SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship updates

By DocM
in Science News & Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 05/08/2021 at 09:00, warwagon said:

How many of these do they have built?

>

 

They've completed over 100 Raptors and have at least a other 60 or so undergoing assembly.  This is just at Hawthorne CA, and they're building larger Raptor factory at the McGregor, TX test center. SpaceX is targeting a cost of about $250,000/Raptor.

 

A reusable RS-25 for the Shuttle cost about $40 million. A new but disposable RS-25 for SLS will cost $146 million. (link...)

 

S20 rollout. They'll likely stack it for integration checkouts and photo-ops, then bring it down to finish installing the tiles, etc.

 

272418784_Starship20rolloutScreenshot_2021-08-05-15-06-46-256.thumb.jpg.e47e39710dc58f45b546cacb0f005566.jpg

 

 

Edited by DocM
Mentor

IsItPluggedIn

Posted
Posted
On 07/08/2021 at 04:57, bguy_1986 said:

I've been meaning to watch this.  Haven't had time yet:

 

Not a lot of detail in there. A few tidbits that are interesting, a lot of time talking about business philosophy. Interesting if you have some time to waste.

  • bguy_1986 and anthdci
  • Like 2
Mentor

anthdci

Posted
Posted
On 07/08/2021 at 03:33, DocM said:

Oh, my...

 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1423830326665650179

 

IMG_20210806_221802.jpg

Do we have any idea of the plan? When they stacked I thought it would be a few weeks, but now they’ve rolled starship back and have stripped engines out of both it looks like it’ll be longer.

Mentor

IsItPluggedIn

Posted
Posted

Some of the engines bells were still white, so the assumption is that they were not even tested yet.

 

The rollout was technically just a stacking test. But I think it was also a political move to get the FAA to move quicker.

Grand Master

Jim K Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted
On 09/08/2021 at 10:42, anthdci said:

Do we have any idea of the plan? When they stacked I thought it would be a few weeks, but now they’ve rolled starship back and have stripped engines out of both it looks like it’ll be longer.

Looks like they are planning to light it ~2 weeks...if I'm reading the tweet correctly.

 

 

 

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 09/08/2021 at 18:36, IsItPluggedIn said:

Some of the engines bells were still white, so the assumption is that they were not even tested yet.

 

The rollout was technically just a stacking test. But I think it was also a political move to get the FAA to move quicker.

 

It was also a counterpunch against a bunch of FUD Bezos-connected media has been publishing; a "Context Card" hit piece in the fold of Washington Post (Bezos owns it), another hit-piece on Musk in Tech Insider (Bezos is a stakeholder in Insider Inc.) pushing a hit-piece book, and a Blue Origin (Bezos owned) "infographic" tossing shade at Starship vs. Blue's America's Team. All this after the GAO ruled, so they're drawing a lot of rolled- & side- eyes.

 

Sour grapes.

Edited by DocM
Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Bezos says it'll take 14  Starsjip Tankers to fill Starship HLS. 16 launches counting the Starship HLS and depot ship.

 

Musk fires back that it'd be 8 to fill 'er up at 150 tonnes/launch, but lunar missions only need a half tank; 4 Starship Tankers. 6 launches counting HLS and the depot ship. 

 

Also, SpaceX's conops allows the depot to be loaded well before Starship HLS launches. 

 

 

 

Grand Master

bguy_1986

Posted
Posted
On 11/08/2021 at 23:51, DocM said:

Bezos says it'll take 14  Starsjip Tankers to fill Starship HLS. 16 launches counting the Starship HLS and depot ship.

 

Musk fires back that it'd be 8 to fill 'er up at 150 tonnes/launch, but lunar missions only need a half tank; 4 Starship Tankers. 6 launches counting HLS and the depot ship. 

 

Also, SpaceX's conops allows the depot to be loaded well before Starship HLS launches. 

 

I'm surprised it will take that much.  We made it to the moon with Apollo.  I know it's a much larger ship, but it can hold a lot more fuel as well.  Is the mass to fuel ratio very different to Apollo?  (I'm sure there are a lot of other factors as well).

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 12/08/2021 at 08:37, bguy_1986 said:

I'm surprised it will take that much.  We made it to the moon with Apollo.  I know it's a much larger ship, but it can hold a lot more fuel as well.  Is the mass to fuel ratio very different to Apollo?  (I'm sure there are a lot of other factors as well).

Apollo had a very small mass budget, so far less propellant in the vehicle.

 

Moving mass requires deltaV, energy, and the more you're moving the more spacecraft & propellant mass you need. 

 

NASA only asked for the ability to transport 4 crew members and a few tonnes of cargo.

 

SpaceX seriously one-upped the competition on all counts at the cost of refuelling Starship HLS in LEO, where it's safer to do mission critical ops than in lunar orbit.

 

NASA liked the trade; by sending much more mass in each trip setting up and maintaining a base becomes safer, easier and cheaper.

 

OTOH; both Blue and Dynetics under-built their proposals, depending on even more funding later to upscale their designs to NASA's requirements. 

 

EX: their initial landers only carried 2 crew members and less than the asked for cargo.

 

In Dynetics case, to carry a lunar "car" would require a second lander with the habitat swapped out.

 

Starship can carry 4+ crew members, and its cargo hold is large enough to carry a light armored vehicle - or two. One cargo only Starship variant NASA shared has 4 decks for large equipment, brought down to the surface by elevator.

 

Starship HLS crews also use the elevator.

 

Blue's lander has them climb down a 40 foot ladder.

Mentor

IsItPluggedIn

Posted
Posted

I believe there was 2 parts, an initial demonstration which would be 2 Astronauts(this competition) and then the actual contract for future missions would be 4 Astronauts.

 

The big piece that I have not seen talked about is that, in BO's proposal, to meet the 4 crew requirement of future missions, they effectively needed to design/build/test a new lander as it was so dissimilar to their demonstration lander. It would also need to use New Glen to launch as FH/Atlas5/Vulcan are not big enough to launch the new design.

 

So their proposal was.

1. Build a lander

2. Test it (2 flights)

3. Design a new lander

4. Launch on a rocket that has not launched yet or any real expected date.

5. Not sure if they would test it before landing people etc. (since it cant dock with Orion without SLS)

 

Then complain that the starship is untested technology. Also they didnt outline anywhere who would pay for the design and testing of the second lander.

 

There is a big push at NASA for Artemis to be sustainable, their plans had no details about other clients of the service just NASA, which was another piece of the contract.

 

The more you learn about the requirements that NASA set forth and how many pieces BO just ignored, the easier it is to see why Starship won. NASA really had no choice but to choose SpaceX.

Grand Master

Skiver Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

That's actually a really good point I'd not considered. Lets pretend BO had their ###### together and had their proposed lander ready etc. How many launches is it going to take for them to get the same amount of equipment to the moon that a single HLS is capable of? I would assume similar to Starship the lander has no plans to ever return back to earth so it's not even launchers, it's also how many landers would it take? 

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 13/08/2021 at 03:51, Skiver said:

That's actually a really good point I'd not considered. Lets pretend BO had their ###### together and had their proposed lander ready etc. How many launches is it going to take for them to get the same amount of equipment to the moon that a single HLS is capable of?

<inserted break>

I would assume similar to Starship the lander has no plans to ever return back to earth so it's not even launchers, it's also how many landers would it take? 

 

10-20, but size limited. 

 

The Cargo vehicle NASA shared had fins, indicating it could return to Earth. 

 

2041849222_LunarStarshipcargo-elevator1024_crop.thumb.jpg.16b422092b1c64f7f2baa0e68a5be4c2.jpg

 

Also interesting; the tower's Mechazilla arms catche Starship too. Legs are for Moon, Mars...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by DocM

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing