-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Yes, we should. And New Glenn should able to land like Falcon 9; without hovering. Also I don't need to calculate Raptor/Super Heavy-thrust-to-weight ratio, we know it can do it:
(c) SpaceX and Tim Dodd
(c) SpaceX and Tim Dodd
As @HVM shows with his pics, SpaceX is much more of an open book about their development path... both what does work, and what doesn't. The existence of engineering test mules and exercises like the flying water tower and the Starship belly-flop test provide a lot of insight as to if the hardware is capable of, or at least on it's way to, it's performance goals. Heck, Tim Dodd had Elon basically providing a sneak peak and their V2 Engine Crown jewel for the world to see, complete with technical discussion of what they improved upon over V1's limitations.Good point. We should definitely apply the same rigor to Blue that we do SX in this forum.
So do we ultimately need to wait and see if SpaceX is able to deliver? Yup.
Do we need to apply the "same rigor" as BO, an essentially closed book, who has been way late delivering their BE-4's to NASA for undisclosed reasons? I don't believe the same skepticism is necessary....
Tounge in cheek nature of my response aside, I'm on board with honest questions/statements. I'm even on board with [logic based] skepticism of Blue (over SX) because of what they keep away from public domain.
I'm not on board with uninformed statements, which is why we're here.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Watching the pre-launch today of Artimis, scrubbed until this Friday (maybe) at the earliest
There were mentions several times about how BIG Artemis is, etc.
SpaceX is "Red shifting" past, and ..accelerating...
a reminder,
Starship is 22m taller than Artemis, with >50% more thrust and diameter is 9m vs 5.1m (81 vs 25 in cubic volume diameter wise) >3x
and for those in the states, the washington monument is 555 ft tall, starship is 393ft, (70%) and 55 ft wide at the base, starship is 29.5ft wide
landing has come along way from grasshopper, less than 9 years ago, October 2013 to Starship
Artemis Price: $876.0 million
Liftoff Thrust: 39,440 kN <==
Payload to LEO: 95,000 kg
Stages: 2
Strap-ons: 2 <==throwaways
Rocket Height: 98.1 m
Fairing Diameter: 5.1 m
SpaceX
Status: Active
Liftoff Thrust: 61,800 kN <==
Stages: 2
Strap-ons: 0 <==NO throwaways
Rocket Height: 120.0 m
Fairing Diameter: 9.0 m
launch and landing of SpaceX grasshopper
There were mentions several times about how BIG Artemis is, etc.
SpaceX is "Red shifting" past, and ..accelerating...
a reminder,
Starship is 22m taller than Artemis, with >50% more thrust and diameter is 9m vs 5.1m (81 vs 25 in cubic volume diameter wise) >3x
and for those in the states, the washington monument is 555 ft tall, starship is 393ft, (70%) and 55 ft wide at the base, starship is 29.5ft wide
landing has come along way from grasshopper, less than 9 years ago, October 2013 to Starship
Artemis Price: $876.0 million
Liftoff Thrust: 39,440 kN <==
Payload to LEO: 95,000 kg
Stages: 2
Strap-ons: 2 <==throwaways
Rocket Height: 98.1 m
Fairing Diameter: 5.1 m
SpaceX
Status: Active
Liftoff Thrust: 61,800 kN <==
Stages: 2
Strap-ons: 0 <==NO throwaways
Rocket Height: 120.0 m
Fairing Diameter: 9.0 m
launch and landing of SpaceX grasshopper
The part that really gets me is the amount of ship SLS puts into orbit vs Starship.
Use OLM to supply spin start gas for the inner 13 engines rather than local supply in COPV. Outer 20 are already set up this way.
Propellant is all onboard for all engines.
Yes and yes.
The extra mass needed for larger COPV and spin gas margin is dead weight post liftoff. May also support recycling depending how COPVs are loaded.
I think the major design difference is that Starship uses autogenous tank pressurization wheras other rockets have large quantities of Helium onboard anyway. Others also use the pressurized He to run valves and such.
So incremental additional He for startup is much more relative to post launch compared to others.
13 engine start
3? engine boostback
3? re-entry
3? landing
So 9 engine starts post launch vs 13 engine prelaunch.
The outer 20 engines were already fed by the Orbital Launch Mount (OLM) for startup. The change is to also start the inners off the OLM.
Note, it may be that only the middle ring of 10 are moved to the OLM and the inner 3 stay COPV and are the only ones with restart capibility. That would be simpler and still cuts it from 22 engine starts worth of gas to 12.
I can’t tell how many engines were fired. But it looks like they were in the inner ring, correct?
Similar threads
- Article
