Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:

it aged like wine:D

http://spacex.jpg

Oh, that is a cool find. After some google reverse-image search, this was the March 29, 2004 issue. Years before SpaceX would even launch their first rocket.

I don't have a subscription, but it should be available here: https://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/20040329

 

Interestingly, looking at the previews, it talks about the Falcon I being the workhorse of the fleet, while the larger Falcon 5 being used for heavier payloads and taking on Boeing. Heh.

Just compare that "larger" rocket with, say, the Falcon Heavy.

Edited by ThatGuyWithALongUsername
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the last "the space show" https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/11-feb-2020/broadcast-3459-dr.-robert-zubrin

He talked to Elon in Boca:

- employees: 300 now, probably 3000 in a year

- production target: 2 starships per week

- Starship cost target: $5M

- first 5 Starships will probably stay on Mars forever

- When Zubrin pointed out that it would require 6-10 football fields of solar panels to refuel a single Starship Elon said "Fine, that's what we will do".

- Elon wants to use solar energy, not nuclear.

- It's not Apollo. It's D-Day.

- The first crew might be 20-50 people

- Zubrin thinks Starship is optimized for colonization, but not exploration

- Musk about mini-starship: don't want to make 2 different vehicles (Zubrin later admits "show me why I need it" is a good attitude)

- Zubrin thinks landing Starship on the moon probably infeasible due to the plume creating a big crater (so you need a landing pad first...). It's also an issue on Mars (but not as significant). Spacex will adapt (Zubrin implies consideration for classic landers for Moon or mini starship).

- no heatshield tiles needed for LEO reentry thanks to stainless steel (?!), but needed for reentry from Mars

- they may do 100km hop after 20km

- currently no evidence of super heavy production

- Elon is concerned about planetary protection roadblocks

- Zubrin thinks it's possible that first uncrewed Starship will land on Mars before Artemis lands on the moon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

This doesn't look like RCS. Some sort of valve hub for pneumatic actuators?

As its on the outside this is another test article. Good chance this is to test re-pressurization system?

Also its a lots of welding sports on that part I assume this is the top of the skirt and this part is upside down as the skirt is reinforced with lots of U steel on the inside. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:

from the last "the space show" https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/11-feb-2020/broadcast-3459-dr.-robert-zubrin

He talked to Elon in Boca:

- employees: 300 now, probably 3000 in a year

- production target: 2 starships per week

- Starship cost target: $5M

- first 5 Starships will probably stay on Mars forever

- When Zubrin pointed out that it would require 6-10 football fields of solar panels to refuel a single Starship Elon said "Fine, that's what we will do".

- Elon wants to use solar energy, not nuclear.

- It's not Apollo. It's D-Day.

- The first crew might be 20-50 people

- Zubrin thinks Starship is optimized for colonization, but not exploration

- Musk about mini-starship: don't want to make 2 different vehicles (Zubrin later admits "show me why I need it" is a good attitude)

- Zubrin thinks landing Starship on the moon probably infeasible due to the plume creating a big crater (so you need a landing pad first...). It's also an issue on Mars (but not as significant). Spacex will adapt (Zubrin implies consideration for classic landers for Moon or mini starship).

- no heatshield tiles needed for LEO reentry thanks to stainless steel (?!), but needed for reentry from Mars

- they may do 100km hop after 20km

- currently no evidence of super heavy production

- Elon is concerned about planetary protection roadblocks

- Zubrin thinks it's possible that first uncrewed Starship will land on Mars before Artemis lands on the moon

2 starship week is an insane production scale. 
5 million, is this for launch or for the starship, later does not compute then you think of the avionic and engines. 

Downside of solar only is dust storms, it getting dark and I'm out of power is an famous last word.
Granted if you have an methane and oxygen reserve you can burn this for power.

