It's obviously been a complete paradigm change. No way they reach those launch numbers without reuse.
Also remember they're still throwing away a second stage. I seriously think we're at the blimp or glider part of space exploration and Starship is the Wright Flyer. It can still completely change the way travel is conducted.
If any of you haven't watched Smarter Every Day on youtube, you should. Destin got the chance to speak to a room full of the top decision makers at NASA, and gave them a very good talk about how the Emperor is wearing no clothes, and takes a shot at them with this:
He talks to them about some things in the Artemis missions that he thought were odd, but that no one really talks about because of politics. (unfortunately, no, he didn't get to the absurdity of using SLS to take the crew to the moon and then using Starship to land on the moon (which you also have to take to the moon)).
It's a long video, but well worth it
One of the things he brought up was about Starship, and was kind of surprising to me:
AT LEAST 15 STARSHIP LAUNCHES NEEDED TO EXECUTE ARTEMIS III LUNAR LANDING
15? Yeah, I was thinking more like 6
Quote:
"One of things that's going to be pretty complex and challenging about the Starship lander is that there's going to be quite a number of tankers that will need to aggregate and send fuel up to the depot. And in order to be able to meet the schedule that is required, as well as managing boil off and so forth with the fuel, there's gonna need to be a rapid succession of launches of fuel."
That means using both Starbase and Kennedy Space Center. "I think it's on a 6-day rotation" and "it's in the high teens right now in terms of the number of launches."
You can read the article in the link. I'm wondering if it's legitimate, because they don't really say why 15 are required, or if it's a political piece, or if many of those 15 are to put a fuel depot in orbit. I didn't know the plan required a fuel depot. I thought each of the Starships would dock with the HLS Starship directly to fuel it.
"Freedom is never more than one election away from extinction"
Fight! Fight! Fight!
First, the backward bicycle he uses/discusses would infuriate me.
On the Starship launches required per lunar landing topic, some have speculated 20 would/will be needed. Musk has said 4 to 8. Since we are still waiting for what "Starship 2.0" will look like, let alone a tanker version, and a lunar one, I think it's a lot of guess work right now from the bleacher seats I am sitting on anyway.
In any case, SLS is a boondoggle all the way around.
It's fair to say that Starship v1 will be great at getting things to Earth orbit and suboptimal for anything else. But for starters, everything about lunar missions is hard. There is no optimal approach yet.
And second, do you really think SpaceX won't optimize?! They'll do the work, and if v2 is feasible and more efficient, it'll start coming together.
Also if they do 4x Starship, buckle up because we might hear that thing from Houston or Dallas or El Paso
First, the backward bicycle he uses/discusses would infuriate me.
On the Starship launches required per lunar landing topic, some have speculated 20 would/will be needed. Musk has said 4 to 8. Since we are still waiting for what "Starship 2.0" will look like, let alone a tanker version, and a lunar one, I think it's a lot of guess work right now from the bleacher seats I am sitting on anyway.
In any case, SLS is a boondoggle all the way around.
Elon's comments of 4-8 launches were a long time ago prior to any real thermal analysis.
That's the name for the maneuver used by falcon 9 because of it's inability to throttle below a positive TWR.
The lunar starship variant is supposed to make the deorbit burn an raptors, but then will have several smaller engines mounted at the top of the cylindrical section to touch down, which should mitigate any blast effect due to the sheer volume.
Likely the upper landing engines will be hypergolic, similar to the super Dracos I'd imagine.
That's what I've read. The landing will be fascinating, but I think the real challenge would/will be how level it can get. It's so tall, keep in mind the 'most' level an Apollo lander was 11, at 4 degrees off.
I would think the possibility/probability the Starship Lunar lander could wind up off 4 to 10 degrees would keep some folks very concerned, though I guess they could also incorporate some sort of levelling legs into the design.
I truthfully see the implementation of extendable legs into the design at some point especially given the amount of payload that will be coming out the sides of it
Anybody know more about the delta V limitation that is requiring NASA to do that weird ass lunar orbit?
Basically Orion is a big, heavy capsule, that wasn't designed (originally) for the moon mission, so it doesn't have the energy to ascend after a descent as per Apollo. It's big enough to require SLS, but then too heavy for the comparatively energy-intense orbit/land/ascend missions at the moon. I think Scott Manley or Marcus House did a big piece on it a couple years ago (or maybe even angry astronaut).
Most of SLS is a work around to accommodate somehow getting humans onto the moon using space shuttle hardware and the Orion capsule (and associated contractors). Everything else is just engineers doing their best to make that work.
Still think soft crashing "cargo" into the moon, then landing build robots to construct a flat landing/launch pad has got to be a possibility in the near future.
Anybody know more about the delta V limitation that is requiring NASA to do that weird ass lunar orbit?
Basically Orion is a big, heavy capsule, that wasn't designed (originally) for the moon mission, so it doesn't have the energy to ascend after a descent as per Apollo. It's big enough to require SLS, but then too heavy for the comparatively energy-intense orbit/land/ascend missions at the moon. I think Scott Manley or Marcus House did a big piece on it a couple years ago (or maybe even angry astronaut).
Most of SLS is a work around to accommodate somehow getting humans onto the moon using space shuttle hardware and the Orion capsule (and associated contractors). Everything else is just engineers doing their best to make that work.
So does this weird ass lunar orbit get closer to the moon within reach of Orion for a short time?
And what was the original mission of Orion that could get away with less delta V? Were they going to use it to land on an asteroid or something? Besides that, what around here is smaller than the moon?
The limitation has more to do with the larger upper stage and liquid side boosters not being available or simply being canned. This version of SLS was not designed for lunar operations, and the program is such a disaster the version meant for that r work will never be built.
Starship landing on the moon is going to crater the landing site. This is one problem I'm curious to see how they address.
The renders have demonstrated a vehicle with landing and take off engines mounted high in the body
You mean the hot gas system Elon axed because of a YouTube reporters question? I think that was the same system.
No. These will not be RCS type thrusters, they will be bigger rocket engines with similar integration to Super Draco but probably a lot larger and also methalox driven.
The ones you were thinking of were the starships hot gas RCS thrusters that they had originally implemented on the booster and then removed since they determined they could just use ullage gas for RCS. Elon was explaining the decision to do this for the booster and Tim Dodd asked why the approach was different from the design of Starship at that time. Elon buffered for a bit before admitting that they should do the same for the ship.
The limitation has more to do with the larger upper stage and liquid side boosters not being available or simply being canned. This version of SLS was not designed for lunar operations, and the program is such a disaster the version meant for that r work will never be built.
You mean this version wasn't designed to land anything on the moon? Because wasn't the whole point of SLS to be a lunar operations?
The limitation has more to do with the larger upper stage and liquid side boosters not being available or simply being canned. This version of SLS was not designed for lunar operations, and the program is such a disaster the version meant for that r work will never be built.
You mean this version wasn't designed to land anything on the moon? Because wasn't the whole point of SLS to be a lunar operations?
SLS = people to Lunar orbit Starship, Blue Origin, someone else = lunar orbit to lunar surface So then you've got a consortium for lunar orbit station and another for a lunar south pole station.
It's government waste and boondoggle several layers deep.
I find it hilarious how the astronauts are going to transfer from a spam in a can to a starship with more cabin space than a 747 that is already orbiting around the moon. It's like Columbus rendezvousing with a cruise ship already offshore from America.
Starship landing on the moon is going to crater the landing site. This is one problem I'm curious to see how they address.
The renders have demonstrated a vehicle with landing and take off engines mounted high in the body
You mean the hot gas system Elon axed because of a YouTube reporters question? I think that was the same system.
No, those where maneuvering thrusters, and I do not believe at all it was solely because of Tim Dodd.
The system that's continued to be illustrated is a set of 6-9 engines in banks near the top of the cylinder...
My understanding was that these systems were integrated, although I could be mistaken.
Indeed, you are mistaken. There has been no HLS flight hardware installed on any version of Starship to date. The only two HLS versions that have been worked on at all was a nosecone mock-up for bidding the HLS contract which was scrapped years ago, and an HLS pathfinder currently sitting at the corner of Remedios Avenue.
These engines pictured here are most likely in the design phase of development. That is, if development has even begun yet.
You likely will not see HLS Starship prototypes until the V2 Starship is in production and putting payloads to orbit.
An in-orbit propellant transfer is highly unlikely on IFT3. In fact, it might slip for Starship from 2025 to 2027, per this article today. Frankly, I think it is likely to hit around 2027-2029. I think these sorts of announcements (from the 'nonpartisan' GAO) tend to roll out after the fiscal year has basically been funded/appropriated:
GAO analysis of past NASA projects that have launched since 2010 found that the average development time from project start to launch was 92 months. NASA has already delayed the Artemis III mission to December 2025, extending the HLS development time to 79 months. However, this is still 13 months faster than the average development time for NASA major projects.
The complexity of human spaceflight suggests that it is unrealistic to expect the HLS program to complete development more than a year faster than the average for NASA major projects, the majority of which are not human spaceflight projects.
While SpaceX and NASA are aiming to complete development more than a year faster than the average for NASA major projects, they are achieving key events at a slower pace. SpaceX used more than 50 percent of its total schedule to reach PDR in November 2022. On average, NASA major projects used about 35 percent of the total schedule to reach this milestone.
I think at some point in/around 2027 the whole SLS program will get canned in favor of a more sane approach to humans returning to the Moon and beyond as far as a nasa program, but I guess we will see how the SLS **** show plays out, ultimately.
I'd venture a guess they're most likely in development, as the hints have been something derived from the superdraco. Size/placement/amount tend towards that as well
If any of you haven't watched Smarter Every Day on youtube, you should. Destin got the chance to speak to a room full of the top decision makers at NASA, and gave them a very good talk about how the Emperor is wearing no clothes, and takes a shot at them with this:
He talks to them about some things in the Artemis missions that he thought were odd, but that no one really talks about because of politics. (unfortunately, no, he didn't get to the absurdity of using SLS to take the crew to the moon and then using Starship to land on the moon (which you also have to take to the moon)).
It's a long video, but well worth it
One of the things he brought up was about Starship, and was kind of surprising to me:
AT LEAST 15 STARSHIP LAUNCHES NEEDED TO EXECUTE ARTEMIS III LUNAR LANDING
15? Yeah, I was thinking more like 6
Quote:
"One of things that's going to be pretty complex and challenging about the Starship lander is that there's going to be quite a number of tankers that will need to aggregate and send fuel up to the depot. And in order to be able to meet the schedule that is required, as well as managing boil off and so forth with the fuel, there's gonna need to be a rapid succession of launches of fuel."
That means using both Starbase and Kennedy Space Center. "I think it's on a 6-day rotation" and "it's in the high teens right now in terms of the number of launches."
You can read the article in the link. I'm wondering if it's legitimate, because they don't really say why 15 are required, or if it's a political piece, or if many of those 15 are to put a fuel depot in orbit. I didn't know the plan required a fuel depot. I thought each of the Starships would dock with the HLS Starship directly to fuel it.
I watched this Youtube video and found it outstanding. Highly recommended.
I believe they will absolutely attempt this with the next test flight:
That requires launching "Starship tankers" to deliver more propellant to orbit and transfer that propellant to the main Starship rocket. The process is similar to aerial refueling, a practice often used by the military to extend the range of jets.
Under the NASA contract, SpaceX's first demo will involve transferring 10 metric tons of liquid oxygen between tanks within the Starship rocket. While Starship won't be rendezvousing with another tanker rocket for this demo, NASA considers the test progress in maturing the tech.
"The goal is to advance cryogenic fluid transfer and fill level gauging technology through technology risk assessment, design and prototype testing, and in-orbit demonstration. The demonstration will decrease key risks for large-scale propellant transfer in the lead-up to future human spaceflight missions," NASA says.
