Starship is Go...

louis · 2020-04-26 06:30:27

I am sure that is sage comment and advice, GW. Just surprised me in a sense that there isn't more accessible expertise - but that was surprise born out of ignorance.

Space X's approach may be messy but it's fast and messy.

Let's hope SN4 can scrape through somehow.

GW Johnson wrote:

The Superheavy will be very much like a scaled-up Falcon-9 core made out of stainless steel. You can't get aluminum of the type they use in stock that large, plus it has a short service life due to fatigue and heating exposures.
The stainless will have a much longer service life, being far more fatigue-resistant, and far, far more heat-resistant. It's just heavy, which you counter by going to a pressurized-balloon structure and thinning-down the thickness.
What Oldfart1939 refers to is exactly correct. That is indeed what Convair had to learn how to do in the 1960's: learn how to handle both the material, and the inflated structures. That led to the Centaur stage still in use today, and to the original Atlas missile itself. Both were pressurized stainless-steel balloons that would crush under their own weight if not inflated.
The Superheavy and the Starship cannot be quite as thin and light as the Centaur and original Atlas, because they have to take higher stress loads in order to fly back at all, much less be reusable dozens to hundreds of times. But with the stainless, that potential is there, and it is not with aluminum-lithium. Nor with composites (cannot take the heating or hold the cryogens). Nor with titanium (cannot be formed, only "carved", and it's not as heat resistant as the stainless. It's no better than mild carbon steel, actually).
Spacex still has a long way to go learning how to use the material (which is new to them), and actual pressure vessel design (also new to them excepting their helium pressurant tanks, which is not the same structural problem at all).
I wish them success. They will need all the luck and qualified advice they can get. And qualified advice they won't get so much from NASA, who paid contractors to supply those smarts and things, never doing it for themselves. Those contractors no longer exist, and the actual people with the know-how and experience are long dead or retired.
The closest to a qualified pool of people are the builders of Centaur today. But consider this: that is a build-to-print stage that no one is modifying (or didn't you notice?), developed long ago by people now dead or retired.
Spacex is having to reinvent the art of stainless steel balloon structures that is actually more extensive than the science of it. This is a clear example of my oft-repeated claim that rocket science ain't science, it is 40% science (stuff written down), 50% art (crucial info never actually written down), and 10% blind dumb luck.
And that's in production. In development, the art and luck fractions are even higher. And it applies to any kind of engineering, not just rocketry.
GW

kbd512 · 2020-04-26 07:21:54

GW,

What part of dumb luck applies to welding sheet steel (given that welds can be inspected and quality of workmanship- even for stainless steel, or lack thereof, fairly easily determined)?

Why wouldn't they fabricate a sub-scale structure first (since that's how both SpaceX and every other successful rocket engineering company has produced their full scale flight-ready hardware)?

For example, why not build a propellant tank that could hold the quantity of LOX/LCH4 required for a Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy booster powered by Raptors, or perhaps another Grasshopper clone powered by a single Raptor engine (that was an integral stepping stone to both Falcon 9 and reusable vertical landing boosters, according to Elon Musk himself)?

Why blow up several of these tanks due to poor workmanship and failure to cement testing protocol first (instead of just fabricating something they know will work first, then moving on to progressively more sophisticated welding tasks, such as fabrication of 9m booster cores)?

Trying new things is fine and I'd never fault anyone for that, but even the people who did the welding jobs must have known that those things would never hold pressure, much less survive smacking into the ground firmly enough to land without tipping over. If there's a method to the madness, I can't figure out what it is. Anyhow, I'm looking forward to seeing some proper tooling to do this the right way.

GW Johnson · 2020-04-26 09:13:08

I pretty much question the same things about what Spacex has been doing as you do, Kbd512.

There is an art to welding that comes from practice and experience. The welds made by someone who knows the art well, will pass whatever inspection there is, more often.

Inspection is often just visual, but for some applications (like this one) that is not enough. Somehow you have to "look inside" the weld, usually with x-ray. In something 9 meters in diameter, that is difficult to achieve.

For tankage structures in rockets, there is an art to knowing how best to use your chosen materials. It is essential to make structure items do double duty in order to reduce weight, but there are also things that simply fall outside the pale with material "x", that are ok with material "y".

Knowing that stuff is in very large part an experiential art. You simply won't find stuff like that written down in reports, because it is difficult to document correctly, and few managers would ever pay to have it documented. Indeed, it might even be considered a "trade secret". This is the stuff passed-on one-on-one from experienced hand to newbie on-the-job. That's as true in the engineering design loft as it is out on the shop floor.

For example, you do not use the rounded pressure dome of a pressure tank as a thrust structure for engines. Instead, your engine mount bears on the peripheral ring or skirt. Otherwise, you cannot make the dome a lightweight membrane structure, subject only to biaxial tension.

And you don't make that rounded dome elliptical or conical or some other shape, lest you subject it to triaxial stresses and bending stresses, requiring a far thicker and heavier structure. You must use a spherical segment shape, and thicken only the peripheral ring (something you can actually afford weight-wise). And, take out your thrust forces on that peripheral ring, making it do the double duty.

That's the kind of stuff you simply won't find in contract progress reports or final reports. It simply wasn't documented, for any of a variety of reasons. Not being documented makes it "art" not "science" (by which term I mean the stuff documented). Yet it is common to every pressure vessel application, including boilers, and it is very essential knowledge, to boot. And also for the solid motors that I have so much experience with.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-04-26 09:17:44)

louis · 2020-04-27 15:23:15

Well they've leapt or crept over (or maybe ducked under) another hurdle: the SN4 has passed the cryogenic test of its tanks!

Great news! But it was only 4.9 pressure - good enough for a 150 metre hop but not for orbital flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzsMp2zfy-o

So static fire is next I believe.

Last edited by louis (2020-04-27 15:27:55)

elderflower · 2020-04-30 09:56:42

ducked. definitely ducked.

louis · 2020-04-30 13:23:44

If it quacks under pressure, it's a duck for sure.

elderflower wrote:

ducked. definitely ducked.

kbd512 · 2020-04-30 17:49:34

Louis,

So far, Starship is not all that it's quacked up to be. It's more like Kentucky Fried Rocket- extra crispy variety. I'm still waiting for a successful flight test followed by a successful landing.

Oldfart1939 · 2020-05-01 16:52:11

Here's the latest iteration of the Starship design; the Lunar Lander proposal submitted by SpaceX:

https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-thre … em-awards/

Yep. Elon pulls another rabbit out of his hat! Winner of one of the bids.

louis · 2020-05-01 17:03:57

Yes - I opened a thread on that...a useful $100 million plus. Might plug any gap in the milk-yield from the Tesla cash cow in the current crisis!

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Here's the latest iteration of the Starship design; the Lunar Lander proposal submitted by SpaceX:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-thre … em-awards/
Yep. Elon pulls another rabbit out of his hat! Winner of one of the bids.

Oldfart1939 · 2020-05-05 22:05:43

Just a quick news note: Starship Sn. 4 had a brief single engine test fire this evening. had a video link but can't find now. Will add to this post once I find link.

Link to a short YouTube of test firing:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UFYwf408VE

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2020-05-05 22:07:09)

Void · 2020-05-06 09:33:28

O.F. 1939,

Here is a link, I think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp2oaguCzN8

I will blab a bit, my opinion, for what it is worth, a true amateur, if even that status.

Still, I am not worried about a pressure test that only went to 4.9 bar. In my work, sometimes, to adjust a test instrument, you go back and fourth across 2 or more adjustments, to get it "In Spec".

For them to be obsessive about going to the maximum pressure at this time would likely be a mistake, as they are getting ready to start experimenting on their own S. Steel alloy(s). Going to a new material, means that if they had finalized structure for the old S. Steel, that structure could be inappropriate for the new S. Steel to use. So, they will want to go back and fourth with these two adjustments, with continuing iterations of the device. Getting to the best possible performance up to I presume some ~8.5 bar, if they can.

And I feel that a goal less than crew worthy is well worth their efforts. That is the first useful device would be able to bring cargo to orbit, but would not be trust worthy for crew (yet). That could make them money, and in the event of a failure, might reduce the amount of harassment that they would get from government agencies, if they lost crew, passengers, or civilians. By leaving humans out of the mix for now, a ship loss would be recovered from more easily. They would have LEO capabilities, but not yet crew capabilities.

The Falcon9/Crew Dragon, in that case would allow them to get crew up to the Starship in LEO, if human assistance could be of value, in helping to deploy gear from the Starship.

I would not be surprised, if the "Deep Space Starship", (Moon version), would be developed first as a matter of fact, because that would allow them to focus only on launch to LEO, and to yet get something of value to LEO.
----

And I think that Robert Zubrin may be correct. A Mini-Starship might be a good thing eventually. If it turned out that Starship (Maxi), just could not be crew rated, then perhaps a Mini-Starship could be.

But, I am sure SpaceX will go as far as they can to make a crew rated Maxi-Starship. We will eventually see how possible that is.

Last edited by Void (2020-05-06 09:48:48)

Void · 2020-05-06 10:57:45

Went for a walk and thought about it some more.

What can you get from a only to LEO Starship, and a reusable Super Heavy?

In effect you would have made it about as useful as Falcon 9 + 2nd stage.

Except...you would have less surface area per unit of mass and volume, so get through the atmosphere better.

and the Raptors are more efficient.

And you would have delivered payload to LEO, and would also have components (The Starships), in LEO to construct space stations with.

So, probably more $$$ of value than for the Falcon 9 + 2nd stage.

So after getting payload to LEO, you could Skylab the things, even before you were Moon capable.

Last edited by Void (2020-05-06 11:04:24)

louis · 2020-05-06 11:03:34

I think Musk has his eyes on the prize: Mars. Mars not the Moon.

A lunar Starship may be a useful means of sucking in funds from NASA or through lunar tourism for the Mars project. My guess is it won't derail the Mars project. Zubrin's mini-Starship would be a diversion. I don't think that will happen.

I base this partly on the fact Musk will be 50 next year. He's often expressed a wish to spend his last years on Mars. If not exactly an old man in a hurry, I think he does feel he is battling time to get Mars done.

What would be the difficulty in making a Starship crew rated? Assuming it flies, I can't see it will be any worse than Saturn V. Are you think of the escape system?

Void wrote:

O.F. 1939,
Here is a link, I think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp2oaguCzN8
I will blab a bit, my opinion, for what it is worth, a true amateur, if even that status.
Still, I am not worried about a pressure test that only went to 4.9 bar. In my work, sometimes, to adjust a test instrument, you go back and fourth across 2 or more adjustments, to get it "In Spec".
For them to be obsessive about going to the maximum pressure at this time would likely be a mistake, as they are getting ready to start experimenting on their own S. Steel alloy(s). Going to a new material, means that if they had finalized structure for the old S. Steel, that structure could be inappropriate for the new S. Steel to use. So, they will want to go back and fourth with these two adjustments, with continuing iterations of the device. Getting to the best possible performance up to I presume some ~8.5 bar, if they can.
And I feel that a goal less than crew worthy is well worth their efforts. That is the first useful device would be able to bring cargo to orbit, but would not be trust worthy for crew (yet). That could make them money, and in the event of a failure, might reduce the amount of harassment that they would get from government agencies, if they lost crew, passengers, or civilians. By leaving humans out of the mix for now, a ship loss would be recovered from more easily. They would have LEO capabilities, but not yet crew capabilities.
The Falcon9/Crew Dragon, in that case would allow them to get crew up to the Starship in LEO, if human assistance could be of value, in helping to deploy gear from the Starship.
I would not be surprised, if the "Deep Space Starship", (Moon version), would be developed first as a matter of fact, because that would allow them to focus only on launch to LEO, and to yet get something of value to LEO.
----
And I think that Robert Zubrin may be correct. A Mini-Starship might be a good thing eventually. If it turned out that Starship (Maxi), just could not be crew rated, then perhaps a Mini-Starship could be.
But, I am sure SpaceX will go as far as they can to make a crew rated Maxi-Starship. We will eventually see how possible that is.

