Starship is Go...

kbd512 · 2021-12-01 18:27:52

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.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-01 22:11:14

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.

GW Johnson · 2021-12-02 17:06:57

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

Oldfart1939 · 2021-12-02 23:51:22

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

kbd512 · 2021-12-03 01:31:38

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.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-12-03 17:26:05

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."

SpaceNut · 2021-12-03 18:00:01

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.

GW Johnson · 2021-12-10 12:29:09

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.”

SpaceNut · 2021-12-10 19:44:38

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

GW Johnson · 2021-12-11 15:20:38

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

Void · 2021-12-19 11:00:39

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)

tahanson43206 · 2022-02-08 11:00:44

This post is a follow up to one by OF1939: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 92#p190892

It has been since *** last year *** that we've seen an update on this important initiative by SpaceX.

If someone has an update, please post it here.

The Internet had an item about a Starship test, but that was probably rehashed old news. Is there anything more current?

***
If Elon has something up his sleeve, it would (most likely) depend upon Starship flying ** and Landing !!! ** successfully.

**** update at 12:19 local time:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-sched … 00399.html

Right on time!

The Brownsville Herald, Texas
SpaceX schedules Starship update; Musk plans presentation at Boca Chica
Steve Clark, The Brownsville Herald, Texas
Tue, February 8, 2022, 11:31 AM
Feb. 8—When SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk on Sept. 28, 2019, gave an official update of his company's Starship development program at Boca Chica, SpaceX had successfully launched and landed its first functional Starship prototype, the single-engine Starhopper, only a month before.
Now Musk is giving another Starship update, tweeting last week that it would take place at Boca Chica's Starbase complex at 8 p.m. on Feb. 10. This time around, the company has a successful high-altitude launch and landing under its belt (the May 5, 2021, flight of full-size Starship prototype SN15) and the six-engine Starship SN20 and its massive, 29-engine Super Heavy BN4 booster on the launch pad being prepared for SpaceX's first Starship orbital launch.
Musk's update will stream live on SpaceX's YouTube channel.
The Federal Aviation Administration said that this month it will release the results of its Programmatic Environmental Assessment of the company's plans for orbital launch operations at Boca Chica. Dec. 31 was the original deadline for the agency to complete the review, though the FAA announced last year it needed more time because of the high volume of public feedback generated by the Draft PEA released in September.
Feb. 28 is the FAA's new deadline to release the Final PEA. Based on the review's findings, the FAA may issue SpaceX a launch license for this first orbital flight, or not issue the license and require a full Environmental Impact Statement to be done before allowing any orbital flights from Boca Chica.
SpaceX plans to launch the 165-foot-tall SN20, fitted with black thermal tiles to protect it during reentry, from Boca Chica but land it in the Pacific Ocean inside the Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility about 60 miles north of Kauai, Hawaii. The 230-foot-tall Super Heavy booster would separate from Starship a little over two minutes into the flight and splash down in the Gulf of Mexico about 20 miles offshore if things go according to plan.
Musk, speaking to a joint meeting of the National Academies' Space Studies Board and Board on Physics and Astronomy in November, tamped down expectations for Starship's first orbital flight.
"There's a lot of risk associated with this first launch, so I would not say that it is likely to be successful, but I think we will make a lot of progress," he said.
Musk also said that "Starship is designed to be a generalized transport mechanism for the greater solar system."
So far two static-fire tests have been conducted on SN20's engines, in November and December, and a three-engine static-fire test was conducted on BN4 in July. SpaceX has also erected a 440-foot-tall "launch and catch" tower, as Musk described it via Twitter last month, featuring gigantic robotic arms that will be used to grab subsequent Super Heavy boosters as they land.
Starship and Super Heavy are being developed for rapid reuse in order to lower the enormous cost of space travel. Musk has described it as the "holy grail of space."
In April NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.9 billion contract to develop Starship as the lunar lander to put U.S. astronauts on the moon again as part of the space agency's Artemis program. The last man to walk on the moon was Apollo 17 mission commander Eugene Cernan, who did so on Dec. 12, 1972.
As of press time, closures of Boca Chica Beach and State Hwy. 4 from FM 1419 (Oklahoma Avenue) to the beach were scheduled for today through Feb. 10 from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. each day for SpaceX testing activities.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-02-08 18:59:21

The Nasaspaceflight has the inside scoop on the SN 20 getting restacked in preparation of a future flight.

Oldfart1939 · 2022-02-10 13:21:13

Heavy Booster and Starship are stacked!! In preparation for Elon's presentation tonight!!

tahanson43206 · 2022-02-10 21:25:55

For OF1939 re #1589

Thanks for the Heads Up! for Elon's talk this evening. He just finished (22:23 local time) and I am glad to have been part of the live audience. I am sure a recording will be available. Elon took a number of questions from the press, and one question from a local resident, who asked about the advantages of building Starbase in Texas. Elon was careful in his reply, but ended with the observation that Texas has "just the right amount of regulation".

The details about the development of the Raptor 2 engine were particularly interesting (to me for sure). The melting of the combustion chamber is the issue at hand. Cooling fluids need to be supplied in the right places at the right rate to prevent melting, and the team is still working toward a solution suitable for production.

(th)

Oldfart1939 · 2022-02-12 12:35:27

Elon was also a bit more restrained about his timelines--maybe no more "Elon Time?" It also was evident that he has a fallback, contingency plan in case the FAA approval process drags on. The approval for Starship launches is already in place at Cape Canaveral, and work has undoubtedly moved ahead on conversion of the two oil rigs that were purchased for conversion to launch and landing platforms. Elon is definitely determined to make Starship "work."
I really enjoy his live presentations, and his halting speech isn't that of a polished presenter--which makes him all the more believable.
The Raptor 2 is still a "work in progress" and will undoubtedly be later upgraded by a Raptor 3, but he's reaching the physical limits of performance for a chemical powered rocket motor. The next step will need to be a Nuclear Thermal system, if Starship is to also be used for exploration in the outer Solar System, such as the Asteroid belt and moons of Jupiter.

louis · 2022-02-12 20:11:26

Well I disappeared and eventually the CCP/PLA representative disappeared. So presumably they will return (with their fake mass postings, trying to destroy this site) as I return to posting...I guess we'll see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un9FY6G5UEo

I was interested in the absence of a deluge system. Is this less necessary if mechazilla holds the rocket well off the ground?

GW Johnson · 2022-02-13 19:27:50

Louis:

I have no idea what you refer to with the designation "CCP/PLA representative". I did like Felix's video.

Dunno about absence of deluge system. Sounds like a bad idea to eliminate fire protection, but I dunno. Spacex does things differently.

GW

SpaceNut · 2022-02-13 21:59:41

SpaceX's Elon Musk: 1st orbital Starship flight maybe March

Oldfart1939 · 2022-02-13 22:16:32

Louis-
Let me say "welcome home." We've had more points of agreement than disagreement during our exchanges, and I've restrained myself from lashing out at times.
But your ideas have been very beneficial to this website.

GW Johnson · 2022-02-15 09:13:27

Today's AIAA "Daily Launch" says FAA has announced it cannot make its decision before March 28.

If they decide not to approve, it goes to EPA for a full environmental impact statement, which takes multiple years. That moves Musk to Florida, with all NASA's restrictions bothering him. And he says at least 6 months to build the launch equipment there.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2022-02-15 09:15:01)

SpaceNut · 2022-02-15 19:56:05

So much for a starbase in Texas if approval fails to happen.

SpaceNut · 2022-02-20 15:24:45

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has announced that the report has been delayed to March 28.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-06 10:30:02

This is what we had in 2017 baseline which was 100 people and 100 mT cargo per ship.

https://www.spacex.com/media/making_lif … t_2017.pdf

2 cargo ship sent on a 6 to 9 month journey to do exploration of resources to be able to refuel a starship

Mars has lower gravity than Earth, you do not need a booster—you can go all the way from the surface of Mars to the surface of Earth just using the ship. You need a max payload number of about 20 to 50 tons for the return journey to work, but it is a single stage all the way back to Earth
fly four ships—two cargo and two crew. The goal of the first mission is to find the best source of water, and for the second mission, the goal is to build the propellant plant.
We should—particularly with six ships there—have plenty of landed mass to construct the propellant depot, which will consist of a large array of solar panels, and then everything necessary to mine and refine water, draw the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and then create and store deep cryo CH4 and O2.

so thought is for both crewed ships to be able to return fully refueled as there is a water ice found.

louis · 2022-03-06 20:10:11

Just as I predicted with the Biden administration. They hate Musk and they will do everything in their power to prevent him succeeding.

GW Johnson wrote:

Today's AIAA "Daily Launch" says FAA has announced it cannot make its decision before March 28.
If they decide not to approve, it goes to EPA for a full environmental impact statement, which takes multiple years. That moves Musk to Florida, with all NASA's restrictions bothering him. And he says at least 6 months to build the launch equipment there.
GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

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

Re: Starship is Go...

#1587 2022-02-08 11:00:44

Re: Starship is Go...

#1588 2022-02-08 18:59:21

Re: Starship is Go...

#1589 2022-02-10 13:21:13

Re: Starship is Go...

#1590 2022-02-10 21:25:55

Re: Starship is Go...

#1591 2022-02-12 12:35:27

Re: Starship is Go...

#1592 2022-02-12 20:11:26

Re: Starship is Go...

#1593 2022-02-13 19:27:50

Re: Starship is Go...

#1594 2022-02-13 21:59:41

Re: Starship is Go...

#1595 2022-02-13 22:16:32

Re: Starship is Go...

#1596 2022-02-15 09:13:27

Re: Starship is Go...

#1597 2022-02-15 19:56:05

Re: Starship is Go...

#1598 2022-02-20 15:24:45

Re: Starship is Go...

#1599 2022-03-06 10:30:02

Re: Starship is Go...

#1600 2022-03-06 20:10:11

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer