-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Seems like they’re mostly just scaling existing numbers.
—We can safely assume close to 14.5-15k tons for the 60 starlinks (+throw away dispenser parts) on F9, based on the “227kg per sat” number.
—400 starlinks is equivalent to ~6.7 falcon 9’s
—6.7 falcon 9’s x 15T each = 100.5 tons
—Starship is advertised as “100+ tons”
The math checks out.
What remains to be seen is whether SpaceX can improve the sat-to-dispenser mass ratio, or if the sheer size of everything will negatively impact that ratio.
—We can safely assume close to 14.5-15k tons for the 60 starlinks (+throw away dispenser parts) on F9, based on the “227kg per sat” number.
—400 starlinks is equivalent to ~6.7 falcon 9’s
—6.7 falcon 9’s x 15T each = 100.5 tons
—Starship is advertised as “100+ tons”
The math checks out.
What remains to be seen is whether SpaceX can improve the sat-to-dispenser mass ratio, or if the sheer size of everything will negatively impact that ratio.
e-FTW
New electron smell
e-FTW
New electron smell
Interview excerpts of one of the many brilliant people that make SpaceX what it is. This one was in charge of the [GNC software for] landings, and is now head of Mars landings.
SpaceX Mars landing expert talks Starship recovery challenges in new interview
SpaceX Mars landing expert talks Starship recovery challenges in new interview
Thanks for posting that link. However, the only “excerpt” I could find on that page of the interview mentioned in the article was contained in this section:
————————————————————————————————-
In his recent interview with University of Cambridge staff, Lars revealed that his role as Principal Mars Landing Engineer involved a far wider scope than his previous GNC-centered work, with the goal instead being to design a launch vehicle (Starship) from the ground up to be easily recovered and reused. Falcon 9 Block 5 may be radically different than the ‘V1.0’ rocket that debuted in 2010, but it’s still ultimately a product of retroactive engineering. With Starship and Super Heavy, SpaceX instead wants to take the vast wealth of knowledge and experience gained from F9/FH and build the vehicle from the ground up to be optimized for full reuse. Ultimately, Dr. Blackmore stated that “landing Starship will be much harder than landing Falcon 9, but if [SpaceX] can do it, it will be revolutionary.”
—————————————————————————————————
I’m not a rocket scientist, but everything stated there seems obvious. Based on the headline, I thought that Teslerati article would contain a link to the interview, or at least a lot more information about it. Instead, 90% of the article is a rehash of things we already knew. Which is fairly typical of the stuff that gets published on Teslerati, unfortunately.
Blackmore is clearly an incredibly smart guy and I’m happy to see him on the SpaceX team and not at NASA.
————————————————————————————————-
In his recent interview with University of Cambridge staff, Lars revealed that his role as Principal Mars Landing Engineer involved a far wider scope than his previous GNC-centered work, with the goal instead being to design a launch vehicle (Starship) from the ground up to be easily recovered and reused. Falcon 9 Block 5 may be radically different than the ‘V1.0’ rocket that debuted in 2010, but it’s still ultimately a product of retroactive engineering. With Starship and Super Heavy, SpaceX instead wants to take the vast wealth of knowledge and experience gained from F9/FH and build the vehicle from the ground up to be optimized for full reuse. Ultimately, Dr. Blackmore stated that “landing Starship will be much harder than landing Falcon 9, but if [SpaceX] can do it, it will be revolutionary.”
—————————————————————————————————
I’m not a rocket scientist, but everything stated there seems obvious. Based on the headline, I thought that Teslerati article would contain a link to the interview, or at least a lot more information about it. Instead, 90% of the article is a rehash of things we already knew. Which is fairly typical of the stuff that gets published on Teslerati, unfortunately.
Blackmore is clearly an incredibly smart guy and I’m happy to see him on the SpaceX team and not at NASA.
Dr. J
Active Member
ICYMI, here's the article (linked from the tweet): Alumni stories: Meet the principal rocket landing engineer at SpaceX | Department of Engineering
Thanks for the link! Love the photo of Lars celebrating the first F9 booster landing in 2015. I hope I never forget what it felt like when I watched that landing, live. My wife and I were jumping up and down screaming with joy. We happened to be visiting my parents at the time and they looked at us like we had lost our minds...
e-FTW
New electron smell
Cross posting from other thread at mods request:
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/10/29/the-spacex-starship-is-a-very-big-deal/
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/10/29/the-spacex-starship-is-a-very-big-deal/
Random thought of the day...and bear in mind I'm slow so this has probably already been said somewhere, but:
It just occurred to me that Falcon second stage reusability can be enabled by [otherwise empty] re-entering Starships. On the Starship side they'd need gizmos to to grab the second stage(s?) and secure them in the cargo hold, plus some propellant allocation for whatever additional firings are required. The falcon launches may also need propellant allocated to move the second stage into a different/stable orbit after payload deployment. In both cases the downside would be realized as decreased initial lift capacity.
It just occurred to me that Falcon second stage reusability can be enabled by [otherwise empty] re-entering Starships. On the Starship side they'd need gizmos to to grab the second stage(s?) and secure them in the cargo hold, plus some propellant allocation for whatever additional firings are required. The falcon launches may also need propellant allocated to move the second stage into a different/stable orbit after payload deployment. In both cases the downside would be realized as decreased initial lift capacity.
Is there any reason not to retire Falcon 9 when the Starships are operable?
That depends on what one defines as ‘operable’, and specifically what timeline one believes said vehicles will be ‘operable’. IMHO it’s easily 10 years before we see something resembling the end-state vision that’s been presented in powerpoints and YouTubes for starship+SH.
In that time Falcon will continue to evolve in performance and cost. IMHO, single core Falcon 9 derivatives will almost certainly be flying for the foreseeable future—say 15-20 years or so—when it would naturally be sunset anyway.
Block 5 is the end of the major changes for F9, baring major setbacks on SS/SH. I give them 5 years max for un-NASA-crewed.
SpaceX aims to replace Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon with one spaceship – TechCrunch
I suppose that depends on what one defines as a “derivative”.
Easy: The definition pretty much anyone would use. Ar6 is a derivative of Ar5, Vulcan is a derivative of At5+D4, etc.
Compared to Starship being "operable", most would consider that as the first or one of the first full functional non-test flight. Which obviously would never be a trigger to retire Falcon. Some later stage of Starship, like what we see in the renderings (land on the launch pad, take right off again after refusing, whatever), is what might initiate retirement of Falcon.
My opinion is that the F9 will be retired long before 2035.
SpaceX is not like other space companies which are skilled at milking their old rocket technology for a long time because they have fat government contracts and no incentive to innovate (I suspect you agree). SpaceX is happy to obsolete their own technology.
Once cargo starship and super heavy are reusable, Falcon 9 will not be cost competitive.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Couldn’t agree more. And they’ll do that when Starship+SH is operating in a mode that has some resemblance to their vision.
Similar threads
- Article