Void · 2020-05-06 11:07:10

Yes he does, but by continuing upgrades. It is very unlikely in my mind that they will attempt to make a full fledged Starship for Mars, when they can do upgrades, and more upgrades.

And they do want to make this a paying thing, well here is a way. Mars capable is probably towards the last versions.

The prior versions will be capable of space stations and Moon landings long before that, and will help to teach how to solve the initial problems.

Priorities are:
1) Get it to LEO.
2) Long term life support, which you could test in LEO, while perhaps even earning money by renting out space in a Skylab type re-purposed space station. Space Tourism and option $$$.
3) Possibly when you get those solved, you adapt to go to the Moon. NASA might be very interested in that $$$. Even if Starship is not to be crew rated to deliver crew to the Moon as long as one of the other landers can deliver crew to the Moon, then Starship could deliver large amounts of cargo to the Moon.

But without solving for refueling, that might be a problem. And to refuel in orbit, probably you need to ability to land Starship on Earth, but not absolutely necessarily. Refueling ships could be to LEO only, no landing methods, and then the tankers become part of a LEO space station after they donate their propellant to a Moon mission.

Space Stations, both Microgravity and Synthetic Gravity.

Doing this all the while becoming more and more proficient at launching into LEO, and also Orbital Long Term Life support. Nothing wrong with that.

Then you solve for the other operational problems.

Last edited by Void (2020-05-06 11:17:05)

louis · 2020-05-06 12:41:16

To my way of thinking getting the Starship to fly is the tricky bit. We've been told the Superheavy is a glorified-supersized Falcon 9.

Once you get the thing to fly then the rest follows. The Starship appears to be relatively very cheap to produce, so they can keep upgrading at an extremely fast rate - unheard of in the rocket industry, well certainly since the 1950s.

I don't see life support as the big hurdle others do. They have mastered keeping people alive in the Crew Dragon. I think a lot of life support technology is produced for, not by, NASA and so can be bought in. The Starship will be big enough for plenty of emergency back up e.g. duplicate machines, which will certainly be needed if you are going to be 100 million miles from home. There are planned to be six Starships landing on Mars as part of the first mission, so again plenty of scope for back up there, once landed.

The back to back refuelling has not been tried before but they have mastered docking (and as I say, given we have everyday cars that park themselves, docking shouldn't be that difficult). Space X might have to designed the pumping system themselves.

A Starship that can take people to the Moon and back is not going to be far off a Mars-ready Starship. Once you have set your course in space, there isn't from a technological point of view much difference between a lunar course and a Mars course is there? Landing will have different challenges, I accept but from that point of view, the Moon might be more difficult in many ways.

I think Musk's view of how to do this is not incremental, it's "Have I got the right basic design?" He thinks he has with the Starship, and in that I think he's right. He's probably learned as well from the huge diversion that was the Falcon 9 Heavy...a completely unnecessary project that made a rod for Space X's back. I believe Musk is now totally focussed on the Starship as the Mars Mission delivery system.
He will only be taken off route if he needs the money and can get that most effectively by developing specialist Starship e.g. for ISS resupply.

Void wrote:

Yes he does, but by continuing upgrades. It is very unlikely in my mind that they will attempt to make a full fledged Starship for Mars, when they can do upgrades, and more upgrades.
And they do want to make this a paying thing, well here is a way. Mars capable is probably towards the last versions.
The prior versions will be capable of space stations and Moon landings long before that, and will help to teach how to solve the initial problems.
Priorities are:
1) Get it to LEO.
2) Long term life support, which you could test in LEO, while perhaps even earning money by renting out space in a Skylab type re-purposed space station. Space Tourism and option $$$.
3) Possibly when you get those solved, you adapt to go to the Moon. NASA might be very interested in that $$$. Even if Starship is not to be crew rated to deliver crew to the Moon as long as one of the other landers can deliver crew to the Moon, then Starship could deliver large amounts of cargo to the Moon.
But without solving for refueling, that might be a problem. And to refuel in orbit, probably you need to ability to land Starship on Earth, but not absolutely necessarily. Refueling ships could be to LEO only, no landing methods, and then the tankers become part of a LEO space station after they donate their propellant to a Moon mission.
Space Stations, both Microgravity and Synthetic Gravity.
Doing this all the while becoming more and more proficient at launching into LEO, and also Orbital Long Term Life support. Nothing wrong with that.

