totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Ultimate Steve]

I'm going to steer clear of the current topic for hopefully obvious reasons (though I do have mixed feelings on it).

I had a conversation with someone on Discord today about the sticker price of a Starship launch - As in, you can go to spacex.com and the sticker price for a launch on a reused Falcon 9 is currently 69.75 million dollars. There are extras that can push that higher, of course. But I was wondering what the sticker price for a standard LEO Starship launch on SpaceX's website will end up being when they finally post one (both in the short term and the long term). Specifically for the sake of comparison, a standard fully reusable cargo launch with no extras (refueling flights will probably be less due to no payload processing).

Like on one side you've got the people thinking they will actually get to 2-3m. Then on the other side you've got the people that think that the reusable architecture is so complicated that Starship might eventually be able to get below Falcon 9's cost per kilogram (only maybe putting the sticker price below 389m for a 100t capacity Starship in the long  term, more if the payload capacity grows). I find both figures insane. My current train of thought is that barring any major departures from the current concept, Starship's sticker price (once published) will never be more than the current Falcon 9 sticker price (69.75m) with it eventually falling to somewhere between 10 and 40 million dollars per flight (though admittedly that is quite a large range).

Thoughts?

[tater]

6 minutes ago, Nuke said:

how many people has boeing killed recently? why do they get a pass? i really dont get the elon hate.

He's an apostate.

[Pthigrivi]

33 minutes ago, Nuke said:

how many people has boeing killed recently? why do they get a pass? i really dont get the elon hate.

I think Boeing is actually the perfect example of what happens over time when you let companies regulate themselves. They become irrationally risk tolerant corporate basket cases. So sure! Lets take the brakes off this train! Get that death toll up to something newsworthy!
 

https://cbsaustin.com/amp/news/local/lawsuit-claims-safety-protocol-lapse-in-workers-death-at-tesla-gigafactory

 

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62919131/tesla-has-highest-fatal-accident-rate-of-all-auto-brands-study/

Edited January 19 by Pthigrivi

[Nuke]

so one. proportionality matters.

[Pthigrivi]

43 minutes ago, Nuke said:

so one. proportionality matters.

Second link? And I didn’t throw out the first one out of nowhere. Elon’s companies have a pretty horrendous reputation for worker safety, and sexual and racial harassment. I think both Tesla and SpaceX have had incredible achievements and its a true testament to all of those incredible people doing the actual work, but those achievements have come in spite of rather than because of Elon’s leadership. He’s very, very good at pulling in billions in PE from Goldman and Saudi princes. Certainly they don’t care who lives or dies if number go up. And in the world we live in maybe that giant pile of money is all that matters and no one else cares either. Im sorry but I can take no moral comfort in it. 
 

Elon absolutely has worse personal moral failings but the one that has earned him the most money and notoriety is essentially his ability to be the Edison of his day. Not so great an inventor or even intellectually interesting in any substantial way, but he is acutely adept at taking credit for the achievements of better, more talented people and presenting them as his own to the eager, not so discerning masses in a media savvy way. 

Edited January 19 by Pthigrivi

[Deddly]

Gentlemen, we have strayed from the topic. Mild political comments are occasionally tolerated when they are related to space exploration (as per the rules) but general Elon bashing or praising is not up for discussion just because SpaceX is partially directed by the guy.

[AVaughan]

11 hours ago, tater said:

They can do a reentry burn placing the ship safely in the Gulf (even were it to blow up). After crossing land—high enough that there is a 0% chance of debris on land because of momentum, it initiates a "boostback" burn of short duration reshaping the trajectory close to the beach. Then it lands like the booster. Yes, this will take a lot more props than if they had a west coast pad.

Whilst that might be technically possible, I'm not sure it is as simple as you suggest.

