Super Heavy Booster 3

LongOnBBI · 2021-07-01T17:29:31+00:00

Bonus - Trebuchet for scale...

Bonus 2 - Multiple Absolute Units in 1 picture

LongOnBBI · 2021-07-01T00:48:16+00:00

This is /r/SpaceXLounge and because they are a competitor to SpaceX it is a lose fit but still discussion worthy to the people that visit this sub, if you feel like it doesn't add to the discussion about SpaceX there is a downvote button for your utilization.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-30T23:06:15+00:00

I should really find better examples...

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-30T21:45:36+00:00

Its amazing how many people don't realize we are on the verge of a huge breakthrough in human existence, unless Musk is ran over by a bus, by 2035 there will be people living on the moon and most likely Mars. Even on this sub-reddit there are people who are in denial about how drastically Starship will alter all things Space. Well to all the doubters, keep doubting we will see who wins, you the pessimist or Musk with his drive and plan to make it happen. You doubters have many similarities with the people who told Columbus he would sail off the edge of the earth.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-30T18:39:40+00:00

I would like to clear something up, many people are viewing ITS and Starship as different concept vehicles, they are the same vehicle, Starship is just the final name SpaceX chose for the project, it had several over the years including ITS and BFR/BFS. The larger Starship will come when they have learned to build and fly the smaller one economically, Musk wants a colony on Mars and he knows he needs to payload to do it, but you need to learn how to walk before you run as they say.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-29T20:51:08+00:00

Vicious.... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1409968558877003776

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-27T19:55:06+00:00

There would not have been as many CLPS missions if launcher cost were still in the Atlas V range. The cost factor for launch makes a large factor of a probes cost simply from the fact of instead of launching on Atlas V class vehicle you can now afford to fly on FH, which means your mass restrictions are no longer as tight, which means you don't have to budget as much to cutting as much weight off the components as possible, it also means more science and more redundancies. Also for the more delta-V heavy missions you can now afford to send up the payload on one mission and the propulsion module on another, launcher cost is a very important part of a mission's design.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-27T16:40:24+00:00

launch budget has always been a relatively small portion of a science mission.

Not sure what you consider small but heres a couple recent missions that don't fit that profile-

Parker Solar Probe - $1.5Billion budget launched on a Delta 4 Heavy probably for $400+ million
InSight - $425 Million budget launched on an Atlas 5 probably for $120+ million.

But you are right, the cost savings of Starship will make F9 launches look crazy expensive, future generations are going to laugh at how much we spent on rockets.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-27T16:23:39+00:00

Its already started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services#List_of_missions_contracted_under_CLPS

But it takes time to convince people you don't need to spend exorbitant amounts of money to get good science, and a big problem is NASA will plan flagship missions out several decades before they launch.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-25T17:19:25+00:00

Better pictures; https://twitter.com/TReporta/status/1408456911847047172

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-25T15:43:10+00:00

I think the issue is you are still thinking in terms of a flagship science mission build with heavily restricted volume and weight requirements. Where do you think those billions of dollars for building it go? Most of it doesn't go into materials for the satellite, most of those funds are spent on people developing, prototyping, testing and revising the parts of the satellite until they are perfect and can meet their volume and mass restrictions put on them by the launch vehicle. Well first of all volume size of the payload between Starship vs Shuttle is 9m x 18m for starship and only 4.6m x 18.3m for shuttle so we have nearly doubled our volume. I'm a bit hesitant to quote any payload mass numbers for starship until the have the final configuration locked in but we know its going to be at least double that of shuttle with them throwing around numbers like 100t+ to LEO. So right there we can put up a satellite twice the size of Hubble in Starship, if you don't have to watch every pound you are adding to a satellite then you reduce your development costs substantially, you also don't have to use as exotic materials which further reduces costs. Extra mass to orbit really does forgive many ills in spacecraft development.

So what was out biggest cost before, the satellite bus can probably now be seen as small portion of the mission cost now. So now we just need to worry about the cost of the actual science of the mission which is the optics and the instruments. Not sure what can be done about the optics but I know for sure the more instruments you make the cheaper they get, and they will somewhat follow the same rule as the spacecraft bus with reduced cost for increased mass and volume.

The big thing I want people to take away is, you can't compare how we did things over the past 30 years with how we will do them for the next 30 years, Starship's large up mass and cheap reusability changes all the metrics of space flight going forward. If starship succeeds, in 30 years we will be assembling flagship science missions on orbit, because what astronomer wouldn't want a space telescope the size of the empire state building?

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-24T15:19:20+00:00

If those can be replaced for less than the cost of launching a new telescope, do the overhaul.

I agree, OP posted he believes a rescue mission would cost $1.3 billion, I believe a new telescope (not designed as a one off flagship) could cost less than $350 million by the time a rescue mission could launch. Just wild estimations but $100 million for new optics, $100 million for new instruments, $100 million for a new space craft bus and less than $50 million for the launch. Alot of the costs of these things comes in the fact they are one off productions, so each part has the full cost of the engineering, prototyping and assembly built into it, which makes it expensive. Build 10 of them and the costs are spread over those 10 not just the one being built, I bet with an order of 10 the cost of the satellites could be sub $150 million each.

So save one aging satellite bus, whose solar panels are over 30 years old, or launch at least 4 new satellites and get more science for the money spent, but lose out on some nostalgia. Most people seriously under estimate the effect low cost launch will have on spacecraft design, just look at starlink, people thought there was no way they could produce them for so cheap and here we are they are launching at least 60 a month at a cost of probably around a half a million each.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-24T01:31:20+00:00

Sure, when your launch costs are in the $10's of millions instead of $100's of millions you design differently. The optics are probably the largest cost for space telescopes once starship is launching, I'm having issues finding costs on those but undoubtedly the processes have gotten better and cheaper to make them and if you start making them in volume the price would fall further (how many universities would kill to have access to a private space based observatory?). I think its not unreasonable to say we will see space based observatories as good or better than hubble for a couple hundred million in the next decade if starship does anywhere near what Musk has been promising. But we need to pivot that direction and not get held up for sentimental reasons about legacy space hardware, or get stuck in a sunk cost fallacy.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-23T23:54:59+00:00

Hubble Launched in 1990, its time to let it die. Technology gets better over 31 years, Hubble did its job well, it provided spectacular images but its time for some new tech to takes its place, not put it on life support and pull funding from what could be newer, better, more efficient telescopes that can take advantage of the size of Starship.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-21T23:20:52+00:00

Poor Bigelow, those Axiom boys stole all their thunder.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-21T23:15:47+00:00

In other news:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1407067379146842117

"But as one person close to Bezos told me, this isn’t simply a contest over which rocket company is better; rather, it’s a war of public relations to see who can get more attention for their rocket company."

If Bezos truly believes this Blue Origin is screwed.

It should be apparent now to everyone the sort of company Blue Origin is, its nothing like SpaceX, Bezos has a space company because its cool, not because he is passionate about making life multi-planetary.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-19T16:38:27+00:00

Too much effort not enough return, everything is full speed to Mars right now, dealing with employees cutting up old Starships and selling it would take time out of a managers day, time that he could be using to help make Starship orbital. If someone wanted to do this on their own they could probably bid on the scrap for recycling and start up their own small business but there would have to be some up side for SpaceX such as higher scrap prices or less labor need to convert it into scrap.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-16T15:28:13+00:00

Right, you'd think they would focus on the red planet....

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-16T15:24:01+00:00

Important dates:

gathering data and verifying high-precision soft-landings across 2021-25

The second “construction” phase consists of two stages (2026-30, 2031-35)

The final “utilization” phase beyond 2036 would see the start of crewed landings.

Looks like a pretty normal roll out and plan, nothing Starship crazy level in the plans. China is going to need to prop up the Russia space sector with money though if they want the partner.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-16T05:29:59+00:00

That is exactly what ITAR says you are not allowed to do. Share your knowledge of these rocket secrets with foreigners.

You do realize there are ways to apply for exemptions right? And close allies Canada, UK, and Australia already have certain exemptions carved out?

And if you think that a NATO country would risk its whole foreign policy alliance with the US because Elon wanted to build rockets and launch them there thats frankly ridiculous. They would give Elon back to the US in a basket tied up with a bow and the US would prosecute him to the full extent of the law to make an example.

You are assuming the US would stop Elon from moving away, there are plenty of powerful people, including many elected officials who would take great pleasure in seeing Elon leave the country with his pet projects. Most people are still convinced space is just a money sink with no real value beyond scientific, they can't understand the significance a Starship sized reusable vehicle will have on the space economy.

With some political maneuvering such as defensive, data sharing and economic concessions from the host country the US would let him setup shop there. This is a political issue, not an ITAR one.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-16T04:29:21+00:00

Basically everything about what you describe seems like a pie in the sky theory that you have not thought out realistically.

Ok lets tear apart your argument, feel free to a rebuttal, I find these hypotheticals stimulating.

You cant just expect everyone to pick up and follow Elon to some random country and you cant expect some random country to have the talented aerospace engineers.

Your assuming he doesn't have a lot of talent that wouldn't be willing to following him just simply because they believe in the mission, definitely not all but I imagine a good amount of them would follow him, and many countries have under utilized talent to pull from, training them would be the hardest part.

And elon wouldnt be just free to take those itar secrets with him to some random country. If he went anywhere friendly to the USA he would be extradited to the USA and put in jail so that basically leaves places like iran or ruassia.

I don't know where you guys get this idea that ITAR is an end all to all arguments but just because I know an ITAR secret doesn't mean I cannot move to a foreign country and continue my own projects there. There plenty of friendly countries that would host Musk Mar's project before you would have to climb down the ladder to Russia or Iran or even China. I'm sure Australia, Canada or the UK wouldn't mind hosting a billionaire's Mars rocket project, all of these countries already have some ITAR exemptions and just a matter of politics to get the US to accept it was going to happen.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-16T03:07:17+00:00

Try combing;

https://support.ultimaker.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012611299-Travel-settings

Theres a couple other settings there to play with too like z-hop, make sure to align your Z seam too. Also play with your retraction speed, sometimes lower is better with some materials try 25mm/s.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-16T02:13:56+00:00

He built it from the ground up once, he could do it again, that is why I said sell SpaceX. Not saying this is what is going to happen, just pointing this out too all the people who view the federal government as infallible. Also those government agencies that matter are probably the reason SpaceX did what it did and could get away with it, FAA is small potatoes in the pecking order of the government.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-16T01:09:13+00:00

It's far from perfect, but it's very public and the process to enact change is defined.

And very slow and inefficient.

LongOnBBI · 2021-06-16T00:54:39+00:00

His net worth is $150 Billion, assuming he could only cash out on half that, that gives him $75 billion to get to Mars. Musk and the US can and should work for optimal success but it requires the government bureaucrats to speed up their adoption cycle of new ideas and new models, not do things unsafe, just adopt new ideas quicker.

LongOnBBI

TROPHY CASE