Then you solve for the other operational problems.

Void · 2020-05-06 15:11:53

Louis,

It looks like I might have upset you.

I started by explaining that I thought the coming Starship activity might be a back and fourth between structure and new alloy materials, to gain optimum success.

And then I continued. Perhaps I should not have.

But I did allow for the utility of the Starship, even without Crew rating. And so I suggested some things that could be done with such a not-completely developed machine, until it should be completely developed.

I did get up against a major problem in suggesting that the device could go to the Moon without a Starship full return propellant version. It is possible I think but likely to be more trouble than to put the effort into a fully reusable propellant version.

I do recall that Elon Musk speculated that the fully reusable propellant version might (Maybe) not need the braking fins, or not so much of them perhaps. I don't know if that stands.

But I do agree with you that Elon Musk will have his priorities, and Mars is the big one.

But with the Lunar effort, he/they, Elon Musk/SpaceX, get grant money to try to develop a Lunar version, which very well could be a stepping stone to the Mars rated one.

Elon Musk does hype Mars big time, but I have gathered that he is also disappointed that we don't have space stations, and a Moon base.

Again, I did not intend to bum you out. I just got on a rant and took it to an impasse. I do that a lot, to find out where the limits are.

Peace

Oldfart1939 · 2020-05-06 16:26:34

Louis and Void-

I go on the storehouse of knowledge principle. Musk is smart enough to know that everything he accomplishes outside LEO brings us closer to his ultimate goal. I'm not particularly interested in the moon, nor is it a necessary stepping stone to Mars. It is an engineering problem that's in some ways, more difficult than the Red Planet; good engineers learn from tackling difficult problems. The design concept of Deep Space Starship is a prime example of this at work. I see overcoming the landing problem for moon will allow the concept to become sufficiently refined for Mars landings, because the tiny landing footprint of Starship gives me nightmares. The landing configuration of Deep Space Starship should be used on Mars as well as Moon; Moon will be the School of Hard Knocks for SpaceX, and Musk will thrive as no other company CEO.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2020-05-06 16:27:49)

louis · 2020-05-06 18:41:54

An interesting concept for a huge Starship-based mother ship with artificial G.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6iMltzlVhg

louis · 2020-05-06 18:44:43

Not at all! Happy to hear your views. I was just giving mine.

Void wrote:

Louis,
It looks like I might have upset you.
I started by explaining that I thought the coming Starship activity might be a back and fourth between structure and new alloy materials, to gain optimum success.
And then I continued. Perhaps I should not have.
But I did allow for the utility of the Starship, even without Crew rating. And so I suggested some things that could be done with such a not-completely developed machine, until it should be completely developed.
I did get up against a major problem in suggesting that the device could go to the Moon without a Starship full return propellant version. It is possible I think but likely to be more trouble than to put the effort into a fully reusable propellant version.
I do recall that Elon Musk speculated that the fully reusable propellant version might (Maybe) not need the braking fins, or not so much of them perhaps. I don't know if that stands.
But I do agree with you that Elon Musk will have his priorities, and Mars is the big one.
But with the Lunar effort, he/they, Elon Musk/SpaceX, get grant money to try to develop a Lunar version, which very well could be a stepping stone to the Mars rated one.
Elon Musk does hype Mars big time, but I have gathered that he is also disappointed that we don't have space stations, and a Moon base.
Again, I did not intend to bum you out. I just got on a rant and took it to an impasse. I do that a lot, to find out where the limits are.
Peace