If the ship breaks up during re-entry at least some parts probably decelerate faster than the intact ship, if you plan a re-entry with enough velocity that all the debris makes it to the coast, in all possible re-entry failure scenarios, what velocity would the ship still have when it crosses the coastline?  How much dV would you need for the boostback burn?  When would you start the boostback burn?  What would be the ship velocity at that point?  (Is the ship still hypersonic?  Is it supersonic?)  Can it handle the aero loads involved in that sort of flip, at that velocity?   Is fuel slosh going to be a problem for engine start?

Consider the reduced area of tiles on the sides of Starship where the catch arms might damage tiles during the catch.  During the last re-entry, the steel rings that comprise Starship body seem to have deformed slightly suggesting that the steel might have softened during re-entry.  If the steel is still hot in those regions, is that steel up to the aero loads involved in the flip?  (Since Starship needs to be fully re-useable, is this deformation going to be an issue for future flights?)  

It might even be easier to aim the re-entry for the Gulf west of Florida, then do a burn to hop over Florida to Cape Canaveral.   But if something goes wrong during that burn, you suddenly have debris landing in Florida, so that doesn't seem any better.

I'm not sure how much extra fuel would be required, but I think it would be a lot more than just the few hundred m/s they reserve for the flip and landing burn. I doubt the header tanks hold enough fuel for both the boostback burn plus the flip and landing burns.  I'm not sure they can use the main tanks to start the engines for the boostback burn, and if they start the engines from the header tanks, I'm not sure they can transfer fuel to refill the header tanks during the boostback burn, so they might need to change their tank/fuel flow/valve arrangements.  (This is starting to sound like a redesign of Starship.  And then they will want to remove all this extra mass eventually, since they won't want to make a boostback a permanent feature of re-entry).

I'm not sure the current design has the margins during re-entry for all the extra fuel required for the boostback burn.  They came close to burning through one of the flaps during at least one of the previous flights, and extra mass of more fuel would mean more momentum and kinetic energy to burn off, and that probably means a higher total heat load during re-entry.   

If they really want to do something like a boostback burn, then I would expect to see them attempt it during a re-entry before they do it for real.  However I am confident that Musk would prefer not to do a boostback burn on a regular and on-going basis, so I expect him to attempt to push straight to a re-entry/approach over land.  If he can't get that approved then I expect them to either build a catch tower somewhere else, or add landing legs and attempt to land somewhere else.  (I will add that a catch tower just for Starship could be shorter and probably lighter and cheaper to build that what is needed for the full stack).  

Does he need FAA approval for a re-entry of Mexico?  (I assume he does, since the FAA needs to approve the entire flightplan before they approve the launch).   Does he need approval from Mexican authorities?  Assuming he has approval from Mexican authorities, would a re-entry over Mexico be more acceptable to the FAA than one over Texas?  What would be the liability situation if something did go wrong and debris killed someone in Mexico?  Would the damages payout be cheaper?

Edited January 19 by AVaughan

[tater]

35 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

Whilst that might be technically possible, I'm not sure it is as simple as you suggest.

I don't think it's simple, lol, I do think it's likely what they try.

[AVaughan]

28 minutes ago, tater said:

I don't think it's simple, lol, I do think it's likely what they try.

Maybe I should have said "... as simple as you make it sound."

To me, landing legs and a droneship or a concrete pad somewhere are simpler, lighter and less technically challenging.  (Any the simple approach is personally very appealing).  But ultimately they either will want either permission for re-entry/approach over land or a new launch + catch location where they can re-enter and approach from the West over water or uninhabited land,  then launch eastward over water.  Has anybody been spending $ buying land at the very south end of Florida lately?  (Maybe around Key Lago?)

Edited January 19 by AVaughan

[darthgently]

24 minutes ago, tater said:

I don't think it's simple, lol, I do think it's likely what they try.

What about a tower catch or landing on the Baja peninsula, partial props load, then a ballistic hop over Mexico such that the burn that ballistically puts it in the gulf region is completed before crossing the gulf of California with lots of controlled landing options in between.   Heck, chutes or other mitigations could be attached at Baja as a backup.  Velocities would be much lower than reentry and the ship could be quickly vetted prior at Baja then hopped to Boca.

Here I am waaaay out here in crazy idea land!

4 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

Maybe I should have said "... as simple as you make it sound."

To me, landing legs and a droneship or a concrete pad somewhere are simpler, lighter and less technically challenging.  (Any the simple approach is personally very appealing).  But ultimately they either will want either permission for re-entry/approach over land or a new launch + catch location where they can re-enter and approach from the West over water or uninhabited land,  then launch eastward over water.  Has anybody been spending $ buying land at the very south end of Florida lately?  (Maybe around Key Lago?)

An artificial island south of Key Largo with bridge access would be interesting.  Far enough south that overflights miss the Keys, but not so far that Cuba gets whiny 

[PakledHostage]

Myself, I don't think Barking Sands is too out to lunch for Starship catch testing, if they're going to do it somewhere other than Texas. They initially talked about having Starship come down near there anyway,  so clearly it's close to their existing testing trajectories.  It also has thousands of kilometers of empty ocean to the west and south of it. It is a Naval facility,  but it has been used for 3rd party testing in the past, such as for some of the Pathfinder aircraft missions.

Edited January 19 by PakledHostage

[tater]

49 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

To me, landing legs and a droneship or a concrete pad somewhere are simpler, lighter and less technically challenging.  (Any the simple approach is personally very appealing).  But ultimately they either will want either permission for re-entry/approach over land or a new launch + catch location where they can re-enter and approach from the West over water or uninhabited land,  then launch eastward over water.  Has anybody been spending $ buying land at the very south end of Florida lately?  (Maybe around Key Lago?)

I actually agree, and a Mars ship needs legs anyway, so it needs to be solved. But they seem intent on catching it, so...

[darthgently]

Different angle FLT 5, not the best quality, but here it is

 

[AckSed]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

Different angle FLT 5, not the best quality, but here it is

 

It's the low quality footage and the overlay that really gives it that Kerbal feel.

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

Myself, I don't think Barking Sands is too out to lunch for Starship catch testing, if they're going to do it somewhere other than Texas. They initially talked about having Starship come down near there anyway,  so clearly it's close to their existing testing trajectories.  It also has thousands of kilometers of empty ocean to the west and south of it. It is a Naval facility,  but it has been used for 3rd party testing in the past, such as for some of the Pathfinder aircraft missions.

Maybe too similar to traumatic Kwajalein atoll memories some SpaceX employees have from F1 tests.  Too triggering

[tater]

Hopefully much of this discussion becomes moot do to Chevron deference being rightfully eliminated.

[Deddly]

We're giving the non-SpaceX-but-Elon-related stuff a rest for this thread, kind folks. My apologies for having to remove a few posts.

[tater]

 

[RCgothic]

Thinking about the "don't bother with reuse, just send it expendable because that works" argument just now and realised that something similar is causing me a significant amount of personal frustration at work right now.

There's a major intermittent process I'm responsible for designing, and the traditional way of doing things will cost £190-240M GBP (in 2025 terms) over plant life.

Spending perhaps a twentieth of that up-front to implement existing tech would allow us to cut that cost by a third (potentially saving £60M GBP in 2025 terms), employ fewer people, generate less hazardous waste, and provide a safer environment for workers.

But because it's "only saving a few weeks" when the process actually rolls round every 5 years or so there's a traditionalist block that is being stubbornly obstructionist, and having lost the technical argument, is now using the argument of development time and submission deadlines to try kill the innovation through "process". I.e: "the way we've always done it works, don't bother."

SpaceX could abandon their innovation and take the easy way. They've got a 5-10 year tech advantage over their nearest competitors. But they won't keep that lead by abandoning innovation. Full rapid reuse is the holy grail of spaceflight for a reason.

Got very limited sympathies for the alternative arguments right now.

 

Edited January 20 by RCgothic

[Pthigrivi]

5 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

Myself, I don't think Barking Sands is too out to lunch for Starship catch testing, if they're going to do it somewhere other than Texas. They initially talked about having Starship come down near there anyway,  so clearly it's close to their existing testing trajectories.  It also has thousands of kilometers of empty ocean to the west and south of it. It is a Naval facility,  but it has been used for 3rd party testing in the past, such as for some of the Pathfinder aircraft missions.

Or maybe just a bigger drone ship out of the Port of Los Angeles? At least as a temporary measure for testing. 

22 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

SpaceX could abandon their innovation and take the easy way. They've got a 5-10 year tech advantage over their nearest competitors. But they won't keep that lead by abandoning innovation. Full rapid reuse is the holy grail of spaceflight for a reason.

And I think they've got a good shot at it. Not guaranteed of course but they've already demonstrated plausibility. They may even need to abandon the heat tiles for some other thermal system, I guess we'll see. Fortunately BO is looking a little less stuck in the mud and Stoke looks really promising so hopefully there will be competing strategies if one or 2 ideas don't work out. SLS is looking crazy out of date at this point. Im surprised it hasn't already been cancelled. 

[PakledHostage]

5 hours ago, tater said:

 

 

 

Edited January 20 by PakledHostage

[Flavio hc16]

2 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

 

 

The planes are taking revenge 

[Exoscientist]

On 1/19/2025 at 1:55 AM, Ultimate Steve said:

I'm going to steer clear of the current topic for hopefully obvious reasons (though I do have mixed feelings on it).

I had a conversation with someone on Discord today about the sticker price of a Starship launch - As in, you can go to spacex.com and the sticker price for a launch on a reused Falcon 9 is currently 69.75 million dollars. There are extras that can push that higher, of course. But I was wondering what the sticker price for a standard LEO Starship launch on SpaceX's website will end up being when they finally post one (both in the short term and the long term). Specifically for the sake of comparison, a standard fully reusable cargo launch with no extras (refueling flights will probably be less due to no payload processing).

Like on one side you've got the people thinking they will actually get to 2-3m. Then on the other side you've got the people that think that the reusable architecture is so complicated that Starship might eventually be able to get below Falcon 9's cost per kilogram (only maybe putting the sticker price below 389m for a 100t capacity Starship in the long  term, more if the payload capacity grows). I find both figures insane. My current train of thought is that barring any major departures from the current concept, Starship's sticker price (once published) will never be more than the current Falcon 9 sticker price (69.75m) with it eventually falling to somewhere between 10 and 40 million dollars per flight (though admittedly that is quite a large range).

Thoughts?

 

 What’s the scuttlebutt on Discord and on Forum.NasaSpaceflight.com about the origin point of the leaks in the Starship in the last flight, the engines or the plumbing? If it were the engines then that is concerning because leaking Raptors was a focal point from the FAA after a prior failure in regards to items SpaceX needed to fix. The Raptors should not be still leaking fuel and catching fire this late in their development.

 There is no doubt that SpaceX knows the origin of the leaks. During the prior tests of the Starship landing procedures there were cameras in the engine bay that were able to image leaks when they occurred:

What Happened to Starship SN11? | SpaceX Starship SN11 Test Flight & Explosion Cause Analysis.
 https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx5eG9w2IgvyX_3yKJea8kUCbYcrNHpF1F?si=OYbJQXNgy-CbuguI

There is no doubt such cameras are still in the engine bay during the Superheavy/Starship test flights.

   Bob Clark

 

[RCgothic]

The plumbing. New downcomers in that section. Engines no significant changes.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

10 hours ago, RCgothic said:

don't bother with reuse, just send it expendable because that works

I chimed in earlier about expendable second stage.  To me, Booster is ready for action as a heavy lift platform - but we need a second stage that can deploy stuff to space.  Starship is designed for landing on Mars, the Moon or Earth once complete.  But it doesn't look like the optimal platform for getting something really cool like a ridiculously large telescope.  That would need a TradSpace solution, IMO.

I really, really want to see some kind of major science package (Cosmology, rather than solar-system-planetary) get off the ground and out in the void, Sciencing.

Webb took way too long to get off the ground - and seeing as how lift has changed - we could really lean into the ridonkulous!