Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scjessey (talk | contribs) at 15:12, 20 November 2024 (→Orbital?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Rocketry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

SLS Block 1 says it had a 50 ton payload in 2022

But the Orion article says the Orion plus service module is nowhere near 50 tons. Is this inaccurate? I think this article should be more like the "heavy lift" article in that it includes exactly the heaviest load is, rather than a Yes/No. 72.76.72.238 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

ICPS+Orion is ~50 tons. Redacted II (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

50 metric tons? I see no evidence of this anywhere. Combined weight of 30 metric tons seems more accurate. Could you elaborate where you see this number? 72.76.72.238 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Orion: 10400+15461=25861 kg.

ICPS: 32748 kg

25861+32748=58609 kg

Almost 60 tons. Redacted II (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Comparison Table

Just a note that it would be nice if it was sortable. Doyna Yar (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

An editor broke the table yesterday. I'm working on fixing it (EDIT: ITS FIXED). Redacted II (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Human Rated

Does Human Rated mean that its rated for launching crew (Saturn V, SLS Block 1), or just transporting them (Starship HLS)? Redacted II (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Orbital?

I have concerns about this edit by Redacted II (talk · contribs). The claim made here is that because the flight may have a transatmospheric orbit it would constitute an orbital spaceflight; however, it is my understanding that the flight will have a perigee below that which would make an orbit of the planet possible, and thus it would not meet the definition of an orbital flight. I have not reverted this edit because sources I have found are contradictory; however, I think it should be discussed further and verified, if possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

After IFT-6 flies, we'll know whether or not it was suborbital or transatmospheric.

(It will almost certainly be suborbital before the Raptor Relight, given that it is targetting about the same spot as IFT-3, IFT-4. and IFT-5) Redacted II (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is whether or not there is a Raptor relight, it will still (deliberately) be on a splashdown trajectory. That means it isn't an orbital flight, regardless of whether or not it is transatmospheric. It would be different if the relight was specifically to deorbit Starship from a stable orbit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

For a flight to be orbital, perigee has to be above 0 m. It can be .0000001 nanometerts and still be orbital.

So long as the trajectory doesn't intercept the surface (ignoring atmospheric drag), it is orbital.

Transatmospheric earth orbit is an orbit. Its not suborbital. Redacted II (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not understanding what I am saying. My understanding (based on admittedly conficting sourcing) is that with or without a Raptor relight the vehicle will splashdown in the ocean. So yes, that would make the perigee 0 meters, intercepting the surface. Only with future vehicles, when Raptor relight has been proven, will they initiate a launch trajectory that does not automatically result in a splashdown. Ergo, this is not an orbital flight. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Update from SpaceX (emphasis mine):

Starship’s upper stage will fly the same suborbital trajectory as the previous flight test, with splashdown targeted in the Indian Ocean.

I think that is fairly definitive, would you not agree? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

A transatmospheric trajectory WILL splashdown in the ocean. Because the perigee is within the atmosphere, and once starts to reenter, it'll slow down.

We'll see in less than two days. Redacted II (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is 100% original research.

According to Jonathan McDowell, the apogee was lower, at 190 km.

Assuming the semimajoral axis was the same, then perigee is 7 km.

Which is above 0.

Thus, IFT-6 was transatmospheric Redacted II (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Its confirmed:

https://planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html

Perigee 50 km Redacted II (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

From SpaceX:

The ship successfully reignited a single Raptor engine while in space, demonstrating the capabilities required to conduct a ship deorbit burn before starting fully orbital missions.

It was not an orbital flight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• C-Class Rocketry articles
• Low-importance Rocketry articles
• WikiProject Rocketry articles
• C-Class spaceflight articles
• Low-importance spaceflight articles
• WikiProject Spaceflight articles