Author Topic: Spaceship yards... Clean room factories not practical at finite cost for SS/BFR  (Read 6287 times)

Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 2
I would imagine Bob Truax would be tickled pink that his Sea Dragon concept for a shipyard assembled somewhat reusable TSTO would come sorta to fruition...

Offline Prettz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • O'Neillian
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 19
I wonder just how many of these things will be built, over how long of a time frame. To me that will determine just how permanent of an assembly facility will be needed. If the project is canned after the first three or four are built, it's not worth a factory. If by 2030, there are tens, or hundreds of Starships, then a factory is a must. I think there is a factory in Starship's / Super Heavy's future. They are just being cautious in their development at this point.
That really just depends on whether SpaceX goes bankrupt from this.
I think they'll be putting everything they have into this. And I think they might make these decisions one rocketship at a time. Also, hundreds is absolutely out of the question.

Once they need to start building passenger versions of the ship, the equation is going to change for sure. You can't (and I'm sticking to that word) assemble and outfit a spacecraft interior outdoors.

Online GregTheGrumpy

You can't (and I'm sticking to that word) assemble and outfit a spacecraft interior outdoors.

Once you have the exterior shell enclosed, the interior is no longer outdoors.  It can be cleaned to a very high degree and the sensitive electronic no-dust-shall-touch stuff will be built in a clean room anyway.  I mean, how clean is the interior of the ISS?  Body vapors, hair, misc small debris are all present and dealt with.  I don't see any needs for extremely high clean room construction.

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 932
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 267
Nothing being fabricated on the large scale, ship or rocket, stays clean whether or not it is outdoors.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28856
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9048
  • Likes Given: 5798
I would imagine Bob Truax would be tickled pink that his Sea Dragon concept for a shipyard assembled somewhat reusable TSTO would come sorta to fruition...
Yup. Very Sea Dragon. There’s some vindication here for the Sea Dragon folk.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
  • United States
  • Liked: 1688
  • Likes Given: 2488
Nothing being fabricated on the large scale, ship or rocket, stays clean whether or not it is outdoors.

Plus, if BFR is going to become the "DC-3" of the solar system, it needs to be wildly robust and serviceable in deep space in space suits with simple tooling by guys who, in all seriousness, look and act like this:

Bring the thunder!

Offline Prettz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • O'Neillian
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 19
Nothing being fabricated on the large scale, ship or rocket, stays clean whether or not it is outdoors.

Plus, if BFR is going to become the "DC-3" of the solar system, it needs to be wildly robust and serviceable in deep space in space suits with simple tooling by guys who, in all seriousness, look and act like this:
They didn't have to contend with things floating in zero G.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 411
  • Likes Given: 438
"They didn't have to contend with things floating in zero G."

Hasn't that often been a problem with new spacecraft? Memory says it was with Apollo but nothing about STS.

Offline nicp

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • UK
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 171
If the shipyard vs clean room approach is successful I can see the Russians suddenly noticing they have good rocket engines and ship (floating kind) yards.
For Vectron!

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 59
If the shipyard vs clean room approach is successful I can see the Russians suddenly noticing they have good rocket engines and ship (floating kind) yards.

I don't think their approach so far is much different - they built a lot of rockets somewhere in the desert and pulled NK-33s out of an old shed
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline WormPicker959

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • NYC
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 39
If the shipyard vs clean room approach is successful I can see the Russians suddenly noticing they have good rocket engines and ship (floating kind) yards.

I don't think their approach so far is much different - they built a lot of rockets somewhere in the desert and pulled NK-33s out of an old shed

...but those NK-33s, even after refurbishment and dubbed an AJ26, had a tendency to explode...

Offline Pete

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Cubicle
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 146
...but those NK-33s, even after refurbishment and dubbed an AJ26, had a tendency to explode...

Only when the refurbishment is done by Americans that cannot read the original manuals.

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 30
...but those NK-33s, even after refurbishment and dubbed an AJ26, had a tendency to explode...

Only when the refurbishment is done by Americans that cannot read the original manuals.
In combination with "what original manuals?".
While the physical engines themselves were hidden in a hanger and saved from the purge of the N-1 program, they were otherwise officially un-existed. In addition, there is the different philosophy in engine production: the 'American way' is to design every element of an engine down to its components and the step-by-step machining and assembly. The 'Soviet way' was to design the engine to the specification and blueprint level, then hand off to the production department to figure out the actual production process which would produce an engine to that design and meet those specifications. This had the upside of keeping things like metallurgy tweaks very closed loop, but the downside that the actual engine production was more institutional knowledge rather than strictly documented.

Tags: