SpaceX (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Transporter 4 mission due off at 17:24 tonight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NqSoHnkKEM
garyhun said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Beati Dogu said:
I expect they'll pressure test the booster, then it'll get the grid fins added later. The plan is to catch the booster in mid air with the tower, so it doesn't have legs.
Is that the plan right from the start. I'd have thought they'd want to at least prove a few precision landings before trying with the tower.After saying that, they have pretty much perfected the Falcon 9 booster landings so assume that, justifiably so, confidence is high.
It's what SpaceX did with Falcon 9 before they started putting drone ships underneath them.
Beati Dogu said:
garyhun said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Beati Dogu said:
I expect they'll pressure test the booster, then it'll get the grid fins added later. The plan is to catch the booster in mid air with the tower, so it doesn't have legs.
Is that the plan right from the start. I'd have thought they'd want to at least prove a few precision landings before trying with the tower.After saying that, they have pretty much perfected the Falcon 9 booster landings so assume that, justifiably so, confidence is high.
It's what SpaceX did with Falcon 9 before they started putting drone ships underneath them.
Video render of Starship Mars landing - love the beat-up rover !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVwHO4esPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVwHO4esPg
MartG said:
Video render of Starship Mars landing - love the beat-up rover !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVwHO4esPg
Aah...the famous blue skies of Mars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVwHO4esPg
Beati Dogu said:
Matt Harper said:
Falcon 9 rocket plume, from my back yard this morning...
Nice. Pretty cool to be so close to all this activity. The Shuttle program was an entirely different scenario. Those launches (and returns) were so spectacular in comparison. I was lucky enough to have a neighbor who worked for Lockheed Martin, who collaborate with NASA quite extensively. He invited me to go with him to the launch of Endeavor for STS134 in 2001 at Kennedy. It was mind-meltingly cool.
I can only imagine how incredible those Saturn 5 launches must have been.
Eric Mc said:
Smiljan said:
Eric Mc said:
STS-134 was in 2011 (it was the second to last Shuttle mission).
I’m sure Matt will Endeavour to get the year correct next time Eric. Edited by Matt Harper on Monday 11th April 18:14
annodomini2 said:
RizzoTheRat said:
loudlashadjuster said:
Too massive, maybe. A small misalignment, an unintended torque. Bang.
Having said that, it’s not hugely heavier than the SSO.
Also, where would you put the hatch and docking mechanism?
They've done a few mockup/renders of Starship docked to the ISS, some with a node mounted hatch, presumably similar to Dragon, and some with it on the side more like the shuttle. Maximum landing weight is of the shuttle is about 100 tonnes, which I think Isn't that dissimilar to Starship, that's potentially a lot of load on the docking port if anything goes wrong. How flexible are they?Having said that, it’s not hugely heavier than the SSO.
Also, where would you put the hatch and docking mechanism?
On orbit Starship for going to ISS will have all the habitation gear for a manned flight + any other payload 50-150 tonnes
Plus de-orbit and landing fuel 50-100 tonnes
Max inert weight of the Starship could be 130 tones dry plus 150 tonnes payload. Though I'm sure that the 150 is probably achieved when the vessel is less than 130 tonnes dry!
We can put a ceiling on the landing fuel as it is 2 raptors for 17 seconds which is about 20 tonnes of fuel, in practice this is probably an accurate amount including margins as the Raptors will be throttled for most of that time.
Assuming that the Starship has the same delta v under OMS as the Shuttle (300ms-1) that would mean that it need 8% of its mass as fuel. This brings us to a max on orbit mass of 320 tonnes.
However we could do an estimate for a more reasonable version of Starship to visit the ISS. The ISS can't accommodate hundreds to people and I doubt we are ready to risk people on rockets by the hundred either. So lets have a max crew of 20.
Current capsules mass in the range of 5-10 tonnes with all systems.
If we allow 10kg/m2 to insulate and seal the craft that adds 5000kg
If we allow 15kg per person for life support systems (see space suit) and we have a crew of 20 - 300kg
A large civil aircraft normally has about 20kg per passenger of fitting and fixtures (HVAC etc) - 400kg
1kg per person day of consumables - 200kg
Provision 250kg per person for an ejector seat (I don't like the landing), space suits, displays, life support connections- 5000kg
A caravans worth of beds, tables, decks and stters -2000kg
Solar panels, power conversion equipment and decent battery -1000kg
Crew 20 x 100kg - 2000kg
Total 15,900kg
Which is a long winded way of saying I don't think any reasonable timeframe crew vessel is going to be using a fraction of the payload volume.
If we round up the delivery to 20 tonnes to include cargo provisions for ISS that gets us to:
120,000 inert mass
20,000 cargo and crew fittings
20,000 landing fuel
13,000 OMS fuel (partially burnt by the time you get there)
173 tonnes, so not massively different to the STS
Matt Harper said:
Eric Mc said:
Smiljan said:
Eric Mc said:
STS-134 was in 2011 (it was the second to last Shuttle mission).
I’m sure Matt will Endeavour to get the year correct next time Eric. Edited by Matt Harper on Monday 11th April 18:14
We're only jealous.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff