Is the current Starship merely a boilerplate for testing engines and reaction control thrusters with balast to simulate life support and similar systems or will it be made man-rated?
News SpaceX heavy-lift vehicles: Launch Thread
- Thread starter XCV330
- Start date
Last edited:
So far from Elon at the update event: (before the Q and A session)
Starship booster will have between 20 and 36 engines depending on the payload requirement.
orbital
Orbital refuelling is integral to the Mars plan and from the lessons learned with cargo Dragon, the refuelling will be much easier than ISS docking and resupply. I am inferring from the animations that there will be at least one dedicated tanker, but wasn't stated. Maybe that will be in the Q and A.
Ratio of LOX to fuel is 3 to 1, a big benefit for Starship since they have switched to methane.
The full stack Booster/Starship is really freaking tall.
Starship Mach 1 prototype weighs 200 tons, but production models will be around 120 tons, though they hope eventually to get lower.
Starship Mach 1 prototype is already fitted with 3 sea level raptor engines.
The Starship reentry model is based more on a skydiver than a capsule or plane.
Elon Musk does not believe alien intelligence is anywhere in this part of the Galaxy, mentioned if there had been any evidence the military would have used it for increase spending long ago. Not sure why he went off on that tangent.
the goal is still Mars but they are interested in a moon base. Cited the antartica base model for that.
Stressed the need continually for humanity to be multi-world species.
Starship system will be 100 reusable and rapidly relaunchable.
Stainless steel construction resolved numerous problems that starship design initially have and saved money
Side benefit for stainless steel is that the settlers can reuse and re-weld the steel for new structures on future settlements without complicated equipment. Starhopper and the Mach 1 protype were both built outside with regular welding methods. 302 stainless.
edited to add: I think he said Mark I, not Mach 1
Starship booster will have between 20 and 36 engines depending on the payload requirement.
orbital
Orbital refuelling is integral to the Mars plan and from the lessons learned with cargo Dragon, the refuelling will be much easier than ISS docking and resupply. I am inferring from the animations that there will be at least one dedicated tanker, but wasn't stated. Maybe that will be in the Q and A.
Ratio of LOX to fuel is 3 to 1, a big benefit for Starship since they have switched to methane.
The full stack Booster/Starship is really freaking tall.
Starship Mach 1 prototype weighs 200 tons, but production models will be around 120 tons, though they hope eventually to get lower.
Starship Mach 1 prototype is already fitted with 3 sea level raptor engines.
The Starship reentry model is based more on a skydiver than a capsule or plane.
Elon Musk does not believe alien intelligence is anywhere in this part of the Galaxy, mentioned if there had been any evidence the military would have used it for increase spending long ago. Not sure why he went off on that tangent.
the goal is still Mars but they are interested in a moon base. Cited the antartica base model for that.
Stressed the need continually for humanity to be multi-world species.
Starship system will be 100 reusable and rapidly relaunchable.
Stainless steel construction resolved numerous problems that starship design initially have and saved money
Side benefit for stainless steel is that the settlers can reuse and re-weld the steel for new structures on future settlements without complicated equipment. Starhopper and the Mach 1 protype were both built outside with regular welding methods. 302 stainless.
edited to add: I think he said Mark I, not Mach 1
Nice pix here
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/...tness-of-the-spacex-super-heavy-starship.html
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3804/1
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2019/09/30/70711/
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?149827-SpaceX&p=2494119#post2494119
Inside the Starship
https://www.universetoday.com/143610/elon-musk-shows-us-whats-inside-the-starship-1/
Like me, he can let some of his verbage get away from him.
I didn't like "Nuke Mars"--and now this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/science/elon-musk-spacex-starship.html
An ICBM that lands? That was Falcon--which really looked as much Old Space as Delta IV heavy--except for the coming-back. Starship deserves better language...A Ship of Dreams
Just remember---always film Starship in black and white--and all folks riding it MUST have Flash-style zig-zag lightning bolts on the front of their space suits--otherwise--you'll hex it.
Zubrin is worse.
So help me, if I were at the table and he pipes up with Columbus-this/that/orther, I'd kick him in the shin. You can't talk like that any more.
It'd be better if he talked about Zheng He, how the treasure fleets were burned in favor of building walls, etc...
Otherwise--you get more of this:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=41816
Nice new book out:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3802/1
Speaking of books...Errr.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2019/09/the-army-is-clo.html
spherical bastards--no matter how you look at hem....http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3801/1
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/...tness-of-the-spacex-super-heavy-starship.html
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3804/1
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2019/09/30/70711/
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?149827-SpaceX&p=2494119#post2494119
Inside the Starship
https://www.universetoday.com/143610/elon-musk-shows-us-whats-inside-the-starship-1/
Like me, he can let some of his verbage get away from him.
I didn't like "Nuke Mars"--and now this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/science/elon-musk-spacex-starship.html
An ICBM that lands? That was Falcon--which really looked as much Old Space as Delta IV heavy--except for the coming-back. Starship deserves better language...A Ship of Dreams
Just remember---always film Starship in black and white--and all folks riding it MUST have Flash-style zig-zag lightning bolts on the front of their space suits--otherwise--you'll hex it.
Zubrin is worse.
So help me, if I were at the table and he pipes up with Columbus-this/that/orther, I'd kick him in the shin. You can't talk like that any more.
It'd be better if he talked about Zheng He, how the treasure fleets were burned in favor of building walls, etc...
Otherwise--you get more of this:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=41816
Nice new book out:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3802/1
Speaking of books...Errr.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2019/09/the-army-is-clo.html
spherical bastards--no matter how you look at hem....http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3801/1
Last edited:
Just noting the design of the ship with the wings and all wondering would a Flash Gordon shaped rocket fly well?
Actually--they'd fly better. It is just that it is easier to make simple tubes--more fuel, etc: Teardrop/football shapes are best for limiting drag.
My mind bats around looking for connections--I'll limit myself to just one
https://www.reddit.com/r/aerospace/comments/1u23s3/whitcomb_area_rule_applied_to_rocket_design/
IIRC, area rule is why the Delta Dart looks the way it does, as compared to the Delta Dagger.
The redesign entailed lengthening the fuselage by 11 ft (3.35 m), being "pinched" at the midsection (dubbed the "Coke Bottle configuration"), with two large fairings on either side of the engine nozzle, with revised intakes and a new, narrower canopy.
One thing I was thinking about for Musk. I wonder if he would consider using Intumescent coatings.
It would promote boil-off, but might with re-entry/boostback.
Last edited:
Here is a nice paper model of Starship
https://twitter.com/axm61/status/1198597983492886528
New cubesat
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2019/12/07/new-reentry-cubesat-reaches-orbit/
https://twitter.com/axm61/status/1198597983492886528
New cubesat
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2019/12/07/new-reentry-cubesat-reaches-orbit/
Just for posterity.That is never, EVER going to happen. Most of Musk's crap like Hyperloop and BFR are just marketing his own ego as a "visionary".
A lot of that stuff was already explored by NASA and the Soviets in the 70s and found it largely unfeasable due to G-forces involved along with safety and the NASA designed commercial space plane is far, FAR more feasable than nightmare BFR. "HEY GRANNY, LETS WANNA EXPERIENCE BETWEEN 6 TO 14G's!?"
NASA X-30 commercial space plane.
It's basically a marketing gimmick.
Elon has now confirmed it in the post-launch conference.
Elon also says we missed Mars“Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.”
They became Belters a few hundred years early
Sorry for the necro
Other than the design of the rocket, the use of a Cargo Dragon instead of a Crew Dragon, and the number of astronauts on the maiden voyage, it's pretty much the same (at least until the Crew Dragon returns to Earth.)
It would have been cool if the capsules were capable of landing on their own like the boosters.
They stopped being able to do that? Huh. I missed the news.
I knew it hasn't been tested, but I still thought they could land.
I thought they only used the parachutes and landed in water.
The Superdraco boosters that replaced the Soyuz-like escape tower seen in the 2010 video were intended to be able to land the capsule propulsively on Earth and Mars, and the only place I know for sure the landing was ruled out was the Moon, but both of that may have since changed. I have so far assumed that they still have the option of doing that, but were doing parachutes for a different reason.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-three-starship-prototypes-one-month/
SN5 and SN6 are stacked and work is going really fast on SN7. Three Starships in a month.
SN5 and SN6 are stacked and work is going really fast on SN7. Three Starships in a month.
