Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

SpaceX vs. Everyone - ULA, NG, Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
What's funny?

Well, for one, the fact that when someone overtly manufactures stupid competition against SX, folks on the internet get pretty bent real fast and quickly try to counter with some goal-moving statement like you did. So sorry about the overt troll there, but you had to see it coming. ;)

For two, despite all the fanfare about Starship and corollary blind belief from the fanbase, bottom line its its late, expensive, and clearly is--at least for anyone making an honest assessment--shaping up to be not nearly as utilitarian/ubiquitous as people want it to be. And as such, to the point, it's not going to fly a lot of non internal missions anytime soon. ...and probably never, as I'd bet before that point SX makes the same evolutionary step that the airlines did dropping the Jumbos for more versatile aircraft.
 
Well, for one, the fact that when someone overtly manufactures stupid competition against SX, folks on the internet get pretty bent real fast and quickly try to counter with some goal-moving statement like you did. So sorry about the overt troll there, but you had to see it coming. ;)

For two, despite all the fanfare about Starship and corollary blind belief from the fanbase, bottom line its its late, expensive, and clearly is--at least for anyone making an honest assessment--shaping up to be not nearly as utilitarian/ubiquitous as people want it to be. And as such, to the point, it's not going to fly a lot of non internal missions anytime soon. ...and probably never, as I'd bet before that point SX makes the same evolutionary step that the airlines did dropping the Jumbos for more versatile aircraft.
Ug, my bad, I missed the 'Starship' filter of your previous post.
For sure, Starship will be mainly internal, both for testing, plus the number of refueling flights, plus Starlink v2. No one else is trying to put as much mass into orbit as them.

Are you saying here that SpaceX is going to dump Starship for F9(+) and F9H(+)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Are you saying here that SpaceX is going to dump Starship for F9(+) and F9H(+)?

I'm saying F9 will be the workhorse for non starlink missions for years to come--through end of decade for sure--because most current and near term missions aren't all that compatible with Starship. For sure there will be occasional commercial or beyond earth SS launches, but most customers care about the bottom line, and so most customers are going to opt for F9. SX certainly needs more money than they thought to get Starlink profitable andand Starship off the ground (you don't keep raising money if you don't need money) so certainly SX won't retire F9 until internally SS returns a cost advantage on external revenue.

I'm also speculating that Starship will evolve into a smaller, more versatile "2.0" because it likely won't ever get to that cost advantage over Falcon 9.
 
I'm also speculating that Starship will evolve into a smaller, more versatile "2.0" because it likely won't ever get to that cost advantage over Falcon 9.
I don’t think that’s likely. Starship’s size is part of its cost efficiency. And its size is compatible with the Mars mission. Elon doesn’t back away from his missions…

Will be fun to watch this show no matter where it goes.
 
I just think there will be many variations with Starship. Once they get the initial system down then there will be a lot of "purpose built" versions for doing various missions. I can see a version where there the cargo section opens like the shuttle used to. SpaceX might spin the Starship head over heels and then fire some cold gas thrusters to jettison payload out of the cargo hold. If the engines end up like an airplane level of reuse then it opens up a lot of possibilities. They could even build a non-reusable second stage for putting huge payloads into LEO. Basically creating a gigantic F9-like situation if called for.

A lot of the use for Starship will be generated after it is shown to work. It took many years from F9 taking a cargo dragon to the ISS every year or so, to recovering a booster, to then re-launching one, to where we are now with lots of reuse, and putting tons of payload into orbit. The "block 5" Starship is about five to ten years in the future if SS/SH is anything like F9 in development process. Certainly, by that time, there will be lots and lots of payloads ready to use the well developed and well proven system. At first, it will definitely be mostly SpaceX. I doubt anyone currently has a 100 ton satellite they plan on putting into orbit.
 
They could even build a non-reusable second stage for putting huge payloads into LEO. Basically creating a gigantic F9-like situation if called for.
Non-reusable from a return to surface point of view, but still multimission? Or single if ship is the payload (super telescope). If it's only in LEO, it can be refueled and reused (if only as a sub-optimal depot).
Needs some level of controlled post mission disposal since an unguided Starship deorbit is a little worrying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Congrats to ULA. That said, what's the chance that Starship will reach orbit before Vulcan? TBH I'm sure neither company really cares other than basic competitiveness.
Another article on it with just a bit of additional detail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
TBH I'm sure neither company really cares other than basic competitiveness.

They don't. It's manufactured by the SX fanbase.

Funny thing is that for the foreseeable future--at least many years to come--Vulcan is likely to have a higher launch cadence than non-internal Starships.

What caring beyond "basic competitiveness" have SpaceX fans manufactured?
 
A Starship with no flaps or tiles could still make a controlled re-entry with cold gas thrusters and it’s R vacs, right?
My understanding is that it's dangerous to run vacuum optimized bells in significant atmosphere. Basically as the exhaust expands and it's exiting at high velocity (Bernoulli effect) its pressure falls significantly below sea-level pressure, and you get turbulence or something.

Found an article: Why Nozzles On Vacuum Optimized Rocket Engines Are Bigger Than Those On Sea Level Engines - Headed For Space
Not only does this disruption result in a loss of efficiency, but the instability in the gas flow and resulting lateral forces can also damage the nozzle itself.)
 
A Starship with no flaps or tiles could still make a controlled re-entry with cold gas thrusters and it’s R vacs, right?
Right, but in the maximum performance case there wouldn't be fuel for the deorbit burn. If there were, it could coast and get refilled/ reused.
Worst case logistics: 2nd SS gets tankered in LEO, raises orbit, and refills the heavy lift SS, then both go on their ways.

My understanding is that it's dangerous to run vacuum optimized bells in significant atmosphere. Basically as the exhaust expands and it's exiting at high velocity (Bernoulli effect) its pressure falls significantly below sea-level pressure, and you get turbulence or something.

Found an article: Why Nozzles On Vacuum Optimized Rocket Engines Are Bigger Than Those On Sea Level Engines - Headed For Space
Indeed, but engines aren't used in the atmosphere on a deorbit. Vacuum engines lowering orbit in space is fine for hitting the Pacific, that's what the F9 second stage does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I took @ecarfan to mean re-entry and powered landing using the R-vac.
Not exactly. I thought we were discussing de-orbiting for disposal a “nonreusable” Starship that had been used to place a maximum possible payload in orbit. I was responding to this statement by @Grendal

They could even build a non-reusable second stage for putting huge payloads into LEO.
Such a Starship would have no flaps, tiles, or sea level Raptors.

But then @mongo noted that, if to get such a payload to orbit Starship used up all it’s CH4/LOX it of course could not re-light its engines. Which should have occurred to me! :oops:

But maybe a very small amount of propellant could be kept in reserve for a de-orbit maneuver? Enough to light one engine?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
But maybe a very small amount of propellant could be kept in reserve for a de-orbit maneuver? Enough to light one engine?
Yeah, but if it can get out of orbit, it can be refueled. So no reason to junk it.
Cargo space/ capacity to Mars would be useful, even if the ship couldn't reach the surface.
Or use it as a boost stage
One could even land it on the moon for materials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Non-reusable from a return to surface point of view, but still multimission? Or single if ship is the payload (super telescope). If it's only in LEO, it can be refueled and reused (if only as a sub-optimal depot).
Needs some level of controlled post mission disposal since an unguided Starship deorbit is a little worrying.

Greetings. This is my first post to the forum, and below I have given some speculation based on my thinking after doing a deep dive in SpaceX lately. Hopefully informed speculation isn't frowned on here.

FWIW, I'm aware of at least one startup that has been founded with the intention to build its business on the Startship Platform. What they are building will fit in Starship, and only starship, if I'm understanding it correctly. Several other startups have mentioned roadmaps that start with current launch providers but mention how they will utilize starship when it becomes available.

This is a common path in technology when a breakthrough drops prices by %90. Many businesses that were not viable before suddenly are viable and you have a whole new race of companies that spring up to build on the new technology, or in this case the new platform of Starship.

I think once Starship is operational, SpaceX will start offering (at least privately) the opportunity to buy a purpose built starship. So the engine configuration and tanks will be as we have now, but forward of the tanks there could be some flexibility. That would be a lot of area for equipment.

SpaceX is building a starship factory, and the "machine that builds the machine" is going to be making them "dirt cheap" by space standards-- since welding can be automated and the Starship is getting pretty dialed in (it appears) in parts. It's a relatively off the shelf product. The Gimbals are actuators from Optimus, the battery packs (in the past anyway) were from Tesla cars, and of course they are building a rocket factory in Boca and an engine factory in McGregor. I think Elon has commoditized starship from the beginning-- something the switch to Stainless Steel made possible.

So, if you can get a starship shell for a competitive price with an old school Boeing Satellite Bus, you suddenly have a massive increase in capability for the same cost. RVAC engines and a full load of fuel (from tanker starships and on orbit refueling) would allow you to, for instance, build an exploration mission that does a tour of the solar system, hitting multiple planets.

Or my favorite idea: A massive telescope. With Raptor Vacuum and a full load of fuel (using on orbit refueling) you could place it in whatever orbit is ideal, maybe somewhere that gives you permanent shade from the sun. EG: Instead of making something that fits in a starship, make something that IS the front end of the starship. This gives you twice the diameter of Hubble for your mirror.

Not sure whether the forward nose cone can be jettisoned. But probably a solvable problem.

This may not be viable for whatever reason, but it might be. The game is changing.
 
Greetings. This is my first post to the forum, and below I have given some speculation based on my thinking after doing a deep dive in SpaceX lately. Hopefully informed speculation isn't frowned on here.
Welcome... nice first post. And if informed speculation isn't allowed, there's a bunch of us that better take our leave... :)


the battery packs (in the past anyway) were from Tesla cars, and of course they are building a rocket factory in Boca and an engine factory in McGregor.
I remember seeing the Tesla car packs being loaded in to the test article nose cone the electric flap actuators too... I suspect that exact form factor is not ideal for the production version, but I could see them reusing the cell brick/modules to build Starship-specific packs.

I wonder what the energy capacity needs of the flaps or 33 sets of raptor gimbal actuators are.

I also wonder, given that the Starship will belly-flop, that if there's any possibility we could see solar panels on leeward side of it, similar to the unpressurized section of the Dragon module... I think the previous renders had deployable "fan out" panels...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Welcome... nice first post. And if informed speculation isn't allowed, there's a bunch of us that better take our leave... :)

I remember seeing the Tesla car packs being loaded in to the test article nose cone the electric flap actuators too... I suspect that exact form factor is not ideal for the production version, but I could see them reusing the cell brick/modules to build Starship-specific packs.

I wonder what the energy capacity needs of the flaps or 33 sets of raptor gimbal actuators are.

I also wonder, given that the Starship will belly-flop, that if there's any possibility we could see solar panels on leeward side of it, similar to the unpressurized section of the Dragon module... I think the previous renders had deployable "fan out" panels...

Thanks for those points. I think they will have a battery pack derived from a Tesla pack, but I think we may have already had a hint of it. The Model S had modular batteries, but they evolved away from that to ultimately structural batteries. But for the Semi they are back to battery modules. And it appears in that case they are to be replaceable? Maybe a requirement given that market. But I suspect those modules would be pretty ideal for Starship-- More cubical and should fit in the places between the domes.

Also, it seems to me that every Raptor is a massive engine that could be generating a lot of electrical power, if they put a little generator the turbo pumps. So on Starship for long duration flights they could have power whenever they needed with a burn. Probably for scenarios where solar panels don't make sense.

For a space faring Starship with no need for flaps or heat tiles the whole thing could be covered in solar panels like the Dragon's trunk. And ALSO I think big foldable panels are in the future. I think the "pez slot" door we saw for ejecting Starling Sats is going to be a standard thing, for replying all kinds of things in the future... I think that's why it's high on the priority list-- to be able to build it without reducing structural integrity. (And then to make one that's rotated 90 degrees...would work for solar panels.)

I do think there will be two versions of starships-- the land on earth kind we have seen, and the operate in space kind that we're talking about.

But I am holding out hope for a future Yacht that I can cruise to the moon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Thanks for those points. I think they will have a battery pack derived from a Tesla pack, but I think we may have already had a hint of it. The Model S had modular batteries, but they evolved away from that to ultimately structural batteries. But for the Semi they are back to battery modules. And it appears in that case they are to be replaceable? Maybe a requirement given that market. But I suspect those modules would be pretty ideal for Starship-- More cubical and should fit in the places between the domes.

Also, it seems to me that every Raptor is a massive engine that could be generating a lot of electrical power, if they put a little generator the turbo pumps. So on Starship for long duration flights they could have power whenever they needed with a burn. Probably for scenarios where solar panels don't make sense.

For a space faring Starship with no need for flaps or heat tiles the whole thing could be covered in solar panels like the Dragon's trunk. And ALSO I think big foldable panels are in the future. I think the "pez slot" door we saw for ejecting Starling Sats is going to be a standard thing, for replying all kinds of things in the future... I think that's why it's high on the priority list-- to be able to build it without reducing structural integrity. (And then to make one that's rotated 90 degrees...would work for solar panels.)

I do think there will be two versions of starships-- the land on earth kind we have seen, and the operate in space kind that we're talking about.

But I am holding out hope for a future Yacht that I can cruise to the moon.
Yeah., the module form-factor varies, in the 3 they initially went from the smaller modules to 4 large ones... obviously the structural packs have yet a different form factor. Tesla PowerPacks have yet a different module (tray design)... the Semi module is a cool thought. That's about 100KWh in a nice box.

I assume that that for Starship, the ability to generate power without also generating thrust would be desirable. Given the packs start off with a full charge, they'd ostensibly reach orbit with some decent remaining charge. If they wanted to charge them back up, but generating thrust would force them out of orbit that would be a non-starter. There's limits to the minimum thrust a Raptor can generate. Unless they just plan on going battery-only, it seems like solar would be almost a must...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
I don’t think that’s likely. Starship’s size is part of its cost efficiency. And its size is compatible with the Mars mission. Elon doesn’t back away from his missions…

I'm coming from the angle that its pretty unfathomable that SX will have landed on the perfect configuration the first time, and its pretty unfathomable that they wouldn't pivot to a better configuration if/when one becomes apparent.

It's really hard to not call back the 747/A380 analogy here. For sure Mars is the long game, and maybe a massive SS variant (to @Grendal's point) stays operational for whenever Mars actually starts to happen, but real success is very coupled to Starlink, and it does see pretty un-SX like to co-optimize SS for the VERY different missions of a gazillion sats to LEO and a bunch of crap to Mars.

Agree, time will tell.