Starship is Go...

Void · 2020-05-07 11:05:56

Yes, I did hear of that, but it is not necessarily a permanent loss. The potential exists.

Perhaps if it is desired, SpaceX even acquires the assets. Technically, it is not wrong thinking, but there are some business issues, you are correct there.

Bigelow Layoffs:
https://spacenews.com/bigelow-aerospace … workforce/

I am going to guess that in part, they have done this because of a lack of customers for their product. But if SpaceX and Bigelow did feel that they could have a business partnership on the basis of what I have previously posted, then Bigelow would have customers for there product.

But of course there will need to be interest from various entities to use such a hybrid system.

Else no $$$.

At this time I prefer to see Bigelow, as in hibernation stasis, rather than dead.

Last edited by Void (2020-05-07 11:11:09)

Oldfart1939 · 2020-05-07 11:43:16

I would prefer a partnership with SpaceX in order to begin development of Mars Habitat structures. Working hand in hand, something realistic could be developed in time for the proposed 2024 or 2026 windows for Mars Hohmann transfer windows.
I'm really surprised that NASA hasn't shown much interest in doing anything with Bigelow beyond the BEAM module on the ISS.

louis · 2020-05-07 18:10:35

Great video from Felix - really worth a view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej2OTQfuqko

There's a lot of stuff in that video!

Successful SN4 static fires.

SN6 is already under construction.

A second test site is being constructed.

Hundreds more workers on site.

This is one of the greatest engineering projects ever seen on Earth - maybe the greatest ever in fact when you think about the goal - making us a two planet species.

Last edited by louis (2020-05-07 18:17:58)

louis · 2020-05-07 18:22:33

We know Musk always thinks outside the box. I think he might have been looking at the Bigelow approach and thinking "Yes that's a good engineering solution to the problem but it's way too expensive...if you just add some strong steel supports to a regular structure, you have solved the pressure problem and then you can produce habitats cheaply."

Musk is great at spinning several plates at one time: engineering, production processes, markets, costs etc.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I would prefer a partnership with SpaceX in order to begin development of Mars Habitat structures. Working hand in hand, something realistic could be developed in time for the proposed 2024 or 2026 windows for Mars Hohmann transfer windows.
I'm really surprised that NASA hasn't shown much interest in doing anything with Bigelow beyond the BEAM module on the ISS.

louis · 2020-05-08 19:44:02

Musk has tweeted:

"Starship + Super Heavy propellant mass is 4800 tons (78% O2 & 22% CH4). I think we can get propellant cost down to ~$100/ton in volume, so ~$500k/flight. With high flight rate, probably below $1.5M fully burdened cost for 150 tons to orbit or ~$10/kg."

kbd512 · 2020-05-09 05:26:03

Louis,

If SpaceX can get the cost down to $10/kg, then everyone working there deserves an attaboy for their contribution to space flight. We've heard this before, though, with respect to such exceptionally low cost claims, yet nothing remotely like what they're claiming has ever been achieved. I'll put Elon Musk's name right up there with Robert Goddard and Wernher von Braun if SpaceX makes $10/kg to LEO happen.

Void · 2020-05-09 09:26:58

Louis, you caused me to look some more.

KDB512, I am not competent to evaluate the reality vs asperation in the article.

It is simply what someone said Elon Musk said. That is all the merit I am investing in the article.

https://wccftech.com/spacex-launch-costs-down-musk/
Quote:

SpaceX Could Bring Starship Launch Costs Down To $10/kg Believes Musk
By Ramish Zafar
1 day ago
Share Tweet Submit
SpaceX's Raptor engine during a test fire. The Raptor will power the first and second stages of Starship. (Image: SpaceX)
Following NASA's decision to award three companies a contract to manufacture and design human landing systems for the moon's surface, interest in Hawthorne, California-based aeronautics corporation SpaceX's Starship launch and landing vehicles has been refreshed. Starship, which was initially referred to as the 'Big Fat Rocket' by SpaceX management, is the company's competitor to Boeing's Space Launch System. The SLS is planned to do most of the heavy lifting of NASA's Artemis missions spanning this decade, and SpaceX, as always will look to provide the space agency with a more affordable solution as reliable as the company's Falcon 9 rocket lineup.
To that end, SpaceX chief design engineer and top executive Elon Musk took to Twitter for comments on expected launch costs for Starship. The landing vehicle's original design intended it to undertake a flight to Mars, with in-orbital refueling to aid it after exiting earth gravity. As opposed to Boeing's Orion crew vehicle, Starship is capable of exiting the moon's orbit on its own, and SpaceX's strong performance in the Technical area of NASA's evaluation of human landing system attests the agency's confidence in the company's ability to execute such complex missions.
SpaceX Hopeful To Drive Down Starship's Orbital Launch Cost To $1.5 Million Per Mission States Elon Musk
In statements made on Twitter on Thursday night, Mr. Musk entertained the possibility of bringing down launch costs for the Starship platform by capitalizing on economies of scale. The executive believes that for flights that are made to low earth orbit, Starship and its Super Heavy launch vehicle will cost $1 million/launch, provided that fuel costs are eliminated. With fuel, Mr. Musk hopes that SpaceX will be able to bring down costs to $150,000/launch – for a total sum of $1.5 million when delivering 150 tons to orbit.
When understanding the scope of these statements, readers are advised to keep in mind that currently, SpaceX charges roughly $150 million/launch for delivering 70 tons to low earth orbit. These are military payloads, with the Falcon Heavy being the only launch vehicle from the company that is certified to deliver them.
Artistic representation of the SpaceX Starship landing vehicle's legs. The legs, along with the vehicle's landing system will prove to be a critical factor in its use. (Alex Delderfield/Twitter. ACCESSED on 8th May 2020)
Returning to the moon missions, the executive also believes that over the years, Starship will cost buyers roughly $20/kg to $30/kg for delivering lunar payloads. Naturally, these prices assume that the full payload capability of the launch vehicle is being utilized, and payloads are delivered regularly to the lunar surface. In other words, the price ranges mentioned today do not represent one-off launches, which are likely to cost more.
Yet, the conditions highlighted above are just the kind offered by earth-to-earth, terra transport plans that SpaceX's management has for Starship. Provided that Starship is tested adequately, and regulatory and transportation bodies approve the vehicle for commercial use, SpaceX will manage to save significantly on fixed costs such as those for repairing and declaring flight worthiness of a vehicle.
SpaceX's primary competence of re-using its rocket boosters has proven to be a key aspect in the company's capability to bring down launch costs. With the Raptor engines for Starship and Super Heavy, the company will have more thrust to play around with its operations, but unless its competitors manage to deliver on both the thrust and reusability front, SpaceX will continue to have a unique edge over
them.

And to that I attach an article about using Hydrogen on the Moon to reduce regolith, make water, and of course split the water to get Oxygen, and to then recycle the Hydrogen to go again and again.
https://isru.nasa.gov/Hydrogen-Reductio … olith.html
Quote:

Hydrogen Reduction of Regolith
Hydrogen is a strong reducing chemical reagent and like carbon can be used to obtain certain metals from their oxides. Metals that form carbides when reacted with carbon like Tungsten are produced commercially by hydrogen reduction as is pure Molybdenum. The hydrogen reduction process has some appeal in ISRU because hydrogen is available as a gaseous reagent on the Moon and at other destinations that also harbor water. In its first stage of development, the process aims at reducing available minerals such as Ilmenite (FeTiO3) found on the Moon to produce oxygen. The development of the technology has been pursued at different scales: examples are the PILOT project (Precursor In-situ Lunar Oxygen Testbed) by Lockheed Martin Astronautics (LMA) and NASA centers, the ROxygen project by Johnson Space Center (JSC), Glenn Research Center (GRC) and Kennedy Space Center (KSC). All projects used lunar regolith simulant materials and were supported by the NASA ISRU Program.
Goal
Extract oxygen from regolith by high-temperature reaction of iron oxides in the regolith followed by water electrolysis.
Principle of Operation
The baseline hydrogen reduction process for lunar regolith has two basic steps for the extraction of oxygen:
— Step 1. Hydrogen Reduction of iron oxides
Minerals containing iron oxides (e.g., Ilmenite FeTiO3) are reduced by reaction with heated pure hydrogen near 900°C to form water vapor.
— Step 2. Water Electrolysis
Water formed in Step 1 is electrolyzed after purification to separate oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen is then cycled back to use in Step 1.
The reaction is limited to iron oxides, which forces the selection of a soil where these oxides are abundant and/or the use of techniques to beneficiate the regolith to obtain a soil with a larger portion of iron oxides. The simplicity and the relatively low operating temperatures of this technology make it a good candidate for early demonstrations of oxygen extraction on a limited scale during robotic space missions.
PILOT (Precursor In-situ Lunar Oxygen Testbed) (LMA /NASA)

PILOT Hydrogen Reduction system during field tests in Hawaii in 2008 (Image credit: Lockheed Martin)
Technology Features
The PILOT system was built to scale to achieve production rates equivalent to 1000 kg O2 per year to support a lunar outpost.
The regolith is introduced into the reactor by an auger at the bottom of a hopper.
The regolith is tumbled in a conical reactor resting at an angle similarly to cement mixers while hot hydrogen fills the space. This fluidization of the soil is important to improve the exposure of all the regolith grains to the gas.
The water produced passes through a purification module that removes contaminants (hydrogen sulfide, chloride and fluoride) that hinder the operation of the electrolyzer.
Once reacted with the hydrogen, the hot regolith is poured out of the reactor. Its heat content can be recuperated to pre-heat the incoming fresh regolith.
PILOT Results and Performance
System integrated with mini rover equipped with bucket drum excavator bringing soil to the reactor. Integrated system was tested during field tests in Hawaii.
Processing capacity of ~ 15 kg of regolith per batch yielding 150 g of O2.
Produced oxygen yields of 1 wt% of processed regolith.
ROxygen (JSC / GRC / KSC)
Technology features
The NASA ROxygen fluidized bed and auger hydrogen reduction reactor makes oxygen at approximately 660 kg/yr, which is about 2/3 of the scale required for the initial stages of a Lunar Outpost being designed for the NASA architecture (1000 kg/year).
It consists of a cylindrical reactor that has an internal auger system that stirs (fluidizes) the regolith to enhance heat transfer and prevent regolith sintering.
Regolith simulant is delivered from the ground level to the inlet tube of the ROxygen reactor cylinder, which is constrained to a vertical configuration to enable a gravity feed of regolith simulant into and out of the reactor cylinder.
Results and Performance
Two large–scale reactors were tested in 2008 at the first ISRU technology field tests.
Tests in large reactor provided oxygen yields in the range 0.2% – 0.5% by mass of regolith. The low yields are attributed to the operational limits of a contaminant scrubber.
Recirculation of hydrogen was achieved with removal of hydrogen halide contaminants from the produced water.

Hot Hawaiian tephra soil used in ROxygen reactor pouring out after reaction with hydrogen. (Image credit: Johnson Space Center/ Kennedy Space Center)
Concentric Hydrogen Reduction Reactor (JSC / GRC)
Technology features
Concentric cylindrical chambers allow the exchange of heat from the hot regolith being processed to fresh regolith waiting to be introduced.
Maintains regolith in fluid and loose state (fluidization) by hydrogen flow and/or vibration of the reactor – compares efficiencies.
Results and Performance
Vibrofluidization and gas fluidization with Helium gas are near equally efficient in heat recuperation. Fluidization with hydrogen is not as effective.
Tests in large reactor provided oxygen yields in the range 0.2% – 0.5% by mass of regolith. The low yields are attributed to the operational limits of a contaminant scrubber.
Added mass and complexity of a dual chamber reactor is also counterproductive for ISRU usage.

ROxygen system in operations during field tests in Wahine Valley on Mauna Kea, HI in 2008. (Image credit: Johnson Space Center / Kennedy Space Center)

The above process is of questionable efficiency. I presume that another process may work better. I do wonder about the contaminants,(hydrogen sulfide, chloride and fluoride), which on the Moon may be valuable, if they actually exist in the Lunar regolith.

Here is a different article from NASA:
https://isru.nasa.gov/OxygenfromRegolith.html
There are links to three different processes that might be used for extracting Oxygen from regolith.
Quote:

The ISRU Technology Development Project has focused its research and development efforts on three main technological routes in recent years: the carbothermic reduction of regolith, the hydrogen reduction of regolith and molten regolith electrolysis.

