully took two astronauts to orbit along with some additional payload, over a period of just over 3 years.... its never been done again.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: You knew very well that everyone would assume launching from Earth.
 
smartcooky said:
Agree, but as I said, no significant payload. Therefpre, as you say, uneconomical

However, there has been been a successful SSTO vehicle that took two astronauts into orbit!
Click to expand...

Well, technically yes...

Edit: Must read whole of thread....
 
Last edited:
Starship Skip

About 30 minutes ago (22:09 GMT), SN-9 was test-fired on the pad at SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Facility. Live feed:



The dinged fin has been panel-beaten back into shape and the seams welded up nicely.

There is a NOTAM (NOTice to AirMen, basically an air space restriction) in place for the 8th through to the 11th, suggesting an attempt to launch SN-9 as early as this Friday. I don't think anything is set in stone yet, or if it is I haven't been able to find it. But the conventional wisdom is that this will be pretty-much a repeat of the SN-8 flight with aspirations to stick the landing this time.

SN-10 and SN-11 are both in the assembly bay at the moment so again, there will likely be a quick turnaround regardless of the outcome of the SN-9 flight.
 
Last edited:
cow_cat said:
About 30 minutes ago (22:09 GMT), SN-9 was test-fired on the pad at SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Facility. Live feed:



The dinged fin has been panel-beaten back into shape and the seams welded up nicely.
Click to expand...

I thought I read somewhere that they pinched the fin off SN10.
 
There have been a few static fires and it seems some problems with fuel pressures but it seems they are ready to try again. Today for the next 5 hours, or the next 2 days if things don't go well today.

Edit - scrubbed for today because of high winds.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
The genius of using stainless steel. Got a problem with that panel? Hey, get the panel beaters out here and bash it back into shape.
Click to expand...

It also makes heat shielding simpler. Stainless steel can withstand much higher temperatures than aluminum or carbon fiber without losing structural strength, so you can make up a lot of the weight lost to steel being heavier by not needing thermal tiles.
 
a_unique_person said:
Rumour that the FAA is not happy with the SN8 flight. Elon didn't let on about all the risks involved or something.
Click to expand...

There was an engine change. FAA didn't like it because engine changes have to have special safety checks and protocols (or something, don't ask me the details). Seems a bit strange to me - an engine is an engine. Airline change engines on aircraft all the time, and it doesn't seem to attract a lot of attention.

I think the FAA are poorly equipped to deal with all this. Between SpaceX, ULA, Virgin and Orbital ATK (now Northrop-Grumman) and with Blue Origin soon to join, and Rocketlab opening their new launch facility at Wallops, there could be upwards of 50 launches per year. The FAA's space division are just not set up deal with the launch cadence of modern rocketry.
 
Last edited:
There has been a few days of will-they-won't-they, but it looks like Elon and the FAA have sorted out their differences and there might even be an attempt at a flight today! Since last Thursday there has been no TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction) granted, but today there is. Most importantly, SN9's flaps have finally been extended!

I prefer the LabPadre feed of the launch pad because there is little-to-no talking going on, but the pictures and text are all that is needed to be known. At the moment, there is a lovely view of SN9 and SN10 next to each other as SN9 is prepared for launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5l9ZxsG9M
 
Spoiler alert - all did not go to plan

I only saw 1 engine relight on the way down, with a touchdown slightly less controlled than SN8, and a similar result. Once again, great explosion and good telemetry.

Hope SN10 wasn't damaged and they can light that one soon.
 
Didn't actually get as close to landing as 8, I'd say. But otherwise looked very good. After the RUD there was a shot of a bit of light debris fluttering down the side of Ten. Probably wouldn't be damaging.
 
Was this another "seven out of eight criteria for success were met" situation?

I'll catch up with Scott Manley tonight, undoubtedly.
 
Well, it (SN10) went up, came down and landed.

It didn't* blow up.

Seems like the landing legs didn't deploy, it is leaning and looks to be a little bit on fire.

Sometimes those revolutionary things come in incremental steps. This counts.


ETA: I posted too soon. It just blew up, a few minutes after landing. Had to edit the post with a bit of selective strikethrough.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom