TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

Ars technica: “ SpaceX releases a Payload User’s Guide for its Starship rocket”

Discussion in 'SpaceX' started by ecarfan, Mar 31, 2020.

  1. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    I don’t know if this topic would be better placed in an existing thread, so @Grendal feel free to move it.

    SpaceX releases a Payload User’s Guide for its Starship rocket

    When “the first and second stages reserve enough fuel to return to Earth. In this configuration, the rocket can deliver more than 100 metric tons to low-Earth orbit and 21 tons to geostationary transfer orbit...The killer application, however, is the potential to refuel Starship in low-Earth orbit with other Starships, enabling transportation deeper into the Solar System for 100 tons or more.”

    I think we already had this basic information, so I suspect that SpaceX publicly released the Starship “Payload User’s Guide” to put pressure on NASA and Congress to more seriously consider Starship for future missions. Of course Starship has yet to reach orbit, so this is classic Elon over-confidence!

    “The user's guide also provides information about the size of the payload fairing in the cargo configuration of the vehicle, with a width of 8 meters and an extended volume capable of encompassing payloads as long as 22 meters. This would be, by far, the largest usable payload volume for any rocket that exists today or is in development.”

    The Shuttle payload bay was 18.3 x 4.6 meters. And of course the rockets flying today provide nothing comparable to that. Starship’s cargo capacity will be extraordinary.

    But first it has to reach orbit!
     
    • Like x 4
  2. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    If it's fully reusable then it will drive costs down significantly even if it ends up less than what Elon hopes. Given time, it will be improved just as the Falcon 9 improved. Elon and SpaceX just has to do it once or twice and then everything changes. It's interesting that the big trick here is the rocket and not the engines. Usually you build the engine and the rocket design is a natural result of what the engines need. In this case, you need to build the reusable rocket able to do all the things it needs to do in the environments it will encounter. The payload will be the end result of what the finalized rocket design becomes. As we've seen, it's been through four to six iterations so far. I have no doubt Elon and SpaceX will get there. They are narrowing it down.

    So I agree that this is more of a political move than a real "payload user's guide." NASA or the military will hopefully throw some more money at SpaceX to help with the development. The current NASA administration likes to hear about big goals.
     
  3. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    Agreed, as soon as Starship achieves orbit and successfully returns to its LZ that will really impact NASA’s plans.

    It would be fantastic if SpaceX can make that happen this year. We all need some good news to boost our spirits!
     
    • Like x 1
  4. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Most interesting for me is the very modest 21T to GTO relative to active and in-development launchers that are much smaller. That's a 5x-7x ratio to Starships LEO capacity, where most other systems are ~2-3x. Certainly if the price and launcher availability are there it won't matter much, but its interesting that Starship is much better suited for LEO than GTO.

    Speculating here: Certainly there's a delta-v vs. mass capability element, but the 'low' GTO capability suggests that Starship may also need fuel to drop out of GTO before actually hitting the atmosphere.

    Approximate GTO/LEO capabilities, for reference:
    Delta Heavy: 14/29
    Ariane 5/6: 11/21
    Blue: 13/45
    Vulcan: 18/37
     
    • Informative x 1
  5. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    Thanks, I think you have zeroed in on an important issue. Of course all the other launchers you listed are not concerned about re-entry from orbit since they are discarded/trashed/not reusable.

    Once we know the advertised price of a Starship launch to LEO/GTO than the launcher comparisons will get really interesting!
     
    • Like x 1
  6. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Very possible. Keep in mind that Starship is supposed to be refueled in orbit. Once refueled it is then supposed to go and do whatever is needed in the solar system. So that is another major hurdle for Starship: making In Orbit Refueling a reality and easy.
     
    • Informative x 1
  7. larmor

    larmor Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,168
    Location:
    Westlake, TX
    How does the starship payload capacity and dimensions compare to the space shuttle?
     
  8. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    From my post of yesterday...
     
    • Like x 1
  9. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    You missed the nuance.

    Starship is 100-150T capacity to LEO. That's basically ~3-5x capacity of existing and pipeline launchers and that already factors in the fact that Starship is reusable and must maintain capability (propellant, thermal, etc.) to re-enter. So at least on the first order one would expect similar 3-5x capability over the other launchers, but in fact that number is only 1.X.

    While a small difference in those ratios could be accepted, there's got to be some additional variable beyond the already normalized re-entry aspect to make the GTO ratio so different than the LEO ratio. Having to carry propellant to first drop from GTO to LEO before dropping from LEO into the atmosphere is the only thing I can think of that would make such a huge difference.

    The obvious follow-on implication is that all starship flights (lunar, martian, etc.) must first enter LEO before returning to earth. That's different than Apollo, which dumped right into earth's atmosphere from translunar. I'm not sure that's what's been advertised for starship though...?

    For sure. The 21T is non-refueled capability and so is apples-to-apples with the other launchers.
     
    • Like x 1
  10. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    Given starship reusability, it really doesn't matter what it's GTO payload is. Fuel costs just don't matter, it is vehicle costs that matter and Starship will be far, far less than anything else since it'll be reusable.

    BTW, cute cameo on last night's Westworld Season 3, episode 4, we saw two falcon nine cores landing and one taking off in the distance while a main character casually strolls by. Given this takes place 40 years from now, those must have been ULA rockets :p
     
    • Informative x 1
    • Like x 1
  11. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Yeah, covered that already. ;)

    The technical discrepancy still remains and it would be very interesting to understand the major driver, be it some nuance of Starship (like the mission profile) or some nuance with the person identifying the technical discrepancy.
     
  12. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
  13. hmcgregoraz

    hmcgregoraz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Location:
    Tucson AZ USA
    I wonder if this large diff between LEO and GTO would make it worth while for the Geo sat to have essentially it's own third stage to take it from Leo to GTO or even straight to Geo.
     
  14. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    GEOs already use their onboard propulsion system to go from GTO to GSO. The main roadblock with dropping the satellite off in LEO would be the significantly higher propulsion load (and all the corollary design impacts) on the satellite because of the significantly higher ∆V required to go from LEO to GSO. As it stands, a biprop GEO uses ~half its propulsion load to get from GTO to GSO (much of that is making the inclination turn). Also, electric propulsion would be untenable from LEO to GSO (true GTO to GSO on EP is already 6 months or so, often EP GEO's get injected into a super synch orbit with more energy than GTO to cut down the transfer time), and EP is generally where the industry is headed.

    It is conceivable that a high thrust kick stage could be added between Starship and a GEO sat such that Starship can just go to LEO and back (regardless if the satellite has chemical or electric propulsion). But...I don't think we know enough about the seemingly 'less than expected' Starship to GTO performance to really play that one out much farther and ,if we're honest, Starship-to-GTO capability is still way higher than anything else, and nobody's going to be building a Starship-only GEO for probably the better part of a decade...so this is all kind of a moot point anyway.
     
    • Informative x 2
    • Like x 1

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC