Quote from: uhuznaa on 11/24/2022 02:51 pmHaving such a dedicated crew Starship for LEO missions ...What LEO missions?
Having such a dedicated crew Starship for LEO missions ...
Quote from: Lee Jay on 11/24/2022 03:26 pmQuote from: uhuznaa on 11/24/2022 02:51 pmHaving such a dedicated crew Starship for LEO missions ...What LEO missions?Because it will fully reusable, Starship will be cheaper per mission than existing crew transport (e.g., Crew Dragon, Starliner, Soyuz). It will also be cheaper than proposed near-term competitors, I think. When/if Starship is fully crew qualified (certified, validated, authorized, whatever), it will be cheaper to fly than F9/D2 in every case, and SpaceX will want to retire Crew Dragon (by then the last remaining user of Falcon 9) so they can retire Falcon 9. It's a lot cheaper even for a crew of four. For larger crews, cost per seat is of course even cheaper.Separately from crew transport, crewed Starship missions can perform almost all functions of a CLD, far better and for far less cost. For the few remaining CLD functions, a small permanent station for the permanent and long-term experiments, with a rotating set of crewed Starships on overlapping six-month missions for crew accommodations, would be more cost-effective than a crewed CLD.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 11/24/2022 03:26 pmQuote from: uhuznaa on 11/24/2022 02:51 pmHaving such a dedicated crew Starship for LEO missions ...What LEO missions?Space stations? Commercial/private space stations should be one of the things that Starship should make much more practical (and less costly). And these require both shuttling crews as well as maybe maintenance and construction work.Also shuttling crews to outbounds ships that you don't want to launch with the crew.F9/Dragon are limited (only very limited cargo, no airlock) and at some point it may make only little economic sense to keep them flying if you have a fleet of Starships and boosters anyway. Not in the next years necessarily.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 11/24/2022 03:26 pmQuote from: uhuznaa on 11/24/2022 02:51 pmHaving such a dedicated crew Starship for LEO missions ...What LEO missions?Because it will fully reusable, Starship will be cheaper per mission than existing crew transport (e.g., Crew Dragon, Starliner, Soyuz).
It will also be cheaper than proposed near-term competitors, I think. When/if Starship is fully crew qualified (certified, validated, authorized, whatever), it will be cheaper to fly than F9/D2 in every case, and SpaceX will want to retire Crew Dragon (by then the last remaining user of Falcon 9) so they can retire Falcon 9.
Quote from: uhuznaa on 11/24/2022 03:43 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 11/24/2022 03:26 pmQuote from: uhuznaa on 11/24/2022 02:51 pmHaving such a dedicated crew Starship for LEO missions ...What LEO missions?Space stations? Commercial/private space stations should be one of the things that Starship should make much more practical (and less costly). And these require both shuttling crews as well as maybe maintenance and construction work.Also shuttling crews to outbounds ships that you don't want to launch with the crew.F9/Dragon are limited (only very limited cargo, no airlock) and at some point it may make only little economic sense to keep them flying if you have a fleet of Starships and boosters anyway. Not in the next years necessarily.So, nothing funded.
My guess is NASA won't let SS dock to ISS. Too big and heavy.
Not to forget about the fact that SpaceX already stopped producing Dragons and only a short while ago agreed to build another one. They do not seem to expect flying them for decades to come.
Gravitics is funded and depends on Starship. Not to mention Polaris.
Quote from: uhuznaa on 11/24/2022 04:45 pmNot to forget about the fact that SpaceX already stopped producing Dragons and only a short while ago agreed to build another one. They do not seem to expect flying them for decades to come.I would love clarification on what the plan is here. Are they leaving the line in place and just reassigning the staff? Are they laying the staff off but leaving the line in place? Are they dismantling the line?All of these have restart costs, especially if the gap between any new builds is so long that institutional memory begins to decay. But some are a lot more restartable than others.That said, it does seem that SpaceX is betting big on Starship being crew-certifiable for launch/EDL. Whether that's because they think they have a sufficiently robust conops to achieve certification or because Elon, Cortés-like, is burning his boats on the distant shore in order to drive his people toward finding a solution, I don't know.
In my view, Starship with landing legs is a very capable machine, also when it comes to emergency aborts and landings. Unlike the Shuttle it can land anywhere reasonably flat. I can well see it landing in an unprepared field or parking lot somewhere.
Or maybe rapidly inflatable airbags in the legs that keep Starship upright while they let the prop tanks fill with seawater, getting it to a half-submerged configuration.
I don't think letting a Starship fall over on its side in the water is viable, because there will always be wave conditions that will break it open.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 11/24/2022 07:03 pmI don't think letting a Starship fall over on its side in the water is viable, because there will always be wave conditions that will break it open.Why would a pressurized Starship break open falling over its side into the water?
Quote from: InterestedEngineer on 11/24/2022 07:46 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 11/24/2022 07:03 pmI don't think letting a Starship fall over on its side in the water is viable, because there will always be wave conditions that will break it open.Why would a pressurized Starship break open falling over its side into the water?SN10 didn't even survive a hard landing on its bottom. You really think you can tip over a 16 story building into the turbulent sea and expect it to survive?
Quote from: Lee Jay on 11/24/2022 07:58 pmQuote from: InterestedEngineer on 11/24/2022 07:46 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 11/24/2022 07:03 pmI don't think letting a Starship fall over on its side in the water is viable, because there will always be wave conditions that will break it open.Why would a pressurized Starship break open falling over its side into the water?SN10 didn't even survive a hard landing on its bottom. You really think you can tip over a 16 story building into the turbulent sea and expect it to survive?Because it can be engineered (and tested) to do so.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/24/2022 05:22 pmGravitics is funded and depends on Starship. Not to mention Polaris.I never heard of Gravitics so I looked it up and the quote I found was, "StarMax’s family of modules is compatible to launch on any of the next-generation launch vehicles, including SpaceX’s Starship, ULA’s Vulcan, and Blue Origin’s New Glenn."I never counted Polaris as "funded" beyond mission 1.I could be wrong on both counts as I haven't followed either one of these.