SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
Beati Dogu said:
The Super Heavy is supposed to be 9 m (30 ft) in diameter and 68 m (223 ft) in height.
For an idea of the scale, here's the dummy first stage of the SLS rocket arriving at the Kennedy Space Center:
It's actually slightly smaller that the Super Heavy - with a width of 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in) and height 64.6 m (212 ft).
It's remarkable they've taken 20 years to build a fuel tank, really. Especially since they had a working one already attached to the shuttle!For an idea of the scale, here's the dummy first stage of the SLS rocket arriving at the Kennedy Space Center:
It's actually slightly smaller that the Super Heavy - with a width of 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in) and height 64.6 m (212 ft).
Beati Dogu said:
He seems to like stainless steel now. Being 2% the cost of the equivalent carbon fibre doesn't hurt.
The super heavy booster is more of a known quantity in terms of operation. A scaled up Falcon 9 booster really. The Falcon 9 body is mostly aluminium-lithium alloy. The black interstage is carbon fibre now. The fairing and legs are carbon fibre with an aluminum honeycomb. The grid fins used to aluminium, but got a bit melty sometimes and are now titanium.
Interesting that he doesn't think it'll need a re-entry burn like the Falcon 9. Wouldn't surprise me if that changes.
Edit: They have a web page for Starship now:
https://www.spacex.com/starship
Scroll down for more.
So a stainless booster it is! Exciting, hope it looks as good as that on the launchpad!The super heavy booster is more of a known quantity in terms of operation. A scaled up Falcon 9 booster really. The Falcon 9 body is mostly aluminium-lithium alloy. The black interstage is carbon fibre now. The fairing and legs are carbon fibre with an aluminum honeycomb. The grid fins used to aluminium, but got a bit melty sometimes and are now titanium.
Interesting that he doesn't think it'll need a re-entry burn like the Falcon 9. Wouldn't surprise me if that changes.
Edit: They have a web page for Starship now:
https://www.spacex.com/starship
Scroll down for more.
Edited by Beati Dogu on Monday 30th September 21:09
shalmaneser said:
It's remarkable they've taken 20 years to build a fuel tank, really. Especially since they had a working one already attached to the shuttle!
Not quite that simple - the SLS core stage has to accept longitudinal loads from the engines at its base as well as the mass of the payload at the top of it, together with the loads exerted by the SRBs - this required a complete redesign of the structure compared to the Shuttle ET which had loads applied differently due to the side-mounted ShuttleBeati Dogu said:
More engine info from Elon:
Raptor cost is tracking to well under $1M for V1.0.
Goal is <$250k for V2.0 is a 250 ton thrust-optimized engine, ie <$1000/ton
Contrast that to the $40million NASA paid for each RS-25 SSME back when they were new, never mind how much they've spent refurbishing, upgrading, and recertifying them since The new ones NASA has ordered are thought to cost around $60million each, and four of them will be discarded in each SLS flight.Raptor cost is tracking to well under $1M for V1.0.
Goal is <$250k for V2.0 is a 250 ton thrust-optimized engine, ie <$1000/ton
MartG said:
Beati Dogu said:
More engine info from Elon:
Raptor cost is tracking to well under $1M for V1.0.
Goal is <$250k for V2.0 is a 250 ton thrust-optimized engine, ie <$1000/ton
Contrast that to the $40million NASA paid for each RS-25 SSME back when they were new, never mind how much they've spent refurbishing, upgrading, and recertifying them since The new ones NASA has ordered are thought to cost around $60million each, and four of them will be discarded in each SLS flight.Raptor cost is tracking to well under $1M for V1.0.
Goal is <$250k for V2.0 is a 250 ton thrust-optimized engine, ie <$1000/ton
MartG said:
Not quite that simple - the SLS core stage has to accept longitudinal loads from the engines at its base as well as the mass of the payload at the top of it, together with the loads exerted by the SRBs - this required a complete redesign of the structure compared to the Shuttle ET which had loads applied differently due to the side-mounted Shuttle
Eric Mc said:
It's a bit disingenuous to call the core of the SLS a fuel tank. It is, of course, mostly a fuel tank (like all rockets) but changing what had been 100% a fuel tank into a functioning rocket - and making it bigger - is rather complex.
I'm not sure they chose the right path, mind you.
I was being flippant really but it does highlight that the SLS is just massive slice of congressional pork.I'm not sure they chose the right path, mind you.
They're going with welded steel for the Super Heavy boosters' grid fins too, which are diamond shaped in the animation they showed BTW.
That'll save a load of cash and time.
I like how they're using 4 Tesla model S/X battery packs in the nose to drive the fin actuation motors (also Tesla). Nice repurposing there.
The rocket is back in two parts again, while they fit it out.
That'll save a load of cash and time.
I like how they're using 4 Tesla model S/X battery packs in the nose to drive the fin actuation motors (also Tesla). Nice repurposing there.
The rocket is back in two parts again, while they fit it out.
Beati Dogu said:
Crazy isn't it?
Each RS-25 costs the same as an entire Falcon 9 flight.
But some engines have so far been in orbit multiple times. And does the cost actually matter when one B2 bomber costs $2.1b ? The USA has 21 of those and about to upgrade to the B21.Each RS-25 costs the same as an entire Falcon 9 flight.
Edited by Chester35 on Saturday 5th October 18:20
MiniMan64 said:
MartG said:
Beati Dogu said:
More engine info from Elon:
Raptor cost is tracking to well under $1M for V1.0.
Goal is <$250k for V2.0 is a 250 ton thrust-optimized engine, ie <$1000/ton
Contrast that to the $40million NASA paid for each RS-25 SSME back when they were new, never mind how much they've spent refurbishing, upgrading, and recertifying them since The new ones NASA has ordered are thought to cost around $60million each, and four of them will be discarded in each SLS flight.Raptor cost is tracking to well under $1M for V1.0.
Goal is <$250k for V2.0 is a 250 ton thrust-optimized engine, ie <$1000/ton
What matters is who can win the race....
Chester35 said:
Beati Dogu said:
Crazy isn't it?
Each RS-25 costs the same as an entire Falcon 9 flight.
But some engines have so far been in orbit multiple times. And does the cost actually matter when one B2 bomber costs $2.1b ? The USA has 21 of those and about to upgrade to the B21.Each RS-25 costs the same as an entire Falcon 9 flight.
Edited by Chester35 on Saturday 5th October 18:20
I don't think NASA had much say in SLS and it was largely imposed on them by Congress as a corporate welfare and jobs program in certain key states (Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, California, Florida mostly). It's certainly not in NASA's gift to cancel the program.
NASA administrator, Jim Bridenstine, has been critical of the SLS program & its endless delays before.
Take this interview with him a few days ago by The Atlantic's Marina Koren:
Koren: Have you thought about a future in which private companies leapfrog NASA in the effort to go to the moon?
Bridenstine: I think it would be fantastic if they could do that.
Koren: And what if they’ve done that before SLS is ready?
Bridenstine: I’m for that. And if they can get to the moon, we want to use those services. Our goal is to be a customer, not the owner and operator of all the equipment. But right now, if we’re going to get to the moon in 2024 with humans, SLS and Orion are the way to do it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/1...
So there you have it. If the likes of SpaceX and Blue Origin can build their large and capable spacecraft, NASA would definitely beat a path to their door.
NASA administrator, Jim Bridenstine, has been critical of the SLS program & its endless delays before.
Take this interview with him a few days ago by The Atlantic's Marina Koren:
Koren: Have you thought about a future in which private companies leapfrog NASA in the effort to go to the moon?
Bridenstine: I think it would be fantastic if they could do that.
Koren: And what if they’ve done that before SLS is ready?
Bridenstine: I’m for that. And if they can get to the moon, we want to use those services. Our goal is to be a customer, not the owner and operator of all the equipment. But right now, if we’re going to get to the moon in 2024 with humans, SLS and Orion are the way to do it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/1...
So there you have it. If the likes of SpaceX and Blue Origin can build their large and capable spacecraft, NASA would definitely beat a path to their door.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff