Starship is Go...

SpaceNut · 2022-03-06 21:19:47

You mean that you hate it when an agency does its job and does not roll over and play dead to the rules that have been put into place.

A starship that lands on mars will need 340 mT of fuel to return home if its mass is the 85 mT for the ship but if its more so does the required fuel allotment on mars with zero cargo returned.

Void · 2022-03-11 13:34:23

This is not my crazy stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eomaJM60ZZg

So, maybe a revision of Super Heavy?

Done.

louis · 2022-03-17 16:00:30

Has Space X's Mars Mission slipped?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JHCY7kJ-IA

Is this genuine? Musk saying the first human landing on Mars will take place in 2029. That's 7 years off! Apollo went from scratch (just rocket designs) to the Moon in 7 years and they were having to invent everything first time round. Space X are standing on the shoulders of 70 years of rocket development and people surviving in space.

The Starship itself appears far advanced.

If this Musk comment is genuine, I confess to some disappointment but also some puzzlement.

One of the great things about space is that if you fire your engines and point yourself in the right direction, then that's it, you don't have to worry about much else (slight exaggeration of course!).So the fact that Mars is so far away is not, as far as I can see,a major impediment. Does Musk really think it will take 5 years to sort everything else out: power generation, fuel manufacture, water mining, habitats and so on?

Well of course they will be sending cargo rockets two years ahead roughly but that must mean Musk now admits they are missing the first launch window for cargo delivery.

Here's a Reddit discussion re Mars launch windows.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/c … _20202030/

Looks like Musk must be looking at a July 2029 human landing (launching in Jan 2029) and a June or July 2027 cargo landing launching in Nov/Dec 2026. That would mean up to 4 years 8 months from now to get everything ready for the cargo launch.

Calliban · 2022-03-18 02:41:42

The Starship is not yet demonstrated as a man rated reusable vehicle. This must come first. To carry out a manned mission, Musk will need several Starships. At least one just to deliver the initial power supply, which must be at least 1 launch window before men are sent to the planet. A single launch window is 26 months. A manned mission will require that the orbital refuelling issue is solved and each Starship sent to Mars will need several tanker missions to Earth's orbit. Then factor in the development of all of the other equipment needed to mount the mission. Seven years looks like a fast development timetable to me. And that is assuming nothing goes wrong.

louis · 2022-03-18 07:26:28

I know - I'm probably just impatient. However it is the case Apollo went from design to man on the Moon in 7 years, and that was with a major tragedy and redesign of the capsule en route.

Space X already have (successful) experience of creating a safe environment for humans in space. If they were to go two years early, they would launch cargo transit vehicles in November 2024 - 32 months from now. The great thing about cargo vehicles is they are expendable.
The cargo vehicles would arrive in 2025, before humans needed to launch in 2026. If there was any doubt that the cargo vehicles were successfully completing their mission, you simply wouldn't go ahead with the human launch.

A 32 months timetable might still be feasible:

April - Oct 2022 - Orbital flight and landing tests.

Oct 22 - Feb 23 - Rockfield landing tests on Earth and cargo unloading tests.

Feb 23 - Oct 23 - Orbital refuelling and lunar orbit tests/long distance comms tests. Not sure whether a lunar landing would be helpful. Probably not is my view.

Oct 23 - Aug 24 - Repeated tests and quality control checks.

Aug to Nov 24 - Cargo loading and pre-flight tests. The cargo manifest will need to include rocket fuel manufacturing equipment, tools spares, medical supplies, food, water, comms equipment, PV panels/rolls, methox-fuelled generator, some habitat capacity (in case of problems with human Starships), robot vehicles etc

In parallel, from now the cargo load would need to be produced and I suspect that may be where the delays might occur. Some things like food and water can be ordered now, and packaged for space travel nearer the time. But Mars-rated rocket fuel manufacturing facility will require some thought - don't suppose they can be bought off the shelf. One way of speeding things up I think is to have machinery operate within pressurised industrial habs.

Calliban wrote:

The Starship is not yet demonstrated as a man rated reusable vehicle. This must come first. To carry out a manned mission, Musk will need several Starships. At least one just to deliver the initial power supply, which must be at least 1 launch window before men are sent to the planet. A single launch window is 26 months. A manned mission will require that the orbital refuelling issue is solved and each Starship sent to Mars will need several tanker missions to Earth's orbit. Then factor in the development of all of the other equipment needed to mount the mission. Seven years looks like a fast development timetable to me. And that is assuming nothing goes wrong.

Last edited by louis (2022-03-18 07:43:08)

GW Johnson · 2022-03-18 09:42:23

Starships on Mars are a one-way trip unless the propellant manufacturing process is successful. A big part of that is ice mining in one form or another. Whether Hohmann or a faster trajectory, there's about a year at Mars before the launch window opens to go home. You will need a full refill of about 1200 tons of propellant to make the flight.

If you plan to bring them home after that year, that's a min manufacturing rate requirement of about 100 tons of propellant per month. And just where is the machinery that can do that job? Just who is working on it? How far along are they in their verification/development test? Just how successful have those tests proven so far?

The same questions basically apply to the ice mining prerequisite for propellant manufacture on Mars. We have as yet no ground truth to support the remote sensng suggestions (suggestions ONLY!) that buried ice is here or there. Just how do we find this stuff? How are we going to dig it up? What are we going to dig it up with? How are we going to clean that water up for processing, when we don't yet know just what it is polluted with? Who is working on this? How far along are they? How successful have they been so far?

I see nothing yet to support a manned mission to Mars in 2029 or any other year that is anything but a one-way suicide mission. Because there are no answers to any of the questions I just asked.

GW

louis · 2022-03-18 14:55:58

Hi GW,

I am sure I saw a recent estimate that was substantially lower than 1200 tons of propellant. The figure of 900 tons is stuck in my mind.

I am personally confident in the data on water ice in the Erebus Mountains area (which is where nearly all the JPL Landing recommendations are). There is strong evidence water is just below the surface in numerous places - it would be simply a case of scraping off the regolith, maybe down to a depth of 3 or 4 feet, and then drilling out ice chunks. The water ice is very pure - well over 90% pure. I think this could be tested if we include in the first cargo flights a robot rover that can test for the depth of the water ice.

I agree the really big question mark is over the rocket fuel manufacturing process. As I indicated, I favour taking a manufacturing hab within which this can take place - I think that will greatly simplify human oversight and maintenance.

GW Johnson wrote:

Starships on Mars are a one-way trip unless the propellant manufacturing process is successful. A big part of that is ice mining in one form or another. Whether Hohmann or a faster trajectory, there's about a year at Mars before the launch window opens to go home. You will need a full refill of about 1200 tons of propellant to make the flight.
If you plan to bring them home after that year, that's a min manufacturing rate requirement of about 100 tons of propellant per month. And just where is the machinery that can do that job? Just who is working on it? How far along are they in their verification/development test? Just how successful have those tests proven so far?
The same questions basically apply to the ice mining prerequisite for propellant manufacture on Mars. We have as yet no ground truth to support the remote sensng suggestions (suggestions ONLY!) that buried ice is here or there. Just how do we find this stuff? How are we going to dig it up? What are we going to dig it up with? How are we going to clean that water up for processing, when we don't yet know just what it is polluted with? Who is working on this? How far along are they? How successful have they been so far?
I see nothing yet to support a manned mission to Mars in 2029 or any other year that is anything but a one-way suicide mission. Because there are no answers to any of the questions I just asked.
GW

SpaceNut · 2022-03-18 18:02:02

According to Elon Musk, man will reach Mars in the year 2029
https://www.timesunion.com/business/art … ship-river
The owner of Tesla and SpaceX made his prediction by replying to a tweet from an account dedicated to space exploration.

Louis as you noted in post 1605 Space x has a very long laundry to do list.

Its also needing to be done more than once and continued the increase of capability once we do make orbit to prove out its design.

I think this should also do trials to the ISS with lots of gear and people to upgrade its capability as well.

Stretching out the duration of use to test out environmental equipment and systems that must not fail.

Oldfart1939 · 2022-03-19 11:26:17

The first step in the process will be having the FAA simply stop preventing the necessary test flights of Starship! The Artemis lander construction should immediately go into the lead as much of the technology required for that mission will also serve for the significantly longer flights to Mars.
Musk is a true visionary, and sometimes allows his enthusiasm for something distorts his timeline, but I don't think he's wrong about 2029. The regulators need to get the H** out of the way and allow the engineers and scientists to proceed.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-19 11:34:46

This stems from sn 8 explosion on the pad event that was not cleared for take off as well as the others

The fear is since the BFR first stage is so much large is that its explosive power will be greater for damage is the issue not just the fuel needed to get it off the pad.

Oldfart1939 · 2022-03-19 13:38:25

Understood, but SpaceX has come a long way since that time--in technical knowledge and practical terms. There seems to be more concern about shore birds and sea turtles than worries about the explosive potential of a fully fueled Starship and Super Heavy. An accident wouldn't really have the near nuclear explosion, but would create a pretty big fireball. It wouldn't be a nice event to happen near Brownsville, but wouldn't do more than break a large number of windows.

louis · 2022-03-19 16:35:14

Well yes, but it is as I predicted. The Biden administration is an anti-space exploration administration. It goes with the territory of radical Democrats who opposed the original Apollo missions, saying the money expended on space projects should be put into anti-poverty programmes. The point is that bureaucracies can always find ways to slow things up if that is required by their political masters. I am sure Space X probably have been cutting corners.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

The first step in the process will be having the FAA simply stop preventing the necessary test flights of Starship! The Artemis lander construction should immediately go into the lead as much of the technology required for that mission will also serve for the significantly longer flights to Mars.
Musk is a true visionary, and sometimes allows his enthusiasm for something distorts his timeline, but I don't think he's wrong about 2029. The regulators need to get the H** out of the way and allow the engineers and scientists to proceed.

louis · 2022-03-19 16:39:44

Flying glass can kill people!

It's an interesting question why Musk opted for Boca Chica. I never thought it was a brilliant location. But it's a lot closer to California than Florida and I think the main attraction was he felt he could dominate the scene. He doesn't own any launch sites in Florida does he? Doesn't he effectively rent them from NASA?

Probably a sea platform launch would be the ideal for Space X but that means even more development.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Understood, but SpaceX has come a long way since that time--in technical knowledge and practical terms. There seems to be more concern about shore birds and sea turtles than worries about the explosive potential of a fully fueled Starship and Super Heavy. An accident wouldn't really have the near nuclear explosion, but would create a pretty big fireball. It wouldn't be a nice event to happen near Brownsville, but wouldn't do more than break a large number of windows.

Oldfart1939 · 2022-03-20 15:04:31

The Boca Chica site has advantages of being more southerly than Florida. This helps with lower orbital inclinations and has a slight velocity gain benefit.

I believe that SpaceX has a significant lease (or multiple leases) at Cape Canaveral.

louis · 2022-03-20 15:27:44

I think it does own land in the area but not sure about the existing launch sites it uses.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

The Boca Chica site has advantages of being more southerly than Florida. This helps with lower orbital inclinations and has a slight velocity gain benefit.
I believe that SpaceX has a significant lease (or multiple leases) at Cape Canaveral.

Last edited by louis (2022-03-26 17:10:56)

SpaceNut · 2022-03-26 16:55:15

U.S. FAA extends environmental review of SpaceX program in Texas to April 29.

The FAA noted that completing the environmental review does not guarantee a vehicle operator license will be issued, which must also meet FAA safety, risk and financial responsibility requirements.
The FAA said it "is currently reviewing the Final (Programmatic Environmental Assessment) and completing consultation and coordination with agencies at the local, state, and federal level."
The FAA is deciding whether the planned build-out in Texas poses a significant environmental impact to the area - including an adjacent wildlife reserve - and must therefore undergo a far more extensive study before expanded operations at SpaceX's rocket production facility and spaceport in Boca Chica can be licensed.
Even in a "worst-case" scenario, in which a full environmental impact statement were required or legal wrangling over the issue threatened to drag on, Musk said SpaceX has a fall-back plan.
The company would shift its entire Starship program to the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, where SpaceX already has received the environmental approval it needs, Musk said.
Such a move would cause a setback of six to eight months, he added.

The concern is the site growth....

louis · 2022-03-26 17:16:19

Think of it this way: Kamala Harris is the person who will or won't say "Go Launch".

Remember, the Dems hate Musk. He is everything they despise: White male heterosexual South African, individualistic, entrepreneurial and a non-woke person who is cool with the kids.

SpaceNut wrote:

U.S. FAA extends environmental review of SpaceX program in Texas to April 29.
The FAA noted that completing the environmental review does not guarantee a vehicle operator license will be issued, which must also meet FAA safety, risk and financial responsibility requirements.
The FAA said it "is currently reviewing the Final (Programmatic Environmental Assessment) and completing consultation and coordination with agencies at the local, state, and federal level."
The FAA is deciding whether the planned build-out in Texas poses a significant environmental impact to the area - including an adjacent wildlife reserve - and must therefore undergo a far more extensive study before expanded operations at SpaceX's rocket production facility and spaceport in Boca Chica can be licensed.
Even in a "worst-case" scenario, in which a full environmental impact statement were required or legal wrangling over the issue threatened to drag on, Musk said SpaceX has a fall-back plan.
The company would shift its entire Starship program to the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, where SpaceX already has received the environmental approval it needs, Musk said.
Such a move would cause a setback of six to eight months, he added.
The concern is the site growth....

SpaceNut · 2022-03-26 18:03:10

Current Steve Dickson was sworn in as the FAA administrator for a five-year term on August 12, 2019 , who was appointed by President Donald J. Trump,

49 U.S. Code § 106 - Federal Aviation Administration

The FAA's top space official outlines progress

Void · 2022-04-01 19:01:22

This is a bit encouraging, at least putting a little pressure on I suppose.
https://www.moonsociety.org/news/2022/0 … %20flights.
Quote:

Space Organizations Unite to Support Approval of Starship Test Flights
April 1, 2022 / The Moon Society / News

A group of 14 space advocacy organizations today published a joint statement urging rapid U.S. government approval of SpaceX’s Starship test flights.
Commenting on the initiative, Mars Society President Dr. Robert Zubrin said: “The organizations that have come together to make this statement represent every point of view within the space community. Whether one’s priority is settling Mars, developing space commerce, exploring the Moon, assuring national security, or gaining new knowledge of the Earth, the planets, or the universe, we all agree that it is vital that this program be allowed to move forward. There may be many more hurdles like this that SpaceX and others seeking to open the space frontier will face, but this statement shows that the often-fractured movement of space advocates can come together to help when it really counts.”
The statement and its signatories are shown below.
The SpaceX Starship offers extraordinary potential benefits for the exploration and development of space by both the public and private sectors. It will enable many new commercial space ventures as well as dramatically lower the costs and raise the frequency of scientific missions that will provide amazing new knowledge about our universe and home planet.
Its relatively clean environmental footprint, the large savings it offers U.S. taxpayers as a means of transport for government programs and missions and its ability to rapidly and regularly deliver satellite constellations and payloads to orbit will enhance national security, increase high paying jobs in the space sector, and propel American space leadership far ahead of any global competitors.
Therefore we, the undersigned organizations, strongly urge the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other federal agencies to provide full approval to SpaceX to begin orbital test flights of the Starship at the earliest possible date.
Approved by:
The Mars Society
National Space Society
Earthlight Foundation
Alliance for Space Development
Space Development Foundation
Space Development Network
The Moon Society
The Mars Foundation
Space for Humanity
Tea Party in Space
For All Moonkind
The Coalition to Save Manned Space Exploration
The Space Resources Roundtable
The Space Development Steering Committee
Posted in News

These people should have reasonable status for their opinions to be of significance.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-01 19:04:36)

louis · 2022-04-02 17:41:28

Thanks for the update Void! Encouraging - if only a little.

Void · 2022-04-02 19:44:24

Louis,

Yes, but I think that SpaceX has not been sitting still. I think that the product that they eventually test will have been improved quite a bit. The chances of more success may be greater, at least.

Done.

SpaceNut · 2022-04-07 19:35:22

SpaceX's application to scale up its rocket launch site in Texas has been put on ice by the US Army wanted more data on the impact of rocket launches on wetlands...aerospace firm had failed to provide the information that was requested for the permit.

SpaceX wants to add another launch and landing pad, and build more on its facility called Starbase.

NASA taps SpaceX for 2nd moon demo "human landing system" for that first demonstration mission is a variant of the Starship

Calliban · 2022-04-09 17:06:58

I can't remember if this has been posted before.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019 … -big-deal/

The post is 2.5 years old now.

SpaceNut · 2022-04-09 18:42:20

Starship is the upper stage vehicle. It has a dry mass of 200 T, a fuel/ox mass of 1200 T, and a nominal payload of 150 T. Combined with high performance methane-oxygen vacuum engines, Starship is capable of over 7 km/s of Δv, which is very important.
Starship is boosted for Earth launch by Super Heavy, which is capable of lifting Starship to about 4 km/s before returning to the launch pad.
Both stages are designed to be fully reusable, enabling both high reliability and very cheap launch cost. Indeed, the marginal cost per flight could fall to $5m or below, reducing launch costs to the neighborhood of $35/kg, or 1000x less than Shuttle.
Since Earth’s atmosphere is nice and thick, Starship can slow down to perhaps 150 mph before lighting its engines, requiring only a tiny amount of fuel to land.
While converting Lunar water to rocket fuel is all the rage right now, it won’t be available for early missions, if ever. Oxidizer would perhaps be easier to obtain and, being 4/5 of the fuel weight, more worthwhile. Nonetheless, this graph shows how a Starship, refueled in LEO and optionally boosted to GTO, could transport 150 T of cargo the Moon and still have ample fuel to bring another 100 T of cargo back. A LEO-GTO refilling operation would require 15 tanker flights, and would take about a week to execute from TLI burn to Earth return.

explanation.png?w=720

Seems space x has gotten the mass down on the starship from when the article was posted but there has not been any other improvements

RobertDyck · 2022-04-24 10:07:35

New York Post, April 19, 2022: Elon Musk warns life on Mars will be ‘dangerous, cramped, difficult, hard work’

The first settlers to arrive on Mars shouldn’t expect a glamorous lifestyle or even safe conditions during their stay, according to the leading proponent of human exploration of the red planet, Elon Musk.
...
“It’s very important to emphasize that Mars, especially in the beginning, will not be luxurious. It will be dangerous, cramped, difficult, hard work,” Musk said during a recent interview with the head of TED conferences, Chris Anderson.
...
Musk said it would likely be necessary to land “something on the order of a thousand ships,” each carrying about 100 passengers, in order to develop a self-sustaining colony. He also floated a hypothetical price point of about $100,000 per person to make the trip.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1601 2022-03-06 21:19:47

Re: Starship is Go...

#1602 2022-03-11 13:34:23

Re: Starship is Go...

#1603 2022-03-17 16:00:30

Re: Starship is Go...

#1604 2022-03-18 02:41:42

Re: Starship is Go...

#1605 2022-03-18 07:26:28

Re: Starship is Go...

#1606 2022-03-18 09:42:23

Re: Starship is Go...

#1607 2022-03-18 14:55:58

Re: Starship is Go...

#1608 2022-03-18 18:02:02

Re: Starship is Go...

#1609 2022-03-19 11:26:17

Re: Starship is Go...

#1610 2022-03-19 11:34:46

Re: Starship is Go...

#1611 2022-03-19 13:38:25

Re: Starship is Go...

#1612 2022-03-19 16:35:14

Re: Starship is Go...

#1613 2022-03-19 16:39:44

Re: Starship is Go...

#1614 2022-03-20 15:04:31

Re: Starship is Go...

#1615 2022-03-20 15:27:44

Re: Starship is Go...

#1616 2022-03-26 16:55:15

Re: Starship is Go...

#1617 2022-03-26 17:16:19

Re: Starship is Go...

#1618 2022-03-26 18:03:10

Re: Starship is Go...

#1619 2022-04-01 19:01:22

Re: Starship is Go...

#1620 2022-04-02 17:41:28

Re: Starship is Go...

#1621 2022-04-02 19:44:24

Re: Starship is Go...

#1622 2022-04-07 19:35:22

Re: Starship is Go...

#1623 2022-04-09 17:06:58

Re: Starship is Go...

#1624 2022-04-09 18:42:20

Re: Starship is Go...

#1625 2022-04-24 10:07:35

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer