Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook

No free launch —

Rocket Report: China launches crew mission, SpaceX runs into road troubles

"The Space Safari team intends to push the envelope."

A launching rocket leaves a trail of flame against a dark blue sky.
Enlarge / A Falcon 9 rocket goes supersonic on Thursday, launching a GPS III satellite for the Space Force.

Welcome to Edition 4.03 of the Rocket Report! This week saw two significant launches back-to-back. On Wednesday evening, US time, China launched its first crewed mission to its new space station, which was also the country's first human spaceflight in nearly five years. And then, less than a day later, the US Space Force joined the ranks of reusable launch customers.

As always, we welcome reader submissions, and if you don't want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.

Blue Origin sells first New Shepard seat for $28 million. A ticket to take a brief trip to space with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on July 20 has been sold at auction for $28 million. The bidding process, which began in early May, drew offers from more than 7,000 participants from 159 countries, Blue Origin said. The price had stood at $4.8 million ahead of Saturday's live auction, which was streamed online, the Financial Times reports.

Two passengers yet unnamed ... The identity of the winning bidder has not yet been made public but will be revealed in the coming weeks, Blue Origin said. Whoever it is will be traveling with three other passengers, including Bezos and his younger brother, Mark. The "fourth and final" passenger will be announced soon, the company said. The winning bid amount will be donated to Club for the Future, Blue Origin's foundation focused on STEM education programs. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

Rocket Lab will design two small Mars spacecraft. Rocket Lab said Tuesday it has been awarded a subcontract by the University of California, Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory to design two Photon spacecraft for a scientific mission to Mars. The twin-spacecraft science mission seeks to enter orbit around Mars to understand the structure, composition, variability, and dynamics of the red planet's unique hybrid magnetosphere. This mission is being developed under NASA's Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration (SIMPLEx) program.

Not launching on an Electron ... The two spacecraft are planned for launch in 2024 to Mars, ride-sharing aboard a NASA-provided launch vehicle. After an 11-month trip to Mars, the Photon spacecraft will insert themselves into elliptical orbits around Mars and conduct a 1-year primary science mission. Needless to say, building even a small Mars spacecraft is a big step forward for the New Zealand launch company. And NASA, too, deserves credit for broadening its Solar System exploration program to alternative approaches. (submitted by platykurtic and Ken the Bin)

The Rocket Report: An Ars newsletter
The easiest way to keep up with Eric Berger's space reporting is to sign up for his newsletter, we'll collect his stories in your inbox.

Minotaur 1 rocket makes a rare appearance. For the first time in nearly eight years, a Minotaur 1 rocket launched into space Tuesday from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. The rocket, which is derived from Cold War-era surplus missiles, carried three classified satellites into orbit for the US National Reconnaissance Office, Ars reports.

Not old space, but oldest space ... The Minotaur 1, which has the capacity to launch a little more than 500 kg into low Earth orbit, is a mix of decades-old technology and modern avionics. The vehicle's first and second stages are taken from a repurposed Minuteman II missile, the second generation of land-based, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Minuteman II missiles were retired in 1970.

Astra seeks weekly launch cadence. The California company's CEO, Chris Kemp, told NASASpaceflight.com that Astra will launch its next booster, Rocket 3.3, as early as this summer. By the end of the year, the Rocket 3 series is planned to launch on a monthly basis, Kemp said. So far, Astra has reached space, with the launch of Rocket 3.2 last December. But the booster did not quite reach orbit. The company has since extended the length of the rocket by 5 feet so that it can carry more fuel.

Increasing production of Rocket 3 series ... "We were actually only planning on making about eight of these rockets. So we've increased the production run for the Rocket 3 series to a dozen. And we'll be flying those monthly starting in the fourth quarter. And then that monthly rate will ramp up to weekly with the Rocket 4 series starting next year." Rocket 4.0 will include a new engine—replacing the Delphin and Aether first- and second-stage engines currently used on Rocket 3—with "much higher performance," according to Kemp. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

Launcher unveils orbital transfer vehicle. The small launch company said Wednesday it is building a "universal orbital transfer vehicle and satellite platform" to accommodate small satellites. The vehicle can carry up to 150 kg of customer satellite payloads and, using its independent propulsion system, will deliver customer satellites to desired orbits.

Dual compatibility ... The transfer vehicle has been designed to be compatible with both the Launcher Light vehicle, under development, as well as SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket. The new orbiter is contracted to make its inaugural flight to Sun-synchronous orbit via a Falcon 9 ride-share mission in October 2022. Launcher's own small orbital launch vehicle is slated for its first flight in 2024. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

Phantom Space names VP of launch ops. The Arizona-based startup announced Tuesday that it has hired Mark Lester to serve as its Vice President of Launch Operations. The company also said it was expanding into a Tucson-based 32,000-square-foot facility that will serve as its rocket factory. Previously, Lester was the chief executive of Alaska Aerospace Corporation, which operated the Pacific Spaceport Complex on Kodiak Island.

Phantom space, real rocket? ... "My aim is to propel Phantom Space and the overall commercial space launch industry into a new era of safe, routine, and on-demand access to space for the masses," Lester said in the news release. Phantom Space, co-founded by Jim Cantrell, is targeting the first quarter of 2023 for its first orbital launch. Those familiar with Cantrell's past launch ventures may have some skepticism about that date, however.

China launches first crewed mission in nearly five years. The Shenzhou-12 spacecraft docked with China's space station module hours after launching late Wednesday, marking the first crewed visit to the new facility, SpaceNews reports. Shenzhou-12 and its crew of three launched on a Long March 2F from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center. Astronauts Nie Haisheng, Liu Boming, and Tang Hongbo will spend three months aboard the 16.6-meter-long, 4.2-meter-diameter Tianhe module.

A record-length spaceflight ... The crewed mission is the third of 11 launches planned for the construction of the three-module Chinese Space Station, which is named "Harmony of the Heavens." China's seventh crewed flight overall, this mission is planned to far surpass the Chinese human spaceflight duration record of 33 days set by Shenzhou-11 in 2016. (submitted by EllPeaTea and Ken the Bin)

Falcon 9 lofts first national security mission on used booster. Shortly before noon on Thursday, local time, a Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, carrying a GPS III satellite for the US Space Force. As Ars reports, this is the first time a national security mission has flown on a previously used Falcon 9 first stage. This rocket previously launched another GPS satellite in November 2020.

Sending a signal ... This represents an important signal from the military that it is ready to embrace reused rockets for its most important missions. The launch is also something of a final frontier for SpaceX as it seeks to push forward the reuse of Falcon 9 first stages. NASA has already launched its highest-value missions—astronauts—on a reused first stage with the Crew-2 flight in April.

NASA sets Halloween launch date for Crew-3. NASA said this week it has adjusted target launch and return dates for upcoming crew missions to and from the International Space Station based on visiting vehicle traffic. NASA's SpaceX Crew-3 mission will now target a launch on a Falcon 9 rocket no earlier than Sunday, October 31, with NASA astronauts Raja Chari, Kayla Barron, and Dr. Tom Marshburn as well as ESA astronaut Matthias Maurer.

One crew arrives, one leaves ... Following Crew-3's arrival, Crew-2 NASA astronauts Shane Kimbrough and Megan McArthur, JAXA astronaut Aki Hoshide, and ESA astronaut Thomas Pesquet are targeting early- to mid-November for a return to Earth inside Crew Dragon Endeavour off the coast of Florida. The next crew-rotation mission is targeted for no earlier than mid-April 2022, but whether this will be a SpaceX or Boeing mission will be determined at a later date. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

Space Force stands up "Space Safari" program. The US Space Force recently created the Space Safari Program Office to rapidly acquire, integrate, and execute specific launch needs. "These missions are not typically a part of an enduring program of record, but respond to high priority needs to deploy space systems quickly to respond to emerging threats," the Space and Missile Systems Center said in a news release.

Three weeks to get ready ... The launch of the Odyssey mission on a Pegasus XL rocket last Sunday offers an example of this kind of capability. The Space Force's technology demonstration satellite was developed in less than a year, and Pegasus operator Northrop Grumman was given just three weeks to get ready for the flight. "The Space Safari team intends to push the envelope when it comes to the US Space Force's ability to rapidly plan and conduct all aspects of future space missions," said Col. Dennis Bythewood, Director of Special Programs. The military has long aspired to have a rapid, responsive launch capability. (submitted by Ken the Bin and Rendgrish)

SLS core stage bolted to solid boosters. The core stage for NASA's first Space Launch System rocket has been installed between two solid-fueled boosters on a mobile launch platform at the Kennedy Space Center, Spaceflight Now reports. A "soft mate" between the core stage and solid rocket boosters, longer versions of the solid-fueled motors used on the space shuttle, was completed in High Bay 3 of the Vehicle Assembly Building on Saturday evening, followed by a "hard mate" on Sunday.

Carrying the load ... Following this, a crane disconnected from the core stage, leaving the two 54-meter-tall solid rocket boosters to carry the full weight of the rocket. The SLS main stage is suspended between the Northrop Grumman-made boosters, which are stacked on mounting pins on the mobile launch platform. NASA hopes to launch the SLS and Orion crew capsule on an uncrewed test flight around the Moon as soon as late November, but this launch, in all likelihood, will slip into 2022. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

Blue Origin seeks chief engineer for New Glenn. In a new job posting on LinkedIn, Blue Origin is hiring a chief engineer for the first stage of its New Glenn rocket. Among the responsibilities, per the job posting, is to "Provide independent review of corrective actions for major failures at the program/product level and work with functional managers in addressing systemic issues."

Just standard language ... So is the wording of this posting reflective of serious problems with New Glenn or simply boilerplate language? It's the latter, a spokeswoman for the company told Ars, saying, "We could've done a better job phrasing that bullet point in the job description—this is not an indication of any failures, it's a part of a chief engineer's role to address, prevent and mitigate any potential failures."

SpaceX criticized for closing public roads. On Friday, June 11, Cameron County District Attorney Luis Saenz wrote to SpaceX Senior Director Shyamal Patel regarding the company's closure of two county roads near its Starship build site in South Texas. The roads, Remedios Avenue and Joanna Street, are located just off of the main thoroughfare through the region, State Highway 4. When staff members from the DA's office attempted to drive on these public roads, they were barred by SpaceX security.

"The actions of SpaceX and its staff ... may constitute crimes in the state of Texas," Saenz wrote. "This conduct is unacceptable. And I strongly believe you, Mr. Patel, and SpaceX, also knew it was unacceptable." The original complaint came from the "Save RGV" organization, which seeks to minimize effects from SpaceX's activities on the Rio Grande Valley. SpaceX was asked to reply to the concerns raised in Saenz's letter by Monday, June 14. (submitted by DanNeely)

Next three launches

June 18: Long March 2C | Three Yaogan satellites | Xichang Satellite Launch Center, China | 06:25 UTC

June 24: Falcon 9 | Transporter 2 ride-share mission | Cape Canaveral, Fla. | TBD

June 29: LauncherOne | Tubular Bells mission | Mojave Air & Space Port | TBD

182 Reader Comments

  1. Interesting they’re singling out SpaceX compatibility directly, rather than stating they can launch on any appropriate ESPA compatible vehicle.
    15382 posts | registered
  2. The roads pretty much terminate directly into the SpaceX factory and go nowhere else. These are basically dirt roads surrounded on all sides by SpaceX property. Its an environmental group trying to slow SpaceX down by digging up an issue nobody cared about and trying to make hay out of it.
    287 posts | registered
  3. The Verge has a new information on the the SN8 launch in violation of the FAA launch license.

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/15/2235 ... tion-texas

    Quote:
    The FAA’s models showed that if the rocket exploded, its shockwave could be strengthened by various weather conditions like wind speed and endanger nearby homes. As a new launch countdown clock was ticking, SpaceX asked the FAA to waive this safety threshold at 1:42PM, but the FAA rejected the request an hour later. SpaceX paused the countdown clock.

    SpaceX’s director of launch operations, whose name wasn’t provided in the report, restarted the launch countdown clock shortly after. The report said the director had “the impression that” SpaceX’s data was sufficient. But that wasn’t the case. As the launch clock was counting down, SpaceX staff in the meeting made little progress — 15 minutes before liftoff, “the FAA informed SpaceX that the weather data provided was not sufficient.” The same safety risk remained, and SN8 wasn’t cleared for launch.
    "SpaceX staff “assumed that the inspector did not have the latest information”"

    SpaceX employees left the FAA meeting for the company’s launch control room ahead of SN8’s launch. Minutes before liftoff, an FAA safety inspector speaking on an open phone line warned SpaceX’s staff in the launch control room that a launch would violate the company’s launch license. SpaceX staff ignored the warning because they “assumed that the inspector did not have the latest information,” the SpaceX report said.
    463 posts | registered
  4. Congratulations to China, that's a big achievement, and I wonder if that marks the start of their permanent habitation of space - like the ISS has been for a while now.

    As a minor point, I think that will mean we (briefly) have the most people ever in space when New Shepherd launches?
    2086 posts | registered
  5. rayleonard wrote:
    The roads pretty much terminate directly into the SpaceX factory and go nowhere else. These are basically dirt roads surrounded on all sides by SpaceX property. Its an environmental group trying to slow SpaceX down by digging up an issue nobody cared about and trying to make hay out of it.


    They are, however, public roads? I can understand SpaceX having the same attitude, to a point, but they still require legal authorization to place potentially armed security guards on a public road and obstruct access to the public.

    The letter makes clear that they tested whether public access was being denied (it was, by a security guard who was presumably unarmed as he was not registered to bear any). They also noted that the county has not approved any public road closures, and alleged that certain other possible authorizations under an agreement with the state might not be valid on the day in question if challenged in court.

    It seems the county is taking the "issue nobody cared about" very seriously. Let's see how SpaceX respond.

    Last edited by Cathbadhian on Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:28 am

    1264 posts | registered
  6. rayleonard wrote:
    The roads pretty much terminate directly into the SpaceX factory and go nowhere else. These are basically dirt roads surrounded on all sides by SpaceX property. Its an environmental group trying to slow SpaceX down by digging up an issue nobody cared about and trying to make hay out of it.

    It may technically be a minor infraction and have been prompted by a party that doesn't like SpaceX, but private security stopping District Attorney staff from going on a public road is never a good look and is asking for trouble.
    2086 posts | registered
  7. Congress having a space subcommittee meeting with starship in the literal name and not bothering to invite spacex was another funny moment from the week.
    251 posts | registered
  8. wagnerrp wrote:
    Interesting they’re singling out SpaceX compatibility directly, rather than stating they can launch on any appropriate ESPA compatible vehicle.

    while it likely is an ESPA system, or at least ESPA derived, Investors know SpaceX.

    This isn't the first time someone has done this, a few years ago, Boeing was advertising (on Parabolic arc when i still read there) that their new geo sat bus could be configured to triple berth on F9. (as i recall it is supposed to be a somewhat modular platform that can come in a few different sizes based on need)
    19700 posts | registered
  9. "Provide independent review of corrective actions for major failures at the program/product level and work with functional managers in addressing systemic issues." would be standard boilerplate language if it did not concern New Glenn. For a rocket that has slipped schedule by years, has had its reuse capability significantly reduced (from 100 to 25 reuses) and lost significant funding and contracts it sure looks like 'major failures' and 'systemic issues' are reflective of serious problems with New Glenn.
    35 posts | registered
  10. I just found out I'm going to a conference in Texas in September. I'm going to tack on an extra day or two, and head down to Boca Chica (With Texas being so small, this is 'only' 8 more hours of driving, each way).
    Hopefully there will be some rockets to look at. If I'm really, really lucky, even a launch :)
    515 posts | registered
  11. mhalpern wrote:
    wagnerrp wrote:
    Interesting they’re singling out SpaceX compatibility directly, rather than stating they can launch on any appropriate ESPA compatible vehicle.

    while it likely is an ESPA system, or at least ESPA derived, Investors know SpaceX.

    No “likely” about it. Their second stage has an ESPA Grande ring, and their optional third stage will attach to that or anything else with that standard attachment.
    15382 posts | registered
  12. i really don't see how the market Astra sees for weekly launches won't be eaten by rideshares. small launch is like chartering a private jet, if there are a lot of people making that route sooner or later an airline will do a direct or near direct route between those destinations
    19700 posts | registered
  13. Are Space Force using "safari" is a way I'm not familiar with? I'm expecting an extended road trip with plenty of gear and probably some off-road fun. That doesn't seem to gel with safaris colonial or surfin'.
    3211 posts | registered
  14. andygates wrote:
    Are Space Force using "safari" is a way I'm not familiar with? I'm expecting an extended road trip with plenty of gear and probably some off-road fun. That doesn't seem to gel with safaris colonial or surfin'.

    It's "we need a cool name to impress the general so he'll pay for our project"
    251 posts | registered
  15. andygates wrote:
    Are Space Force using "safari" is a way I'm not familiar with? I'm expecting an extended road trip with plenty of gear and probably some off-road fun. That doesn't seem to gel with safaris colonial or surfin'.

    same way DARPA is using the word "blackjack" they needed a name
    19700 posts | registered
  16. Quote:
    June 29: LauncherOne | Tubular Bells mission | Mojave Air & Space Port | TBD


    Thing I learned recently after watching a documentary on the creation of Tubular Bells (highly recommended):

    Virgin Records' first release was Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells, and it was a giant hit for them. Virgin Records was cofounded by Richard Branson, who also started Virgin Orbit. LauncherOne is being launched by Virgin Orbit. Named Tubular Bells because they are hoping for similar success?
    112 posts | registered
  17. wagnerrp wrote:
    Interesting they’re singling out SpaceX compatibility directly, rather than stating they can launch on any appropriate ESPA compatible vehicle.

    That was my reaction but then I realized their first launch platform will be SpaceX so...it kind of makes sense.

    Does not bode well for other space companies, though.
    4074 posts | registered
  18. Marzipan wrote:
    Quote:
    June 29: LauncherOne | Tubular Bells mission | Mojave Air & Space Port | TBD


    Thing I learned recently after watching a documentary on the creation of Tubular Bells (highly recommended):

    Virgin Records' first release was Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells, and it was a giant hit for them. Virgin Records was cofounded by Richard Branson, who also started Virgin Orbit. LauncherOne is being launched by Virgin Orbit. Named Tubular Bells because they are hoping for similar success?

    It's also potentially worth noting that Branson was from pretty much the beginning a complete contractual git to Mike Oldfield the composer.
    2086 posts | registered
  19. andygates wrote:
    Are Space Force using "safari" is a way I'm not familiar with? I'm expecting an extended road trip with plenty of gear and probably some off-road fun. That doesn't seem to gel with safaris colonial or surfin'.

    It’s a program name the USAF uses to buy stuff quickly, bypassing many competitive purchasing rules. Somebody has an idea, Safari likes it, assigns a contractor to build, and off they go.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Safari
    1288 posts | registered
  20. this talk of ESPA stages makes me wonder if you can fit multiple ESPA rings in parallel within Starship's payload bay
    19700 posts | registered
  21. DougF wrote:
    andygates wrote:
    Are Space Force using "safari" is a way I'm not familiar with? I'm expecting an extended road trip with plenty of gear and probably some off-road fun. That doesn't seem to gel with safaris colonial or surfin'.

    It’s a program name the USAF uses to buy stuff quickly, bypassing many competitive purchasing rules. Somebody has an idea, Safari likes it, assigns a contractor to build, and off they go.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Safari

    Imagine that. A record publisher being a jerk to the talent. I'm shocked! Shocked I say...
    21646 posts | registered
  22. This Apogee video makes and interesting speculation I'd not seen before, that the delays to New Glenn caused the National Team Artemis design have to be rethought from NG to Vulcan - leading to a number of issues that then contributed to them not being selected.

    Can anyone confirm or deny this? General thoughts?

    https://youtu.be/L4xRNXyy-8o?t=1303
    2086 posts | registered
  23. mhalpern wrote:
    this talk of ESPA stages makes me wonder if you can fit multiple ESPA rings in parallel within Starship's payload bay

    An ESPA Grande ring is only 60" in diameter. Heck, a Minotaur 1 is only that dimension. You could put several such payloads in the same plane inside a Starship. For payloads that could fit in a Minotaur, I count 15 such payloads in just the outer ring.
    21646 posts | registered
  24. mhalpern wrote:
    this talk of ESPA stages makes me wonder if you can fit multiple ESPA rings in parallel within Starship's payload bay

    The ESPA ring just follows the standard 62” EELV interface diameter, so you could probably fit three across across inside the bay with payloads, but why? The whole design is fundamentally at odds to the Chomper. Each port on the ring needs external access to space. You would need something akin to the “free flyer” design that would have a functional spacecraft built within the ring, and then would need some sort of ejector system to then get those rings outside the vehicle so they could deploy their payloads.
    15382 posts | registered
  25. wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    this talk of ESPA stages makes me wonder if you can fit multiple ESPA rings in parallel within Starship's payload bay

    The ESPA ring just follows the standard 62” EELV interface diameter, so you could probably fit three across across inside the bay with payloads, but why? The whole design is fundamentally at odds to the Chomper. Each port on the ring needs external access to space. You would need something akin to the “free flyer” design that would have a functional spacecraft built within the ring, and then would need some sort of ejector system to then get those rings outside the vehicle so they could deploy their payloads.

    because a lot of payloads and payload stacks are designed around the EELV interface,
    19700 posts | registered
  26. mhalpern wrote:
    wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    this talk of ESPA stages makes me wonder if you can fit multiple ESPA rings in parallel within Starship's payload bay

    The ESPA ring just follows the standard 62” EELV interface diameter, so you could probably fit three across across inside the bay with payloads, but why? The whole design is fundamentally at odds to the Chomper. Each port on the ring needs external access to space. You would need something akin to the “free flyer” design that would have a functional spacecraft built within the ring, and then would need some sort of ejector system to then get those rings outside the vehicle so they could deploy their payloads.

    because a lot of payloads and payload stacks are designed around the EELV interface,

    But how would it even work? The ESPA design is based around the idea that you eject the fairing, and then the whole ring has direct, unencumbered access to space. That’s not so with a cargo bay. They’re going to have to come up with some kind of feed mechanism to deploy multiple satellites, but then why not skip the middleman and just have your feed mechanism be able to handle smaller satellites directly?
    15382 posts | registered
  27. wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    this talk of ESPA stages makes me wonder if you can fit multiple ESPA rings in parallel within Starship's payload bay

    The ESPA ring just follows the standard 62” EELV interface diameter, so you could probably fit three across across inside the bay with payloads, but why? The whole design is fundamentally at odds to the Chomper. Each port on the ring needs external access to space. You would need something akin to the “free flyer” design that would have a functional spacecraft built within the ring, and then would need some sort of ejector system to then get those rings outside the vehicle so they could deploy their payloads.

    because a lot of payloads and payload stacks are designed around the EELV interface,

    But how would it even work? The ESPA design is based around the idea that you eject the fairing, and then the whole ring has direct, unencumbered access to space. That’s not so with a cargo bay. They’re going to have to come up with some kind of feed mechanism to deploy multiple satellites, but then why not skip the middleman and just have your feed mechanism be able to handle smaller satellites directly?


    because it'd likely be faster than waiting for everyone else to adapt to your standards, if they ever do.
    19700 posts | registered
  28. wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    this talk of ESPA stages makes me wonder if you can fit multiple ESPA rings in parallel within Starship's payload bay

    The ESPA ring just follows the standard 62” EELV interface diameter, so you could probably fit three across across inside the bay with payloads, but why? The whole design is fundamentally at odds to the Chomper. Each port on the ring needs external access to space. You would need something akin to the “free flyer” design that would have a functional spacecraft built within the ring, and then would need some sort of ejector system to then get those rings outside the vehicle so they could deploy their payloads.

    because a lot of payloads and payload stacks are designed around the EELV interface,

    But how would it even work? The ESPA design is based around the idea that you eject the fairing, and then the whole ring has direct, unencumbered access to space. That’s not so with a cargo bay. They’re going to have to come up with some kind of feed mechanism to deploy multiple satellites, but then why not skip the middleman and just have your feed mechanism be able to handle smaller satellites directly?

    It could be as simple as mounting to a turntable. I have no doubt that with emerging launch capabilities the old standards will go out the window eventually, but there is going to be a messy in between stage where one has to accommodate them even if they don't make sense anymore.
    1022 posts | registered
  29. rayleonard wrote:
    The roads pretty much terminate directly into the SpaceX factory and go nowhere else. These are basically dirt roads surrounded on all sides by SpaceX property. Its an environmental group trying to slow SpaceX down by digging up an issue nobody cared about and trying to make hay out of it.


    One of these "public roads" is even still visible on Google Maps in its pre-SpaceX form: a pair of ruts separated by heavy vegetation. They were originally laid out to access houses to be built on those lots, and those houses were never built after Hurricane Beulah, so they've been abandoned for about half a century. SpaceX owns the land, rebuilt the roads, and has officially changed the name of one of the roads to "Rocket Road", as other county records show.

    In short, some forms didn't get filed properly or some records didn't get updated, and some jackass is using it as an excuse for a power trip and personally attacking some security personnel who got in his way by insinuating that they were brandishing weapons without being properly licensed, when in reality he doesn't even know if they were carrying weapons.
    4090 posts | registered
  30. Astra is planning on developing two new engines?

    I know that they are one of the serious small rocket companies, but it's kind of crazy that they are already planning on developing a new engine (one of the most expensive parts of rocket development)
    3317 posts | registered
  31. Can't help but wonder if the SpaceX/County DA thing about the roads and private security is due to some Sheriff's deputies wanting be the ones providing security while off duty and are miffed that SpaceX is using a private firm.

    Whatever the problem, I hope they sort it out quickly. County officials have a lot of authority over local roads and I would hate for SpaceX to have their operations there shut down for months or years while the thing plays out in local courts.
    202 posts | registered
  32. peterford wrote:
    rayleonard wrote:
    The roads pretty much terminate directly into the SpaceX factory and go nowhere else. These are basically dirt roads surrounded on all sides by SpaceX property. Its an environmental group trying to slow SpaceX down by digging up an issue nobody cared about and trying to make hay out of it.

    It may technically be a minor infraction and have been prompted by a party that doesn't like SpaceX, but private security stopping District Attorney staff from going on a public road is never a good look and is asking for trouble.


    A public official grandstanding about "access" to these roads isn't a great look either. How much did it cost to buy him?

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Joann ... -97.186411
    585 posts | registered
  33. mhalpern wrote:
    wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    this talk of ESPA stages makes me wonder if you can fit multiple ESPA rings in parallel within Starship's payload bay

    The ESPA ring just follows the standard 62” EELV interface diameter, so you could probably fit three across across inside the bay with payloads, but why? The whole design is fundamentally at odds to the Chomper. Each port on the ring needs external access to space. You would need something akin to the “free flyer” design that would have a functional spacecraft built within the ring, and then would need some sort of ejector system to then get those rings outside the vehicle so they could deploy their payloads.

    because a lot of payloads and payload stacks are designed around the EELV interface,

    But how would it even work? The ESPA design is based around the idea that you eject the fairing, and then the whole ring has direct, unencumbered access to space. That’s not so with a cargo bay. They’re going to have to come up with some kind of feed mechanism to deploy multiple satellites, but then why not skip the middleman and just have your feed mechanism be able to handle smaller satellites directly?

    because it'd likely be faster than waiting for everyone else to adapt to your standards, if they ever do.

