NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Starship Program => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2019 02:44 am
-
Ton of reading.....still reading :)
https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf … - heck of a long read, but as we reported (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/spacex-ssto-starship-launches-pad-39a/ …), Starship Pad 'off ramp' on 39A.
The above article now shown to be correct.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/spacex-ssto-starship-launches-pad-39a/
(L2 East Coast Starship including the ground work on the 39A mods.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48161.0)
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1157119556323876866
Chip in as you read.
-
Starship/Super Heavy would be delivered by barge from SpaceX facilities at Boca Chica in Texas and Cidco
Road in Cocoa through the Turn Basin.
-
Looks like Super Heavy lands on an ASDS.
Starship LZ-1 at first. Pad inside the fence at 39A still under evaluation!
-
"The launch mount would be elevated up to approximately 30 m to reduce excess
recirculation and erosion from rocket exhaust. A flame diverter would be constructed instead of a flame
trench as is currently used at the Falcon launch mount. The flame diverter would be composed of metal
piping similar in construction to the SLC-40 water-cooled diverter. It would measure approximately 20 m
wide by 20 m tall and be positioned directly under the rocket. It would divert the heat and rocket exhaust
plume away from the launch pad and commodities."
"SpaceX would also construct a landing pad for potential future launch vehicle returns within the LC-39A
boundary. The landing pad location would be inside the LC-39A fence line. SpaceX is still determining the
exact location of the landing pad, but it is tentatively planned for the area southeast of the new launch
mount. The landing pad would be approximately 85 m in diameter and similar to the existing LZ-1 landing
pads on CCAFS. "
"The new methane farm would accommodate a total capacity of approximately 2 million kg.
Approximately 1.5 million kg of liquid nitrogen would also be stored in the methane farm. The liquid
nitrogen is a cryogenic and would be used to cool the methane. The methane and nitrogen farm would
require lighting similar to the existing RP-1 farm located at LC-39A. If a new methane flare stack is
needed, the flare would be approximately 30 m tall. The flare stack and any required anchors would be
contained inside the construction project area. There are no planned modifications to the existing LOX
farm capacity; however, as the program develops, an additional tank and piping may need to be installed
to support the Proposed Action."
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
-
-
"The rocket would be integrated vertically on the pad at LC-39A using a mobile crane. This would involve
the booster being mated to the launch mount followed by Starship being mated to the booster. Initial
flights would use a temporary or mobile crane, with a permanent crane tower constructed later. The
height of the permanent crane tower would be approximately 120 to 180 m"
-
"The Super Heavy booster would land downrange on a droneship in the Atlantic Ocean no closer than 20
nm off the coast. Recovery support vehicles would be similar to those used for Falcon booster landings on
the droneship. In the event there is an anomaly during the descent, the booster would land in the open
ocean. SpaceX is developing the technology and capability of Super Heavy booster. If SpaceX develops the
ability to land Super Heavy booster on land, a supplemental EA will be developed.
After launch and landing at a downrange location, Super Heavy booster would be delivered by barge from
the landing site utilizing the KSC Turn Basin wharf as a delivery point and transported the remaining
distance to the launch complex over the Crawlerway. A downrange landing would be a contingency
landing location for Starship and transport would be similar to the Super Heavy booster."
-
"The Max A-Weighted
Level (LAmax) would be 90 dB and Sound Exposure Level (SEL) would be less than 110
dB on CNS during a Super Heavy booster static fire at LC-39A"
-
Big point of this kind of report:
"There are no historic or archaeologic resources at LZ-1, therefore landing of Starship at the site would have no impact to cultural resources"
-
Make Static Fires Great Again!
"Super Heavy booster static fire tests are planned to occur at LC-39A where all 31 engines are fired for 15 seconds"
Holy moly! ;D
-
Incoming Starship. Incoming Super Heavy.....
-
Meanwhile...
"SpaceX plans to increase the Falcon launch frequency to 20 launches per year from LC-39A and up to 50 launches per year from LC-40 by the year 2024."
:o
-
Make Static Fires Great Again!
"Super Heavy booster static fire tests are planned to occur at LC-39A where all 31 engines are fired for 15 seconds"
Holy moly! ;D
We know that they recently changed it to 35 engines, though
-
Such a long report they probably started writing it years ago. Even the all-shiny Starship isn't in there.
PS 35 is more than 31, so Moar Cowbell to the point ;)
--
Right, I'm going blind reading all this content in that PDF, so keep adding anything obviously interesting and missed into this thread. I've got to be up in four hours ;D
-
Make Static Fires Great Again!
"Super Heavy booster static fire tests are planned to occur at LC-39A where all 31 engines are fired for 15 seconds"
Holy moly! ;D
We know that they recently changed it to 35 engines, though
Also I read that Starship will have 7 Raptors. I thought we were down to 6.
-
The Super Heavy booster would be delivered by barge from the landing site utilizing the KSC Turn Basin wharf as a delivery point and transported the remaining distance to the launch complex over the Crawlerway. A downrange landing would be a contingency landing location for Starship and transport would be similar to the Super Heavy booster."
Is anyone familiar with what access is like at the Turn Basin? AFAIK, only NASA employees and accredited members of the press (during events) would be in a position to take photos of returns.
-
The document is talks about sonic booms and shows a peak overpressure contour around 2.0 psf near Orlando. I can hear F9 landing booms just fine I am curious how it will compare to Super Heavy / Starship.
-
Well, I'm really looking forward to these launches:
"Regarding launches, the EA assumes 20 percent of annual Starship/Super Heavy launches and static fire tests (about five per year) would occur at night."
-
To add to the note Chris posted above regarding 20 launches/year of Falcon going up to 50:
"However, as Starship/Super Heavy launches gradually increase to 24 launches per year, the number of launches of the Falcon would decrease."
-
Starting on page 88 is a list of facilities used by various commercial entities.
-
This is probably of interest to some folks:
Table 1: Raptor Nozzle Characteristics
Throat Radius (in)
4.362
Downstream radius of curvature (in)
1.309
Tangency angle (deg)
32.0
Nozzle lip exit angle (deg)
6.0
Nozzle exit diameter (in)
51.226
Nozzle throat to exit length (in)
60.06
-
Incoming Starship. Incoming Super Heavy.....
Although I think we all expected SS to land back at KSC, it's still interesting to see a spacecraft have the authorization to descend over populated land - AFAIK the Shuttle is the only American spacecraft that has purposefully reentered and flown over land (and subsequently landed on it). The Boeing Starliner will land on land, but it's in the desert, no? Starship will be flying over large population centers with non-negligible amounts of propellant and possibly other hazardous contents (IE returning satellites from orbit). Is there any chance that the government denies SpaceX the ability to land back at KSC? As an alternative, could they land somewhere on the west coast of Florida?
-
"The launch mount would be elevated up to approximately 30 m to reduce excess
recirculation and erosion from rocket exhaust. A flame diverter would be constructed instead of a flame
trench as is currently used at the Falcon launch mount. The flame diverter would be composed of metal
piping similar in construction to the SLC-40 water-cooled diverter. It would measure approximately 20 m
wide by 20 m tall and be positioned directly under the rocket. It would divert the heat and rocket exhaust
plume away from the launch pad and commodities."
Wow, we speculated they may use something like this, but have no idea they are already using similar setup at SLC-40, this makes the concept much more mature and plausible. Also this setup should be readily applicable to Boca Chica or a barge launch scenario. For me, this is the biggest takeaway from this document, filled in an important blank area in the SHS system.
-
"The launch mount would be elevated up to approximately 30 m to reduce excess
recirculation and erosion from rocket exhaust. A flame diverter would be constructed instead of a flame
trench as is currently used at the Falcon launch mount. The flame diverter would be composed of metal
piping similar in construction to the SLC-40 water-cooled diverter. It would measure approximately 20 m
wide by 20 m tall and be positioned directly under the rocket. It would divert the heat and rocket exhaust
plume away from the launch pad and commodities."
Wow, we speculated they may use something like this, but have no idea they are already using similar setup at SLC-40, this makes the concept much more mature and plausible. Also this setup should be readily applicable to Boca Chica or a barge launch scenario. For me, this is the biggest takeaway from this document, filled in an important blank area in the SHS system.
Yeah, arguably one of the single most difficult (or at least time-consuming and expensive) aspects of building a S/SH-compatible launch pad in a traditional manner would be laying the foundation for a primarily passive flame trench. SpaceX has lots of experience building actively cooled diverters and that design choice should theoretically make construction far easier, cheaper, and faster.
-
This is probably of interest to some folks:
Table 1: Raptor Nozzle Characteristics
Throat Radius (in)
4.362
Downstream radius of curvature (in)
1.309
Tangency angle (deg)
32.0
Nozzle lip exit angle (deg)
6.0
Nozzle exit diameter (in)
51.226
Nozzle throat to exit length (in)
60.06
Where did this data come from? Is it in the report?
John
-
This is probably of interest to some folks:
Table 1: Raptor Nozzle Characteristics
Throat Radius (in)
4.362
Downstream radius of curvature (in)
1.309
Tangency angle (deg)
32.0
Nozzle lip exit angle (deg)
6.0
Nozzle exit diameter (in)
51.226
Nozzle throat to exit length (in)
60.06
Where did this data come from? Is it in the report?
John
Indeed! I think it was in the appendix. Edit: I was thinking of you when I posted that
-
It's awesome they have a landing zone between the pad and hanger, very efficient. But I'm having a very hard time believing it!
-
Holy Crap, real dimensions! :)
Edit: Sorry for my indiscretion.
-
After that table, the document talked about calculating noise levels based on thrust levels during ascent (I think, I skimmed the document really fast).
I wonder if it is possible to reconstruct the flight profile from that information?
-
The Super Heavy Booster
reaches an altitude of about 425,000 feet and then on descent reaches hypersonic speeds above Mach 6
before slowing to subsonic speeds, below 25,000 feet, prior to landing on a drone ship.
-
This is probably of interest to some folks:
Table 1: Raptor Nozzle Characteristics
Throat Radius (in)
4.362
Downstream radius of curvature (in)
1.309
Tangency angle (deg)
32.0
Nozzle lip exit angle (deg)
6.0
Nozzle exit diameter (in)
51.226
Nozzle throat to exit length (in)
60.06
Where did this data come from? Is it in the report?
John
Indeed! I think it was in the appendix. Edit: I was thinking of you when I posted that
That appendix starts on page 169 of the pdf file, also has:
The nominal operating condition for the Raptor engine is an injector face stagnation pressure
(Pc) of 3669.5 psia and a somewhat fuel-rich engine O/F mixture ratio (MR) of 3.60. The
current analysis was performed for the 100% nominal engine operating pressure (Pc=3669.5
psia) and an engine MR of 3.60.
-
The PERCORP modelling of the Raptor thrust chamber included 1.2% of the total engine flow
(13.89 lb/s) as film coolant. Fuel-rich gas, used fuel film coolant, is injected through three slots
located in the converging section of the thrust chamber. The PERCORP code is not currently
capable of treating three discreet injection slots; however, since the slots are all within just a
0.71-inch axial length, the total film cooling effect on the exhaust plume can be reasonably
approximated using just a single. The PERCORP solution for the nominal 349. 6 lbf-s/lbm
engine specific impulse includes a 2.3% core mixing loss, yielding a characteristic velocity (C*)
efficiency of 98.6%.
-
The methane farm would be approximately 50 m x 70 m in size and structured similar to the
existing LOX farm. SpaceX is still considering the exact location of the methane farm and is also
considering using the hydrogen sphere used during the Shuttle program as a potential storage area for
methane. Minor upgrades inside the sphere and additional tanks would be constructed if the sphere is
used. The existing flare system used during the Shuttle program would be refurbished and used as a
methane flare. If this is not feasible, a new flare stack would be installed near the methane farm.
-
Incoming Starship. Incoming Super Heavy.....
Some context:
https://twitter.com/spacebrendan/status/1157125757149372422
SpaceX released a draft environmental assessment for Starship & Super Heavy operations at Kennedy Space Center. Lots of interesting stuff. Here's the modeled sonic booms from the return of Starship. (First flights will land at LZ-1, plan to move to 39A)
-
Incoming Starship. Incoming Super Heavy.....
Although I think we all expected SS to land back at KSC, it's still interesting to see a spacecraft have the authorization to descend over populated land - AFAIK the Shuttle is the only American spacecraft that has purposefully reentered and flown over land (and subsequently landed on it). The Boeing Starliner will land on land, but it's in the desert, no? Starship will be flying over large population centers with non-negligible amounts of propellant and possibly other hazardous contents (IE returning satellites from orbit). Is there any chance that the government denies SpaceX the ability to land back at KSC? As an alternative, could they land somewhere on the west coast of Florida?
The Dragon 2 from DM-1 reentered over land and it was basically going from northwest to southeast over the US and ended up splashing down in the Atlantic. That will be similar for subsequent landings though the splashdown point will be closer to Florida. It will not land on land but it'll definitely overfly populated areas during reentry.
-
A sonic boom is generated while the while the Starship and Super Heavy
are supersonic during their descents, above an altitude of about 24 km and approximately 7.6 km,
respectively.
I think the Starship going trans-sonic at 24 km is new information
-
I'm surprised there seems to be no impact assessment of launch viewing tourism.
-
A sonic boom is generated while the while the Starship and Super Heavy
are supersonic during their descents, above an altitude of about 24 km and approximately 7.6 km,
respectively.
I think the Starship going trans-sonic at 24 km is new information
It's consistent with the Dear Moon physics simulation, but perhaps the Super Heavy figure is new?
-
This report puts to rest all the voices claiming a TEL or similar is needed. Without a TEL and no launch tower in the beginning, it also confirms that propellant must flow through the SH booster to get SS fueled on the pad.
Thank you for all of you reading that monster PDF. I skimmed through it and 250 pages.. thats a lot. Thank you for finding the money quotes!
-
From page 28:
Lightning protection would consist of tying the launch vehicle into the adjacent LC-39A grounding system.
If i read this right, it confirms that the stainless steel structure of Starship / Super Heavy acts as its own lightning tower.
