SpaceX Starship

[Justin Swanton]

The Space Shuttle was an amazing vehival that enjoy a fair amount of success . but it too had it to drawbacks with in the end brought about its retirement.

A shuttle launch cost about $500 million, compared to $100 million for Russian launches. In its primary mission as a cheap means of getting stuff into orbit it was a resounding fail.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Interesting question that, and surprisingly difficult to answer. I looked at Space X's website and it says Starship is intended to carry "up to 100 people on long-duration interplanetary flights". This claim is demonstrably nonsense. If mankind ever does achieve such a thing, it will be on a very different platform; nothing like Starship. Just think of the hundreds of tonnes of water, food, fuel and oxygen required, as well as the equipment needed for the journey and for survival at destination. Think of the complexities of creating artificial gravity, protecting the crew from radiation, giving them enough space and recreation to ensure some minimal quality of life. To pretend that Starship is the platform that will achieve all this is pure insanity. Just the existence of such a claim on the website of a company that expects to be taken seriously, well, it makes me question the mental state of the person in charge. Honestly, its a bit embarrassing.

Maybe Starship is actually intended for some other purpose (like mass launches of low orbit satellites) and the stuff on the website is just for the kids. It still doesn't make sense, but its somewhat less crazy than the interplanetary travel nonsense.

Absolutely bang on.

 

[Justin Swanton]

The starship, with plenty of redundant engines, and rotating crews possibly drawn from all the space navies that haven't got one ship to their name, is a we haul to get stuff to the moon. Like Quonset huts that unskilled labor can assemble in a matter of hours, plus other handy Amazon items that Bezos can't get up there. Everyone will be going to the Moon first. Its the easiest place to get to, so anyone unable to get to Mars, which is probably everyone, will hit up the Moon first. No one will want to get up there last and lose out on all the mud front property that will be claimed by waves of homesteaders looking for place to hang there helmets at the end of a long prospecting day.

I have this awful feeling we won't colonise the Moon for the same reason we haven't colonised Antarctica.

 

[BAYLOR]

A shuttle launch cost about $500 million, compared to $100 million for Russian launches. In its primary mission as a cheap means of getting stuff into orbit it was a resounding fail.

That was its biggest drawback , the cost.

I saw the very first laugh on April 12th of 1981. It put us back into space. I can't tell you how happy I was to see the successful launch of that Shuttle . I was watching it with my parents and brother. It was such a huge lift to watch it happen. It was one of the happiest moments in my life !

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Its the lure of easy money. There's no money to be had in Antarctica, whereas the Moon is an unknown quantity which means there must be something very valuable just lying around on the surface waiting for the first person to come along. It will be advertised as science, but the dreams will be made of gold.

 

[Dave]

there must be something very valuable just lying around on the surface

Golf Balls?

 

[Justin Swanton]

Its the lure of easy money. There's no money to be had in Antarctica, whereas the Moon is an unknown quantity which means there must be something very valuable just lying around on the surface waiting for the first person to come along. It will be advertised as science, but the dreams will be made of gold.

I wonder. Is there any conceivable element realistically present in lunar regolith that could justify the astronomical cost of maintaining people on the Moon to mine it?

 

[BAYLOR]

Its the lure of easy money. There's no money to be had in Antarctica, whereas the Moon is an unknown quantity which means there must be something very valuable just lying around on the surface waiting for the first person to come along. It will be advertised as science, but the dreams will be made of gold.

A colony on the moon ? People living there raising families there ? No . Even if we could build sustainable colonies the problem is the gravity 17 is percent of Earths . People born on the moon would never be able to go Earth and no other world with stronger gravity. Same with colonizing Mars, its gravity is 1/3 that of Earths.

 

[Justin Swanton]

That was its biggest drawback , the cost.

I saw the very first laugh on April 12th of 1981. It put us back into space. I can't tell you how happy I was to see the successful launch of that Shuttle . I was watching it with my parents and brother. It was such a huge lift to watch it happen. It was one of the happiest moments in my life !

That, I suspect, was the whole purpose of manned spaceflight

 

[BAYLOR]

That, I suspect, was the whole purpose of manned spaceflight

It's both a grand spectacle and adventure rolled up into one , the sheer thrill of seeing it happen and the celebration of the men woman who risk their lives to be a part of it, yes.

 

[Dave]

I wonder. Is there any conceivable element realistically present in lunar regolith that could justify the astronomical cost of maintaining people on the Moon to mine it?

There are elements that would be easier to mine, but it would undoubtably cost more - elements like aluminium and titanium, but also rarer beryllium, lithium, zirconium, niobium, tantalum. There is also gold and silver (Lunar Goldrush?) Meteorites (which on Earth generally burn up in the atmosphere) would be high in Nickel, and just lying around on the lunar surface. Many of these elements are required for electronics and for battery manufacture. Of course, if you take into consideration the damage to the Earth that mining these things does, that may out way the financial cost.

There are elements that are not present naturally on Earth at all - Technetium, a shiny, grey metal as dense as lead, with a melting point of 2,204 °C - but there is no guarantee that it is present on the Moon either.

But Helium-3 is meant to be the single most important Moon resource that could be cheaper to mine from the Moon. Helium-3 is a possible fuel for future nuclear fusion reactors. Helium-3 is rare on Earth but much more abundant on the lunar surface and so could be cheaper to mine from the Moon.

 

[Justin Swanton]

But Helium-3 is meant to be the single most important Moon resource that could be cheaper to mine from the Moon. Helium-3 is a possible fuel for future nuclear fusion reactors. Helium-3 is rare on Earth but much more abundant on the lunar surface and so could be cheaper to mine from the Moon.

Ah! Moon. First we need nuclear fusion. Personally my money's on thorium.

 

[Harpo]

The next launch attempt will be soon.

SpaceX fires up giant Starship booster for 2nd time ahead of test flight (video)

Booster 9's second 'static fire' seemed to go well.

www.space.com

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I don't think the heat shield for the Starship made of tiles is the best idea. Technically they fill the requirements and seem like the perfect solution. Easy to make, easy to apply, easy to fix. The tiles make the ship ready to go on schedule. Possibly something that might never be found in a science fiction story, or maybe it would be presented as an unusual idea to temporarily fix an emergency situation. I always thought the Shuttle's tiles made it a stop gap solution for producing space vehicles.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Launch in about 25 mins...
Any bets how far it will get this time?

 

[Robert Zwilling]

"Soon after stage separation, the booster exploded — a “rapid unscheduled disassembly” in the jargon of rocket engineers. The upper-stage Starship spacecraft continued heading toward orbit for several more minutes, reaching an altitude of more than 90 miles, but then SpaceX lost contact, likely after the flight termination system detonated." New York Times, Kenneth Chang.

 

[Elckerlyc]

About double the fight-length and triple the reached height. Not too bad. At least we didn't see the same failures of the 1st test-flight.

 

[Pyan]

Should reach Mars in about 21 more launches...

 

[JimC]

"Just think of the hundreds of tonnes of water, food, fuel and oxygen required, as well as the equipment needed for the journey and for survival at destination".

Sent on an earlier mission?
Carry only enough supplies onboard for a one-way + reserve.

"Think of the complexities of creating artificial gravity"

Spin the ship.

"protecting the crew from radiation",

Use water and food storage for protection.

"giving them enough space and recreation to ensure some minimal quality of life"

Select crew and passengers who aren't claustrophobic and are easily entertained.

"To pretend that Starship is the platform that will achieve all this is pure insanity".

I must be insane.


"Just the existence of such a claim on the website of a company that expects to be taken seriously, well, it makes me question the mental state of the person in charge. Honestly, its a bit embarrassing".

Yes, it is. But not necessarily for the people in charge of design and implementation.

 

[JimC]

"Anyone taking bets on whether it gets out of the atmosphere?"

48 km above the Karman line on Flight 2. Not bad.