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

Wiki Super Heavy/Starship - General Development Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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.
 
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.”
 
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
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.
 
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
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
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
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: