Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DejanTepic t1_j8jfnyq wrote

During the winter, isn't it kind of risky to leave a naked starship outside in low temperatures,

it could potentially shrink.

I speak from first hand experience.

31

mjzimmer88 t1_j8jiby0 wrote

This is SpaceX not Blue Origin

13

Synaptic-Sugar t1_j8mjq1l wrote

I guess that explains why Blue Origin only barely dips their rocket into (the coldness of) space 🤔

3

Synaptic-Sugar t1_j8k6t8q wrote

I'm sorry but that title gets my mind going, on what else they could've done with the title...

"SpaceX Starship prototype flaunts its bare voluptuous curves on its way to test site"

"Geez, this is a public space, please put some tiles on!" (Actually not really kinda but shush :P)

"Boca Chica now confirmed a nude beach"

26

IfIHadTheAnswer t1_j8kab0l wrote

They forgot the comma:

“SpaceX rolls naked, Starship prototype to test site”

8

Techutante t1_j8kpjjz wrote

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

3

OnlyFreshBrine t1_j8kecnt wrote

15mph, I roll out, double back, grab one of em and beat it out of him.

17

AdminsFuckedMeAgain t1_j8n6u4r wrote

Word on the street is that this will be put into orbit as kind of a “dummy” fuel depot. They will test maneuvers, movements, temperature changes, heat shield, and other stuff necessary for the fuel depot as well as fly future Starships near it to practice for their first attempt at transferring fuel. Shotwell has stated that Starlink is being put back in favor of HLS milestones

6

Decronym t1_j8mktgu wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |HLS|Human Landing System (Artemis)| |SN|(Raptor/Starship) Serial Number|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Raptor|Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|

^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 11 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8567 for this sub, first seen 15th Feb 2023, 12:34]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1

RGregoryClark OP t1_j8iddqh wrote

The key clue is it’s moved to the suborbital launch pad. This means it can launch without the SuperHeavy booster. With 6 engines it can launch fully fueled unlike the previous Starship test flights meant just to test landing.
The key question: what is the dry mass of this expendable version without flaps, legs, heat shield, or ballast tanks? If you know that you can calculate how much payload it can lift to orbit in a single stage.

Elon said the expendable version with only 3 engines might mass only 40 tons:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1111798912141017089?s=61&t=A46qVnS2GH4VVA-pQSUlkg

Add another 5 tons for 3 more engines and this version might mass 45 tons. However, the increased thrust may require strengthening of the tanks which would increase the dry mass. On the other hand, this version would have to support far less payload atop it then the max 250 tons of the full two-stage so would need reduced tank strengthening.

−18

RusticMachine t1_j8ixtpl wrote

> The key clue is it’s moved to the suborbital launch pad. This means it can launch without the SuperHeavy booster.

I think you’re confused. SpaceX has been testing all their Starship prototypes on the suborbital launch pad (e.g. cryo testing, static fires, etc.). This is not an indication it will launch from that platform.

Fyi, Starship by itself, even in an expandable configuration, cannot reach orbit. It needs SuperHeavy even if it were empty (also, the additional 3 engines are vacuum optimized and are only meant to be started at a higher altitude).

23

RGregoryClark OP t1_j8n6931 wrote

The “Angry Astronaut” did a video from Boca Chica showing the Raptor work station being moved towards Ship 26:

https://www.youtube.com/live/MmUwHVji9b4

He says that’s only done if you are installing engines on the Starship. You don’t do that if you are only doing pressure testing. He notes though that it could be putting engines either on S26 or S25. Probably we’ll know by the end of today which ship is having engines installed.

Conceivably, it could only be doing static fire testing. Still, 6 engines are sufficient for it to take off fully fueled. Note, the expendable version is much lighter than the reusable version, having no top or bottom flaps, heat shield, legs, or ballast tanks. Any reasonable estimate of the dry mass of the expendable version allows for it to reach orbit with significant payload in a single stage.

0

Bensemus t1_j8j8g8j wrote

What have you been smoking? This is likely either part of HLS, an expendable Starship for Starlink launches, or a tanker/depot test Starship.

14

eberkain t1_j8jf8w2 wrote

Got to be a test for HLS, it would make zero sense to use expendable vehicles on starlink or tankers.

9

Bensemus t1_j8jqrla wrote

Most likely HLS or a ground test vehicle of some kind but SpaceX may use some disposable Starships for Starlink. If their factory is up to 1 a day but they don’t have reuse figured out then disposable is a way to get some use out of them. Unlikely but possible.

3

eberkain t1_j8jt77p wrote

Well the factory is more like 1 every 3 months, starlink needs to be as cheap as possible also, I can't imagine any scenario where they use expendable ships to launch starlink.

6

LdLrq4TS t1_j8j73tn wrote

Yeah, no, it needs superheavy to reach orbit, what you see is a tanker to carry propelant for fuel depot.

9

cjameshuff t1_j8jb1lv wrote

This would probably be closer to what the depot itself will be, as the tankers will need heat shields and flaps. This might also be some hybrid, maybe just a cheaper way to test propellant transfer when they're still working on recovery.

11

colonizetheclouds t1_j8jrgml wrote

would make sense to test early HLS SN with orbital refuelling. Two tests at once.

If able to fuel successfully, send to moon.

5