    ESPA is a standard mounting frame, so SpaceX should absolutely provide the capability to similarly support spacecraft and dispensors designed to those standard 62", 24", and 15" port sizes. ESPA is not a spacecraft (except for SHERPA), so why does it need to be supported?
    15382 posts | registered
  34. arcite wrote:
    Apparently only a dozen or so civilian owners still occupy the village. At this point it's practically squatting. They should accept very generous SpaceX cash buyouts and vacate.


    Found the person who thinks that Coy LaHood was a protagonist. Tell me, if they formed a private corporation like SpaceX, would they have more or fewer rights to the land that they own? I can't tell whether you're using "civilian" as a pejorative or not.
    1468 posts | registered
  35. Can't help but wonder if the SpaceX/County DA thing about the roads and private security is due to some Sheriff's deputies wanting be the ones providing security while off duty and are miffed that SpaceX is using a private firm.

    Whatever the problem, I hope they sort it out quickly. County officials have a lot of authority over local roads and I would hate for SpaceX to have their operations there shut down for months or years while the thing plays out in local courts.

    They wouldn’t be shut down for months or years. At worst they would move to their Florida location and lose time having to ship everything and rebuild there. More likely, the state would step in so they wouldn’t lose SpaceX. Or SpaceX will simply do a better job with the road closures.
    945 posts | registered
  36. Dtiffster wrote:
    wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    wagnerrp wrote:
    mhalpern wrote:
    this talk of ESPA stages makes me wonder if you can fit multiple ESPA rings in parallel within Starship's payload bay

    The ESPA ring just follows the standard 62” EELV interface diameter, so you could probably fit three across across inside the bay with payloads, but why? The whole design is fundamentally at odds to the Chomper. Each port on the ring needs external access to space. You would need something akin to the “free flyer” design that would have a functional spacecraft built within the ring, and then would need some sort of ejector system to then get those rings outside the vehicle so they could deploy their payloads.

    because a lot of payloads and payload stacks are designed around the EELV interface,

    But how would it even work? The ESPA design is based around the idea that you eject the fairing, and then the whole ring has direct, unencumbered access to space. That’s not so with a cargo bay. They’re going to have to come up with some kind of feed mechanism to deploy multiple satellites, but then why not skip the middleman and just have your feed mechanism be able to handle smaller satellites directly?

    It could be as simple as mounting to a turntable. I have no doubt that with emerging launch capabilities the old standards will go out the window eventually, but there is going to be a messy in between stage where one has to accommodate them even if they don't make sense anymore.


    Employ a few belters to shove them out the payload hatch?
    266 posts | registered
  37. DougF wrote:
    andygates wrote:
    Are Space Force using "safari" is a way I'm not familiar with? I'm expecting an extended road trip with plenty of gear and probably some off-road fun. That doesn't seem to gel with safaris colonial or surfin'.

    It’s a program name the USAF uses to buy stuff quickly, bypassing many competitive purchasing rules. Somebody has an idea, Safari likes it, assigns a contractor to build, and off they go.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Safari


    Aha, thanks! Though when styled BIG SAFARI it gives me CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN twitches... :)
    3211 posts | registered
  38. andygates wrote:
    Are Space Force using "safari" is a way I'm not familiar with? I'm expecting an extended road trip with plenty of gear and probably some off-road fun. That doesn't seem to gel with safaris colonial or surfin'.


    If you don't get to come back with a Xenomorph head on a pike, does it qualifies as a Space Safari?
    3317 posts | registered

You must to comment.

Channel Ars Technica