In the post by Louis, #655, a number for Oxygen attracts me:
Quote:

Musk has tweeted:
"Starship + Super Heavy propellant mass is 4800 tons (78% O2 & 22% CH4). I think we can get propellant cost down to ~$100/ton in volume, so ~$500k/flight. With high flight rate, probably below $1.5M fully burdened cost for 150 tons to orbit or ~$10/kg."

78% O2 for the amount of propellant you might extract from Lunar regolith for various missions of Starship, beyond LEO. And technically even O2 for landing Starship back on Earth, although that is not likely to be a huge amount.

And then later on, when it becomes possible to make solid objects on the Moon from O2 reduced regolith materials, those produced objects to be used in various places, including likely some delivered to Mars.

You may not need the Moon to go to Mars, but it looks like it will make life a whole lot better if you do use the Moon.

Last edited by Void (2020-05-09 09:48:46)

louis · 2020-05-09 09:44:35

It was an Elon Musk tweet:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1258580078218412033

And he followed that up by stating that it would cost ten times that amount to get payload to Mars - so $100 per kg or $100,000 per ton.

Or for a full 100 ton Starship payload to Mars, just $10 million. Incredibly cheap!

Yes. we can all be a bit sceptical about the price. But no one before Musk has really attempted this with a proper rocket production line and using cheaper material like stainless steel.

GW Johnson · 2020-05-09 11:22:51

Propellant cost is not, and has never been, the driving cost for spaceflight, or any other form of rocketry.

There is the cost of building the vehicle, which is now possibly lower with the advent of vehicle reusability. Divide the cost of building the vehicle by the projected number of flights it is to make, then add that to the propellant cost per flight.

"Reusability" may or may not be all that it is cracked up to be. It certainly was NOT with the space shuttle. There is a refurbishment cost, which is both supplies and labor, for each and every flight. Add THAT to your figure for cost-per-flight.

There is the cost of preparing the vehicle for flight. This is a ground crew of some significant size, and they cost you labor, and supplies, for EACH and EVERY fight. Add THAT to your cost per flight.

There is a ground control or mission control operation that must handle each and every flight. Routinely, this is mostly labor, but when in-flight problems must be solved on the ground, there are considerable costs for extra labor, supplies, and the rental of facilities in which to experiment with your solutions. Add all that at some anticipated solve-the-problem rate to your per launch costs.

And then there's the anticipated flight failure rate (aborts and vehicle/crew losses). These are the most expensive of all. They are far higher yet, if traceable to bad management decisions. Ask NASA. But add a kitty for that to your per-flight costs. You are a fool if you do not.

And then there's profit. You must mark up your costs for overhead and profit to get a real price per launch. Or you won't be in business for very long. And don't kid yourself, there is overhead, and it dwarfs profit. The usual commercial markup factor (price/cost) is in the factor 2 to 3 range. When it exceeds 3, that's a good rough guide to pirates who are ripping others off. When it is less than 2, that's a good guide to outfits who will not be around in 10 years.

You are far better off looking at non-reusable Falcon-9 and Falcon-Heavy flights for gross-estimating the true prices (NOT costs!!!) of operating Starship/SuperHeavy at this time. That's available on the Spacex website. They are both under $100M per flight.

It scales with launch weight size in some way that I cannot quantify. Bigger has higher costs, but not directly proportional to launch weight. So a decent educated WILD GUESS for the price charged to launch a Starship/Superheavy to LEO is around $200M. Maybe more, But not bloody likely any less!

That's to LEO. To go outside LEO you don't launch one vehicle, you launch it and a fleet of tankers to refuel it. All at the same LEO price. Estimates and rumors-from-Spacex differ, but my best guess is 6 tankers to fully refuel a Starship in LEO. That's 7, not 1, launches to go outside LEO. So raise the price to LEO by a factor of 7 to do anything at the moon or Mars. $200M x 7 = $1400M = $1.4B.

Now divide THAT by 100 tons of payload! $14M/ton. Per ton of cargo, or per passenger to Mars, makes little difference. A passenger on a Mars voyage requires a ton of life support.

Order of magnitude, that's $10M/ton or $10M/person for the ticket. It's far, far better than anything anybody else has ever promised, but it's still NOT affordable by the ordinary person.

Which analysis is why I discount tweets by 100%. From anyone.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-05-09 11:52:46)

louis · 2020-05-09 13:56:03

Well, Musk was adding to the propellant cost- adding about $1m to the propellant cost of $0.5m for a flight to LEO.

I seem to recall Musk claiming the Starship would be capable of making 100 flights. I guess, a lot comes down to the production line. If you can get a 24/7 line going with lots of automation, then costs will fall dramatically.

The steel itself won't cost that much - maybe $0.25 million, assuming it's a high priced version.

If you really can fly it 100 times, then the cost of build can be divided by 100, if Space X aren't borrowing to build to get the capital cost that needs to be covered.

GW Johnson wrote:

Propellant cost is not, and has never been, the driving cost for spaceflight, or any other form of rocketry.
There is the cost of building the vehicle, which is now possibly lower with the advent of vehicle reusability. Divide the cost of building the vehicle by the projected number of flights it is to make, then add that to the propellant cost per flight.
"Reusability" may or may not be all that it is cracked up to be. It certainly was NOT with the space shuttle. There is a refurbishment cost, which is both supplies and labor, for each and every flight. Add THAT to your figure for cost-per-flight.
There is the cost of preparing the vehicle for flight. This is a ground crew of some significant size, and they cost you labor, and supplies, for EACH and EVERY fight. Add THAT to your cost per flight.
There is a ground control or mission control operation that must handle each and every flight. Routinely, this is mostly labor, but when in-flight problems must be solved on the ground, there are considerable costs for extra labor, supplies, and the rental of facilities in which to experiment with your solutions. Add all that at some anticipated solve-the-problem rate to your per launch costs.
And then there's the anticipated flight failure rate (aborts and vehicle/crew losses). These are the most expensive of all. They are far higher yet, if traceable to bad management decisions. Ask NASA. But add a kitty for that to your per-flight costs. You are a fool if you do not.
And then there's profit. You must mark up your costs for overhead and profit to get a real price per launch. Or you won't be in business for very long. And don't kid yourself, there is overhead, and it dwarfs profit. The usual commercial markup factor (price/cost) is in the factor 2 to 3 range. When it exceeds 3, that's a good rough guide to pirates who are ripping others off. When it is less than 2, that's a good guide to outfits who will not be around in 10 years.
You are far better off looking at non-reusable Falcon-9 and Falcon-Heavy flights for gross-estimating the true prices (NOT costs!!!) of operating Starship/SuperHeavy at this time. That's available on the Spacex website. They are both under $100M per flight.
It scales with launch weight size in some way that I cannot quantify. Bigger has higher costs, but not directly proportional to launch weight. So a decent educated WILD GUESS for the price charged to launch a Starship/Superheavy to LEO is around $200M. Maybe more, But not bloody likely any less!
That's to LEO. To go outside LEO you don't launch one vehicle, you launch it and a fleet of tankers to refuel it. All at the same LEO price. Estimates and rumors-from-Spacex differ, but my best guess is 6 tankers to fully refuel a Starship in LEO. That's 7, not 1, launches to go outside LEO. So raise the price to LEO by a factor of 7 to do anything at the moon or Mars. $200M x 7 = $1400M = $1.4B.
Now divide THAT by 100 tons of payload! $14M/ton. Per ton of cargo, or per passenger to Mars, makes little difference. A passenger on a Mars voyage requires a ton of life support.
Order of magnitude, that's $10M/ton or $10M/person for the ticket. It's far, far better than anything anybody else has ever promised, but it's still NOT affordable by the ordinary person.
Which analysis is why I discount tweets by 100%. From anyone.
GW

Void · 2020-05-09 14:08:10

It does not hurt to have an enthusiastic Optimist, and a practical Pessimist. We can only hope that the final truth might end up somewhere between those two bounds.

If it is anywhere within that envelop, it is way more than what is happening now. And I like that.

louis · 2020-05-09 16:52:08

Well we've been here before...no one thought the price of PV power would reduce so dramatically...same for battery power. People from past decades would be astonished at how cheaply you can purchase a car now in real terms and how wonderfully reliable they are.

I can see how Musk might be proven right. If the basic structural cost of the steel for a Super Heavy-Starship combo is something like $0.25 million (feel free to provide a better estimate), that leaves a lot of room for cost reductions based on a production line with maximum automation manufacturing a 1000 a year. Obviously human-rated Starships will cost a lot more and the flights will be more expensive.

For a cargo Starship/Superheavy that costs $10million to build, that can undertake 100 flights, the capital cost per flight needing to be covered will be only $100,000.

I think the weakness in the projection is probably in Musk's Mars colonisation model. I am not a believer in this facile assumption that 100s of thousands of people with the requisite skill sets will be desperate to move to Mars on a permanent basis. Ain't gonna happen is my view. Growing a colony of permanent residents is a tough challenge. Without a Mars colonisation programme, the demand for Starships will be much less although I think there will be a market for lunar and orbital tourism that the Starship would be well suited to.

Void wrote:

It does not hurt to have an enthusiastic Optimist, and a practical Pessimist. We can only hope that the final truth might end up somewhere between those two bounds.
If it is anywhere within that envelop, it is way more than what is happening now. And I like that.

Last edited by louis (2020-05-09 16:52:43)

Oldfart1939 · 2020-05-09 17:49:43

Louis-
Material are the minor cost of building anything. It's the labor for building something as complex as a Starship. Labor may be 10X cost of materials, or possibly more,

louis · 2020-05-09 19:03:05

Yes, I'm not disagreeing...and all the oncosts, the pension contributions, taxes and so on. But the reason the real cost of cars has fallen so dramatically compared with 100 years ago has a lot to do with production lines and automation.

Just take the welding, if you can get an industrial robot to do perfect welding of sections, that is going to be a leap forward in terms of both cost and reliability.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis-
Material are the minor cost of building anything. It's the labor for building something as complex as a Starship. Labor may be 10X cost of materials, or possibly more,

SpaceNut · 2020-05-09 19:57:11

I think that nasa changed how its large tanks are made in that they are doing a different type of 3d like welding rather than sheet metal shaping.

GW Johnson · 2020-05-10 11:30:56

Louis:

You have danced twice around the real reasons cars are as cheap as they are, without actually recognizing it for what it really is: They are cheap only because so very many are made, each and every year. Millions. No spaceship will EVER be made in such quantities, so NO spaceship will EVER be anywhere near as cheap to produce as a car.

What the automation has to do with this is merely making mass production possible without incurring massive labor costs. Which labor cost elimination may, or may not, be the right thing to do, especially these days with so many newly unemployed millions of people. More profitable, yes. The right thing to do? Debatable.

BTW, all this development work trying to make Starship/SuperHeavy a reality, will have to be amortized over the number of flights each vehicle (and every) vehicle is expected to make. That's going to be something on the order of $10B. Order of magnitude only. But closer to $10B than to $1B or to $100B.

If 100 vehicles each make 100 flights (both are big "ifs"), that's 10,000 flights over which to amortize that $10B development cost. $10B/10,000 = $1M added to the cost of producing each and every one of those vehicles.

If there are only 10 vehicles, but they fly 100 times each, then it's an added $10M for each.

If there are only 10 vehicles, and they fly only 10 times each, that's $100M added to the production cost of each and every one of them.

This is an exponential effect that depends upon the total number of flights made by the entire fleet of vehicles to be manufactured.

I seem to recall lots of talk by you and others, including myself, about some-to-several Starships sent one-way to Mars. Those would be all just 1-flight vehicles! 10 vehicles x 1 flight each is 10 fleet flights. $10B/10 flights is $1B added to the cost of flying each vehicle, which assumes only these are built. That might be the worst case imaginable, I quite agree.

And that's just one of many cost issues! See how this totally fails to add up to "propellant costs dominating the ticket price"? Tweets about propellant costs are BS to distract from something else.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-05-10 12:01:20)

GW Johnson · 2020-05-10 11:49:57

Spacenut:

Because of the huge size, there is no way to construct Starship and SuperHeavy except to form flat stainless sheet into curved panels and gores for welding into cylindrical, spherical, and fully 3-D shapes. Spacex has been learning the hard way that forming tooling, welding jigs, and fabrication inside, out of the wind, is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to achieve reliable results.

The more recent prototypes are beginning to look like something that might serve. The early ones, not at all. I think Oldfart1939, Kbd512, and I have all been trying to point that out. With the rough field landing issue looming vis-a-vis Earthly emergency abort landings, they still have a very long way to go to make this a design that has a prayer of avoiding killing multiple crews.

As for material costs, we are talking about a dry empty weight somewhere on the order of 150 metric tons for the second-stage Starship vehicle. Most of that is apparently one or the other 300-series stainless steel alloy. Plain carbon steel in formed structural shapes like plate, flat, angle, bar, and tube stock runs roughly $1/pound which is roughly $2/kg.

Stainless prices vary strongly by alloy, but as a rule-of-thumb it is around 3-5 times as expensive to buy as plain carbon steel. That would be $3-5/lb, or $6-10/kg. That would be $6000-10,000/metric ton.

For Starship's ~150 m.tons, you are talking about something on the order of $900-$1500K ($0.9-1.5M) in stainless materials per vehicle. That will so very clearly NOT be the dominating cost of producing these vehicles! The labor, the rocket engines, and the flight control instrumentation and equipment are all going to be a whale of a lot more expensive than that! Certainly the PICA-X heat shield will be far more expensive than the steel substrate.

The welding, as they have learned to their chagrin, has to conform to precise and demanding quality. It likely cannot be automated in any practical way. It cannot be done out in the weather with hand-bent panels, as they have already learned the hard way. They are still learning that metal cryo tanks really are pressure vessels. The spherical-segment domes, free of applied point loads, in the Falcons were successful for very good reasons that they cannot afford to ignore in the Starship/SuperHeavy designs.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-05-10 11:57:16)

SpaceNut · 2020-05-10 17:16:40

I stand corrected as what I thought was being stir friction welding is just the capsule...
They are indeed large sheets welded...

Lots of images for the welding machine on the page

inside the tank welder

louis · 2020-05-10 19:49:08

I think the comparison I am making is when the car industry moved from what had been really just a continuation of horse-drawn carriage making (skilled workers operating in a shed) to a production line technique introduced or perfected by Ford. You didn't need to sell millions for there to be huge reductions in cost...they sold millions because there had been a huge reduction in costs.

I agree Starship is not going to be made in the millions, but we could nevertheless see huge reductions in cost if Musk has got this right.

About the only time we ever saw a rocket production line was for the V2 rocket! Of course that relied on slave labour. The only other rocket production line might have been in the 1950s when countries were building up their nuclear weapon arsenals. I haven't researched that.

But here we have the possibility of there being enough demand to justify rocket production line producing hundreds of finished articles every year.

GW Johnson wrote:

Louis:
You have danced twice around the real reasons cars are as cheap as they are, without actually recognizing it for what it really is: They are cheap only because so very many are made, each and every year. Millions. No spaceship will EVER be made in such quantities, so NO spaceship will EVER be anywhere near as cheap to produce as a car.
What the automation has to do with this is merely making mass production possible without incurring massive labor costs. Which labor cost elimination may, or may not, be the right thing to do, especially these days with so many newly unemployed millions of people. More profitable, yes. The right thing to do? Debatable.
BTW, all this development work trying to make Starship/SuperHeavy a reality, will have to be amortized over the number of flights each vehicle (and every) vehicle is expected to make. That's going to be something on the order of $10B. Order of magnitude only. But closer to $10B than to $1B or to $100B.
If 100 vehicles each make 100 flights (both are big "ifs"), that's 10,000 flights over which to amortize that $10B development cost. $10B/10,000 = $1M added to the cost of producing each and every one of those vehicles.
If there are only 10 vehicles, but they fly 100 times each, then it's an added $10M for each.
If there are only 10 vehicles, and they fly only 10 times each, that's $100M added to the production cost of each and every one of them.
This is an exponential effect that depends upon the total number of flights made by the entire fleet of vehicles to be manufactured.
I seem to recall lots of talk by you and others, including myself, about some-to-several Starships sent one-way to Mars. Those would be all just 1-flight vehicles! 10 vehicles x 1 flight each is 10 fleet flights. $10B/10 flights is $1B added to the cost of flying each vehicle, which assumes only these are built. That might be the worst case imaginable, I quite agree.
And that's just one of many cost issues! See how this totally fails to add up to "propellant costs dominating the ticket price"? Tweets about propellant costs are BS to distract from something else.
GW

Void · 2020-05-10 20:08:47

I suppose it is not official, but I read they made 7.5 bar on their testing.

