41–50 of 342 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK it's uncommon skill, you need the steady hands of a surgeon to have a chance. Definitely not work I could do, I know that.
Sooo...it's rocket surgery for real?
That was a very dense an informative presentation last night, but I think the main take away is that rapid reusability is a game changer. In fact, game-changer is probably an understatement, basically every intuition and rule-of-thumb we have about space launches and travel will have to be rethought. And this will be true even of SpaceX falls well short of meeting their stated targets (2020 orbit, 150t capability, mu…
SpaceX is completely changing the opportunities of getting to space. The reduction in price has been nuts. According to NASA the space shuttle was ~$450 million per launch, or $16,364 per kg to LEO. The Delta 4 Heavy is $12,156 per kg. For some launches it's even higher- the Air Force paid $15,109 per kg for four launches. The Falcon 9 is $62 million, or $2,719 per kg to LEO. The Falcon Heavy is $2,351 per kg when ex…
And though Musk isn't a fan, this could even make solar power satellites economical. The monolithic designs from the 1970s would be absurdly expensive, but modern designs like SPS-Alpha get economies of scale by using lots of small identical parts that self-assemble in orbit. According to the book The Case for Space Solar Power, a 2GW satellite would deliver electricity at 15 cents/kWh at pre-SpaceX launch costs. I plugged BFR's $50/kg into its cost breakdown and got 4 cents/kWh, which is pretty good for zero-carbon baseload. Ground solar is cheaper by itself, but probably not after including storage.
The basic idea is geosynchronous orbit, microwave power transmission with a phased array device that requires a reference signal from the target location, and a wire mesh collector several miles wide. Over 24 hours, a solar panel in geosynch collects 5.4 times as much light as one on Earth. At the time the book was written, the power transmission had been tested over a couple dozen miles, and was 40% efficient.
Longer-term, if we collect fuel from the moon to go from LEO to GEO, we could make it even cheaper.
I suspect that Starship will fly to space before SLS ever will. I also think Starship has a significantly higher chance of flying at all than SLS.
Starship could have Falcon Heavy level of delays (which I think it will) and still beat SLS.
In 2011, FH was supposed to have "arrival at launch site" by 2H 2012. It first launched in 2018 (after arriving at launch site in 2018 not 2012). The same level of delay would mean the first Starship does not reach orbit until ~2025. That seems crazy pessimistic and would be a dramatic departure from the otherwise normal delays faced by SpaceX.
I think it's extremely unlikely that Starship would face FH-level delays. That would cancel the Starlink constellation, cede the space-internet game to others, hand the torch to BO or others working on large projects, and absolutely destroy morale at SpaceX.
I just don't see it happening.
I totally understand why they've gone for that design but the welded together steel plates really make me think of the sort of thing Wallace and Gromit would build.
Or the F-86 Sabre: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/F86F_Sab...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://youtu.be/Sdwy9fzQzl4 Scott Manley does a great job explaining such things!
I'm surprised the guy being a youtuber. He is the codecs guy at Apple Computers
"If the schedule is long it's wrong, if it's tight its right."
"The best part is no part."
"The best process is no process."
This really is different compared to how the space industry has done things in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you picture them rolling a piece of steel 50 meters wide? As far as I know, the widest rolling mills in existence are 5 meters wide.
Think of it like a paper towel tube. It's a spiral. Single helical weld.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starship could have Falcon Heavy level of delays (which I think it will) and still beat SLS.
FH was 5 years+ behind schedule before it was built and launched. Starship already has multiple constructions going on, with multiple prototypes to test and multiple full-size vehicles planned quickly. In 2011, FH was supposed to have "arrival at launch site" by 2H 2012. It first launched in 2018 (after arriving at launch site in 2018 not 2012). The same level of delay would mean the first Starship does not reach orb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starship could have Falcon Heavy level of delays (which I think it will) and still beat SLS.
Not entirely sure about that. Have no skin in the game but from what I can tell Starship is just a bigger version of the Falcon 9 second stage. FH on the other hand required a lot of engineering investment to figure out how to bolt three F9s together and how to make the software work between all three. I'm certain it will be a long time until it can get to Mars, but LEO within the next 2-3 years is probably realistic…
No way, that's where most of the differences are. The Falcon 9 second stage is a classic expendable stage but Starship is a brand new design which aims to be fully reusable.
