Space X

firemansam4

But thinking about the lunar variant of starship, it does seem overkill. Why would you base a lunar lander on the same model that has been designed for reuse landing and taking off from earth.

Why not develop a much smaller version designed to just travel from LEO to the moon only?

Now obviously im just some random internet user who really doesn't have a clue, but its just something ive been thinking about and wondering the reasons behind it?

Bit cynical

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117747356#Comment_117747356

I think good points there and the same thought has struck me. I'm guessing that much of the development cost of the lander has already been done (or will be done) for Starship anyway and so a modified version, even if it is not the ideal design, can still win the competition for a lander. Overkill is not a problem for NASA if the price is still competitive.

firemansam4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117747382#Comment_117747382

And thinking about it a bit more, I guess their ultimate aim is to use Starship to land on Mars and as such are not really interested in designing and developing a completely different craft just for the moon.

I suppose the moon missions will also be a good starting point before they even think about the idea of trying to reach and land on Mars.

Shlippery

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1426160040403165185

Good banter on twitter today.

Also -

https://twitter.com/ErcXspace/status/1426188761461841932

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117745720#Comment_117745720

NASA is needed to fund Boeing and Lockheed and a few others of the industrial-military complex as warned about by Eisenhower.

Boeing can't compete with Airbus on a level playing field because cost cutting has impacted their ability to deliver the quality of old. This is a company that is deliberately 'too big to fail' by buying up lots of the companies on the F-35 program. Hence lots of govt bail outs and trade wars with the EU on their behalf.

SpaceX has upset the apple cart by delivering working stuff at a small fraction of the cost of the traditional companies Bezos has aligned with. Each of the four simplified don't need to be reusable Space Shuttles engines on the SLS costs almost as much as a Falcon Heavy launch. The recent Cygnus / Antares mission to the ISS has loads of foreign kit in it, but charged at full US prices.

Shlippery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFyLk7cFiV8

Thought this was class, closest thing I'll get to seeing Boca Chica for a while i'd say!

Probably works best in youtube app.

3d4life

Another day, another launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0cmft-PO7o

Skip to around 7:40 for landing on new drone ship :D

Long (NASAspaceflight ) version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eac4loxYK40

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117747356#Comment_117747356

The three keys to keeping a new human space program affordable and on schedule:

       1)  No new launch vehicles.

       2)  No new launch vehicles.

       3)  Whatever you do, don't develop any new launch vehicles.

Yes it's overkill. But reusable makes it a lot cheaper. Fuel is cheap compared to designing a whole new rocket. It's the reason SpaceX skipped the Falcon 5 project and went straight to Falcon 9 once they had the Falcon 1 working.

The bid from Bezos was twice the price. Even if you include the £2Bn Bezos said he'd stump up, the SpaceX bid is still a billion dollars cheaper. And still Bezos sued. This is a guy who got $13 billion richer in one day.

Technically SpaceX could cobble together something from a combination of Falcon Heavy and Dragon even if Starship is a complete flop so there's security there.

Blue Origin are at least four years late on the Be-4 engine and still haven't gotten to orbit. SpaceX have taken a basic Falcon 9 design from 10,450 Kg to LEO through 13,150 Kg and 22,800Kg to 63,800 Kg with the Falcon Heavy and Starship should do 100,000Kg multiple times with reusable hardware for a lower cost.

Note : Blue Origin's New Shepard (first flight 2005,) is roughly the same size and thrust as Falcon 1 (first flight 2006, orbit 2008, retired 2009). And the Be-4 is now four years late. Technically ULA could just about use some Raptors on their Vulcan in time to meet the NASA contracts if they throw everything at the problem.

jogdish

Also the starship lunar, is a huge volume so would be a pseudo habbitat while you wait for more permenant stuff.

firemansam4

FAA has issued a draft review for Starships orbital test flight. Although it looks like the process has quite a way to go yet.

https://www.space.com/faa-releases-draft-environmental-review-spacex-starship

Quantum Erasure

Starship / Booster catching arms installed on tower,

https://twitter.com/RGVaerialphotos/status/1451205650562879493

also Starship 20 static fire testing window open till 6 in the morning irish time,

Edit, could be about quarter past 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS0-QttXZ38

Quantum Erasure

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1451350259729420288

there MAY be another test tonight

3d4life

Even if it doesnt, the daily condensed activity at Bocachica is worth watching

The pace of work is astounding !

If SpaceX get lucky and dont have too many 'unscheduled disassembly events' before they get it all working then I'd wonder if ULA might throw in the towel :D

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118059521#Comment_118059521

ULA (a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin) have practically bet the company on Bezos getting the BE-4 engine working. 4 years overdue and counting.

The irony is that ULA could have gone for the AR1 in development by Aerojet Rocketdyne who've been in the engine business forever. Further irony is that Lockheed Martin took them over recently so the AR1 would've been made in house rather than by a direct competitor if New Glen turns out to be anything other than vapourwear :rolleyes:

Or continued to use Russian RD180 engines except they aren't allowed to because "they weren't invented here"

Meanwhile Boeing are having awful problems with their $4.2Bn Starliner capsule. The astronauts are going up on the flight proven, $2.6Bn to develop, Dragon instead. Who would have thought that Florida has humidity ?

This is costing both ULA and Boeing financially as NASA moves missions to SpaceX rockets.

3d4life

Yup, Capt'n.

All of that and a whole heap more ( think I saw that the FAA panned Mr B's software input for the project, most of which was apparently outsourced to a company in India )

And then there is the topic of what hasnt been said about Starlink. Do we really think that each sat. doesnt have Hi def cameras on board ? I can think of a few of uncle Sam's three letter agencies who might ( ha ha ) be interested in That functionality .

How about a variant of Starship for 'non-earth' data centres ? ( that would be an interesting situation when it came to regulation and taxation )

Bearing in mind that L. Page and E. Musk seem to have been the best of buddies going back years I'd expect a heap of off the wall stuff to be tried out. Does anyone know if Alphabet has a holding in SpaceX ?

Anyway, interesting times ahead. :D

Poulgorm

Has SpaceX test flown the Super Heavy Rocket part (i.e. the first stage) of the Starship?

The only tests I have seen are that of the second stage - confusingly also called Starship.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118087854#Comment_118087854

No the Super Heavy Booster hasn't flown yet. So it should be an all-up test like they did with Saturn V. The advantage is you get to test more things quickly, but if things don't work out you also get to go disassemble lots more hardware rapidly.

The booster with it's folding grids is more similar to their previous first stages than Starship is so I'd imagine it's "more of the same" in a very difficult rocket science way but the control software or plumbing may need tweaking.

SLS is stacked and ready to go in the new year. Be interesting to see which makes it to orbit first. I've no doubt that SpaceX will be first to make it to orbit twice though.

Poulgorm

Is the second stage of Starship capable of lift off & going into orbit on its own (i.e. without the first stage)?

jogdish

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118096216#Comment_118096216

yes, but not enough fuel to execute the burn needed for landing again. It's not designed to go without booster so it won't.

Poulgorm

Thanks Capt'n Midnight & jogdish. Another question on Starship: can both stages return & land on a barge or are they too heavy for that?

Shlippery

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118119708#Comment_118119708

I don't think they can land on the barges (open to correction) - but SpaceX have acquired 2 oil rigs for Starship launches!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_offshore_platforms

In other news, Blue Origin lost the case against SpaceX for Lunar contract so hopefully Starship ops can really ramp up now from Monday!

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118119708#Comment_118119708

Giant chopsticks

"Saves mass and cost of legs and enables immediate repositioning of booster onto launch mount — ready to refly in under an hour," wildly optimistic :)

MonkieSocks

On Wednesday, November 10 at 9:03 p.m. EST, 2:03 UTC on November 11, SpaceX and NASA launched Dragon’s third long-duration operational crew mission (Crew-3) to the International Space Station from historic Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Following stage separation, Falcon 9’s first stage landed on the “A Shortfall of Gravitas” droneship.

On Thursday, November 11 at approximately 6:33 p.m. EST, 23:33 UTC, Dragon will autonomously dock with the space station. Follow Dragon and the Crew-3 astronauts during their flight to the International Space Station at spacex.com/launches.

Live

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ5YAPZ8i3s

MonkieSocks

Another view from The International Space Station

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/

Shlippery

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1459223181684838403%20

Static fire with all 6 Raptors...one step closer to orbital test!

Capt'n Midnight

https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/11/18/spacex-targets-january-or-february-for-first-launch-of-worlds-largest-rocket/

Perhaps a dozen test flights next year, and eventual cost reduction to $30m a flight ?

jogdish

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118202331#Comment_118202331

Will be interesting, maybe just me but I feel the ultra fast pace stuff of the last year is gone, like Mk1 -> SN8, they are spending the needed time on other things. Wish it was crazy fast last before, but looking forward to seeing this hopefully in Jan.

Does anyone know if there will be any views of splash downs? Das and a robot in a canoe :p for NSF :)

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118202331#Comment_118202331

While the cost of the flight might reduce to €30m, in the absence of any meaningful competition the price of it will remain way higher.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118203451#Comment_118203451

The only competition for Starship's 100 tonnes to LEO outside of SpaceX is SLS.

NASA will spend, from fiscal year 2012 through 2025, $93 billion on the various elements of Artemis. This is on top of billions and billions of previous spend on Ares. Each SLS launch will cost $2.2Bn, each Artemis mission will cost $4.1Bn compare to ESA's budget €6.49 Bn, JAXA $4.14Bn Russia $2.9Bn India $1.9Bn

SpaceX Falcon Heavy can put 64 tonnes into LEO for $150m

SLS is supposed to put 70 tonnes into LEO , with billions in development for later versions which may put up more but by then the leftovers from the Shuttle will have been used up and that's when the real price gouging starts.

If Russia and Ukraine kissed and made up then the fight proven Energia might flu again. Up to 200 tonnes in LEO if you use 8 Zenit boosters.

Until there's actual flight hardware New Glenn's 45 tonnes to LEO is just wishful thinking. Mock up's don't count. Engines that haven't been fully debugged don't count.

Beeker

While I'm looking forward to the SLS and Artemis program, it is a huge waste of money. Hopefully Star ship and future developments will reduce the cost's and make it far more affordable to explore the Moon and beyond,