louis · 2020-05-06 18:48:21

I wouldn't disagree with the way you put it. But I do think it helps to see that, for all his many activities, Musk's primary focus is Mars and that often his other activities, whether it be the Cyber Truck, Starlink, the Boring tunnel, Hyperloop, his solar power business, or resupplying the ISS - are either directly relevant to Mars or can generate funds for the Mars Missions.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis and Void-
I go on the storehouse of knowledge principle. Musk is smart enough to know that everything he accomplishes outside LEO brings us closer to his ultimate goal. I'm not particularly interested in the moon, nor is it a necessary stepping stone to Mars. It is an engineering problem that's in some ways, more difficult than the Red Planet; good engineers learn from tackling difficult problems. The design concept of Deep Space Starship is a prime example of this at work. I see overcoming the landing problem for moon will allow the concept to become sufficiently refined for Mars landings, because the tiny landing footprint of Starship gives me nightmares. The landing configuration of Deep Space Starship should be used on Mars as well as Moon; Moon will be the School of Hard Knocks for SpaceX, and Musk will thrive as no other company CEO.

Oldfart1939 · 2020-05-06 21:57:01

Louis-
We both fully understand that Musk intends to make the Human Race a multiplanet species, and establishing a colony on Mars as his primary goal. In order for that to happen, it behooves him to gain experience in landing large spacecraft on hostile surfaces, and the Moon has about as hostile a surface as can be imagined. The proximity of the moon allows him to use his design philosophy properly; build it; test it; break it, destroy it; and build again. We see that in design and testing of Starship prototypes at Boca Chica. It actually makes a lot of sense, after considering the engineering involved, and considering the scale of what he has planned, to use the moon as his test landing sites. Five days to a test on the moon; 150-170 days to test landings on Mars. SpaceX needs data, and there's no better place to test many novel systems than on our nearest neighbor.

I've been a huge fan and supporter of Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct program in years past, but thinking through some of the problems, a shorter set of endeavors to moon as test cases and stepping stones makes a lot of sense. Test the hardware and systems before loading the crew on a Mars bound spacecraft to test the hardware and all supporting systems, in addition to gaining experience in large scale mission planning. Additionally, there is money to be made for SpaceX from NASA and other private/public entities by providing the transportation service. I don't consider it to be a Moon OR Mars dichotomy, but an integrated approach to learning how to do real Deep Space travel outside LEO.

Added as an addendum:

There are many jobs Deep Space Starship could perform profitably, and carrying a huge observatory to moon is one of them. A large segmented mirror telescope could be constructed on the surface, and a radio observatory established on the far side of the moon away from Earth radio interference. These are tasks that NASA and consortium of Universities could fund--profitably for SpaceX.

Colonizing Mars isn't going to be cheap, and Elon isn't a budgetary dunce.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2020-05-06 22:19:30)

kbd512 · 2020-05-07 08:02:34

Oldfart1939,

Yes, ultimately the moon is a very good testing analogue for Mars, if slightly more extreme in some ways. If the power, life support, radiation protection, and ISRU equipment is good enough for the crew to survive on the moon, then it's also good to go for Mars. Rather than having a bunch of giant question marks regarding the usability and maintainability of that equipment, we have a bunch of operational data and the ability to refine the designs to the level of durability required. If we'd had a lunar base since the 1980's, then all of this would be known by now and we could prepare for Mars missions instead. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, so now we have to play catch-up to where we should have been by this point. The only way to make up for lost time is to do the missions that provide the test data required.

Oldfart1939 · 2020-05-07 08:09:57

Here's more excellent news: Starship SN 4 completes second static test firing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmN5LyUw6k8

Void · 2020-05-07 09:36:53

I am reading your dialogs and liking them. As long as I am not strongly upsetting anyone's dream world, I will post.

I am this morning thinking, what happens if https://bigelowaerospace.com/, and https://www.spacex.com/about get married and have offspring?

Here I am thinking beyond a reused 2nd stage, but rather of a 2nd stage repurposed for LEO and perhaps beyond.

It is fairly certain, that at the minimum propellant Starships, and to be made to be able to return to the Earths, or Mars surface after delivering propellant to orbit. That is at the minimum there has to be a way to deliver propellant to orbit, and most likely requiring that the delivery vehicle can return to the Earths surface to be re-used.

I will try to get to the point before anyone else steps in prematurely with a rebuttal.

The Super Heavy will be in use for this. The Starship/Bigelow assembly can be of a lesser quality per pressurization. It would not be a crewed assent to orbit.

Obviously engines, propellant tanks, and in the fairings a Bigelow inflatable. What happens to the Fairings offers options.

So, a space station to orbit, does not have to be made to the same quality specifications as a crewed Starship.

Electrical power options are not specified at this time.

The engines could be continued to be used, perhaps for more propulsion, if that is useful.

The engines also might be repurposed as radiators, if that is useful

So, a quick and dirty, microgravity space station to orbit.

But.....Per O.F. 1939, also perhaps a Deep Space Starship option.

As per teachings of GW Johnson, I believe that a starship tumbled end on end, can get up to 1/2 g, with reasonable compliance with avoiding motion sickness.

But, with a Bigelow, inflatable attached to the empty tankage, the length of the assembly will be more. And whereas, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330

Is rather stout, but has some length added with inflation, perhaps something like a hot dog in shape might be possible.

But, we may discover that 1/2 g is all that is needed. It also would be possible to lash several of these assemblies into a rotating star configuration, if that was useful. If it was desired to move that assembly from LEO, to another location, then all of the Starships with Bigelow modules, could be refilled with propellant, and sequentially fired to propel the assembly. Fired before initiating rotation for synthetic gravity. Then when arriving at the destination, the whole assembly could be "Skylabed" in a preferred way, whatever that was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab

So, my point is since SpaceX is making an assembly line for Starships, to make 1000, Starships to episodically go to Mars per ~26 months?

Should their be a market for Microgravity space stations, synthetic gravity space stations, and perhaps Deep Space Starships. That capability, it seems to me is within reach on a reasonable time scale.

And of course the market for such things would determine the existence of such activities.

I feel that although, a reusable 2nd stage, is needed at the least for propellants, there is no reason at all to not contemplate the launch of machines to orbital space with the assistance of Super Heavy.

I was worried that SpaceX space stations, ect., would basically replace all the works of Bigelow Space, but now I see where they can work together. And the human race gets to enjoy the potential of blending derivative implementations of the two families of technology. All of that effort then can pay off, and not be wasted.

B330:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-05-07 10:22:24)

Oldfart1939 · 2020-05-07 10:32:14

Do you recall that Bigelow has laid off all employees?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#626 2020-04-26 06:30:27

Re: Starship is Go...

#627 2020-04-26 07:21:54

Re: Starship is Go...

#628 2020-04-26 09:13:08

Re: Starship is Go...

#629 2020-04-27 15:23:15

Re: Starship is Go...

#630 2020-04-30 09:56:42

Re: Starship is Go...

#631 2020-04-30 13:23:44

Re: Starship is Go...

#632 2020-04-30 17:49:34

Re: Starship is Go...

#633 2020-05-01 16:52:11

Re: Starship is Go...

#634 2020-05-01 17:03:57

Re: Starship is Go...

#635 2020-05-05 22:05:43

Re: Starship is Go...

#636 2020-05-06 09:33:28

Re: Starship is Go...

#637 2020-05-06 10:57:45

Re: Starship is Go...

#638 2020-05-06 11:03:34

Re: Starship is Go...

#639 2020-05-06 11:07:10

Re: Starship is Go...

#640 2020-05-06 12:41:16

Re: Starship is Go...

#641 2020-05-06 15:11:53

Re: Starship is Go...

#642 2020-05-06 16:26:34

Re: Starship is Go...

#643 2020-05-06 18:41:54

Re: Starship is Go...

#644 2020-05-06 18:44:43

Re: Starship is Go...

#645 2020-05-06 18:48:21

Re: Starship is Go...

#646 2020-05-06 21:57:01

Re: Starship is Go...

#647 2020-05-07 08:02:34

Re: Starship is Go...

#648 2020-05-07 08:09:57

Re: Starship is Go...

#649 2020-05-07 09:36:53

Re: Starship is Go...

#650 2020-05-07 10:32:14

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer