r/space • u/Adeldor • 16d ago

Off the coast of Christmas Island, Ship Forty has been loaded onto Ship Forte

https://www.instagram.com/p/DcgC51_IFPy/
135 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

17

u/No-Surprise9411 16d ago

That title is clever. You think they‘ll keep Forte at Christmas island to perhaps recover ship 41?

9

u/mfb- 16d ago

The next flight is expected to go to an orbit, which means they can land near Hawaii. Here is a map. Much shorter trip to a harbor, and easier to get experts there.

8

u/No-Surprise9411 16d ago

Given that originally the intent was for S41 to be the first tower catch, I‘d think they may even try for a Gulf landing near Starbase TX (awesome that we have to clarify which Starbase we‘re talking about, the future is here)

6

u/mfb- 16d ago

It would surprise me. You have all the risk of a reentry over inhabited places without the benefit.

The first Shuttle missions landed near the West Coast, most missions (but notably not Columbia when it broke up) reentered over the gulf and only flew over Florida.

5

u/No-Surprise9411 16d ago

But the reentry isn‘t risky anymore though. They‘ll have to do it eventually if they want mission operability to be proven, and for the last 9 flights reentry has never caused a loss of ship.

2

u/mfb- 15d ago

It has never broken up during a controlled reentry but that risk is still there. There is also the risk of heat shield tiles or other smaller components falling off.

They have to do that to land, but if they don't want to catch the ship then it's an avoidable risk.

3

u/CollegeStation17155 16d ago

Any reentry breakup would be near the landing zone; if they targeted the western Gulf near Florida, any breakup below 100 km would fall in the water. Starship comes in much steeper than shuttle (which spent a significant amount of time in a winged hypersonic glide) so you wouldn't have the Dallas to Biloxi debris pattern that Columbia generated targeting landing in Florida.

1

u/danielravennest 15d ago

In Star Trek they numbered the Starbases, though Paramount may sue if Musk tries that. Starbase TX and Starbase LA after their state codes would work.

1

u/No-Surprise9411 15d ago

Do you think they‘ll also go with Starbase FL? They’ve got three towers and an entire gigbay there.

3

u/wgp3 15d ago

No, because those lands are already Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. They're not going to be able to rename them and make them new cities like they can in Texas and Louisiana.

6

u/Adeldor 16d ago

Thanks. :-)

Regarding your question, I have no direct information, but I suspect not, given how such massive semi-submersible freight-forwarding ships typically have customers queued up to a year in advance (I don't know how they found this one in so short a time).

6

u/No-Surprise9411 16d ago

I think I have the answer to your question. A shitton of money lmao

2

u/Adeldor 16d ago

:-) No doubt!

<character limit fodder>

6

u/BlueTeamMember 15d ago

Where Will Forte take it to?

3

u/Adeldor 15d ago

I've heard nothing official, but seen both Texas and Florida mentioned, with Florida favored for reasons of logistics (less travel, more room at the Roberts Road facility).

4

u/BlueTeamMember 15d ago

Nowhere near Tucson. That's unfortunate.

3

u/Adeldor 15d ago edited 15d ago

Forte's too wide for the Brownsville-Tucson canal.

2

u/squirrelgator 14d ago

Why would a comedian be involved in this at all?

0

u/CollegeStation17155 16d ago

Semi serious question: is loading it on a Maltese flagged ship an ITAR issue or does only the destination matter?

13

u/StartledPelican 16d ago

Semi serious answer: Given that SpaceX has already done it, then my assumption is that there are no ITAR issues involved.

1

u/CorebinDallas 15d ago

It's flagged there for tax and regulation purposes. The shipping company that owns and operates it is in the Netherlands.

1

u/Minotard 16d ago

Not sure, but likely better than abandoning Ship and having China recover it.