Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • We just completed a significant update, but we still have some fixes and adjustments to make, so please bear with us for the time being. Cheers!

Falcon Super Heavy/Starship - General Development Discussion

bxr140

Active Member
Nov 18, 2014
2,628
3,321
Bay Area
I've been wondering if SpaceX is going to develop a Starship "3rd stage" system for direct to GEO launches without refueling. Moving the Starship all the way to GEO and back just to get a satellite up there seems pretty wasteful compared to a relatively small expendable "stage" to move from LEO to GEO.

For better or worse, it is very unlikely a satellite destined to GEO is ever going to launch into anything other than GTO. So, whether a two stage solution gets you there or you need three stages (which, given SpaceX's philosophy, I doubt), it's still heading directly to 23k miles. More likely for BFR to GEO is a second stage that's sort of analogous to the Tesla skateboard: For non-human launches you put a 'regular' deployable fairing on top, for human launches you put the spaceship on top and call it a starship.

Interestingly, the above GEO equation changes if you start talking about in-space manufacturing. It is most probable that a manufacturing facility be placed in LEO (you don't want to pay to send your entire factory to GEO or wherever), so at some point you will need to raise your finished product from LEO to wherever its going. That's the point when you can start trading expendable or reusable tugs against on-board propulsion. For GEO the latter still probably wins because you need a propulsion system either way and so you might as well have the on-board system do everything, but there's probably some hypotheticals that have a tug win the trade.

If it were cheap enough, communications satellite companies might be customers since it would get them on station faster so they could earn more money.

I know I’ve broken recorded this concept already, but we're unfortunately far from a practical solution that's 'cheap enough' and, just from a basic physics perspective, 'faster' is a very unlikely case.

The only place where 'faster' comes into play is when a spacecraft's propulsion system is low thrust (so, electric) and thus requires a months-long circularization from +/-GTO to geosynchronous. BUT...the main reason spacecraft have electric propulsion in the first place is to allocate as much mass as possible to revenue generating payload. You don't want EP because it's more complicated and [at least right now] more expensive than chemical, but when you're mass limited the extra expense is offset by the additional revenue. So...when you buy a BFR and your paranoia over mass goes way down the decision to go with cheaper chemical propulsion is pretty easy, and so the ability to get on station "fast" is all but a freebie.
 

ecarfan

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2013
19,186
13,841
San Mateo, CA
SpaceX's BFR program pursuing advanced Starship heat shield with NASA help

Have no idea how accurate that article is; may contain a fair amount of speculation.

QUOTE:

“According to a Space Act Agreement signed by SpaceX and NASA’s Ames Research Center in June 2018, the private company has begun working with NASA to acquire some basic experience and lessons-learned with a thermal protection (heat shield) material that is largely new to SpaceX.
Known as TUFROC (short for Toughened Uni-piece Fibrous Reinforced Oxidation-Resistant Composite), the NASA Ames-developed material is capable of withstanding temperatures as high as 1700 C (~3100 F) and is apparently an item of interest to SpaceX’s next-gen BFR (Starship/Super Heavy) rocket program, particularly Starship’s heat shield.”
 

aronth5

Long Time Follower
May 8, 2010
2,670
1,401
Boston Suburb

thenaimis

Former Tesla Cheerleader
Sep 26, 2016
331
382
Texas
The air frame may be stable, but based on the number of tweets from Elon lately using the words "radical redesign", I'd say the design is not :D
 
  • Funny
Reactions: RubberToe

ecarfan

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2013
19,186
13,841
San Mateo, CA
So is Elon saying that the Starship will not have any sort of ablative heat shield? That would be incredible! (Note: I’m guessing he meant “actively” and not “activity”, and that is an Autocorrect error)

927EF7DD-02EF-4A2D-99F1-FCED7F7F1BAA.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal

mongo

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2017
12,866
37,855
Michigan
So is Elon saying that the Starship will not have any sort of ablative heat shield? That would be incredible! (Note: I’m guessing he meant “actively” and not “activity”, and that is an Autocorrect error)

View attachment 363826

Yar, if reentry heating is mostly radiative, super shiny (reflect/reject) is a great option over ablative (capture and manage).

Fits in with the Earth hop system reusability too.
 

HVM

Savolainen
Oct 30, 2012
994
1,708
Finland
There is a debate at NSF if it means double walls on windward side with cooling lines or methane sprayed into the shock layer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal

AudubonB

One can NOT induce accuracy with precision!
Mar 24, 2013
7,974
25,861
I'm going to assume Mr Musk's tweet should have the word "activity" replaced by "actively", and thus also uses the sprayed methane. Just like my "Sunbeam"!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal

ecarfan

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2013
19,186
13,841
San Mateo, CA
I think its dihydrogen monoxide in F9 case, also know as burnt hydrogen.
While that exotic molecule :) is used during launch, it’s not for engine cooling.

SpaceX actively cools their engines now. So they do have plenty of experience with active cooling. Someone on SpaceX Facebook said they actively cool the Block 5's for reentry in the base by spraying some liquid.
Interesting, I didn’t know that. The only onboard F9 liquids available in any significant quantity would be RP1 and O2, right?

Now, for the Starship, it would likely be the liquid CH4 that would be used for cooling the “windward” (as Elon put it; that’s a hell of a “wind” on re-entry :) side during re-entry.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal

Electroman

Supporting Member
Aug 18, 2012
6,116
6,173
TX
I only knew they actively chill the engine before lift off, to avoid thermal shock to the engine, but didn't know they cool during re-entry.

Kind of surprising that the engine can withstand extreme temps from burning fuel and hot exhaust gases during ascent, but can't during descent on atmospheric reentry ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal

mongo

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2017
12,866
37,855
Michigan
While that exotic molecule :) is used during launch, it’s not for engine cooling.


Interesting, I didn’t know that. The only onboard F9 liquids available in any significant quantity would be RP1 and O2, right?


Now, for the Starship, it would likely be the liquid CH4 that would be used for cooling the “windward” (as Elon put it; that’s a hell of a “wind” on re-entry :) side during re-entry.

Could ultimately be HOH...
CH4 + 2*O2 -> CO2 + 2*H2O

Methane is worse for global warming than CO2, do hopefully it gets burnt/ oxidized. If SpaceX generates their own (solar + Sabatier) then they will be a net reduced of CO2 (export to SpaceX & Mars), so that is good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal

bxr140

Active Member
Nov 18, 2014
2,628
3,321
Bay Area
Kind of surprising that the engine can withstand extreme temps from burning fuel and hot exhaust gases during ascent, but can't during descent on atmospheric reentry ?

The ablative effect of reentry is a bit different than just managing high temps, which is the design space for most of the engine bits and pieces.

I think its dihydrogen monoxide in F9 case, also know as burnt hydrogen.

zeNUygJhcHWDhKf-800x450-noPad.jpg
 
Last edited:

Grendal

SpaceX Moderator
Jan 31, 2012
5,696
6,863
Santa Fe, New Mexico
SpaceX actively cools their engines and nozzles. Their modern system is different than the tubes around the nozzles as seen in the second picture. Though this is how it was done in earlier Merlins, I believe their system looks more like the first picture now.
upload_2018-12-26_17-42-32.jpeg
 

jdevo2004

Member
May 23, 2012
225
72
Active cooling seems dangerous if this is going to be human rated. I wonder what type of contingency plan they have to save the humans if the cooling system fails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electroman

bxr140

Active Member
Nov 18, 2014
2,628
3,321
Bay Area
Active cooling seems dangerous if this is going to be human rated. I wonder what type of contingency plan they have to save the humans if the cooling system fails.

You mean, something like the space shuttle’s contingency plans for the engine cooling on the RS-25’s? :cool:
 

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
Top