Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/14/2021 09:15 pmCosts of an SH and SS:SH Engines -> From $30M to $40M depending on number of engines used (18 vs 23) Tank -> from $10M to $15M Ancillary hardware etc. -> from $10M to $15M Totals Min = ~$50M Max = ~$70MSS Engines -> from $8M to $10M Tank and Fairing -> from $10M to $15M due to complexity of the nose cone shape and extra internal piping and header tanks + tiles attachments Ancillary Hardware -> from $15M to $20M The fins complications and the tiles Totals Min = ~$33M Max = ~$45MCost of flight hardware for orbital flight Min =~$83M Max = ~$115MOr about 6 launches or more in a year without any recoveries for a total cost including all non flight hardware costs such as support GSE, tooling and other ground equipment fees and cryo costs. From a total spending of ~$1B.I'm not convinced the costs will be anywhere near that high.Raptors were estimated at around $2m each, BEFORE the spool up in production rate. They are likely well below $1M each by now.Tanks are only a few $100K in stainless steel, and with the rate they're churning them out, labor costs can't be more than a few million. So my guess is $10M to $15M for SS and $20M to $30M for SH. With those numbers reducing as they make more of them.However, the unit cost is almost irrelevent, as the big spend is on the infrastructure to build Raptors, Starships & Super Heavies, then test, launch and land them. If they spend $1B this year and get one orbital launch, did it cost $1B per launch? That sort of calculation is almost meaningless until they reach steady state, if ever. I prefer to look at it this way: - They have invested in and established the capacity (infrastructure, supply chains and people) to build Raptor, Starships and Super Heavies. - That capacity costs almost as much to sit idle as it does to make units. - Using it builds experince and improves quality, at the minor additinal cost of some raw materials and power. - The designs are not finalized yet, so current builds will not be of use when they eventually reach the operational designs.So it makes sense to keep churning out prototypes and expending them in ways that inform the operational design. Or even discard them if they've already moved on. If they splash a SS and SH on the first orbital ettempt? No big deal, the new & improved versions will be just rolling out of the High Bay.That said, I expect the SH will try to land on one of the drone ships, 20 km off Boca Chica. There could be a lot to learn by examining an intact, dry, booster, and the landing profile is relatively easy. Probably way too soon for one of the oil rigs to be ready though.On the other hand, getting another droneship to the SS landing area would be very difficult & dangerous, with pretty low probabilty SS will make it that far intact, and be able to do the flip and stick the landing.
Costs of an SH and SS:SH Engines -> From $30M to $40M depending on number of engines used (18 vs 23) Tank -> from $10M to $15M Ancillary hardware etc. -> from $10M to $15M Totals Min = ~$50M Max = ~$70MSS Engines -> from $8M to $10M Tank and Fairing -> from $10M to $15M due to complexity of the nose cone shape and extra internal piping and header tanks + tiles attachments Ancillary Hardware -> from $15M to $20M The fins complications and the tiles Totals Min = ~$33M Max = ~$45MCost of flight hardware for orbital flight Min =~$83M Max = ~$115MOr about 6 launches or more in a year without any recoveries for a total cost including all non flight hardware costs such as support GSE, tooling and other ground equipment fees and cryo costs. From a total spending of ~$1B.
Quote from: kkattula on 05/18/2021 02:28 amQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/14/2021 09:15 pmCosts of an SH and SS:SH Engines -> From $30M to $40M depending on number of engines used (18 vs 23) Tank -> from $10M to $15M Ancillary hardware etc. -> from $10M to $15M Totals Min = ~$50M Max = ~$70MSS Engines -> from $8M to $10M Tank and Fairing -> from $10M to $15M due to complexity of the nose cone shape and extra internal piping and header tanks + tiles attachments Ancillary Hardware -> from $15M to $20M The fins complications and the tiles Totals Min = ~$33M Max = ~$45MCost of flight hardware for orbital flight Min =~$83M Max = ~$115MOr about 6 launches or more in a year without any recoveries for a total cost including all non flight hardware costs such as support GSE, tooling and other ground equipment fees and cryo costs. From a total spending of ~$1B.I'm not convinced the costs will be anywhere near that high.Raptors were estimated at around $2m each, BEFORE the spool up in production rate. They are likely well below $1M each by now.Tanks are only a few $100K in stainless steel, and with the rate they're churning them out, labor costs can't be more than a few million. So my guess is $10M to $15M for SS and $20M to $30M for SH. With those numbers reducing as they make more of them.However, the unit cost is almost irrelevent, as the big spend is on the infrastructure to build Raptors, Starships & Super Heavies, then test, launch and land them. If they spend $1B this year and get one orbital launch, did it cost $1B per launch? That sort of calculation is almost meaningless until they reach steady state, if ever. I prefer to look at it this way: - They have invested in and established the capacity (infrastructure, supply chains and people) to build Raptor, Starships and Super Heavies. - That capacity costs almost as much to sit idle as it does to make units. - Using it builds experince and improves quality, at the minor additinal cost of some raw materials and power. - The designs are not finalized yet, so current builds will not be of use when they eventually reach the operational designs.So it makes sense to keep churning out prototypes and expending them in ways that inform the operational design. Or even discard them if they've already moved on. If they splash a SS and SH on the first orbital ettempt? No big deal, the new & improved versions will be just rolling out of the High Bay.That said, I expect the SH will try to land on one of the drone ships, 20 km off Boca Chica. There could be a lot to learn by examining an intact, dry, booster, and the landing profile is relatively easy. Probably way too soon for one of the oil rigs to be ready though.On the other hand, getting another droneship to the SS landing area would be very difficult & dangerous, with pretty low probabilty SS will make it that far intact, and be able to do the flip and stick the landing.Spot on
That said, I expect the SH will try to land on one of the drone ships, 20 km off Boca Chica. There could be a lot to learn by examining an intact, dry, booster, and the landing profile is relatively easy. Probably way too soon for one of the oil rigs to be ready though.On the other hand, getting another droneship to the SS landing area would be very difficult & dangerous, with pretty low probabilty SS will make it that far intact, and be able to do the flip and stick the landing.
Quote from: kkattula on 05/18/2021 02:28 amThat said, I expect the SH will try to land on one of the drone ships, 20 km off Boca Chica. There could be a lot to learn by examining an intact, dry, booster, and the landing profile is relatively easy. Probably way too soon for one of the oil rigs to be ready though.On the other hand, getting another droneship to the SS landing area would be very difficult & dangerous, with pretty low probabilty SS will make it that far intact, and be able to do the flip and stick the landing.Accept it will not be real development work, because they don't need to take care with mass margins, etc, they just need some "knock them up in the field" basic legs. Some heavy girders that fold down like-but-unlike the F9 composite legs would do.Landing on a droneship without the catch tower means the booster needs legs. Which would be more one-off development work that is not applicable long-term.
Just wondering, how many launches of the SH/SS stack do you suppose they might want to make before the catch tower is completed?
While the SN20 and BN3 combo will be first in line for orbital flight, it’s expected that the subsequent boosters and ships will pair up accordingly, SN21 with BN4, SN22 with BN5, and SN23 with BN6. In addition, it’s understood that a major design upgrade is set to come with the SN24/BN7 pair.
User softwaresaur on reddit discovered a FCC filing for a Starlink Ku band ground station with a single off the shelf Cobham MK3 antenna in Honolulu, Hawaii, this is different from regular Starlink ground stations which have 8 Ka band SpaceX antennas. Speculation is this ground station will be used to communicate with Starship during its flight towards splashdown site near Kauai.
They still show legs on the diagrams taped to the new parts.SpaceX sunk a ton of engineering into fairing recovery even though they knew it was only temporary until Starship is online.I have a theory that Elon intentionally spouts out about their most Ioutlandish ideas and long-term proposals in order to make their near term stuff seem less plausible to their competitors, catching them off guard when they get steamrolled by a very real operational capability. He actually encourages the skepticism and the dismissivism to catch competitors off-guard.
Quote from: su27k on 05/19/2021 04:08 amUser softwaresaur on reddit discovered a FCC filing for a Starlink Ku band ground station with a single off the shelf Cobham MK3 antenna in Honolulu, Hawaii, this is different from regular Starlink ground stations which have 8 Ka band SpaceX antennas. Speculation is this ground station will be used to communicate with Starship during its flight towards splashdown site near Kauai.The Starlink antenna on Starship is located on the leeward (dorsal) side presumably so it can talk upward to the Starlink constellation during entry. When would this ground station be in view of that antenna on Starship? If not, then this Honolulu station would just be for talking to the constellation as it relays data down from Starship. So, then why not use a regular ground station, why a custom?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/18/2021 11:30 pmThey still show legs on the diagrams taped to the new parts.SpaceX sunk a ton of engineering into fairing recovery even though they knew it was only temporary until Starship is online.I have a theory that Elon intentionally spouts out about their most Ioutlandish ideas and long-term proposals in order to make their near term stuff seem less plausible to their competitors, catching them off guard when they get steamrolled by a very real operational capability. He actually encourages the skepticism and the dismissivism to catch competitors off-guard.So f9 is 20t.SH is 230t? 180t?Any chance that the existing f9 legs could be used?6 of them?8 of them?Are the current f9 legs over designed somewhat and can actually take a larger load?How quick could they make an upgrade of the f9 legs for the larger loads?EDIT: onespeed estimates 10.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47179.msg2240197#msg2240197
Quote from: Mike_1179 on 05/19/2021 12:13 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/19/2021 04:08 amUser softwaresaur on reddit discovered a FCC filing for a Starlink Ku band ground station with a single off the shelf Cobham MK3 antenna in Honolulu, Hawaii, this is different from regular Starlink ground stations which have 8 Ka band SpaceX antennas. Speculation is this ground station will be used to communicate with Starship during its flight towards splashdown site near Kauai.The Starlink antenna on Starship is located on the leeward (dorsal) side presumably so it can talk upward to the Starlink constellation during entry. When would this ground station be in view of that antenna on Starship? If not, then this Honolulu station would just be for talking to the constellation as it relays data down from Starship. So, then why not use a regular ground station, why a custom?Pretty sure the ground station would just talk to the constellation which will relay the data from Starship. Not sure why they wouldn't use a regular ground station, maybe they're not ready to expand service to Hawaii yet? I don't know what is the fiber connection bandwidth between Hawaii and US mainland, it's possible the bandwidth is not sufficient to support a regular ground station offering commercial service, but it is sufficient for relaying some data from Starship test. They may be waiting for laser link to be operational before expanding Starlink service to Hawaii.
I don't know what is the fiber connection bandwidth between Hawaii and US mainland, it's possible the bandwidth is not sufficient to support a regular ground station offering commercial service, but it is sufficient for relaying some data from Starship test. They may be waiting for laser link to be operational before expanding Starlink service to Hawaii.
From this it looks like they're planning at least 4 expendable SH launches, and the major upgrade by SN24/BN7 could very well be a SH that is catchable by the tower.
Sticking with one design for the first four orbital flights does not mean expending everything.