I know they will fall off their tricycles, and skin their nees, But anrn't they just fabulous?

I once asked a higher being, "Do you think there is any hope for me"? The answer was "I should hope so".

Really that happened. But you can believe what you wish.

Here is a nice thing:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Hi … 2F0FDEECCF

Last edited by Void (2020-05-10 20:21:32)

Terraformer · 2020-05-11 02:21:39

louis, a production line only makes sense *if* you are producing large numbers. Setting up a production line to produce a hundred cars probably won't give you any reduction in costs over bespoke manufacturing.

louis · 2020-05-11 19:32:04

Not the case, as this article shows. They use an assembly line for Boeing 777s, very comparable with a rocket assembly:

https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/a … i_ca01.pdf

Dividing the number of planes delivered by the number of years since first went into service, it looks like production is around 55 per annum.

So very comparable with what Musk is proposing.

The key factors are (a) the output value of the process (ie planes are very expensive) and (b) whether it delivers real productivity gains.

Terraformer wrote:

louis, a production line only makes sense *if* you are producing large numbers. Setting up a production line to produce a hundred cars probably won't give you any reduction in costs over bespoke manufacturing.

louis · 2020-05-11 19:50:04

Looks like production of SN7 might have started - a new nose cone has appeared!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnJdM0Szkuw

GW Johnson · 2020-05-11 21:58:07

A production line makes cost-reduction sense when you are (1) producing large numbers of the item, and (2) all the items you produce are the same. "Large numbers" is thousands to millions, NOT tens to hundreds. And ONLY if they are all identical.

For small quantities of spacecraft where each may differ from the previous, the production line approach offers no cost savings, but it does offer a standardized and organized way of construction. THAT improves quality control, process control, and thus product reliability. THOSE really are advantages that make using the production line approach for developmental items (which this certainly is!) worthwhile.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-05-11 21:59:39)

louis · 2020-05-12 20:00:05

See my link above to the Boeing article. They are only making about 55 a year, but it speeds up the manufacturing process significantly. Time is money - it does cut costs.

GW Johnson wrote:

A production line makes cost-reduction sense when you are (1) producing large numbers of the item, and (2) all the items you produce are the same. "Large numbers" is thousands to millions, NOT tens to hundreds. And ONLY if they are all identical.
For small quantities of spacecraft where each may differ from the previous, the production line approach offers no cost savings, but it does offer a standardized and organized way of construction. THAT improves quality control, process control, and thus product reliability. THOSE really are advantages that make using the production line approach for developmental items (which this certainly is!) worthwhile.
GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#651 2020-05-07 11:05:56

Re: Starship is Go...

#652 2020-05-07 11:43:16

Re: Starship is Go...

#653 2020-05-07 18:10:35

Re: Starship is Go...

#654 2020-05-07 18:22:33

Re: Starship is Go...

#655 2020-05-08 19:44:02

Re: Starship is Go...

#656 2020-05-09 05:26:03

Re: Starship is Go...

#657 2020-05-09 09:26:58

Re: Starship is Go...

#658 2020-05-09 09:44:35

Re: Starship is Go...

#659 2020-05-09 11:22:51

Re: Starship is Go...

#660 2020-05-09 13:56:03

Re: Starship is Go...

#661 2020-05-09 14:08:10

Re: Starship is Go...

#662 2020-05-09 16:52:08

Re: Starship is Go...

#663 2020-05-09 17:49:43

Re: Starship is Go...

#664 2020-05-09 19:03:05

Re: Starship is Go...

#665 2020-05-09 19:57:11

Re: Starship is Go...

#666 2020-05-10 11:30:56

Re: Starship is Go...

#667 2020-05-10 11:49:57

Re: Starship is Go...

#668 2020-05-10 17:16:40

Re: Starship is Go...

#669 2020-05-10 19:49:08

Re: Starship is Go...

#670 2020-05-10 20:08:47

Re: Starship is Go...

#671 2020-05-11 02:21:39

Re: Starship is Go...

#672 2020-05-11 19:32:04

Re: Starship is Go...

#673 2020-05-11 19:50:04

Re: Starship is Go...

#674 2020-05-11 21:58:07

Re: Starship is Go...

#675 2020-05-12 20:00:05

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer