New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#1576 2021-12-01 18:27:52

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 5,122

Re: Starship is Go...

GW,

Let's hope not, or nobody will be going to Mars, because Blue Origin / Boeing / Lockheed-Martin don't seem interested for any amount of money that our government can actually afford to pay.

Offline

#1577 2021-12-01 22:11:14

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 24,399

Re: Starship is Go...

Stop the work on the starship until funds are coming in from Starlink.

Go with a modified Falcon 9 heavy with a smaller starship capsule of course but every bit as capable of the flip slide maneuver.

The need for a stage to push the new capsule could be delivered by a falcon 9 heavy with fuel to dock and do the eds firing to send the ship onto mars. If it needs more power in the first stage strap on another set of first stage to expend.

Offline

#1578 2021-12-02 17:06:57

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 4,742
Website

Re: Starship is Go...

Stopping work on Starship until Starlink is profitable is really hard to do.  Musk is planning on using Starship to launch Starlinks en masse,  especially the much larger and heavier version with laser communication between the satellites.  Those are too big for Falcon-9,  and maybe not cost-effective with Falcon-Heavy.  I still see references to $2M per Starship/Superheavy launch,  although I do NOT believe it.  The newspaper articles indicate he has pinned his hopes for the survival of both Spacex and Starlink upon getting his Starship/Superheavy flying. 

GW


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#1579 2021-12-02 23:51:22

Oldfart1939
Member
Registered: 2016-11-26
Posts: 2,270

Re: Starship is Go...

I wonder if this was the plan by Bezos--delay the funding from NASA to put SpaceX into a financial bind?

Offline

#1580 2021-12-03 01:31:38

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 5,122

Re: Starship is Go...

Oldfart1939,

Bezos most likely wanted to ride the gravy train just like the big boys (ULA / Boeing / Lockheed-Martin / Northrop-Grumman) do.  I sincerely doubt that Bezos has any interest in SpaceX's finances.  Bezos wants to get richer off of going to the moon and developing the technology to do that, at a tidy profit.  He's interested in space in about the same way that the traditional contractors are- it's something interesting to do to make a lot of money, nothing more and nothing less.  If they were consistently delivering hardware on time, even if it cost more, I would take little issue with this.  The lack of progress is what irritates me the most.  I can't fault a capitalist for wanting to make money.  I only wish all of the contractors could get onboard with the notion that this is what we're going to do, come hell or high water.  In the golden age, the contractors simply did whatever was necessary to make the solution work, on schedule, or as close as they could come to it.

To be frank, I think Starship is the right rocket concept but possibly the wrong lander concept for going back to the moon.  I still don't understand why they didn't start with a much smaller "Starship" upper stage for Falcon Heavy.  If all of the required design concepts (full and rapid reusability / on-orbit refueling / surface propellant production) worked, then there would be government funding available to "build it bigger".  As always, time will tell.

I do see a lunar full dress rehearsal as an important step for verifying that all major components of the Mars-specific solution are up to the task, before we send people millions of miles from home, only to discover that what we thought would work well enough, somehow doesn't.

Offline

#1581 2021-12-03 17:26:05

Oldfart1939
Member
Registered: 2016-11-26
Posts: 2,270

Re: Starship is Go...

I agree with you on almost every point you raise--especially the question of why Musk took such a big step all at one jump. I could see an upper stage about 1/4 the size of the present Starship and an "explorer" design. But Musk is a gutsy individual and not afraid to risk a lot on a great concept. His ideas are "revolutionary," and not "evolutionary."

Offline

#1582 2021-12-03 18:00:01

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 24,399

Re: Starship is Go...

The current level of design means we can not go anywhere and that is its main problem.

To give a second stage expendable and shrink the current starship making it a three stage to orbit.  Just enough that it would correct for that lack of ability as a small unit could land on the moon without the refueling if its reshaped to be a three stage rocket that is refueled on the moon for a return flight. I believe the first stage is already capable of lifting this configuration. if its not then buy some SRB's and strap them on.

Offline

#1583 2021-12-10 12:29:09

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 4,742
Website

Re: Starship is Go...

They finally got approved to fly.  From today's AIAA "Daily Launch".  Can't speak to the accuracy or IQ of the reporter.  The FCC does not grant these licenses.  --  GW

SpaceX Licensed By FCC For Starship Orbital Test

The Daily Mail (UK) (12/9) reports that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “granted Elon Musk’s SpaceX a license on Thursday to conduct an experimental orbital demonstration and recovery test of its Starship rocket in Q1 2022.” If approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, the orbital launch “could take place anytime between December 20, 2021 and March 1, 2022, from SpaceX’s testing facility in Boca Chica, Texas.”


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#1584 2021-12-10 19:44:38

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 24,399

Re: Starship is Go...

That sounds more like starlink satellites for the next shell rather than starship...

Offline

#1585 2021-12-11 15:20:38

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 4,742
Website

Re: Starship is Go...

They don't launch Starlink from Boca Chica,  although if Starship/Superheavy was operational,  they might. 

I think the Brit reporter for the Daily Mail just got FCC confused with FAA. 

GW


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#1586 2021-12-19 11:00:39

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 4,130

Re: Starship is Go...

Good to wake this up.  Maybe some missing members will show up.

Marcus House:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTau0YrktY

I am noticing that there is some evidence of changes to the Starship.
-Better engines.
-9 engines 3 Sea level, and 6 Vacuum.
-I think I read that Elon Musk said: "The tanks can stretch", which might indicate longer tanks.  I think that would be for the propellant's tankers.  However, I recall that passenger flights without the Super Heavy would also have more engines.

I would guess that if the catcher system works for the tankers, then they may be able to catch a longer version.

I am not sure why 3 extra vacuum engines are a good thing, but that is my ignorance.  Maybe once the Super Heavy would get the Starship into high enough atmosphere, then the faster to orbit, the less propellants wasted on hanging in the sky.  That is my guess.

I think there is supposed to be some possibility of landing a ship on its skirt, but I don't know how that emergency contingency would work.

Aborting to sea is also an option, but salt water is an issue for the engines at least.

I wonder if they could have a freshwater dunk tank, and if fresh water would be less damaging?

Don't know........?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-12-19 11:08:24)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB