Starship Artemis Contract & Lunar Starship

[woods170]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

From that image, it doesn't look like the Propellant Starship is coming back to Earth. I guess that it can stay in Earth orbit and be used more than once.

Depot ship stays in Earth orbit and is to be used for BOTH missions (uncrewed demo mission and the crewed landing).

On a further note: some SpaceX personnell informally refer to the depot ship as "the Shelby", in an obvious stab at a certain senator.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

From that image, it doesn't look like the Propellant Starship is coming back to Earth. I guess that it can stay in Earth orbit and be used more than once.

Depot ship stays in Earth orbit and is to be used for BOTH missions (uncrewed demo mission and the crewed landing).

On a further note: some SpaceX personnell informally refer to the depot ship as "the Shelby", in an obvious stab at a certain senator.

I think he would have a good laugh at it. He would get finally a spacecraft design named after him.

Give it a year and that informal name may become the official one.

[DanClemmensen]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

From that image, it doesn't look like the Propellant Starship is coming back to Earth. I guess that it can stay in Earth orbit and be used more than once.

From a mission perspective, there is no reason to return to Earth. Do we have any information (announcement, speculation, guesses, engineering judgement...) as to why the same depot cannot be used used for multiple missions spanning many years? We know they need a depot as part of each of the two Starship HLS missions, and it appears that SpaceX will use the same mission concept as part of its LETS design, so that one depot may have jobs to do for the next decade if it is capable of it even if it is not also used to support other BEO missions.

[whitelancer64]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

From that image, it doesn't look like the Propellant Starship is coming back to Earth. I guess that it can stay in Earth orbit and be used more than once.

From a mission perspective, there is no reason to return to Earth. Do we have any information (announcement, speculation, guesses, engineering judgement...) as to why the same depot cannot be used used for multiple missions spanning many years? We know they need a depot as part of each of the two Starship HLS missions, and it appears that SpaceX will use the same mission concept as part of its LETS design, so that one depot may have jobs to do for the next decade if it is capable of it even if it is not also used to support other BEO missions.

If you have one depot in one specific orbit, then a mission that wants to launch to some other inclination is SOL.

For Artemis missions to the Moon where the orbital inclination of the launches aren't going to be very different, it might be all right.

[Robotbeat]

That’s really only true if your mission is in a nearish Earth orbit like LEO, MEO, or GSO. At very high orbit or for escape, it matters much less as inclination changes are super cheap at high orbit. Since we’re talking high orbit, it doesn’t much matter.

[tssp_art]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

Can anyone tell from the building in the background where that elevator work is taking place? Hawthorne? Starbase?

The first two pictures (taken outdoors) in that sequence were taken at Hawthorne Municipal Airport (aka Jack Northrop Field).  SpaceX is based at that airport and that particular building/exposure is visible from Hawthorne Hangar Operations, one of the  Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) at the field. I only know because when I landed there last year the FBO staff were quick to point it out to me. My guess is that the other photos are from work being performed in that and neighboring buildings on the SpaceX campus there.

[Sam/SN18]

The first two pictures (taken outdoors) in that sequence were taken at Hawthorne Municipal Airport (aka Jack Northrop Field).  SpaceX is based at that airport and that particular building/exposure is visible from Hawthorne Hangar Operations, one of the  Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) at the field.

Google has the industrial estate in 3D. Can anyone find the elevator (or the building pre-elevator)? I can't. Checked every building. Imagery should be from 2020/21.

I found some nosecone sections at the SpaceX Wilkie building though - not a bad subject for a flyover... https://goo.gl/maps/dg9WHgYbWTBCM5qC9

[eriblo]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

Might as well post it here as well...

I wonder how they move the elevator out of the lunar starship and onto the vertical rail? They probably won't use a big vertical I-beam on the lunar starship, so this must be a rough prototype.

It looks like they push it? I have attached my quick and dirty interpretation of the four "suited" elevator training images.

Top right image: Pushing/pulling the elevator in/out using the handle (blue in my schematic).
Bottom left: Locking the rail (red) in place.
Top left: The elevator can then be boarded and descend along the rail.
Bottom right: Lowering the front gate/ramp and exiting.

Reverse the procedure for ascent and entry.

[Ionmars]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

In the photos of a possible HLS elevator, there appears to be vertical guide rail on the side of HLS to keep the elevator in alignment as it rides up and down.. It appears to be centered in front of the hatch door opening (lower left photo), where it impedes access to the elevator. If they want to unload packages as wide as the elevator they will likely replace this with two rails, one on each side of the opening. Alternatively, they could just place wheels on each side of the elevator, which would allow it to ride up and down with the wheels in light contact with the hull.

[Zed_Noir]

Maybe SpaceX just modified/devolved a Super Heavy core into an expendable upper stage/propellant depot ship.

Does SpaceX partially filled the depot ship or does it have separate ascend tankage for the initial deployment to LEO?

[daavery]

Maybe SpaceX just modified/devolved a Super Heavy core into an expendable upper stage/propellant depot ship.

Does SpaceX partially filled the depot ship or does it have separate ascend tankage for the initial deployment to LEO?

depot is a stretched starship that rides a regular booster and probably a normal fuel load

[woods170]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

From that image, it doesn't look like the Propellant Starship is coming back to Earth. I guess that it can stay in Earth orbit and be used more than once.

Depot ship stays in Earth orbit and is to be used for BOTH missions (uncrewed demo mission and the crewed landing).

On a further note: some SpaceX personnell informally refer to the depot ship as "the Shelby", in an obvious stab at a certain senator.

I think he would have a good laugh at it. He would get finally a spacecraft design named after him.

Give it a year and that informal name may become the official one.

Not really.

Shelby is the senator that told NASA to never use the word "depot" again. Or else he was going to kill NASA's space technology program.

So, SpaceX folks naming the depot after Shelby is a major stab at that poor excuse for a senator from Alabama.

[MATTBLAK]

What I really think of Mr Shelby would get me a rap on the knuckles by the Moderators...

[StarshipTrooper]

I think "Shelby" & "Depot" should always be used together. Like one word, "ShelbyDepot"!

[yg1968]

I know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know. He apparently prevented NASA from funding depots for a while but not for Starship as NASA is paying SpaceX $53M for an orbital refilling test:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selections

Dynetics and National Team are also using refilling.

[yg1968]

Speaking of refilling, is it required for Starship missions other than the ones going to the Moon, Mars or other deep space missions?

[marsbase]

I know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know.

Everything Shelby did was to protect funding to Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville.  The problem is not just Richard Shelby (who has always been the more rational Alabama Senator) but the politicizing of NASA, from top to bottom.  I was going to say that NASA should be apolitical like the CDC but .... never mind

Having said that, I do find the name Shelby for the depot ship to be very entertaining.

[Coastal Ron]

I know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know. He apparently prevented NASA from funding depots for a while but not for Starship as NASA is paying SpaceX $53M for an orbital refilling test:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selections

Dynetics and National Team are also using refilling.

If Shelby didn't allow Moon lander refueling, then his SLS rocket wouldn't have anywhere to go. So don't confuse this limited amount of money as Shelby finally admitting that in-space refueling should have always been allowed.

[DanClemmensen]

Speaking of refilling, is it required for Starship missions other than the ones going to the Moon, Mars or other deep space missions?

Theory: A depot (or other method of refuelling) would be required to place a "maximum-mass Starship payload" into any orbit, even LEO, by definition. With this theoretical max-mass payload, Starship just barely reaches a LEO refueling point without enough propellant left to EDL. After refueling, Starship can take this payload higher, e.g., to GEO, and return to depot or can EDL, depending on payload mass. The economics of such a mission assume a multi-use long-term depot in the appropriate plane, or refuelling directly from tankers.

I am not in the industry and I have never seen a mention of any such payload, nor do I know how big "max mass" is. It is likely the same as the mass for an expended SS, since without refuelling the SS would be expended. Elon has mentioned a 200 tonne mass for cargo to the Moon, but he never explicitly said it would be launched from Earth as a single payload.  The payload would need to be fairly dense by space standards to fit the payload volume of an EDL-capable Starship.

[yg1968]

I know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know. He apparently prevented NASA from funding depots for a while but not for Starship as NASA is paying SpaceX $53M for an orbital refilling test:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selections

Dynetics and National Team are also using refilling.

If Shelby didn't allow Moon lander refueling, then his SLS rocket wouldn't have anywhere to go. So don't confuse this limited amount of money as Shelby finally admitting that in-space refueling should have always been allowed.

A governmental lander launching on a SLS Block 1B was a possibility. Representatives Johnson and Kendra Horn were arguing for such a lander. If it was expendable, I am not sure that such a lander would need refilling (for example, Boeing's lander would have launched on a single SLS Block 1B flight).