-
From page 28:
Lightning protection would consist of tying the launch vehicle into the adjacent LC-39A grounding system.
If i read this right, it confirms that the stainless steel structure of Starship / Super Heavy acts as its own lightning tower.
Could this also mean that lightning launch restrictions can be removed or relaxed?
-
Holy Crap, real dimensions! :)
Edit: Sorry for my indiscretion.
Be indiscreet all you want at these news, the holy diapers have indeed been soiled.
This is almost another Muskian OMG It's Real-moment. Every once in a while, a project makes the jump from far-out vision to doing it in six months. You sit around dreaming about how someday someone might theoretically recover a rocket stage and suddenly there's a signed permit with technical details and a prototype on the pad. I kind of like the cadence where a semi-serious vision statement is followed by real hardware with little fanfare inbetween, like the end of a good detective show where you can see what the improbable plan was all along. It makes the progress seem so much more sudden.
This has grounded Starship very much in reality, not only do some numbers theoretically check out, the actual roadmap has been revealed. And *they're doing it now*!
-
From p12:
SpaceX is testing a Starship prototype “hopper” at SpaceX’s site in Cameron County, TX. In the future, SpaceX may develop and launch the Starship/Super Heavy from its facility in Cameron County, TX. This action would analyzed in a separate NEPA document.
So 39A currently the only definite SS/SH launch site.
-
From page 30:
Fabrication and assembly of launch vehicle components would occur at existing SpaceX facilities located on KSC and CCAFS. These facilities could include Area 59 and the Payload Processing Facility (PPF) on CCAFS, the Falcon Hangar at LC-39A, and the soon to be constructed KSC SpaceX Operations Area on Roberts Road. SpaceX would also perform fabrication, assembly, and integration operations at the Mobile Service Station (MSS) Park Site Property and on the Crawlerway area. No modifications to the Crawlerway are expected from transport or operational use of Starship and Super Heavy. Staging and temporary fabrication tents could be used on the Crawlerway to support operations. SpaceX would coordinate through EIAP with USAF and the KSC Environmental Checklist with NASA if any new facilities were needed to support Starship/Super Heavy.
Starship or Super Heavy components would be delivered over roadways on a mobile transporter similar to the transports performed for Falcon. Most manufacturing of vehicle components would occur at the SpaceX facility in Hawthorne, CA. Additional facilities being considered for manufacturing and assembly include Boca Chica, TX, and a facility in the Cidco Industrial Park, Cocoa, FL. Large vehicle components would be transported by barge utilizing the KSC Turn Basin, then transported to LC-39 area as the final delivery point. The area of the Turn Basin SpaceX intends to use to offload vehicle components would be the wharf just southeast of the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). This area was used for arrival and offloading of vehicle components during the Shuttle Program.The rocket would be integrated vertically on the pad at LC-39A using a mobile crane. This would involve the booster being mated to the launch mount followed by Starship being mated to the booster. Initial flights would use a temporary or mobile crane, with a permanent crane tower constructed later. The height of the permanent crane tower would be approximately 120 to 180 m.
-
Page 43 average day night sound levels:
-
Meanwhile...
"SpaceX plans to increase the Falcon launch frequency to 20 launches per year from LC-39A and up to 50 launches per year from LC-40 by the year 2024."
:o
So LC-40 will become a SS/SH launch pad too?
-
From page 30:
[...] SpaceX would also perform fabrication, assembly, and integration operations at the Mobile Service Station (MSS) Park Site Property and on the Crawlerway area.
I’m having trouble understanding where payloads are loaded into Starship. As I understand it that needs to be in a clean room environment unless the payloads are encapsulated into something else (like a fairing) first. So does this EA shed any light on that?
-
Meanwhile...
"SpaceX plans to increase the Falcon launch frequency to 20 launches per year from LC-39A and up to 50 launches per year from LC-40 by the year 2024."
:o
So LC-40 will become a SS/SH launch pad too?
No LC-40 is dismissed under the other options considered section. Not enough space and too much development, and thus cost, required. The 50 launches figure is about Falcon only.
-
So LC-40 will become a SS/SH launch pad too?
They plan to refueling in orbit for Moon and Mars so it would make sense to launch from several launchpads in short time period? Add also that they have a lot of starlink launches to do!
-
Starship/Super Heavy would be delivered by barge from SpaceX facilities at Boca Chica in Texas and Cidco
Road in Cocoa through the Turn Basin.
I saw this in the Environmental Assessment, but I'm not sure how it would work.
Boca Chica currently has no access to the Gulf of Mexico other than local roads with sharp turns, overhead power lines, and traffic signals.
They could dredge a shipping channel to Boca Chica, but that would be though environmentally protected wetlands.
Or they could build a pier on Boca Chica Beach. When not in use by SpaceX, the pier could be open to the public. Many public beaches have piers.
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
-
Starship/Super Heavy would be delivered by barge from SpaceX facilities at Boca Chica in Texas and Cidco
Road in Cocoa through the Turn Basin.
I saw this in the Environmental Assessment, but I'm not sure how it would work.
Boca Chica currently has no access to the Gulf of Mexico other than local roads with sharp turns, overhead power lines, and traffic signals.
They could dredge a shipping channel to Boca Chica, but that would be though environmentally protected wetlands.
Or they could build a pier on Boca Chica Beach. When not in use by SpaceX, the pier could be open to the public. Many public beaches have piers.
There has been extensive discussion of this at BC in the BC threads, last year etc. There is a new LINK ROAD planned, with funding all lining up to link the BC road (Rout 4?) to Brownsville port. I think construction is not far off. SX is mentioned in official documents as a beneficiary. It is understood/guessed that SS or SH could be transported this way. ISTM that SX must have been confident of a solution like this when choosing the site. Discussion also included ideas like drive-on pontoons on the beach etc... but were mostly dismissed.
EDIT: latest progress in local media... The Monitor: https://www.themonitor.com/2019/04/08/hooking-port-brownsville-link-spacex-perhaps-one-year-away/
MY BOLD
At the annual State of the Port event on March 19, Brownsville Navigation District Chairman John Reed said in his presentation that “the port expects to play an important role in the operation of SpaceX, similar in scope to what’s happening at Cape Canaveral in Florida.”
“Whether that’s in mission vehicle recovery operations, or shipping and receiving critical components, the port will be involved,” he said.
The 1.8-mile-long connector road, which will feature two bridges, will link the port at Ostos Road on the south side of the Brownsville Ship Channel with S.H. 4 about 14 miles west of the SpaceX launch site. It is the first phase of the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority’s East Loop Corridor Project, which CCRMA hopes will eventually link the port — via a 10-mile southern loop around the city — with I-69E at Veterans International Bridge at Los Tomates.
and
Design is complete on the two-lane, $20 million connector, the project has been fully funded and CCRMA anticipates receiving environmental clearance “any day now,” Sepulveda said.
“Once we get that clearance we can proceed to the bidding phase,” he said.
The direct link to SpaceX is icing on the cake, Sepulveda said.
“It’s going to be serving as a connection for any parts or rocket engines or those type of products to be shipped to the port, to be moved onto the SpaceX site,” Sepulveda said.
And Environmental clearance has been achieved in April this year:
https://www.portofbrownsville.com/port-of-brownsville-receives-environmental-clearance-on-south-port-connector-road/
[quote Author=www.portofbrownsville.com]
BROWNSVILLE, Texas — The South Port Connector Road Project received environmental clearance on April 24, 2019 from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Pharr District Office, advancing the project to the construction phase.
[/quote]
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
All in hand... https://www.themonitor.com/2019/04/08/hooking-port-brownsville-link-spacex-perhaps-one-year-away/
see also previous BC threads for discussion last year.
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
No option has been ruled out, but transporting SS and SH by road would require some work before it's viable.
For example, many overhead power lines would need to be moved underground.
-
This is a very temporary EA, designed to achieve "minimal functionality" asap.
Very SpaceXy in that sense.
It'll be interesting to see the implementation timeline in a couple of weeks.
-
Let's keep it on KSC. We have Boca Chica threads.
-
Page 47 & 48 have day and night average sound level plots for Starship static fires and Super Heavy static fires.
In an earlier section, there was talk of having a static fire for "Starship and Super Heavy" for each operational launch, but it was not fully clear of that was one integrated static fire for the whole stack, or two static fires testing out each component prior to launch. Imho that is a very interesting question with arguments for and against both possible interpretations.
But during development, there is no doubt there will be static fires for both components.
-
Incoming Starship. Incoming Super Heavy.....
Some context:
https://twitter.com/spacebrendan/status/1157125757149372422
SpaceX released a draft environmental assessment for Starship & Super Heavy operations at Kennedy Space Center. Lots of interesting stuff. Here's the modeled sonic booms from the return of Starship. (First flights will land at LZ-1, plan to move to 39A)
Not sure how this will work out.
The EA says:
In general, booms in the 0.2 to 0.3 psf range could be heard by someone who is expecting it and listening
for it, but usually would not be noticed. Booms of 0.5 psf are more likely to be noticed, and booms of 1.0
psf are certain to be noticed. Therefore, people west of KSC are likely to notice booms from Starship
landings...
-
So people with experience in the matter.
How long would you expect it take to build this facility? Because at this point, that's probably the thing most likely to slow the whole Starship project down.
-
On page 87, where rainwater runoff and such is covered:
Specific site plans for the proposed sites have not yet been finalized
In other words, main sites of operation are identified but the exact layout and makeup of the facilities are not determined at the point this document was written.
-
Page 93: Transportation Routes for Operations and Construction Associated with the Starship/Super Heavy
(Picture attached)
Page 94: Written desccription of routes and their use:
Transportation of Starship/Super Heavy, cargo, and payloads to LC-39A would occur over roadways and waterways and involve accessing the site from the south by way of Kennedy Parkway to Saturn Causeway as the primary route of transportation. Alternative routes include transportation from the west over NASA Parkway to Phillips Parkway, and from the CCAFS gate on Phillips Parkway to the LC-39A site or Roberts Road Operations Area if components require processing.Transport of rocket components and payloads over roadways in and around KSC is a common occurrence. The Crawlerway is a unique dual-lane roadway for carrying crawler-transporter vehicles and their loads to LC-39A and LC-39B. The LC-39 area Turn Basin and dredged channel in the Banana River provide a direct water connection between the Atlantic Ocean and space launch processing activities at KSC.Starship/Super Heavy would be delivered by barge from SpaceX facilities at Boca Chica in Texas and Cidco Road in Cocoa through the Turn Basin. The Crawlerway would be used to transport the vehicles to the launch pad. Previously flown components would be delivered via barge to the launch pad in the same manner as described for the new launch vehicles. Components needing refurbishment would be delivered via barge from the Turn Basin (Figure 3-1 3) and transported to the Roberts Road facility, MSS Park Site, or Crawlerway. Starship or Super Heavy booster would be moved on roadways using a mobile transporter similar to the transports performed for Falcon. This would involve taking SR 3 to Saturn Causeway, which leads directly to LC-39A. SpaceX does not intend to transport the booster to Area 59 and thus a transportation route is not included on Figure 3-13.
-
Page 101:
During a Starship/Super Heavy launch, heat would extend 440 m from the launch mount before reaching ambient temperature.
Page 108:
SpaceX recently obtained access to and use of a set of buildings named Area 59, located adjacent to and south of the CCAFS runway known as the Skid Strip. The area was previously used for satellite processing and associated hypergolic fuel-related operations, which is consistent with SpaceX’s use of the facility. The area is used for Dragon capsule processing. SpaceX will develop a campus facility in an area of KSC currently known as the Roberts Road site. The campus would support ongoing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches at LC-39A and LC-40, as well as future Starship/Super Heavy launches at LC-39A. The proposed campus could include a facility for a launch and landing control center, booster and fairing processing and storage facility, rocket garden, security office, and utilities yard.
Page 114 lists the entities and people who have created the report.
-
Don't get too fixated on operational details in a document like this. They take a while to complete an environmental assessment and plans can shift. The big thing is getting the environmental impacts studied and baselined for a reasonable approximation of the operating conditions.
-
It's important to note the Canaveral Locks are 54 feet wide. That's big enough for a 9m SH stage, but not big enough for an existing ASDS. Same goes for the canals leading back to the turning basin. It would need to be transferred to a narrower barge once safely in port.
-
"The Super Heavy booster would land downrange on a droneship in the Atlantic Ocean no closer than 20
nm off the coast. Recovery support vehicles would be similar to those used for Falcon booster landings on
the droneship. ...
Ick. I don't like that. Unfortunate additional complication and cost. Do they plan to switch to LZ-1 landings after SS is come down at 39A?
-
"The Super Heavy booster would land downrange on a droneship in the Atlantic Ocean no closer than 20
nm off the coast. Recovery support vehicles would be similar to those used for Falcon booster landings on
the droneship. ...
Ick. I don't like that. Unfortunate additional complication and cost. Do they plan to switch to LZ-1 landings after SS is come down at 39A?
As someone else said, this is minimum viable product stuff. Get it flying, get it working. This isn't the "final" plan, whatever the heck that will end up being
-
It's important to note the Canaveral Locks are 54 feet wide. That's big enough for a 9m SH stage, but not big enough for an existing ASDS. Same goes for the canals leading back to the turning basin. It would need to be transferred to a narrower barge once safely in port.
If it was (on a barge) able to get to the Turning Basin it would then be offloaded onto a (land/road) transporter to go along the cralerway, anyway. Therefore offload it at Port Canaveral, and use the transporter from there.
Obviously a transporter for a 9m by 63m long will be bigger than for F9 3.7m x 43m !!! However this route is marked on the same map/google earth image as the barge route to the Turning Basin. So It must have been checked or anticipated.
-
"The Super Heavy booster would land downrange on a droneship in the Atlantic Ocean no closer than 20
nm off the coast. Recovery support vehicles would be similar to those used for Falcon booster landings on
the droneship. ...
Ick. I don't like that. Unfortunate additional complication and cost. Do they plan to switch to LZ-1 landings after SS is come down at 39A?
Once past experimental, maximum load to orbit will be important, for example ror a refuelling trip, or to ensure the SS has as much propellant left for its mission.
Just like with F9, for higher energy missions the booster is landed out in the Atlantic. Therefore this will be (a) standard operating practice even if they do get to land the SH back on the coast (eventually) for some missions. (with a boostback burn etc.)
SS however will go on to orbit. (Even a refuelling trip for a tanker SS will be minimum of one orbit.) And will come in to land as shown in this EA, over land from the West. (As previously noted with surprise OVER INHABITED LAND)
-
"The Super Heavy booster would land downrange on a droneship in the Atlantic Ocean no closer than 20
nm off the coast. Recovery support vehicles would be similar to those used for Falcon booster landings on
the droneship. ...
Ick. I don't like that. Unfortunate additional complication and cost. Do they plan to switch to LZ-1 landings after SS is come down at 39A?
As someone else said, this is minimum viable product stuff. Get it flying, get it working. This isn't the "final" plan, whatever the heck that will end up being
My guess is that they were told that SH landings would not be allowed until demonstrated... Hence the initial near-shore barge landings.
-
Seems like a reasonable plan. Build up the MethLOx infrastructure then when you get to SH just reroute the piping and the tanks are already in place.
SpaceX isn't rich, they are very resourceful in applying and using resources.
I'm not a fan of a crane being anywhere near a landing vehicle. There is a reason why they call out 'cleared' the tower on launches. Landings will be the same.
Maybe a crawler crane or one on rails. But please not a fixed one.
-
Ick. I don't like that. Unfortunate additional complication and cost. Do they plan to switch to LZ-1 landings after SS is come down at 39A?
Once past experimental, maximum load to orbit will be important, for example ror a refuelling trip, or to ensure the SS has as much propellant left for its mission.
Just like with F9, for higher energy missions the booster is landed out in the Atlantic. Therefore this will be (a) standard operating practice even if they do get to land the SH back on the coast (eventually) for some missions. (with a boostback burn etc.)
With respect to "once past experimental", agree on some missions but in the broadest sense of SS Missions (eg: Mars), "maximum load" to orbit is not as important as "maximum cadence". Max Load only would be important if a single-refueling mission requires the marginal prop from downrange recovery.
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
-
Ick. I don't like that. Unfortunate additional complication and cost. Do they plan to switch to LZ-1 landings after SS is come down at 39A?
I think the issue here is noise, not risk. Elsewhere in the document it predicts sonic boom overpressure from a landing super heavy to be like 12psi, more than twice what we see from Falcon boosters or what they expect from returning Starships. Its enough to potentially cause damage, so they moved it out to sea.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
They'd have to build a new super-sized cargo airplane to do that.
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
They'd have to build a new super-sized cargo airplane to do that.
Not on an airplane. These were designed to fly so just fly them. Launch from Boca land in florida.
-
We're going to need another 39A Update thread for the SH/SS modifications.
The optics of even just the prototype Starship taking off from 39A and landing at LZ-1 will be.......
This is the tipping point. NASA didn't just welcome a fox into the hen house, they let a Raptor in. And then gave it the keys. How many more Think Tank hit pieces will start to flow now that the true scope of this effort has been publicly disseminated?
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
They'd have to build a new super-sized cargo airplane to do that.
Not on an airplane. These were designed to fly so just fly them. Launch from Boca land in florida.
Oh, you meant launch. That's impractical for a variety of reasons, one being that there are currently no plans to build a launch pad for SS / SH in Texas. Barge through the Gulf would be a lot cheaper, too.
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
They'd have to build a new super-sized cargo airplane to do that.
Not on an airplane. These were designed to fly so just fly them. Launch from Boca land in florida.
Oh, you meant launch. That's impractical for a variety of reasons, one being that there are currently no plans to build a launch pad for SS / SH in Texas. Barge through the Gulf would be a lot cheaper, too.
SS can launch from a flat pad which is already in place in BC
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
They'd have to build a new super-sized cargo airplane to do that.
Not on an airplane. These were designed to fly so just fly them. Launch from Boca land in florida.
Oh, you meant launch. That's impractical for a variety of reasons, one being that there are currently no plans to build a launch pad for SS / SH in Texas. Barge through the Gulf would be a lot cheaper, too.
But a suborbital hop would be a lot faster... :)
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
They'd have to build a new super-sized cargo airplane to do that.
Not on an airplane. These were designed to fly so just fly them. Launch from Boca land in florida.
Oh, you meant launch. That's impractical for a variety of reasons, one being that there are currently no plans to build a launch pad for SS / SH in Texas. Barge through the Gulf would be a lot cheaper, too.
SS can launch from a flat pad which is already in place in BC
No, it can't. A one-engine hop is not the same as a full up launch. There's a lot more than just a flat pad at a launch site.
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
They'd have to build a new super-sized cargo airplane to do that.
Not on an airplane. These were designed to fly so just fly them. Launch from Boca land in florida.
Oh, you meant launch. That's impractical for a variety of reasons, one being that there are currently no plans to build a launch pad for SS / SH in Texas. Barge through the Gulf would be a lot cheaper, too.
But a suborbital hop would be a lot faster... :)
And build a basic nosecone for SH and launch it by itself to florida. It would not need a full fuel load or need to use all of its engines. May be able to use a flat pad also.
-
I'm not a fan of a crane being anywhere near a landing vehicle. There is a reason why they call out 'cleared' the tower on launches. Landings will be the same.
Maybe a crawler crane or one on rails. But please not a fixed one.
Why? What is the difference between a crane and the arm used for accessing Dragon 2 for people? Swing it out of the way and launch. I'm sure whatever the hook apparatus is will be locked into place. Don't see what your issue is.
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
They'd have to build a new super-sized cargo airplane to do that.
Not on an airplane. These were designed to fly so just fly them. Launch from Boca land in florida.
Oh, you meant launch. That's impractical for a variety of reasons, one being that there are currently no plans to build a launch pad for SS / SH in Texas. Barge through the Gulf would be a lot cheaper, too.
But a suborbital hop would be a lot faster... :)
And build a basic nosecone for SH and launch it by itself to florida. It would not need a full fuel load or need to use all of its engines. May be able to use a flat pad also.
Not going to happen. At any rate, this is way off topic from the draft EA.
-
So they need to build a launch facility on Mars before they can come back? They were designed to launch from flat ground.
Yes. The current plan is to send supplies, then people, who will set up the fuel plant. The people can do as much launch site prep on Mars as needed.
-
Ick. I don't like that. Unfortunate additional complication and cost. Do they plan to switch to LZ-1 landings after SS is come down at 39A?
Once past experimental, maximum load to orbit will be important, for example ror a refuelling trip, or to ensure the SS has as much propellant left for its mission.
Just like with F9, for higher energy missions the booster is landed out in the Atlantic. Therefore this will be (a) standard operating practice even if they do get to land the SH back on the coast (eventually) for some missions. (with a boostback burn etc.)
With respect to "once past experimental", agree on some missions but in the broadest sense of SS Missions (eg: Mars), "maximum load" to orbit is not as important as "maximum cadence". Max Load only would be important if a single-refueling mission requires the marginal prop from downrange recovery.
Yes I thought of that, but right now neither SS or SH has flown, and the hopper has got to 20m! The Idea of landing a SH back at 38A might have just been too outrageous to put into print!
However with launch of the whole stack, and landing of SS, the parameters will be set so that SH landing at a pad, or back on its launch mount will be within the noise, etc etc of this EA!!!
It seems that to achieve a high cadence for refuelling it will literally need to land if not on the launch mount or at least within 39A.
(one point though, the SS mission should not be designed to require all the fuel to be loaded in a few days! That would increase overall risk to the mission of even slight delay issues with refuelling launches. One refuel every 4 days would be "considerable" progress, from today, where SS reaching orbit is still in the future!
However there are other options. Now that the stainless SH appears to be much cheaper to build than the hi-tec CF version, there could be more SH cores lined up to go ... 1 a day...
There is another problem though. In the EA it says a maximum of 24 launches a year. This is only draft. and more launches than that may not cause massive extra disruption (except to their neighbours on 39B?) but is there another reason why this is so low.
ISTM that it would be better to launch refuelling from Boca Chica, all the time if possible. That would mean 39A would have full payload and later human loading facilities, but only need to fuel the stack once.
Boca Chica with its LNG facilities, and shallow sea, is absolotely ideal for quick refuelling. Some of us have speculated about an offshore "jack-up" or permanent platform, with cryo pipelines from land (LNG plants). It would be possible to have additional such pad(s) .... Obviously the EA there will be exceeded, but it is in heavy industry territory, and a few rocket platforms off shore would fit in perfectly.
-
This EA should not be relied upon for knowing what will happen in Texas. There is probably an EA for the Texas site being processed in parallel with the one for Florida, and we don't know what it says yet.
-
So they need to build a launch facility on Mars before they can come back? They were designed to launch from flat ground.
Yes. The current plan is to send supplies, then people, who will set up the fuel plant. The people can do as much launch site prep on Mars as needed.
And that apply to the Moon too or only for Mars? the need of build a launch facility?
-
So they need to build a launch facility on Mars before they can come back? They were designed to launch from flat ground.
Yes. The current plan is to send supplies, then people, who will set up the fuel plant. The people can do as much launch site prep on Mars as needed.
And that apply to the Moon too or only for Mars? the need of build a launch facility?
The current understanding is that for the Moon, the dV requirements are low enough that a Starship fully refueled in LEO will have enough fuel to both land and return to Earth without refueling.
-
It's roughly 19 miles to go by road to the Brownsville ship channel. I guess that hasn't been ruled out as an option yet.
Why not just fly them to florida?
They'd have to build a new super-sized cargo airplane to do that.
Not on an airplane. These were designed to fly so just fly them. Launch from Boca land in florida.
Oh, you meant launch. That's impractical for a variety of reasons, one being that there are currently no plans to build a launch pad for SS / SH in Texas. Barge through the Gulf would be a lot cheaper, too.
Until Last night when the storm water plans came out or this morning when the EA arrived.... there were no plans (not public that we could read) for any of this at 39a (OK Elon had said he would lanch SS from 39a)
IMHO, in a week or a month or so we will wake up to the next stage of the plan at Boca Chica and it will involve platform(s) offshore for launch and landing.
-
Launching from the Moon, Mars, or anyplace else other than pad 39A is offtopic for this thread.
-
I notice there will be no flame trench, but a 30m high steel launch mount. Sounds like an opem framework launch pad, tp me.
You saw it first on NSF! :)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47729.msg1966996#msg1966996
-
Launching the full stack that close to the HIF is...interesting. I wonder if they'll close up the HIF facing side of the FSS before they start SS or Full Stack launches?
-
Once past experimental, maximum load to orbit will be important, for example ror a refuelling trip, or to ensure the SS has as much propellant left for its mission.
Just like with F9, for higher energy missions the booster is landed out in the Atlantic. Therefore this will be (a) standard operating practice even if they do get to land the SH back on the coast (eventually) for some missions. (with a boostback burn etc.)
It sounds like they're going to be landing back near the coast, so the same fuel expenditure as a land landing.
As someone else said, this is minimum viable product stuff. Get it flying, get it working. This isn't the "final" plan, whatever the heck that will end up being
I realize that, it's just a hell of a way to start. At least they're landing by the coast, so shouldn't ever lose one or be forced to delay because of rough seas.
My guess is that they were told that SH landings would not be allowed until demonstrated... Hence the initial near-shore barge landings.
I would be surprised if that was the reason. I wouldn't think it's THAT much more dangerous at LZ-1 as the current F9 landings are (the empty tanks are full of explosive gas, but probably not enough to hurt anything from a crash at LZ-1). I thought it would have to do with no other suitable landing pad if SS has to come back right away.
-
So just confirming, this Pad 39A extension "Plan" that's been released is Full Stack capable right? Meaning, they aren't building a simplified launch table for the prototype Starships first and then the full Flame Diverter with cooling pipes and SH launch mount later? They're going all in now but with a mobile crane vs permanent tower & crane later?
-
Launching from the Moon, Mars, or anyplace else other than pad 39A is offtopic for this thread.
If you indulge me momentarily, it's important to remember that with a little propellant Starship and perhaps Super Heavy can do short (~ a few miles) hops. You can hop hardware from the Boca Chica pad to a drone ship off-shore. And back on topic, with some ASDS upgrades to support propellant loading, you could hop SH from the drone ship -- where it's apparently required to land now -- back to 39A. Perhaps it would be easier to gain approval to land from an incoming hop as opposed to a much more energetic return.
-
It sounds like they're going to be landing back near the coast, so the same fuel expenditure as a land landing.
Is this anything more than assumption? 'No closer than' does not mean 'equal to.' Perhaps I have missed something more specific? I have admittedly not read the document.
-
MMMM I read that bit. I think it says "at least 20 miles off shore". So it obviously could be further. But 20 Miles will still require a boostback, and therefore most of the fuel compared with boosting back to 39A. 20 mi is not several hundred!
-
Launching the full stack that close to the HIF is...interesting. I wonder if they'll close up the HIF facing side of the FSS before they start SS or Full Stack launches?
Yes, close the door! Also, some heavier steel cladding on one side of the HIF might be inexpensive.
-
So just confirming, this Pad 39A extension "Plan" that's been released is Full Stack capable right? Meaning, they aren't building a simplified launch table for the prototype Starships first and then the full Flame Diverter with cooling pipes and SH launch mount later? They're going all in now but with a mobile crane vs permanent tower & crane later?
A modular extension to the existing ramp/trench has been spoken of by reliable folk, so a stepping-stone for SS-only testing is not out of the question.
-
So just confirming, this Pad 39A extension "Plan" that's been released is Full Stack capable right? Meaning, they aren't building a simplified launch table for the prototype Starships first and then the full Flame Diverter with cooling pipes and SH launch mount later? They're going all in now but with a mobile crane vs permanent tower & crane later?
A modular extension to the existing ramp/trench has been spoken of by reliable folk, so a stepping-stone for SS-only testing is not out of the question.
A flame/thrust diverter made of water cooled pipes is described, (in the EA) as is the height. Also specifically mentioned (as they have developed and already use) is a long static fire of the Super Heavy, (with the (dated figure of) 31 Raptors) of I think 15 seconds..... one of the noisier operations, and so specified.
-
What's an "impervious water percolation/retention pond"? Besides a Gator sanctuary I mean. :D
-
So just confirming, this Pad 39A extension "Plan" that's been released is Full Stack capable right? Meaning, they aren't building a simplified launch table for the prototype Starships first and then the full Flame Diverter with cooling pipes and SH launch mount later? They're going all in now but with a mobile crane vs permanent tower & crane later?
A modular extension to the existing ramp/trench has been spoken of by reliable folk, so a stepping-stone for SS-only testing is not out of the question.
A flame/thrust diverter made of water cooled pipes is described, (in the EA) as is the height. Also specifically mentioned (as they have developed and already use) is a long static fire of the Super Heavy, (with the (dated figure of) 31 Raptors) of I think 15 seconds..... one of the noisier operations, and so specified.
Sorry, I'm not being clear. I wasn't questioning "if" they are building a full stack pad as it's quite clear they are and a unique one at that. I'm just curious as to timing and if they'll build just enough to get the Starship Prototype up and running or just go all out and build the entire full stack pad from the outset. It's a small curiosity but I'm a sucker for Pad Infrastructure development.
-
What's an "impervious water percolation/retention pond"? Besides a Gator sanctuary I mean. :D
A concrete pool, as opposed to pervious, which is just a hole dug in the ground.
-
It sounds like they're going to be landing back near the coast, so the same fuel expenditure as a land landing.
Is this anything more than assumption? 'No closer than' does not mean 'equal to.' Perhaps I have missed something more specific? I have admittedly not read the document.
Only assumption. But it seems to me like what they'd do.
-
Once past experimental, maximum load to orbit will be important, for example ror a refuelling trip, or to ensure the SS has as much propellant left for its mission.
Just like with F9, for higher energy missions the booster is landed out in the Atlantic. Therefore this will be (a) standard operating practice even if they do get to land the SH back on the coast (eventually) for some missions. (with a boostback burn etc.)
It sounds like they're going to be landing back near the coast, so the same fuel expenditure as a land landing.
As someone else said, this is minimum viable product stuff. Get it flying, get it working. This isn't the "final" plan, whatever the heck that will end up being
I realize that, it's just a hell of a way to start. At least they're landing by the coast, so shouldn't ever lose one or be forced to delay because of rough seas.
My guess is that they were told that SH landings would not be allowed until demonstrated... Hence the initial near-shore barge landings.
I would be surprised if that was the reason. I wouldn't think it's THAT much more dangerous at LZ-1 as the current F9 landings are (the empty tanks are full of explosive gas, but probably not enough to hurt anything from a crash at LZ-1). I thought it would have to do with no other suitable landing pad if SS has to come back right away.
"no closer than 20 miles s" sounds like it is phrased for noise mitigation. They may still recover downrange, and might come as close as 20 for test hops.
-
So just confirming, this Pad 39A extension "Plan" that's been released is Full Stack capable right? Meaning, they aren't building a simplified launch table for the prototype Starships first and then the full Flame Diverter with cooling pipes and SH launch mount later? They're going all in now but with a mobile crane vs permanent tower & crane later?
A modular extension to the existing ramp/trench has been spoken of by reliable folk, so a stepping-stone for SS-only testing is not out of the question.
A flame/thrust diverter made of water cooled pipes is described, (in the EA) as is the height. Also specifically mentioned (as they have developed and already use) is a long static fire of the Super Heavy, (with the (dated figure of) 31 Raptors) of I think 15 seconds..... one of the noisier operations, and so specified.
Sorry, I'm not being clear. I wasn't questioning "if" they are building a full stack pad as it's quite clear they are and a unique one at that. I'm just curious as to timing and if they'll build just enough to get the Starship Prototype up and running or just go all out and build the entire full stack pad from the outset. It's a small curiosity but I'm a sucker for Pad Infrastructure development.
We don't know as we oly have Elon's previous tweets and statements then the two documents from the last 24 hours- the storm water plans, and the EA. But logically any reduced pad would obstruct the space for the full one! Also they can test the hopper at BC, but cannot test SH there (we assume) SX now desperately (IMO) need to get a pad ready to test Super Heavy, and the only place is this new pad at 39A. If its for testing SH it might as well be the full pad, because it will need to be full strength pretty much to take 35 Raptors regardless of whether the SS is stacked on top. They won't need as much propellant, so maybe that could be installed progressively...
However Musk seems to be going "all out" on this, and is "spending money like water" (on down-to earth practical stuff - not aerospace grade stuff) so IMO he won't faff about, but will get on and build everything needed to launch the full stack. It will be needed soon, and it'd be a pain to be waiting on it next summer! (or spring!!!)
EM said they were building sections offsite, another indication they are raring to go.
-
It sounds like they're going to be landing back near the coast, so the same fuel expenditure as a land landing.
Is this anything more than assumption? 'No closer than' does not mean 'equal to.' Perhaps I have missed something more specific? I have admittedly not read the document.
Only assumption. But it seems to me like what they'd do.
The document shows sound contours for SH landings hundreds of miles off shore. See page 32 of the document.
-
It sounds like they're going to be landing back near the coast, so the same fuel expenditure as a land landing.
Is this anything more than assumption? 'No closer than' does not mean 'equal to.' Perhaps I have missed something more specific? I have admittedly not read the document.
Only assumption. But it seems to me like what they'd do.
According to the Superheavy re-entry noise graph, it will land at about 400km downrange
-
The document shows sound contours for SH landings hundreds of miles off shore. See page 32 of the document.
Damn. I can't believe they'd take that risk. And they'll presumably need to build a giant octograbber. Doesn't make any sense to me.
-
The document shows sound contours for SH landings hundreds of miles off shore. See page 32 of the document.
Damn. I can't believe they'd take that risk. And they'll presumably need to build a giant octograbber. Doesn't make any sense to me.
I expect they are only doing it because they know the can't get approval to land on land until they prove they can land at sea.
-
Question: Is there any reason (ITAR) or anything that would prevent building a permanent landing platform and port somewhere near here at the mainly below sea level Bahamas sea mounts? https://www.google.com/maps/place/27%C2%B019'13.5%22N+78%C2%B034'06.7%22W/@27.3204187,-78.570718,953m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x88d69a3bb2480f3d:0x133eb4836ac779e5!2sThe+Bahamas!3b1!8m2!3d25.03428!4d-77.39628!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d27.3204136!4d-78.5685237 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/27%C2%B019'13.5%22N+78%C2%B034'06.7%22W/@27.3204187,-78.570718,953m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x88d69a3bb2480f3d:0x133eb4836ac779e5!2sThe+Bahamas!3b1!8m2!3d25.03428!4d-77.39628!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d27.3204136!4d-78.5685237)
-
The document shows sound contours for SH landings hundreds of miles off shore. See page 32 of the document.
Damn. I can't believe they'd take that risk. And they'll presumably need to build a giant octograbber. Doesn't make any sense to me.
I expect they are only doing it because they know the can't get approval to land on land until they prove they can land at sea.
The same document also shows sound contours for land-landings for Starship. The document says that they will file a new EA once they have perfected SH landings. This might actually have more to do with their own development path than EA rules.
The Super Heavy booster would land downrange on a droneship in the Atlantic Ocean no closer than 20 nm off the coast. Recovery support vehicles would be similar to those used for Falcon booster landings on the droneship. In the event there is an anomaly during the descent, the booster would land in the open ocean. SpaceX is developing the technology and capability of Super Heavy booster. If SpaceX develops the ability to land Super Heavy booster on land, a supplemental EA will be developed. After launch and landing at a downrange location, Super Heavy booster would be delivered by barge from the landing site utilizing the KSC Turn Basin wharf as a delivery point and transported the remaining distance to the launch complex over the Crawlerway. A downrange landing would be a contingency landing location for Starship and transport would be similar to the Super Heavy booster.
-
Will they be able to launch a falcon 9 from pad 39a with a SS/SH stacked also at 39a?
-
So just confirming, this Pad 39A extension "Plan" that's been released is Full Stack capable right? Meaning, they aren't building a simplified launch table for the prototype Starships first and then the full Flame Diverter with cooling pipes and SH launch mount later? They're going all in now but with a mobile crane vs permanent tower & crane later?
A modular extension to the existing ramp/trench has been spoken of by reliable folk, so a stepping-stone for SS-only testing is not out of the question.
A flame/thrust diverter made of water cooled pipes is described, (in the EA) as is the height. Also specifically mentioned (as they have developed and already use) is a long static fire of the Super Heavy, (with the (dated figure of) 31 Raptors) of I think 15 seconds..... one of the noisier operations, and so specified.
Sorry, I'm not being clear. I wasn't questioning "if" they are building a full stack pad as it's quite clear they are and a unique one at that. I'm just curious as to timing and if they'll build just enough to get the Starship Prototype up and running or just go all out and build the entire full stack pad from the outset. It's a small curiosity but I'm a sucker for Pad Infrastructure development.
There has been additional info in L2, fyi.
If you mention that, please give a link to L2, so those of us with it can go to the information. L2 is large.
-
Question: Is there any reason (ITAR) or anything that would prevent building a permanent landing platform and port somewhere near here at the mainly below sea level Bahamas sea mounts?
Probably 99% reason would be launch inclinations.
-
The same document also shows sound contours for land-landings for Starship. The document says that they will file a new EA once they have perfected SH landings. This might actually have more to do with their own development path than EA rules.
I'm not surprised, if you are developing the ability to land a rocket twice the thrust of a Saturn 5, you may want to proceed with caution.
The SH/SS as shown is the fully developed vision of it. Much like the old SpaceX Video of how F9 recovery would work, including the US. It took a very long time to get to this point and a lot of failures and iterations.
The SH and SS will not be born fully formed.
-
The document shows sound contours for SH landings hundreds of miles off shore. See page 32 of the document.
Damn. I can't believe they'd take that risk. And they'll presumably need to build a giant octograbber. Doesn't make any sense to me.
I expect they are only doing it because they know the can't get approval to land on land until they prove they can land at sea.
I meant more the downrange landing, vs parking the barge just offshore.
-
I'm not surprised, if you are developing the ability to land a rocket twice the thrust of a Saturn 5, you may want to proceed with caution.
Here's an interesting quote from Bezos that gives a glimpse into what the difficulty of landing an F9 booster compared to SH might be:
"In fact, the bigger the vehicle gets, the easier it is to land because it’s the inverted pendulum problem. New Shepard is the hardest vehicle to land that we’ll ever have to land."
-
Page 7 lists Starship propellant capacity as "up to 1,500 MT" and Super Heavy with "up to 3,500 MT".
For reference the previous Starship propellant capacity was 1,100 MT.
-
What's an "impervious water percolation/retention pond"? Besides a Gator sanctuary I mean. :D
A concrete pool, as opposed to pervious, which is just a hole dug in the ground.
Having lived in Florida, I'd like to suggest that a hole dug in the ground in Florida is... a pond. Almost immediately! The pervious retention area might be better to picture as a swamp than a hole. :D
-
Page 7 lists Starship propellant capacity as "up to 1,500 MT" and Super Heavy with "up to 3,500 MT".
For reference the previous Starship propellant capacity was 1,100 MT.
Combining 1500t fuel with the "6.9km/s deltaV for a fully fueled Starship in orbit with 100t payload" tweet would imply a dry mass for Starship of ~180t assuming vac Raptors at 380s, or ~130t assuming sl Raptors at 350s as listed in the EA. Either seems reasonable enough given how little we know of the recent design changes.
-
Here's an interesting quote from Bezos that gives a glimpse into what the difficulty of landing an F9 booster compared to SH might be:
"In fact, the bigger the vehicle gets, the easier it is to land because it’s the inverted pendulum problem. New Shepard is the hardest vehicle to land that we’ll ever have to land."
Does this imply they never intend to land an upper stage?
-
So, how quickly will they be able to stack and launch tankers to refuel starship in orbit? At least a few will be needed for the DearMoon mission.
-
So, how quickly will they be able to stack and launch tankers to refuel starship in orbit? At least a few will be needed for the DearMoon mission.
This is being discussed elsewhere. Here is the link.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48706.0
-
Page 7 lists Starship propellant capacity as "up to 1,500 MT" and Super Heavy with "up to 3,500 MT".
For reference the previous Starship propellant capacity was 1,100 MT.
Combining 1500t fuel with the "6.9km/s deltaV for a fully fueled Starship in orbit with 100t payload" tweet would imply a dry mass for Starship of ~180t assuming vac Raptors at 380s, or ~130t assuming sl Raptors at 350s as listed in the EA. Either seems reasonable enough given how little we know of the recent design changes.
The earlier understanding about the dry mass of the SS was 85t. This was before the Stainless Steel Revolution. Surprise, surprise, stainless is heavier than carbon composit. Most probably the 85t figure did not take into account the need for heavy heat shielding properly.
-
Make Static Fires Great Again!
"Super Heavy booster static fire tests are planned to occur at LC-39A where all 31 engines are fired for 15 seconds"
Holy moly! ;D
Holy Moly indeed
-
Once past experimental, maximum load to orbit will be important, for example ror a refuelling trip, or to ensure the SS has as much propellant left for its mission.
Just like with F9, for higher energy missions the booster is landed out in the Atlantic. Therefore this will be (a) standard operating practice even if they do get to land the SH back on the coast (eventually) for some missions. (with a boostback burn etc.)
It sounds like they're going to be landing back near the coast, so the same fuel expenditure as a land landing.
As someone else said, this is minimum viable product stuff. Get it flying, get it working. This isn't the "final" plan, whatever the heck that will end up being
I realize that, it's just a hell of a way to start. At least they're landing by the coast, so shouldn't ever lose one or be forced to delay because of rough seas.
My guess is that they were told that SH landings would not be allowed until demonstrated... Hence the initial near-shore barge landings.
I would be surprised if that was the reason. I wouldn't think it's THAT much more dangerous at LZ-1 as the current F9 landings are (the empty tanks are full of explosive gas, but probably not enough to hurt anything from a crash at LZ-1). I thought it would have to do with no other suitable landing pad if SS has to come back right away.
"no closer than 20 miles s" sounds like it is phrased for noise mitigation. They may still recover downrange, and might come as close as 20 for test hops.
If they land ~20 mi down range they can get it back in a few hours, whereas 200 mi takes a couple of days, besides risking rough seas. I think they prefer closer even if it uses more fuel.
-
Page 7 lists Starship propellant capacity as "up to 1,500 MT" and Super Heavy with "up to 3,500 MT".
For reference the previous Starship propellant capacity was 1,100 MT.
Combining 1500t fuel with the "6.9km/s deltaV for a fully fueled Starship in orbit with 100t payload" tweet would imply a dry mass for Starship of ~180t assuming vac Raptors at 380s, or ~130t assuming sl Raptors at 350s as listed in the EA. Either seems reasonable enough given how little we know of the recent design changes.
The earlier understanding about the dry mass of the SS was 85t. This was before the Stainless Steel Revolution. Surprise, surprise, stainless is heavier than carbon composit. Most probably the 85t figure did not take into account the need for heavy heat shielding properly.
I'm not taking those 1500 & 3500 #s literally. They might be max rounded up figures for the purpose of approval. Then again, "only" 31 engines are cited, not 35 or whatever. We'll have more official #s hopefully later this month.
-
Page 7 lists Starship propellant capacity as "up to 1,500 MT" and Super Heavy with "up to 3,500 MT".
For reference the previous Starship propellant capacity was 1,100 MT.
Combining 1500t fuel with the "6.9km/s deltaV for a fully fueled Starship in orbit with 100t payload" tweet would imply a dry mass for Starship of ~180t assuming vac Raptors at 380s, or ~130t assuming sl Raptors at 350s as listed in the EA. Either seems reasonable enough given how little we know of the recent design changes.
The earlier understanding about the dry mass of the SS was 85t. This was before the Stainless Steel Revolution. Surprise, surprise, stainless is heavier than carbon composit. Most probably the 85t figure did not take into account the need for heavy heat shielding properly.
I'm not taking those 1500 & 3500 #s literally. They might be max rounded up figures for the purpose of approval. Then again, "only" 31 engines are cited, not 35 or whatever. We'll have more official #s hopefully later this month.
I suspect the 1100 ton figure as accurate for the mk 1 starships, and the 1500 ton figure to be accurate for the eventual dedicated tanker designs.
-
I'm not taking those 1500 & 3500 #s literally. They might be max rounded up figures for the purpose of approval.
Perhaps up to 1500t would be a better estimate for how much a dedicated tanker SS might carry whenever they get around to making one.
-
Page 7 lists Starship propellant capacity as "up to 1,500 MT" and Super Heavy with "up to 3,500 MT".
For reference the previous Starship propellant capacity was 1,100 MT.
Combining 1500t fuel with the "6.9km/s deltaV for a fully fueled Starship in orbit with 100t payload" tweet would imply a dry mass for Starship of ~180t assuming vac Raptors at 380s, or ~130t assuming sl Raptors at 350s as listed in the EA. Either seems reasonable enough given how little we know of the recent design changes.
The earlier understanding about the dry mass of the SS was 85t. This was before the Stainless Steel Revolution. Surprise, surprise, stainless is heavier than carbon composit. Most probably the 85t figure did not take into account the need for heavy heat shielding properly.
How are you calculating this without knowing how much propellant is left over at the end? I see why you'd want to argue "zero", but it's not really certain. They say "in orbit" so should we add de-orbit, landing, and any residual fuel?
-
Page 7 lists Starship propellant capacity as "up to 1,500 MT" and Super Heavy with "up to 3,500 MT".
For reference the previous Starship propellant capacity was 1,100 MT.
Combining 1500t fuel with the "6.9km/s deltaV for a fully fueled Starship in orbit with 100t payload" tweet would imply a dry mass for Starship of ~180t assuming vac Raptors at 380s, or ~130t assuming sl Raptors at 350s as listed in the EA. Either seems reasonable enough given how little we know of the recent design changes.
The earlier understanding about the dry mass of the SS was 85t. This was before the Stainless Steel Revolution. Surprise, surprise, stainless is heavier than carbon composit. Most probably the 85t figure did not take into account the need for heavy heat shielding properly.
85 ton starship, 100 tons cargo.
-
I think everybody is placing entirely too much faith in what are preliminary (and outdated) numbers. An EIS is to let the appropriate authorities evaluate impacts. It's much more important to get a baseline and iterate than wait for perfection. My brief foray into Rockets involved the SLC-6 modification for the Space Shuttle. The EIS was over 900 pages in several volumes and was updated on a 6 month cadence. The specific details in this report (think 4 decimal place engine geometries) are there to anchor the impact analysis that follows. Updates to the inputs (e.g. 35 engines...) will update the impacts.
Another thought. How are those detailed engine geometries (out of date as they may be...) not ITAR?
-
I'm not taking those 1500 & 3500 #s literally. They might be max rounded up figures for the purpose of approval.
Perhaps up to 1500t would be a better estimate for how much a dedicated tanker SS might carry whenever they get around to making one.
The 2017 weights were ~85 tons dry + 7 tons prop for landing + 150, or close on 240 tons, plus 1100 tons prop = 1340 or so.
The comment at sxsw was made that you can get 300 tons with expendable would take the maximum mass to ~1492t.
(I am not saying anything particular should be drawn from these numbers, and especially don't believe any attempt to come up with a dry mass for SS that is dramatically in conflict with statements about SS being lighter).
Given that we're hopefully getting updates in a week or two, dragging numbers together from 2016-2019 makes less than 0 sense.
-
What's an "impervious water percolation/retention pond"? Besides a Gator sanctuary I mean. :D
A concrete pool, as opposed to pervious, which is just a hole dug in the ground.
It’s discussed in several places in the EA, for example on p69:
Launch deluge and pad washdown water generated from the new Starship/Super Heavy launch pad at LC-39A would be isolated from the existing Falcon 9/Heavy deluge system and flow into a new containment (impervious basin) and disposal (percolation pond) system shown in Figure 2-2. This system would be designed to satisfy FDEP industrial wastewater permitting requirements for attenuation and onsite disposal of launch-related wastewater. Industrial wastewater would be contained in an impervious basin until discharge water quality criteria set in the FDEP permit are met, and released into a pervious percolation area for dissipation into the surficial water table. No chemical treatment of deluge wastewater is anticipated.
-
Here's an interesting quote from Bezos that gives a glimpse into what the difficulty of landing an F9 booster compared to SH might be:
"In fact, the bigger the vehicle gets, the easier it is to land because it’s the inverted pendulum problem. New Shepard is the hardest vehicle to land that we’ll ever have to land."
Does this imply they never intend to land an upper stage?
New Shepard would be smaller than New Glenn’s upper stage.
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
Yes, but it also says:
"The Starship and Super Heavy would exceed the lift capabilities of the Falcon Heavy. Due to the higher lift capability, Starship/Super Heavy could launch more payloads and reduce the overall launch cadence when compared to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. This would increase the cost effectiveness of the space industry."
Sounds like STS, or Titan IV, or EELV. Fewer launches, more stuff on each. Initial claims of cost-effectiveness that didn't pan out in those cases.
- Ed Kyle
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
Yes, but it also says:
"The Starship and Super Heavy would exceed the lift capabilities of the Falcon Heavy. Due to the higher lift capability, Starship/Super Heavy could launch more payloads and reduce the overall launch cadence when compared to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. This would increase the cost effectiveness of the space industry."
Sounds like STS, or Titan IV, or EELV. Fewer launches, more stuff on each.
- Ed Kyle
That would be a reduction compared to the number of F9/FH launches required to launch the same tonnage to space, whatever that annual planned tonnage may be in future. Not a reduction compared to current F9/FH launch cadence.
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
Yes, but it also says:
"The Starship and Super Heavy would exceed the lift capabilities of the Falcon Heavy. Due to the higher lift capability, Starship/Super Heavy could launch more payloads and reduce the overall launch cadence when compared to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. This would increase the cost effectiveness of the space industry."
Sounds like STS, or Titan IV, or EELV. Fewer launches, more stuff on each. Initial claims of cost-effectiveness that didn't pan out in those cases.
- Ed Kyle
I think this paragraph is obviously written with Starlink in mind, one Starship launch can probably replace 7 Falcon 9 Starlink launches, big savings for SpaceX, also reduces the launch congestion at the Cape.
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
I think this number can surpassed sooner than we tough, when the refueling in orbit is in place you need:
1 launch for the cargo + 5 launches for fuel ( can be more) = 6 launches just for 1 moon mission.
So in an extreme case 4 missions to the moon you already have 24 launches in a year.
It's going to be interesting the frequency of launches to refill an Starship to the moon: 1 by week ? 1 every 3 days? Maybe on that was Elon thinking when he wanted to relaunch a F9 after just 24 hours.
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
Yes, but it also says:
"The Starship and Super Heavy would exceed the lift capabilities of the Falcon Heavy. Due to the higher lift capability, Starship/Super Heavy could launch more payloads and reduce the overall launch cadence when compared to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. This would increase the cost effectiveness of the space industry."
Sounds like STS, or Titan IV, or EELV. Fewer launches, more stuff on each. Initial claims of cost-effectiveness that didn't pan out in those cases.
- Ed Kyle
Starlink will be the majority of SpaceX's launches in the near future.
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
I think this number can surpassed sooner than we tough, when the refueling in orbit is in place you need:
1 launch for the cargo + 5 launches for fuel ( can be more) = 6 launches just for 1 moon mission.
So in an extreme case 4 missions to the moon you already have 24 launches in a year.
It's going to be interesting the frequency of launches to refill an Starship to the moon: 1 by week ? 1 every 3 days? Maybe on that was Elon thinking when he wanted to relaunch a F9 after just 24 hours.
I have a feeling the tanker flights will take place from Boca Chica, my guess:
Manned: Florida
Cargo: both (probably GTO from BC, LEO from both, and polar from florida with a dogleg?)
Tankers: BC
I also suspect that if there is a manned mission that needs a full refill, they will fill up a tanker first and have it waiting for them.
-
After Starlink, NASA will begin to see the enormous capability of Starship vs their own SLS. Then NASA and satellite manufacturers will design larger payloads. Large space stations and the beginnings of an O'Neil colony, or permanent moon base. So much opens up. Remember Starship is for mars colonization. Some people still can't wrap their brains around what is happening before our eyes. I just hope government red tape don't slow down SpaceX's progress.
Even today's rockets can launch larger payloads than the rockets of the 60's until Titan III an IV came along. Even Saturn IB wasn't used that much back then. Now F9 can launch Saturn IB sized payloads to LEO routinely.
Face it rockets like Starship and New Glenn will deliver heavier payloads to orbit or beyond. Government red tape has to catch up with the times.
-
... I think this number can surpassed sooner than we tough, when the refueling in orbit is in place you need:
1 launch for the cargo + 5 launches for fuel ( can be more) = 6 launches just for 1 moon mission. ...
Might want to work it from the other direction: How many refueling flights does it take to get an empty SS to the lunar surface and back to Earth surface? How much additional payload mass does each additional tanker get you? What are the likely payload mass requirements? That will determine the number of tanker flights.
Think @speedevil did some related work in another thread, which I cannot find at the moment.
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
I think this number can surpassed sooner than we tough, when the refueling in orbit is in place you need:
1 launch for the cargo + 5 launches for fuel ( can be more) = 6 launches just for 1 moon mission.
So in an extreme case 4 missions to the moon you already have 24 launches in a year.
It's going to be interesting the frequency of launches to refill an Starship to the moon: 1 by week ? 1 every 3 days? Maybe on that was Elon thinking when he wanted to relaunch a F9 after just 24 hours.
Don't forget, LC-39 number doesn't include any Boca Chica launches.
I suspect most tanker and GTO flights will take place from Boca Chica. Lower latitude of BC would increase GTO payload by around 10%.
-
After Starlink, NASA will begin to see the enormous capability of Starship vs their own SLS. Then NASA and satellite manufacturers will design larger payloads. Large space stations and the beginnings of an O'Neil colony, or permanent moon base. So much opens up. Remember Starship is for mars colonization. Some people still can't wrap their brains around what is happening before our eyes. I just hope government red tape don't slow down SpaceX's progress.
Even today's rockets can launch larger payloads than the rockets of the 60's until Titan III an IV came along. Even Saturn IB wasn't used that much back then. Now F9 can launch Saturn IB sized payloads to LEO routinely.
Face it rockets like Starship and New Glenn will deliver heavier payloads to orbit or beyond. Government red tape has to catch up with the times.
I'm curious as to how satellite designs change when saving every pound isn't as important.
Ultimately, satellite operators buy a service capacity for money.
For instance, what kind of service capacity could a satellite operator buy with $300m if they have a launch system can now put 20+ tonnes to GTO for <$25m, vs $60m for 5.5tonnes now? Do the satellites use 'dumber', much less-mass sensitive designs?
-
Also Boca Chica is closer to Natural gas production and pipelines. Maybe somewhat lower bulk prices for methane than Florida. I remember when a few years back, they ran a large offshore natural gas pipeline along the gulf coast to central Florida for power production since central Florida was growing so fast. A huge percentage of power production in Texas and Florida is natural gas power plant.
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
I think this number can surpassed sooner than we tough, when the refueling in orbit is in place you need:
1 launch for the cargo + 5 launches for fuel ( can be more) = 6 launches just for 1 moon mission.
So in an extreme case 4 missions to the moon you already have 24 launches in a year.
It's going to be interesting the frequency of launches to refill an Starship to the moon: 1 by week ? 1 every 3 days? Maybe on that was Elon thinking when he wanted to relaunch a F9 after just 24 hours.
Manned moon missions would ideally (in my mind) go like this: Launch 1 tanker into orbit. Launch subsequent tankers to fill up the tanker that is already in orbit. Once the tanker is full, launch the manned Starship into orbit, where the fuel will be transferred from the tanker to the Starship.
-
I see it like this Starship first, then tankers. When Starship is fueled another tanker full to run in parallel with Starship. Two Falcon 9s with Dragons and a crew of seven each from 39a and 40 to dock and board Starship. That gives you 14 Troopers with carry on luggage and a quick turn around fuel supply and will leave a Tanker on the surface after a month stay.
-
Manned moon missions would ideally (in my mind) go like this: Launch 1 tanker into orbit. Launch subsequent tankers to fill up the tanker that is already in orbit. Once the tanker is full, launch the manned Starship into orbit, where the fuel will be transferred from the tanker to the Starship.
That would require SpaceX to build 2 tankers for each Starship.
Remember, with BFR, the major expense for SpaceX will be building each Starship, tanker, and booster.
With full and rapid reuse, the operating expense for each launch is less than Falcon 1, let alone Falcon 9.
So to accelerate the schedule, it may be better to build the minimum practical number of vehicles, at least initially.
With this in mind, another solution would be to build just 1 tanker for each Starship.
Launch Starship first, then launch a single tanker 5 times to refill it.
That's how I'm interpreting the slide below.
Note: Elon said the initial tanker will just be an empty cargo Starship.
The eventual purpose-built tanker will be mass-optimized, possibly requiring only 4 tanker launches, as shown.
For the initial cargo missions, there's no need to rush between the initial Starship launch and TMI.
For eventual manned missions, I suspect they'll get the turn-around time at the launch pad down to a few hours.
With this in mind, how soon could they get the same tanker back to the pad after refilling Earth orbit?
Within 24 hours? If so the crew would have to hang out in Earth orbit for around 4 days. Not a deal-breaker.
I'm assuming the first tanker can launch a few hours after Starship.
-
I thought somewhere on here it was mentioned, only one tanker for a loop around the moon, and 2 or 3 for landing and return. Mars would take 6 tankers to fully fuel transport and slow down and land on Mars. Moon would need less fuel due to shorter distance and lower gravity.
I do like the idea of fueling an orbital tanker (like a fuel depot), then launch a human/cargo mission to the moon and or Mars by only docking once with the human cargo and fuel up. Not 6 dockings and fuelings while people on board wait for days tanking. Just launch, dock once, fuel up, and go. Less time in route.
-
... Two Falcon 9s with Dragons and a crew of seven each from 39a and 40 to dock and board Starship. That gives you 14 Troopers with carry on luggage and a quick turn around fuel supply and will leave a Tanker on the surface after a month stay.
Remember, SpaceX intends to stop building Falcon 9 and Dragon, and focus the whole company on building BFR (https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-mars-iac-2017-transcript-slides-2017-10#-25).
BFR will do everything Falcon 9 and Dragon does today, with a cost per launch less than Falcon 1, let alone Falcon 9.
-
... Two Falcon 9s with Dragons and a crew of seven each from 39a and 40 to dock and board Starship. That gives you 14 Troopers with carry on luggage and a quick turn around fuel supply and will leave a Tanker on the surface after a month stay.
Remember, SpaceX intends to stop building Falcon 9 and Dragon, and focus the whole company on building BFR (https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-mars-iac-2017-transcript-slides-2017-10#-25).
BFR will do everything Falcon 9 and Dragon does today, with a cost per launch less than Falcon 1, let alone Falcon 9.
Yes but he mentioned USGOV employees. (Troopers) There may well be some use of D2 if the agencies are cautious of having no escape system for launch etc. - initially.
-
I thought somewhere on here it was mentioned, only one tanker for a loop around the moon, and 2 or 3 for landing and return. Mars would take 6 tankers to fully fuel transport and slow down and land on Mars. Moon would need less fuel due to shorter distance and lower gravity.
I don't think SpaceX has said anything definite on this.
I've only seen the attached general slide showing that refilling would occur in a highly elliptical orbit (not LEO).
I do like the idea of fueling an orbital tanker (like a fuel depot), then launch a human/cargo mission to the moon and or Mars by only docking once with the human cargo and fuel up. Not 6 dockings and fuelings while people on board wait for days tanking. Just launch, dock once, fuel up, and go. Less time in route.
Musk doesn't seem to like the fuel depot idea. He's mentioned this more than once.
-
... Two Falcon 9s with Dragons and a crew of seven each from 39a and 40 to dock and board Starship. That gives you 14 Troopers with carry on luggage and a quick turn around fuel supply and will leave a Tanker on the surface after a month stay.
Remember, SpaceX intends to stop building Falcon 9 and Dragon, and focus the whole company on building BFR (https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-mars-iac-2017-transcript-slides-2017-10#-25).
BFR will do everything Falcon 9 and Dragon does today, with a cost per launch less than Falcon 1, let alone Falcon 9.
Yes but he mentioned USGOV employees. (Troopers) There may well be some use of D2 if the agencies are cautious of having no escape system for launch etc. - initially.
To be clear, the initial NASA lunar Starship missions will be for cargo, not crew.
I suspect it will be quite a while before NASA is comfortable putting their crew on Starship, regardless of the mode.
By then, I suspect SpaceX will have flown several private manned missions, similar to dearMoon.
With this in mind, it's very hard to predict how crewed NASA Starship missions will play out.
If SpaceX proves Starship is crew-capable with several private missions, NASA may be willing to take the risk.
-
I thought somewhere on here it was mentioned, only one tanker for a loop around the moon, and 2 or 3 for landing and return. Mars would take 6 tankers to fully fuel transport and slow down and land on Mars. Moon would need less fuel due to shorter distance and lower gravity.
I don't think SpaceX has said anything definite on this.
I've only seen the attached general slide showing that refilling would occur in a highly elliptical orbit (not LEO).
I do like the idea of fueling an orbital tanker (like a fuel depot), then launch a human/cargo mission to the moon and or Mars by only docking once with the human cargo and fuel up. Not 6 dockings and fuelings while people on board wait for days tanking. Just launch, dock once, fuel up, and go. Less time in route.
Musk doesn't seem to like the fuel depot idea. He's mentioned this more than once.
I am not sure where you are getting that from , he has recently posted a tweet implying that eventually depots will make sense. In the short term, it will be ship to ship, but the proposed scenario is exactly that: a ship to ship transfer. It wouldn't make sense at all to do that for unmanned missions, and Musk may currently expect that by the time manned flights happen launch cadence will be sufficient that there is little point in the architecture spacenut is discussing. But if they get around to manned flights, and the refueling period still takes a couple weeks, I haven't seen any indication that such a plan would be off the table.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1156970909258829824
-
...
Musk doesn't seem to like the fuel depot idea. He's mentioned this more than once.
Unclear if Musk's resistance to "depot" is to a dedicated-different-hardware depot vs. a SS tanker-as-depot (temporary or semi-permanent). Can understand his resistance to the former, which is how depots are framed in many architectures. Clarification needed to understand his position on the latter. Might be as simple as Musk wanting to ensure it is clear that SpaceX will build tankers, not depots.[1]
[1] edit: For the foreseeable future; and they will be specific to SS not general purpose depots.
-
Shortly before the tweet linked above Elon had this one:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1156671312716111872
-
To me this report provides a pretty strong indication that SpaceX will progressively move towards offshore flight operations on purpose built ships. The noise issues of frequent flights make land based operations untenable in long term, and range safety issues are greatly magnified by operations close to population and overland airspace while point to point operations always had to be off shore, not to mention the safety related inability to launch over-land that prevents use of Boca Chica or Canaveral SS/SH launches for polar or sun synchronous orbits. so after the SS/SH system has been debugged through probably first couple of years of land based operations I expect there will be larger optimised offshore launch ships built.
Added benefit that optimal downrange landing of SH provides a 10's of percent increase in payload to orbit compared to RTLS.
-
I see it like this Starship first, then tankers. When Starship is fueled another tanker full to run in parallel with Starship. Two Falcon 9s with Dragons and a crew of seven each from 39a and 40 to dock and board Starship. That gives you 14 Troopers with carry on luggage and a quick turn around fuel supply and will leave a Tanker on the surface after a month stay.
This really doesn't make much sense. Why would you launch a starship and two completely redundant F9s when you can do the same thing with the one starship launch?
The way I see it, is that if it's a manned mission, then the tankers get launched and hang out in Leo and the crew starship then launches. The consumption of resources to have whatever crew compliment hang out in LEO waiting 5 days for fueling is a killer. You want them to get fueled and be on with their mission. The shortest duration would be the manned ship pulling up the rear of the launches.
There is also the what if you have crew hanging out in LEO and one of the Tankers fail, worst case scenario, a RUD? Since there isn't a foreseeable time when NASA and the FAA wouldn't just ground all rockets (it may come one day but not for a while) you will have people in space now on an aborted mission. Wouldn't you rather have them on the ground in that scenario?
Of course it's Musk, who knows what he will actually do.
-
This really doesn't make much sense. Why would you launch a starship and two completely redundant F9s when you can do the same thing with the one starship launch?
...
It might be an alternative depending on the regulatory hurdles-time-effort-cost to human rate Starship for launch: use Commercial Crew (CC) vehicles for Earth-LEO transport in the interim. Of course that would also require adding NDS/IDA docking port(s) to Starship. There are also potential hurdles for human rating Starship Earth EDL (that propulsive landing thing). If we have CC vehicles in the mix, they might also be used to address the Starship Earth EDL issues. Apollo redux anyone?[1]
In any case, many potential options if CC vehicles are introduced; discussion of those options-tradeoffs probably best addressed in another thread.
[1] edit: Except all the components are reusable (at least the most significant ones).
-
Assuming the FAA is OK with crew, why wouldn't SpaceX just launch SS with crew? If NASA doesn't want their astros onboard for whatever reason, so be it. They're going anyway, either you get onboard or you stay put.
-
Assuming the FAA is OK with crew, why wouldn't SpaceX just launch SS with crew? If NASA doesn't want their astros onboard for whatever reason, so be it. They're going anyway, either you get onboard or you stay put.
Ar first I thought this just blunt inappropriate and unlikely to be reasoning that works on NASA. However....
Assuming dozens of successful cargo and fuel launchings, refuellings wtc and successful landing and take off from the Moon.... And that buss-load of artists having circled the Moon, as well as some SX test-pilots!! The next step would be NASA and possibly international astronauts... NASA would be the odd one out if France, Japan, Canada etc all sent an astronaut but NASA said.... no we haven't completed our safety audit! we're not riding!
-
Guys, we have all these threads. You don't need to be discussing things like Starship to the Moon/Mars, when there's threads.
This is about the pad on 39A. Only posts on that here, per the report.
-
The sonic boom thing is starting to worry me.
The Draft EA says:
In general, booms in the 0.2 to 0.3 psf range could be heard by someone who is expecting it and listening
for it, but usually would not be noticed. Booms of 0.5 psf are more likely to be noticed, and booms of 1.0
psf are certain to be noticed. Therefore, people west of KSC are likely to notice booms from Starship
landings...
Looking at the map from the EA (first picture below), the area > 1.0 psf (light blue) covers around 1/3 of the state of Florida, including Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Clearwater. The area > 2.0 psf (green) encompasses the whole Orlando metro area.
Now let's compare that with the sonic boom area for Falcon 9 (https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/space-coast-residents-may-hear-sonic-boom-spacex-landing-attempt/) (second picture below).
Note that the color scale is completely different.
The worst case is only 0.2 to 0.4 psf (blue and light-blue), and that's only in Titusville and Daytona Beach.
The area > 1.0 psf is completely over the Atlantic ocean.
Orlando and West isn't affected at all.
Isn't this what killed the Concorde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde)?
If they'd been able to offer super-sonic domestic flights, e.g. New York to L.A., they may have been profitable.
In any case, governments banning Concord super-sonic flights over land due to sonic booms has set a precedent.
Breaking that precedent could prove difficult.
This could be a serious issue for landing orbital Starship missions in Florida and Texas.
-
You can't compare Falcon 9 boosters reentry with Starship reentry. If you compare Starship reentry with something do it with the Space Shuttle which took a similar route towards the Cape on low inclination missions like Hubble and friends. Falcon 9 boosters don't stay too much in the air from the point they reenter to touchdown. From the EA we see that just the free-fall part takes 3 minutes. All the covered area in the sonic boom map is mainly because of that: the ship will have to bleed off more speed than what a Falcon 9 would have to bleed off and that means creating a larger sonic boom signature on the map. Also Falcon 9 boosters come from the east to west so most of the time they are over water while Starship won't. I bet Space Shuttles had a similar sonic boom map when they were coming into Florida to land.
-
I don't have a Shuttle boom intensity profile contour map but I recall hearing the Shuttle boom just south of Tampa FL. I wasn't expecting it but when I heard it I realized to my surprise that I'd heard the Shuttle coming in.
No big deal.
-
I found this Where to Launch and Land the Space Shuttle? (https://www.wired.com/2013/02/where-to-launch-and-land-the-space-shuttle-1972/)
The Thompson Board determined that the Space Shuttle would generate its most powerful sonic boom during ascent, while the Booster and Orbiter formed a single large vehicle. The Booster's rocket plume would, for purposes of calculating sonic boom effects, make the ascending, accelerating spacecraft appear even bigger. The Shuttle's flight path characteristics - for example, the pitch-over maneuver that it would perform as it steered toward orbit - would create a roughly 10-square-mile "focal zone" for sonic boom effects about 33 nautical miles downrange of the launch site.
"Overpressure" in the focal zone would almost certainly exceed six pounds per square foot (psf) and might reach 30 psf, which would be powerful enough to damage structures (plaster and windows could suffer damage at an overpressure as low as three psf, the Board noted). Winds could unpredictably shift the focal area by several miles. The Board urged that "the severe overpressures associated with the focal zone. . .be prevented from occurring in any inhabited area."
-
The sonic boom thing is starting to worry me.
The Draft EA says:
In general, booms in the 0.2 to 0.3 psf range could be heard by someone who is expecting it and listening
for it, but usually would not be noticed. Booms of 0.5 psf are more likely to be noticed, and booms of 1.0
psf are certain to be noticed. Therefore, people west of KSC are likely to notice booms from Starship
landings...
Looking at the map from the EA (first picture below), the area > 1.0 psf (light blue) covers around 1/3 of the state of Florida, including Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Clearwater. The area > 2.0 psf (green) encompasses the whole Orlando metro area.
Now let's compare that with the sonic boom area for Falcon 9 (https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/space-coast-residents-may-hear-sonic-boom-spacex-landing-attempt/) (second picture below).
Note that the color scale is completely different.
The worst case is only 0.2 to 0.4 psf (blue and light-blue), and that's only in Titusville and Daytona Beach.
The area > 1.0 psf is completely over the Atlantic ocean.
Orlando and West isn't affected at all.
Isn't this what killed the Concorde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde)?
If they'd been able to offer super-sonic domestic flights, e.g. New York to L.A., they may have been profitable.
In any case, governments banning Concord super-sonic flights over land due to sonic booms has set a precedent.
Breaking that precedent could prove difficult.
This could be a serious issue for landing orbital Starship missions in Florida and Texas.
Yeah, as the above comments indicate, it's no worse than the Shuttle. Also, the blue / light green are for sound levels that you probably won't notice unless you are listening for it.
-
Here's a recording of STS-135 sonic boom over Orlando, doesn't sound too bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGgbd549uaQ
-
I share Dave G concern, Starship is going to be significantly louder than Space Shuttle by a factor of 2 or 3, if I refer to the overpressure map below that I found here:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110011322.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110011322.pdf)
-
Here's a recording of STS-135 sonic boom over Orlando, doesn't sound too bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGgbd549uaQ
This was in jest? Because most consumer audio equipment out there can't replicate a sonic boom.
This video likely gives a better idea of the affects of a shuttle sonic boom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j27fhnwu88c
Again, your laptop/desktop speakers aren't going to replicate the boom on either video.
-
Here's a recording of STS-135 sonic boom over Orlando, doesn't sound too bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGgbd549uaQ
This was in jest? Because most consumer audio equipment out there can't replicate a sonic boom.
This video likely gives a better idea of the affects of a shuttle sonic boom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j27fhnwu88c
Again, your laptop/desktop speakers aren't going to replicate the boom on either video.
Not in jest, just pointing out the fact that Shuttle does create audible sonic booms over Orlando, so Starship creates sonic booms over Orlando is not an issue.
Also your video is from Titusville, which is much closer to the center of the sonic boom than Orlando.
-
Not in jest, just pointing out the fact that Shuttle does create audible sonic booms over Orlando, so Starship creates sonic booms over Orlando is not an issue.
Also your video is from Titusville, which is much closer to the center of the sonic boom than Orlando.
Not necessarily. The peak overpressure in the map that Machdiamond found is labeled at 1.75 pounds/ft2. The map for starship says that Orlando will experience around 2. As such, it appears that the Shuttle Titusville boom in the video will be milder than the starship boom in orlando (the green contour line in Dave G's linked map). What was acceptable in Titusville that was pretty dependant economically on Shuttle may not be acceptable in Orlando with a population of nearly 1% of the United States.
-
When I try to download the document, access is blocked with the following message:
Web Page Blocked!
The page cannot be displayed. Please contact the administrator for additional information.
URL: netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf
Client IP: --redacted--
Attack ID: 20000008
Has the server interpreted a high number of downloads or high bandwidth use for this file as a DoS attack and blocked it?
Anyone else have the same problem?
Does anyone know of another downloadable copy of this?
Hope someone can help me get a copy to satisfy my curiosity...
-- "InfraNut2"
(I thought this was open public info anyway...? BTW: I am located in the allied (NATO) country Norway, but I do not think country has anything to do with it, since that would be pretty meaningless in these days when many use VPNs, proxies and such)
-
Page 8 of the attached pdf
For the reentry-descent phase of flight, the measurements were made on land with the majority
acquired in the state of California and about 25 percent in the state of Florida. The measured
boom signatures were generally N-wave in character, similar to those observed from supersonic
aircraft, with amplitudes ranging from about 0.10 psf from the vehicle at about 243,000 feet altitude
to a maximum of 2.32 psf just prior to landing. Signature periods, however, were much
greater than those observed on aircraft being on the order of about 0.40 second to about 2.5 seconds.
Predictions of the magnitude of sonic booms and ground footprints for Mach numbers to
about 6.0 compared favorably with measurements.
So a SS landing produce twice as much overpressure in Titusville. whether that translates to twice as loud or 10x as loud i don't know.
-
When I try to download the document, access is blocked with the following message:
Web Page Blocked!
The page cannot be displayed. Please contact the administrator for additional information.
URL: netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf
Client IP: --redacted--
Attack ID: 20000008
Has the server interpreted a high number of downloads or high bandwidth use for this file as a DoS attack and blocked it?
Anyone else have the same problem?
Does anyone know of another downloadable copy of this?
Hope someone can help me get a copy to satisfy my curiosity...
-- "InfraNut2"
(I thought this was open public info anyway...? BTW: I am located in the allied (NATO) country Norway, but I do not think country has anything to do with it, since that would be pretty meaningless in these days when many use VPNs, proxies and such)
Link works for me just now.
Copy of report attached
-
Not in jest, just pointing out the fact that Shuttle does create audible sonic booms over Orlando, so Starship creates sonic booms over Orlando is not an issue.
Also your video is from Titusville, which is much closer to the center of the sonic boom than Orlando.
Not necessarily. The peak overpressure in the map that Machdiamond found is labeled at 1.75 pounds/ft2. The map for starship says that Orlando will experience around 2. As such, it appears that the Shuttle Titusville boom in the video will be milder than the starship boom in orlando (the green contour line in Dave G's linked map). What was acceptable in Titusville that was pretty dependant economically on Shuttle may not be acceptable in Orlando with a population of nearly 1% of the United States.
We'll see then. But this is hardly a showstopper, worst case SpaceX needs to position a drone ship some miles off the coast for Starship to land, this is the advantage of a VTVL, it can land pretty much anywhere.
-
Not in jest, just pointing out the fact that Shuttle does create audible sonic booms over Orlando, so Starship creates sonic booms over Orlando is not an issue.
Also your video is from Titusville, which is much closer to the center of the sonic boom than Orlando.
Not necessarily. The peak overpressure in the map that Machdiamond found is labeled at 1.75 pounds/ft2. The map for starship says that Orlando will experience around 2. As such, it appears that the Shuttle Titusville boom in the video will be milder than the starship boom in orlando (the green contour line in Dave G's linked map). What was acceptable in Titusville that was pretty dependant economically on Shuttle may not be acceptable in Orlando with a population of nearly 1% of the United States.
We'll see then. But this is hardly a showstopper, worst case SpaceX needs to position a drone ship some miles off the coast for Starship to land, this is the advantage of a VTVL, it can land pretty much anywhere.
Sounds familiar:
https://youtu.be/zqE-ultsWt0
-
Page 8 of the attached pdf
For the reentry-descent phase of flight, the measurements were made on land with the majority
acquired in the state of California and about 25 percent in the state of Florida. The measured
boom signatures were generally N-wave in character, similar to those observed from supersonic
aircraft, with amplitudes ranging from about 0.10 psf from the vehicle at about 243,000 feet altitude
to a maximum of 2.32 psf just prior to landing. Signature periods, however, were much
greater than those observed on aircraft being on the order of about 0.40 second to about 2.5 seconds.
Predictions of the magnitude of sonic booms and ground footprints for Mach numbers to
about 6.0 compared favorably with measurements.
So a SS landing produce twice as much overpressure in Titusville. whether that translates to twice as loud or 10x as loud i don't know.
A little Googling gives some links to NASA studies on perceived loudness of sonic booms. It seems that the shape of the wave has a large effect on the perceived loudness of the boom, and the shape of the wave depends on the geometry of the vehicle, etc. So two different vehicles can produce sonic booms of differing perceived loudness, even though the peak overpressure of the wave is the same. Then trying to predict the perceived loudness of Starship booms as compared to Shuttle booms is probably impossible given the unknowns of wave shape differences and the subjectivity of human loudness perception.
So while peak overpressure maps may be useful for a general assessment of the sonic footpring over a large geographic area, it's probably impossible to predict how many people in, say, Orlando are going to find Starship booms "very annoying," which is apparently a term of art in these sorts of studies.
-
Helpful legend when it comes to reading and understanding the sound levels when reading the Draft Environmental Assessment.
https://www.noisehelp.com/noise-level-chart.html
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXKSH221uy4
He does namecheck this forum at the end recommending people visit the forum.
-
When I try to download the document, access is blocked with the following message:
Web Page Blocked!
The page cannot be displayed. Please contact the administrator for additional information.
URL: netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf
Client IP: --redacted--
Attack ID: 20000008
Has the server interpreted a high number of downloads or high bandwidth use for this file as a DoS attack and blocked it?
Anyone else have the same problem?
Does anyone know of another downloadable copy of this?
Hope someone can help me get a copy to satisfy my curiosity...
-- "InfraNut2"
(I thought this was open public info anyway...? BTW: I am located in the allied (NATO) country Norway, but I do not think country has anything to do with it, since that would be pretty meaningless in these days when many use VPNs, proxies and such)
Link works for me just now.
Copy of report attached
Thanks AnalogMan !!!
Now I finally got the report.
(Original site still blocked for me...)
-
... worst case SpaceX needs to position a drone ship some miles off the coast for Starship to land, this is the advantage of a VTVL, it can land pretty much anywhere.
As I understand it, in order for BFR to meet it's operating cost targets, it must be fully and rapidly reusable.
Launching from land and landing at sea wouldn't satisfy the second part of that requirement, as this would involve:
- shipping it back to a sea port
- bringing it from vertical to horizontal
- trucking from the sea port back to the launch pad (is this even possible with a 10 meter diameter and fins?)
- bringing it back to vertical
That's why they want to land Starship right back at the launch pad, as requested in the Draft EA.
If the sonic boom issue is a show stopper, it may be cheaper for them to move the whole launch pad offshore.
-
Yep. They must have some detailed plans for an offshore launch and landing platform. (anchored or floating)
-
The sonic boom thing is starting to worry me.
Isn't this what killed the Concorde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde)?
If they'd been able to offer super-sonic domestic flights, e.g. New York to L.A., they may have been profitable.
In any case, governments banning Concord super-sonic flights over land due to sonic booms has set a precedent.
Breaking that precedent could prove difficult.
This could be a serious issue for landing orbital Starship missions in Florida and Texas.
First, times have changed, and Florida has experience with sonic booms. The general public no longer believes that this is a sonic boom:
Ahh, it’s the 6pm Starship back from the Moon!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfB38RlXRbI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfB38RlXRbI)
Second, the Concorde wasn’t economical. A few extra hours costs way less, and that travel was still possible.
There is no space travel without a sonic boom. So either regional governments come to terms with that, or spaceports relocate. But it’s no big deal, so nothing to sweat over.
-
"SpaceX plans to launch the Starship/Super Heavy up to 24 times per year from LC-39A. A static fire test would be conducted on each stage prior to each launch."
Yes, but it also says:
"The Starship and Super Heavy would exceed the lift capabilities of the Falcon Heavy. Due to the higher lift capability, Starship/Super Heavy could launch more payloads and reduce the overall launch cadence when compared to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. This would increase the cost effectiveness of the space industry."
Sounds like STS, or Titan IV, or EELV. Fewer launches, more stuff on each. Initial claims of cost-effectiveness that didn't pan out in those cases.
- Ed Kyle
The incentives are entirely different. The results that emerge will be as well.
One would not expect the outcome of government-procured launch systems from a oligopolistic gvmt contractor space industry to ever be close to comparable to what will emerge from a private company spending their own resources to design an orbital launch system.
I'm not arguing with your history of missed promises with "STS, or Titan IV, or EELV. Fewer launches, more stuff on each. Initial claims of cost-effectiveness that didn't pan out..." Am just pointing out that any comparison of outcomes with entirely different incentive structures will be fraught.
SpaceX has been re-writing the rules of the game with their novel innovation, rapid tech advancement, and rather drastic cost reductions for over a decade now. They've clearly demonstrated the ability to out-innovate and radically cost-reduce the legacy way of doing spaceflight technology development.
-
The sonic boom thing is starting to worry me.
Isn't this what killed the Concorde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde)?
If they'd been able to offer super-sonic domestic flights, e.g. New York to L.A., they may have been profitable.
In any case, governments banning Concord super-sonic flights over land due to sonic booms has set a precedent.
Breaking that precedent could prove difficult.
This could be a serious issue for landing orbital Starship missions in Florida and Texas.
First, times have changed, and Florida has experience with sonic booms. The general public no longer believes that this is a sonic boom:
Ahh, it’s the 6pm Starship back from the Moon!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfB38RlXRbI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfB38RlXRbI)
Second, the Concorde wasn’t economical. A few extra hours costs way less, and that travel was still possible.
There is no space travel without a sonic boom. So either regional governments come to terms with that, or spaceports relocate. But it’s no big deal, so nothing to sweat over.
The funny thing is, that shuttle information posted above made me LESS concerned rather than more after looking at it closely.
Another thing is, we get daily thunderstorms that probably make much more substantial noise. Sometimes in the middle of the night. Last week I saw 2 lightning strikes not 50 feet away from my back door within 20 minutes of each other as I was looking out the window.
-
As I understand it, in order for BFR to meet it's operating cost targets, it must be fully and rapidly reusable.
Launching from land and landing at sea wouldn't satisfy the second part of that requirement, as this would involve:
- shipping it back to a sea port
- bringing it from vertical to horizontal
- trucking from the sea port back to the launch pad (is this even possible with a 10 meter diameter and fins?)
- bringing it back to vertical
Or more simply utilise two identical launch/landing ships (probably catamaran for stability and speed given low mass) that can cruise a SH back from 1000km downrange in 24 hours, and do launch far enough off coast that range safety and environmental compliance issues are minimised. SH and starship launch from one and land on other.
Ships are cheap to build - about $2/kg so such ships are likely to only cost a few $10's of million each. Possibly cheaper than building a land based launch tower.