One major issue with using starship on moon is that its heavy so you need lots of refueling anyway. Using an dedicated lunar lander will be much more efficient 

Starship will have heat shield, original idea was to sweat methane. Assume the orbital version has an lighter heatshield. 
Doing suborbital jumps after the initial 20 km one makes sense. This can be done without heatshield. 

Just as well to get starship hopping before you start with superheavy. it simple compared with starship but shares many systems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:

- When Zubrin pointed out that it would require 6-10 football fields of solar panels to refuel a single Starship Elon said "Fine, that's what we will do".

- Elon wants to use solar energy, not nuclear.

A lot of pros and cons to weigh up with that. The first that comes to mind is what happens when you get a multi-month dust storm? 
I’m sure solar will be a big piece of a Mars power solution but I don’t think it will be the whole picture. Nuclear would be nice but probably impractical to think every outpost will be able to have nuclear reactors. I haven’t looked into the cost but I’m sure they’re not cheap or easy to make, in contrast to solar panels which are both.

Maybe a combination of solar and methane/oxygen powered generators for back up since they will have tons of fuel sitting around anyway.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

5 million, is this for launch or for the starship, later does not compute then you think of the avionic and engines. 

He made it clear (beginning of podcast) that it's to produce them for 5M each.

He has said before that Raptors would head down towards $200,000 - $250,000 each. The statement was in the context of Starship, not SS/SH. So we're talking 6 Raptors (3 of which are simpler vac raptors, no gimbal). So that's 1.5M$ in engines. Not impossible, I suppose (still insane that he's not joking).

Even at double or triple that, this is amazingly cheap. SH obviously costs more, but that gets reused faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zubrin gets into the weeds on plume-regolith interactions, and he love his "mini-starship idea (which is garbage, IMO). The only benefit of "mini Starship" for lunar (or small Mars) interactions is... 1 engine landing vs 3, maybe? They could just as well make a lunar SS with a single vacuum Raptor in the middle as a bespoke lunar vehicle (now it has exactly the same plume interaction as any SpaceX lunar vehicle would ever have, since they won't be using Merlin for this, ever). The landing legs? Yeah, I agree, a problem. Simple enough to make the lunar version have F9 legs writ large on the sides for a wide, wide stance. The first few vehicles are not meant to come back, they deliver cargo and are expended (or used as a hab). The cargo includes equipment for making a proper landing pad. Same could be true for Mars. A series of cargo vehicles (note that I am note a Mars colonization person, I think it's kooky, but I'll play along) has very wide stance F9 booster legs for "rough field" conditions. Initial cargo includes robots to lay out solar farm (required anyway), and for the creation of a landing pad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tater said:

Zubrin gets into the weeds on plume-regolith interactions, and he love his "mini-starship idea (which is garbage, IMO). The only benefit of "mini Starship" for lunar (or small Mars) interactions is... 1 engine landing vs 3, maybe? They could just as well make a lunar SS with a single vacuum Raptor in the middle as a bespoke lunar vehicle (now it has exactly the same plume interaction as any SpaceX lunar vehicle would ever have, since they won't be using Merlin for this, ever). The landing legs? Yeah, I agree, a problem. Simple enough to make the lunar version have F9 legs writ large on the sides for a wide, wide stance. The first few vehicles are not meant to come back, they deliver cargo and are expended (or used as a hab). The cargo includes equipment for making a proper landing pad. Same could be true for Mars. A series of cargo vehicles (note that I am note a Mars colonization person, I think it's kooky, but I'll play along) has very wide stance F9 booster legs for "rough field" conditions. Initial cargo includes robots to lay out solar farm (required anyway), and for the creation of a landing pad.

 

My preferred "first survey/site prep" mission is a Starship with an Apollo 10 type profile (getting within a few hundred meters of the surface on a landing profile, than abort to orbit before plume interactions become a concern) but deploying a few dozen Cybertrucks with Superdraco Skycranes for "last mile" landing. The trucks would then do site survey and build a pad capable of a Starship landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...