SpaceX (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Trying to have a "one size fits all" type of rocket may turn out to have been a very bad and impractical idea.
Or it might turn out to be temporally, economically and practically better than trying to make separate systems for each use-case.With unlimited resources and a common purpose, specialisation is better. In pretty much all other situations it's not.
CraigyMc said:
Eric Mc said:
I still think that a tougher and much more robust craft designed along similar lines to the Apollo Lunar Module is what is needed.
I may be due a whoosh parrot where, but wasn't the LM the least robust bit of Apollo?The structural walls were about the thickness of a soda can of the era.
hidetheelephants said:
Artemis appears to have been approached with the mindset of "we have an envelope the size of Starship, can we fit in a smoking lounge and a piano bar?" so it weighs 100t.
"we already have the whole thing in this state for the other uses so why spend time and money changing it more than needed to make it single-purpose" is completely sound logic to me.They are trying to build a lego set, not an airfix kit.
Back in World War 2, when the Air Ministry were giving consent to Glosters to produce Britain's first jet fighter, the Meteor (and by definition, the first practical as opposed to experimental, jet aircraft) they told Gloster SPECIFICALLYnot to mess about with any advanced aerodynamics. The brief was that this new aircraft was making use of new technology and new concepts regarding the power plants and therefore they should not mess about with any other untried or untested aspects of the design . That could (and did - of course) come later.
I look on what is happenng with spaceflight right now in a similar light. We trying to move from a largely "rare" and to some extent experimental mode of operation to a more routine mode. This has been a goal in spaceflight for a long time. It was the ethos behind the Space Shuttle - but that diodn't work out because the craft did not embrace the British Air Ministry approach of not being too experimental if you are trying for routineness.
SpaceX seem to be getting there with their Falcon series of rockets which are becoming almost dull in their routine and dependable launches.
Starship is very much more experimental in its approach - new technology engines being used in an untried rocket and spacecraft mixed with untried re-entry and landing techniques that need to work on three different worlds which require very different approaches.
It all seems very demanding. I'm not saying none of this can be done. But I think that it will take a bit longer than maybe NASA are prepared to wait.
I look on what is happenng with spaceflight right now in a similar light. We trying to move from a largely "rare" and to some extent experimental mode of operation to a more routine mode. This has been a goal in spaceflight for a long time. It was the ethos behind the Space Shuttle - but that diodn't work out because the craft did not embrace the British Air Ministry approach of not being too experimental if you are trying for routineness.
SpaceX seem to be getting there with their Falcon series of rockets which are becoming almost dull in their routine and dependable launches.
Starship is very much more experimental in its approach - new technology engines being used in an untried rocket and spacecraft mixed with untried re-entry and landing techniques that need to work on three different worlds which require very different approaches.
It all seems very demanding. I'm not saying none of this can be done. But I think that it will take a bit longer than maybe NASA are prepared to wait.
Hondashark said:
Rather than being repurposed for Lunar use, isn't it more like being tested on the moon ready for Mars? So you wouldn't practice with something you won't be using for Mars.
I don't think that testing a rocket chiefly designed for Mars on the moon is really that useful. The conditions and techniques required for landing on Mars (a planet with a thin atmosphere and 1/3 earth gravity) and the moon (a body with no atmosphere and 1/6 earth gravity) and the earth are very different.Starship is designed to land on three very different worlds - the earth, Mars and the moon.
I'm not sure that designing a single spacecraft to be able to handle all these entry and landing requirements makes sense.
It's exciting to see it develop, and in fairness to spacex they've made significant changes in what they've proposed previously, red dragon to mars, building starship from carbon fibre.
I guess the key thing now is if they start to run into more fundamental issues with the flexibility of the starship setup, are they still able to make the required significant changes, or will this have so much inertia by that point that they're in effect stuck with it.
I guess the key thing now is if they start to run into more fundamental issues with the flexibility of the starship setup, are they still able to make the required significant changes, or will this have so much inertia by that point that they're in effect stuck with it.
I think they're currently developing 'Starship' as a system, that once proved for the basics of getting into orbit and down again without burning up, they can then start to specialise the designs of the Ship portion to be whatever it needs to be. Whether that's a tanker, heavy lifter to orbit, Moon lander, Mars transport, Point to point Earth transport, theme park ride for the super-rich etc etc. They don't all have to look the same as the current version - just there will be that ability to lift a lot of weight up to where in needs to be.
Maybe NASA should have been thinking about how to land astronauts nearer the start of the Artemis project, like they did with Apollo, But then it was just a political makework scheme based around the SLS rocket itself. With development of that coming to a close, they needed to find something for it to actually do, to continue justifying ongoing expenditure.
For the Apollo lander, Grumman were awarded their contract on 7th November, 1962. The first landing being in July 1969 of course.
So almost 7 years from prototype to being used in anger (not including the ones that flew with earlier rehearsal missions).
It's only 3 years, almost to the day, since SpaceX were awarded their lander contract. I don't think they've done too badly so far. Especially considering SpaceX are designing and building a complete massive rocket system as well. Being ready for September 2026 is unlikely, but if anyone can do it, it's probably them.
Lets see how the competition are getting on shall we:
Boeing: Still haven't done their manned Starliner capsule test to the ISS. 10 years on from them (and SpaceX) getting a contract from NASA. It's actually scheduled in a few days - 1st May 2024, 5 years after the first unmanned launch that had to abort its mission after very nearly being lost. Meanwhile, SpaceX have taken up the slack and done their two test flights & 8 crew missions to the ISS.
Blue Origin: Despite being older than SpaceX, they still haven't put anything into orbit. They may or may not achieve that this year.
After greasing palms in Washington, Blue Origin are back in the lander business with partners Lockheed Martin, Draper, Boeing, Astrobotic, and Honeybee Robotics. They were only given their contract last year and they're expected to be ready for NASA's Artemis 5 mission in 2030, which is only 6 years away now. Good luck with that.
It's pretty clear the Artemis mission schedule is going to change even more than it already has.
For the Apollo lander, Grumman were awarded their contract on 7th November, 1962. The first landing being in July 1969 of course.
So almost 7 years from prototype to being used in anger (not including the ones that flew with earlier rehearsal missions).
It's only 3 years, almost to the day, since SpaceX were awarded their lander contract. I don't think they've done too badly so far. Especially considering SpaceX are designing and building a complete massive rocket system as well. Being ready for September 2026 is unlikely, but if anyone can do it, it's probably them.
Lets see how the competition are getting on shall we:
Boeing: Still haven't done their manned Starliner capsule test to the ISS. 10 years on from them (and SpaceX) getting a contract from NASA. It's actually scheduled in a few days - 1st May 2024, 5 years after the first unmanned launch that had to abort its mission after very nearly being lost. Meanwhile, SpaceX have taken up the slack and done their two test flights & 8 crew missions to the ISS.
Blue Origin: Despite being older than SpaceX, they still haven't put anything into orbit. They may or may not achieve that this year.
After greasing palms in Washington, Blue Origin are back in the lander business with partners Lockheed Martin, Draper, Boeing, Astrobotic, and Honeybee Robotics. They were only given their contract last year and they're expected to be ready for NASA's Artemis 5 mission in 2030, which is only 6 years away now. Good luck with that.
It's pretty clear the Artemis mission schedule is going to change even more than it already has.
To be honest, NASA issued lander feasibiliy studies many years ago under the original Constellation programme. If they hadn't been messed about with by Congress and a number of different Presidents, who knows where we might be now.
Space X have done a lot - but they are nowhere near making a Starship land on the moon - and my guess is that they may never will.
I can't see why a more sensible lander could not be devised to work with the obvious amazing lifting capability of Staship and its booster - basically a Lunar Module on steroids.
Space X have done a lot - but they are nowhere near making a Starship land on the moon - and my guess is that they may never will.
I can't see why a more sensible lander could not be devised to work with the obvious amazing lifting capability of Staship and its booster - basically a Lunar Module on steroids.
The main issues Starship as a lander are:
1. It's height to base ratio, given you're trying to land on an uneven surface, especially around the lunar south pole. Having a tall heavy object, with a large amount of the mass at the top on a narrow base is not the optimal solution. (SpaceX have never had a rocket fall over on landing
)
2. The access is way up the side of the vehicle which makes getting in and out challenging. Lots of stuff to potentially go wrong with this.
1. It's height to base ratio, given you're trying to land on an uneven surface, especially around the lunar south pole. Having a tall heavy object, with a large amount of the mass at the top on a narrow base is not the optimal solution. (SpaceX have never had a rocket fall over on landing
)2. The access is way up the side of the vehicle which makes getting in and out challenging. Lots of stuff to potentially go wrong with this.
Arnold Cunningham said:
Reckon there’s a plan B somewhere in their offices though.
Having given the contract for the lander to SpaceX (purely on cost grounds), they quietly informed the losing bidders not to stop working on their proposals - so they do have alternatives if they need them.Starship wasn't chosen purely on cost grounds. NASA rated the SpaceX bid as acceptable and its management as outstanding, which is more than the other two candidates received.
Yes, NASA said themselves they wanted to go forward with 2 lander designs, as everyone expected, but they simply weren’t given the money for that. So they went with the highest rated bid with by far the most capability. I mean just look at them side by side; the HLS Starship makes the other two look ridiculous. It’s like putting a 707 next to a Cessna and a micro lite.
And let’s face it, the bids weren’t even close. SpaceX’s proposal was $2.94Bn, but Blue Origin’s bid was more than twice as much and the Dynetics one was over 3 times higher!
Let’s not forget that the losers fought the decision both in court and with tame politicians, forcing NASA to put HLS development on hold for months and cause payment delays to SpaceX.
Two years after that original decision, NASA were made to reopen the competition and award Blue Origin a $3.4 billion contract for their redesigned lander (the 30 foot ladder of death is a bit shorter). Basically, Besoz pulled strings and also had to pony up and subsidise their effort to get back in the game. Well I hope he gets his money’s worth.
Yes, NASA said themselves they wanted to go forward with 2 lander designs, as everyone expected, but they simply weren’t given the money for that. So they went with the highest rated bid with by far the most capability. I mean just look at them side by side; the HLS Starship makes the other two look ridiculous. It’s like putting a 707 next to a Cessna and a micro lite.
And let’s face it, the bids weren’t even close. SpaceX’s proposal was $2.94Bn, but Blue Origin’s bid was more than twice as much and the Dynetics one was over 3 times higher!
Let’s not forget that the losers fought the decision both in court and with tame politicians, forcing NASA to put HLS development on hold for months and cause payment delays to SpaceX.
Two years after that original decision, NASA were made to reopen the competition and award Blue Origin a $3.4 billion contract for their redesigned lander (the 30 foot ladder of death is a bit shorter). Basically, Besoz pulled strings and also had to pony up and subsidise their effort to get back in the game. Well I hope he gets his money’s worth.
Funny you should say that.
According to Eric Berger at ARS Technica, NASA are said to be looking at alternatives to the complex plan they have currently.
Options include the astronauts launching in the Orion spacecraft to low Earth orbit & docking to a separately launched Starship. They'd then be able to take both spacecraft around the block a few times, then return to Earth in Orion. This would be similar to Apollo 9, where they also launched into low earth orbit, turned around and docked with their lunar lander "Spider". They pulled it out & flew around before coming back down again 10 days later. During their time up there they gave equipment, engines and systems a thorough testing, setting the stage for future successes.
I like this idea. I think it makes perfect sense to do all this closer to home instead of the current plan to do so in lunar orbit.They could stay up there quite a while testing both spacecraft with all the room on a fully kitted out Starship.
Anyway, here's the article, which is well worth a read:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/04/nasa-may-alt...
It’s that (to borrow from Pulp Fiction) Starship ain’t the same ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same f
kin sport as the others. 
I mean......
According to Eric Berger at ARS Technica, NASA are said to be looking at alternatives to the complex plan they have currently.
Options include the astronauts launching in the Orion spacecraft to low Earth orbit & docking to a separately launched Starship. They'd then be able to take both spacecraft around the block a few times, then return to Earth in Orion. This would be similar to Apollo 9, where they also launched into low earth orbit, turned around and docked with their lunar lander "Spider". They pulled it out & flew around before coming back down again 10 days later. During their time up there they gave equipment, engines and systems a thorough testing, setting the stage for future successes.
I like this idea. I think it makes perfect sense to do all this closer to home instead of the current plan to do so in lunar orbit.They could stay up there quite a while testing both spacecraft with all the room on a fully kitted out Starship.
Anyway, here's the article, which is well worth a read:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/04/nasa-may-alt...
hidetheelephants said:
Giving it a nod because the other two bids were donkeys is at best damning with faint praise. It's a bad idea replete with avoidable risk.
It’s not that the others were bad per se, they did/do have their own technical challenges though. They would both use new and unproven rockets to get there as well. It’s that (to borrow from Pulp Fiction) Starship ain’t the same ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same f
kin sport as the others. I mean......
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff