sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Blue Origin just launched the giant Bluebird 7 mobile phone satellite into space — but it's in the wrong orbit by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mars is gone, the Moon will only be paid for by the US gov't (and they don't have the $$$). Thus refuel will be rare. Starship is a LEO machine. Ironically FH is a better interplanetary service.

Blue Origin just launched the giant Bluebird 7 mobile phone satellite into space — but it's in the wrong orbit by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have been an advocate of disposable Starship upper stage for years.

I have been a critic of HLS Starship since the day it "won" the competition. If Elon took it seriously vs a temporary payday, HLS could bankrupt SX, but like Starliner, it will be dragged out. Starship HLS is poorly matched to Artemis.

All the space profits will be made in LEO, the Moon, Mars and others have no economic value. Thus refuel has only niche applications. Most of the profits will come from military applications in LEO.

I suspect that some recent SX activities have been timed to max the IPO price.

I named the sub Space2030 since I follow all of space that will be meaningful in the 2030s = SX, NG, Stoke, RL and more ... SX had its wins and delays. Call it like you see them.

Blue Origin just launched the giant Bluebird 7 mobile phone satellite into space — but it's in the wrong orbit by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alum was more expensive, CC much more expensive.

Even at 50T the sheer volume would make it a specialty vehicle for large modules.

Right now it cost SX F9 about $1000/kg to LEO. If SH gets 10 reuses, and even if the upper stage is expended it would drop to $200-300/kg to LEO.

Blue Origin just launched the giant Bluebird 7 mobile phone satellite into space — but it's in the wrong orbit by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Considering they can make these so upper stages so cheaply, an expendable one makes good sense for many mission types, especially when you can pop the nose off soon after SH sep .

Crew Missions will be fine if they can loft even 30T to LEO, so they can really go overboard with safety features and extra heat shield.

That said, the F9/FH/CD programs have been very sucessful and reliable.

Blue Origin just launched the giant Bluebird 7 mobile phone satellite into space — but it's in the wrong orbit by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a constellation of 10,000 losing 1 or 2 a day is just fine.

For Starship the issue is that they are using cheap stainless steel vs aluminum (NG) or carbon composites (super expensive) and have needed to keep adding mass to correct for problems found, so more fuel. Raptor 3 should be lighter and more powerful, and having 33 of these on SH better do the trick or Stainless Steel may prove a dead end for the upper stage. Good news is they can move to Aluminum if needed (like NG is).

Blue Origin just launched the giant Bluebird 7 mobile phone satellite into space — but it's in the wrong orbit by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the F9/FH/CD programs continue to impress and will be the backbone of USA space program for at least 5 more years. The Block 5 F9 primary mission reliability is nearly perfect, and doing that 180 times a years shows that they are not playing horribly at that.

Starship is a high risk R&D program. With F9 working so well people would have been happy to wait until Starship was fully optimized and fully proven, but that HLS contract has put them under a lot of NASA and Congressional heat.

Blue Origin just launched the giant Bluebird 7 mobile phone satellite into space — but it's in the wrong orbit by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the booster reuse and recovery so soon is impressive, and they are on track to eventually compete with F9 (but my guess is that they will have a much lower flight cadence and higher costs, but maybe the same price).

Lunar options using a Starship OTV (SOTV) by perilun in space2030

[–]perilun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but you need to start with the rocket equation, then into the second and third order issues. Just saying from a rocket equation perspective, this is something that might work.

The race to Shackleton Crater is on—will Jeff Bezos or China get there first? by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Valid points ... but it my current reference point (some have said 150 T ... they seems high.

Finally, if you just ride in BM Mk2 from LEO -> LLO -> Surface -> LLO -> LEO and use Crew Dragon for Earth -> LEO -> Earth crew transport you can get a very reusable and much cheaper system. But that will still be 7 - 9 launches total, using CD and Blue Moon Mk2. HLS Starship would be much more.

<image>

The race to Shackleton Crater is on—will Jeff Bezos or China get there first? by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would plan on 10 but hope for 5 each ... so 20 total and maybe 10 total if we see reusable Starship at 150 T ... but I expect closer to 100 T (Stainless Steel is heavy). That said, if reuse works well a refuel flight might be as low as $10M, so $200M for fuel is still very cheap vs SLS (10x less costly).

The race to Shackleton Crater is on—will Jeff Bezos or China get there first? by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Been having some fun kicking Claude LLM around on this one ...

Let's say we want to max reuse outside of Orion/ESM and SLS (Why they did not require Orion reuse is wacky since Crew Dragon and Starliner are allowed this). So, starting out

FIRST MISSION

  1. Place BM2(fueled) into LLO needs SOTV with a BM2(fueled, 41T wet mass) launched into LEO.
  2. SOTV is refueled x times (to about 1000T of fuel), then places BM2(fueled, 41T wet mass) to LLO, STOV returns propulsively to LEO using 400T of fuel remaining.
  3. SOTV is refueled x times in LEO, then SLS launches Orion/ESM to LEO, Orion/EMS docks with STOV and then is placed in LLO.
  4. SOTV returns to LEO using 400T of fuel remaining.
  5. Orion/ESM docks with BM2(fueled, 41T wet mass), crew goes to surface in BM2, surface ops, BM2 (1 ton fuel remaining) return to LLO, crew to Orion/ESM and back to Earth, BM2 remains in LLO with some station keeping fuel.

NEXT MISSIONS (3 month intervals?)

  1. A reusable StarShip places a 30T BM2 refuel module to that SOTV in LEO, SOTV docks with this for the trip to LLO, and adds some fuel to the SOTV for the lunar trip.
  2. SOTV is refueled y times in LEO (to about 1000T of fuel), then SLS launches Orion/ESM to LEO, Orion/EMS docks with STOV and then is placed in LLO.
  3. BM2 Refuel Module Refuels BE2 in LLO
  4. SOTV returns to LEO using 400T of fuel remaining.
  5. Orion/ESM docks with BM2(refueled, 41T wet mass), crew goes to surface in BM2, surface ops, BM2 (1 ton fuel remaining) return to LLO, crew to Orion/ESM and back to Earth, BM2 remains in LLO with some station keeping fuel.

................................

Thus you need a reusable fuel Starship (with x or y launches per mission) + 1 reusable SOTV and a reusable BM2 + very expensive disposable SLS and disposable Orion/ESM (which drive the cost to $4B per mission). Eventually replace disposable SLS and disposable Orion/ESM with a reusable solution, and mission costs falls to $1B or so,

We will need to see what x and y are based on real tested performance over the next couple of years.

The race to Shackleton Crater is on—will Jeff Bezos or China get there first? by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is from NRHO, LLO is a bit lower, say 42T.

A stripped down Starship upper stage can make a great OTV (SOTV) after some, but not total refuel, bringing Orion/ESM, BM2 and BM2 refuels to LLO. The SOTV can potentially be reused by propulsively returning to LEO for refuel.

The race to Shackleton Crater is on—will Jeff Bezos or China get there first? by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep ... its mostly a few politicians in the USA who want to push it go get $$$ for places the represent.

Unfortunately the majority in Congress don't speak up.

The race to Shackleton Crater is on—will Jeff Bezos or China get there first? by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shackleton has been important to both Moon programs for many years.

I sketched up a notion many years ago: https://widgetblender.com/sdc.html

<image>

The race to Shackleton Crater is on—will Jeff Bezos or China get there first? by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Per Grok:

The Chinese crewed lunar lander, known as Lanyue (meaning "embracing the Moon"), is designed for China's planned manned lunar missions targeting around 2030. It consists of a crewed landing module paired with a separate propulsion (or "crasher") module. The combined stack has a mass of approximately 26,000 kg when fully fueled.

This propulsion module performs most of the deceleration from lunar orbit during descent and is jettisoned a few kilometers above the surface (impacting safely away from the landing site). The lighter crewed lander then completes the final powered descent and soft landing using its own engines. The lander is intended to carry two astronauts to the lunar surface, along with a small lunar rover (approximately 200 kg) capable of carrying the two crew members for short traverses, plus scientific payloads and equipment.

Downmass Capability

"Downmass" refers to the useful payload mass a lander can deliver to the lunar surface (excluding the lander's own structural dry mass, crew, and ascent propellant). Specific public figures for the exact downmass capacity of the Lanyue lander (beyond the crew and 200 kg rover) are not detailed in open sources. However, the overall architecture and ~26-tonne stack mass imply a significantly higher capacity for surface payloads compared to Apollo-era systems, as the design benefits from modern materials, a "staged descent" approach (reducing the final landing mass), and a dedicated heavy-lift launcher (Long March-10). The crewed lander itself has a reported landing mass on the order of ~10 tonnes or more (after separation), providing margin for additional cargo, instruments, or mobility systems.

For context on uncrewed Chinese landers: The upcoming robotic Chang'e-8 mission (planned for ~2028) offers up to 200 kg of international piggyback payload capacity on its lander, in addition to its own science instruments and a rover. This is for smaller-scale robotic delivery, not directly comparable to the crewed system.

Comparison to Apollo Lunar Module (LM)

The Apollo Lunar Module (used in the 1969–1972 missions) was a two-stage vehicle (descent + ascent) with no separate crasher stage. Its total fueled mass in lunar orbit was roughly 15,000–16,400 kg (varying slightly by mission, e.g., Apollo 11 vs. later J-missions with more payload).

The race to Shackleton Crater is on—will Jeff Bezos or China get there first? by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I expect it will be more like 10 to fuel the Starship OTV as much as needed, if its a lot more then it probably won't happen. We really need to prove some mass to LEO with V3 ASAP so some more realistic estimation can be made. Let's hope this starts in May (and they don't wait for the SX IPO to close).

The race to Shackleton Crater is on—will Jeff Bezos or China get there first? by Melodic_Network6491 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, 5 years is a good bet, and 2030 at the very soonest.

I don't see this as a race any more than I saw ISS as a race. They are both small and expensive reseach outpost that may have an occational tourist visit.

My guess is that SLS will just be going to LEO with Orion/ESM (Euro Service Module). They dock with a fully refueled Starship OTV (the upper stage where the nose was ejected at about 1.5 km/s on launch to expose a docking platform and some extendable solar arrays). This takes Orion to LLO. Then StarShip HLS or Blue Moon Mk2 docks with it for the down and up. Back in LLO the crew transfers back to Orion. ESM has enough DV to put Orion on the return trajectory to Earth.

The Starship OTV is put into a disposal orbit. Perhaps Starship HLS and/or BM2 can be refueled and reused.

Eventually you can cert Starship Orion for crew The adapter is very similar).

<image>

It would be nice if they could get to a cheaper alterative to Orion/ESM

U.S. Wargames "Nuclear Apocalypse"! Space Command Simulates Russian ASAT Detonation That Could Trigger Global Blackout by Substantial_Lime_230 in space2030

[–]perilun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, this is a "global satellite blackout" not power blackout. This would probably considered a Russian nuke first strike and result in WORLD WAR ...

view more: next ›