-
... worst case SpaceX needs to position a drone ship some miles off the coast for Starship to land, this is the advantage of a VTVL, it can land pretty much anywhere.
As I understand it, in order for BFR to meet it's operating cost targets, it must be fully and rapidly reusable.
Launching from land and landing at sea wouldn't satisfy the second part of that requirement, as this would involve:
- shipping it back to a sea port
- bringing it from vertical to horizontal
- trucking from the sea port back to the launch pad (is this even possible with a 10 meter diameter and fins?)
- bringing it back to vertical
That's why they want to land Starship right back at the launch pad, as requested in the Draft EA.
If the sonic boom issue is a show stopper, it may be cheaper for them to move the whole launch pad offshore.
The cost is much more complicated, if we're talking about marginal cost of launch, I don't think a boat trip will add much to it. What the offshore landing will do is limiting their launch rate, but in this EA the launch rate is already limited to 24 per year, and the downrange landing of SH will be limiting the launch rate too, so landing Starship offshore wouldn't change the equation.
This EA is just to get them started, it's not some 10 years plan, it's what they'll do at the moment. The EA's purpose is not to be the be all and end all plan for everything Starship, it's what they need to get this thing flying in the next 2 years. They can re-assess the situation after Starship starts flying, who knows what will happen then, maybe the sonic boom wouldn't be as loud or the public wouldn't be as skittish, like I said, we'll see.
While I would like to see they working on offshore launch platform too, and I hope ASoG is such a platform, that is probably for another thread.
-
... Starship is going to be significantly louder than Space Shuttle by a factor of 2 or 3, if I refer to the overpressure map below that I found here:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110011322.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110011322.pdf)
I agree.
Comparing the sonic boom maps, it seems sonic booms for Starship will be much worse than the Space Shuttle.
Maybe I'm wired differently, but when I see a potential issue, I embrace it as a problem to be solved or worked around. If it turns out to be a non-issue, I'm pleasantly surprised. If not, at least I understand the issue fully.
To be clear, I'm not saying sonic booms are a definite show-stopper, only that it's a potential issue, so it's worth understanding more about it.
-
... the blue / light green are for sound levels that you probably won't notice unless you are listening for it.
The Draft Environmental Assessment (https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf) section on sonic booms says exactly the opposite.
In general, booms in the 0.2 to 0.3 psf range could be heard by someone who is expecting it and listening
for it, but usually would not be noticed. Booms of 0.5 psf are more likely to be noticed, and booms of 1.0
psf are certain to be noticed.
The light-blue lines represent 1.0 psf, and includes about 1/3 of Florida, including Tampa, Clearwater, etc.
The green lines represent 2.0 psf, twice what the EA says is "certain to be noticed", and includes the entire Orlando metro area.
-
Once again,
Don't get the idea that we don't have daily loud noises in the form of thunderstorms. Starship noise seems irrelevant.
-
Don't get the idea that we don't have daily loud noises in the form of thunderstorms.
Good point.
Starship noise seems irrelevant.
Have to disagree here. The Draft EA (https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf) includes 42 pages on sonic booms, so it seems relevant to this thread.
As I said, it's possible that sonic booms will end up being a non-issue, but that's yet to be determined.
-
Once again,
Don't get the idea that we don't have daily loud noises in the form of thunderstorms. Starship noise seems irrelevant.
I hardly think you have thunderstorms 365 days a year.
-
Once again,
Don't get the idea that we don't have daily loud noises in the form of thunderstorms. Starship noise seems irrelevant.
I hardly think you have thunderstorms 365 days a year.
Pretty close to that. Besides, you aren't suggesting there are going to be more launches than there are thunderstorms, are you?
edit: I did a google and it shows we get more than 100 per year. I guess it only FEELS like we get them every day.
-
Once again,
Don't get the idea that we don't have daily loud noises in the form of thunderstorms. Starship noise seems irrelevant.
I hardly think you have thunderstorms 365 days a year.
Pretty close to that. Besides, you aren't suggesting there are going to be more launches than there are thunderstorms, are you?
edit: I did a google and it shows we get more than 100 per year. I guess it only FEELS like we get them every day.
Agree - In the past I often worked in North Orlando - in the summer you could set your watch by the afternoon thunderstorm - always 4:15 (for about half an hour)
-
I believe one of the main complaints about sonic booms is that they come out of the blue. thunderstorms are usually obvious and predictable.
Someone in another thread mentioned the reaction to the starlink visibility and SpaceX's reponse. At least in that case some old lady didn't have a hummel figurine shaken off a shelf in her curio cabinet. So whatever you might think is a non-issue, there are plenty of other people out there that will loudly complain.
-
Just as some consider the thunderstorm talk valueless now you know how I feel about the noise 'concerns'. People die regularly due to thunderstorms. Regardless, based on comments, I will consider this discussion vector exhausted.
On another note, I saw posts on another thread about potential measures to mitigate the severity of sonic shock exposed to land. I wonder whether SpaceX will make an effort to test some possible mitigations as part of the Starship mark 1 & 2 test regime?
-
This thunderstorm tangent is mind-numbingly valueless.
Let's take a lesson that totally unnecessary nitpicking/quips like the following don't add anything at all and lead to such tangents.
I hardly think you have thunderstorms 365 days a year.
I could add being lectured at by another poster over such a trivial point certainly doesn’t add anything to the thread.
Over here in the U.K. every time a military plane is forced to go supersonic on an intercept of our airspace you can guarantee that the papers the following day will have coverage of people besieging social media wondering what the noise was, and in a number of cases who they can complain to about the noise.
On a more serious point I’ve certainly read that for example that farmers in this country take the issue of sonic booms very seriously if it disturbs their livestock. As well in other cases of property damage that has led to pay outs in compensation by the DOD.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ministry-defence-hit-compensation-claims-8134690
-
I believe one of the main complaints about sonic booms is that they come out of the blue. thunderstorms are usually obvious and predictable.
Someone in another thread mentioned the reaction to the starlink visibility and SpaceX's reponse. At least in that case some old lady didn't have a hummel figurine shaken off a shelf in her curio cabinet. So whatever you might think is a non-issue, there are plenty of other people out there that will loudly complain.
This clip was linked to me recently for different reasons, but I think it applies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfB38RlXRbI
-
"After the vehicle is in a safe state, a mobile hydraulic lift would raise Starship onto a
transporter, similar to the current transporter used for Falcon"
What about the BS about the Starship doing everything vertically?
-
"The rocket would be integrated vertically on the pad at LC-39A using a mobile crane. This would involve
the booster being mated to the launch mount followed by Starship being mated to the booster. Initial
flights would use a temporary or mobile crane, with a permanent crane tower constructed later. The
height of the permanent crane tower would be approximately 120 to 180 m"
Like old school pads. That is what MST's did.
-
The Super Heavy booster would be delivered by barge from the landing site utilizing the KSC Turn Basin wharf as a delivery point and transported the remaining distance to the launch complex over the Crawlerway. A downrange landing would be a contingency landing location for Starship and transport would be similar to the Super Heavy booster."
Is anyone familiar with what access is like at the Turn Basin? AFAIK, only NASA employees and accredited members of the press (during events) would be in a position to take photos of returns.
Still has to go through the port to get there
-
"The rocket would be integrated vertically on the pad at LC-39A using a mobile crane. This would involve
the booster being mated to the launch mount followed by Starship being mated to the booster. Initial
flights would use a temporary or mobile crane, with a permanent crane tower constructed later. The
height of the permanent crane tower would be approximately 120 to 180 m"
Like old school pads. That is what MST's did.
No. It's only part of what MSTs did.
-
"After the vehicle is in a safe state, a mobile hydraulic lift would raise Starship onto a
transporter, similar to the current transporter used for Falcon"
What about the BS about the Starship doing everything vertically?
Musk answered "no" to a question about whether Starship would go horizontal during the build sequence.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1158592581862752256
He previously said that Starship would get from Cocoa to 39A horizontally:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131625395118268416
There's no inconsistency there, because build is separate from operations.
-
"The rocket would be integrated vertically on the pad at LC-39A using a mobile crane. This would involve
the booster being mated to the launch mount followed by Starship being mated to the booster. Initial
flights would use a temporary or mobile crane, with a permanent crane tower constructed later. The
height of the permanent crane tower would be approximately 120 to 180 m"
Like old school pads. That is what MST's did.
In case you were wondering like me:
MST = Mobile Service Tower
-
I believe one of the main complaints about sonic booms is that they come out of the blue. thunderstorms are usually obvious and predictable.
A spaceship landing ought to be predictable. It'll be on the morning traffic report.
-
On another note, I saw posts on another thread about potential measures to mitigate the severity of sonic shock exposed to land. I wonder whether SpaceX will make an effort to test some possible mitigations as part of the Starship mark 1 & 2 test regime?
From what I've read these methods usually involve messing with the shape of the aircraft, often by making it longer and pointier so it can create a series of very closely spaced shocks since we perceive those very differently from something like the traditional double boom of eg the shuttle. For a vehicle doing reentry I think that would be very difficult.
-
"After the vehicle is in a safe state, a mobile hydraulic lift would raise Starship onto a
transporter, similar to the current transporter used for Falcon"
What about the BS about the Starship doing everything vertically?
Musk answered "no" to a question about whether Starship would go horizontal during the build sequence.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1158592581862752256
He previously said that Starship would get from Cocoa to 39A horizontally:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131625395118268416
There's no inconsistency there, because build is separate from operations.
For the sake of accuracy, that tweet is in reference to SH transport, not Starship. Not that I necessarily think it doesn't apply to SS too.
-
There's no inconsistency there, because build is separate from operations.
For the sake of accuracy, that tweet is in reference to SH transport, not Starship...
Note: The Draft EA has Super Heavy landing at sea. Later, they'll probably ask for permission to land SH right back on the launch pad, but until then, SH will have to go horizontal to get from the sea port to the launch site.
It's possible that Starship going horizontal may be more difficult due to the fins.
Maybe that's why they're asking for permission to land SS at the launch site first.
-
The route for land transport for landed SH's is by sea to Port Canaveral, then by road. (through CCAFS etc. and on the rodad past all the launch pads) Are there any overhead obstructions that would stop it being moved vertically? Obviously it would have to go slowly. I assume most of the road is private with very little traffic. The mass is not a problem. It would mean another tall crane at the harbour, but a hired one would do, or one like the Port of Brownsville's new mobile harbour crane could be purchased. As others have said current drone ships are too wide to pass through the harbour and get to the turning basin (near NASA's VAB).
-
Superheavy was going to have fin landings legs also wasn't it? Unless they go back to fold up legs like on F9 Booster for transport.
-
On another note, I saw posts on another thread about potential measures to mitigate the severity of sonic shock exposed to land. I wonder whether SpaceX will make an effort to test some possible mitigations as part of the Starship mark 1 & 2 test regime?
From what I've read these methods usually involve messing with the shape of the aircraft, often by making it longer and pointier so it can create a series of very closely spaced shocks since we perceive those very differently from something like the traditional double boom of eg the shuttle. For a vehicle doing reentry I think that would be very difficult.
I believe that may have been responding to a comment of mine.
The nominal trajectory is for example vertical below 10km.
If you tilt the SS at 30 degrees, you can get several km back along the track without requiring extra propulsion.
A modest extra amount of propellant (20% less payload) could give you more than 10 miles.
If you add thrust, or modulate the lift at various times, you can minimise shocks over specific locations - to a degree, without hardware modifications.
Hardware modifications - jet engines, additional aerosurfaces, ... are of course possible eventually, but you can do quite a lot with another ten tons of propellant.
-
Superheavy was going to have fin landings legs also wasn't it? Unless they go back to fold up legs like on F9 Booster for transport.
Very small fins. Much smaller than Starship.
As I understand it, these small fins on SH are to help guide it into place when landing back onto the launch pad.
Here's a picture from page 8 of the Draft EA (https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf).
-
Elon Musk ✓ @ElonMusk
Will probably make booster legs/flaps same as ship, instead of like F9
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1091147569068036096
-
Elon Musk ✓ @ElonMusk
Will probably make booster legs/flaps same as ship, instead of like F9
This is a bad time to be having this debate. Let's just wait two weeks (August 24th) and continue on then.
-
Elon Musk ✓ @ElonMusk
Will probably make booster legs/flaps same as ship, instead of like F9
This is a bad time to be having this debate. Let's just wait two weeks (August 24th) and continue on then.
It's also a bit off topic. So is sniping at people about thunderstorms.
-
Elon comments on launch frequencies in the EA:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1159630890026188800
Wouldn’t read too much into this. Likely to be fewer F9/FH flights, but possibly an order of magnitude more than these numbers in Starship flights.
-
Elon comments on launch frequencies in the EA:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1159630890026188800
Wouldn’t read too much into this. Likely to be fewer F9/FH flights, but possibly an order of magnitude more than these numbers in Starship flights.
Which means perhaps 240 annual launches once Starship is fully mature 🤯
-
He’s also saying production of 500 raptors/yr starting next year, which implies at least that many Starship flights. Things are often a bit slower than he predicts but he seems to expect Starship/Superheavy to really break through business as usual quite soon.
-
Which means perhaps 240 annual launches once Starship is fully mature 🤯
24 in the first year (or 12 that work before approaching the regulator) is enough to get much, much more confidence in the system.
Asking for 240 straight out may be a debate that they don't want to have right now.
-
He’s also saying production of 500 raptors/yr starting next year, which implies at least that many Starship flights. Things are often a bit slower than he predicts but he seems to expect Starship/Superheavy to really break through business as usual quite soon.
divided by 41 raptors per stack
-
He’s also saying production of 500 raptors/yr starting next year, which implies at least that many Starship flights. Things are often a bit slower than he predicts but he seems to expect Starship/Superheavy to really break through business as usual quite soon.
divided by 41 raptors per stack
times the number of reuses
-
Maybe a new thread covering the changes to SLC39A for this should be started in the Facilities and Fleets section (like there is for the Falcon Heavy) ??
-
Maybe a new thread covering the changes to SLC39A for this should be started in the Facilities and Fleets section (like there is for the Falcon Heavy) ??
We can keep using that thread, removed Falcon from the title.