×

325
326

SpaceX targets February for third Starship test flight (spacenews.com)

submitted by ye_olde_astronaut

all 158 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]tlbs101 81 points82 points  (10 children)

The more successful (more goals met, fewer RUDs) it is, the less time it will take between licensing. Hypothetically, if IFT-3 Starship makes a splashdown near Hawaii, and Booster doesn’t explode before hitting the gulf, then IFT-4 may be a mattter of weeks, not months.

[–]M_Shepard_89 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Is it expected that they'll be allowed to launch more per year from Boca Chica eventually? Right now I think it's capped at 5 or 6

[–]Resvrgam2 9 points10 points  (1 child)

That's currently the assumption. If they ever need all 5 orbital launches in a year, I am sure they'll work towards re-negotiating the allowance.

They're also working on a Kennedy launch facility for Starship, which may help reduce demand on Boca Chica.

[–]7473GiveMeAccount 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They're probably gonna run into the 5 flight limit this year, if they don't get a license modification.

So I'd expect them to apply for one fairly soon after IFT-3, assuming that works out well. Coming from a success should help matters somewhat

[–]MrT0xic 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Exactly. The big rush will be prepping the next pair instead of waiting for licensing

[–]YsoL8 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I hope so. At the pace its slowed down to we are least 2 years from even attempting the first in orbit fueling test.

[–]pgnshgn 3 points4 points  (1 child)

IFT-3 (this one) is supposed to do a proof of concept of orbital refueling by pumping from tank to tank.

[–]makoivis -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Which doesn’t really prove anything about refueling. The real problems are storage and the coupling between vessels.

[–]Different_Oil_8026 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Honestly, just the starship making it to the orbit and booster making a controlled descent into the ocean would be a huge success....

[–]TheoremaEgregium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'd think they'd need time to implement improvements based on the flight test results. Unless the tests are mostly to confirm what they already knew.

[–]vilette 19 points20 points  (45 children)

3 months between launches, it's what they need if they want to do 4 attempts this year

[–]makoivis 7 points8 points  (43 children)

and even four successful launches just puts them further behind the HLS schedule

[–]pmmichalowski 6 points7 points  (29 children)

Can you explain?

[–]makoivis 7 points8 points  (28 children)

The schedule for demo flight around the moon was end of 2024. This flight alone requires ten-ish refueling launches.

Four will not get you there for obvious reasons.

[–]Naive-Routine9332 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Unmanned HLS demo afaik is NET 2025. And I'd be surprised if they need a full tank for that. But yeah launch cadence is largely limited by launch failures as of right now, it's hard to say what kind of cadence they can hit when they start succeeding They've managed pretty good pad turnaround times with f9.

But probably can expect delays as usual with anything space related. A lot of these timelines seem more political than anything else. At least with spacex we get to closely monitor and follow progress, which is fun.

[–]Competitive_Bit_7904 3 points4 points  (25 children)

It will if you decide to launch Starship in fully expendable mode.

[–]makoivis 1 point2 points  (24 children)

Nope. With zero payload the max dV given the current specs is 12860m/s. This means you're just sending an empty payload fairing. You could barely do a free-return fly-by then (which best case requires (12260m/s). If you add even a modest lander payload of 30t (which is roughly the weight of the apollo CSM + LM with no service module IIRC), you only get 11960m/s dV.

Specs I use:

Stage Empty Mass (t) Propellant Mass (t) ISP (s)
Superheavy 200 3400 327
Starship 100 1200 366

If you have alternative specs you want to use, I can run the numbers again.

So, no, you will not go around the moon with HLS without refueling, even if it's fully expended.

[–]Competitive_Bit_7904 3 points4 points  (23 children)

No, you're misunderstanding my point. With fully expandable configuration you will be able to considerably lower the amount of tanker flights needed to refuel HLS enough to make the mission profile. Of course, you will be throwing away hardware but this early in the development and the fact that Starship is relatively cheap and fast to manufacture (something that will only get cheaper and faster) it's always an option under time constrain.

[–]makoivis -2 points-1 points  (22 children)

the fact that Starship is relatively cheap to produce it's always an option.

Citation needed. They're spending several billion per year to produce a handful: the engines alone are at least $39 million , never mind the rest of the rocket.

With fully expandable configuration you will be able to considerably lower the amount of tanker flights needed to refuel HLS enough to make the mission profile

Sure! With above specs you should be able to get 200t of propellant payload up to LEO per expendable tanker launch, giving an absolute worst case of six refueling launches.

[–]BrangdonJ 6 points7 points  (7 children)

The engines are probably a lot less than $1M each by now. They were approaching that in 2019, and since then they've ramped up production to where they were making 7 a week.

I think the reality is that they incur most of their costs whether or not they launch. They are certainly building more rockets, and engines, than they can launch.

[–]makoivis -1 points0 points  (6 children)

Probably based on what?

[–]Competitive_Bit_7904 9 points10 points  (13 children)

Citation needed. They're spending several billion per year to produce a handful: the engines alone are at least $39 million , never mind the rest of the rocket

Here Musk make the claim that producing one Starship has a marginal cost of around 100 million USD

You're ignoring that most of the cost doesn't go to the hardware of the rocket itself but the R&D as well as the construction of the manufacturing and launch sites. The marginal cost of building one more Starship is not going to be anywhere close to something like a billion.

Sure! With above specs you should be able to get 200t of propellant payload up to LEO per expendable tanker launch, giving an absolute worst case of six refueling launches.

No, we're talking more in the area of 250-300 tonnes of fuel. Which would bring it down to ~3-4 launches. Likely even a bit more now that it's hot staging. An expendable configuration will not only be able to carry more payload as it doesn't need to do RTLS but will also throw away a lot hardware that would be needed for it which your calculations ignores.

[–]makoivis -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

Here Musk make the claim that producing one Starship has a marginal cost of around 100 million USD

Right so marginal meaning that's hardware and propellant alone. This would also mean that SLS is only like 500 million or so per rocket IIRC, but we don't use that number because it's not terribly meaningful.

You're ignoring that most of the cost doesn't go to the hardware of the rocket itself but the R&D as well as the construction of the manufacturing and launch sites.

So they never intend to make that money back or factor it into costing? Sheesh, what an awful way of doing business.

Starship payload is 250 to 300 tons to orbit in expendable mode.

Well not with the published specs it isn't. 300tons fully expended with the given dry masses would translate to 8268m/s.

If you give the dry masses and propellant masses I can check the calculations with new numbers, but the numbers available don't add up.

[–]pmmichalowski 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh ok, makes sense, I focused on the successful part and was very confused how succeeding would make it more behind as compared to lack of success. I get it now.

Thanks for clarifying!

[–]greymancurrentthing7 6 points7 points  (9 children)

If they get the second pad at boca chica and the pad at KSC ready.

Then by the end of the year they could landing the boosters and reusing them.

It’s starts accelerating.

Or eventually it will start accelerating.

[–]makoivis -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

Hard to get them ready if you haven't started work on them yet. It takes time.

[–]greymancurrentthing7 13 points14 points  (7 children)

Both are under construction today.

KSC

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Sweet!

How long is it estimated to take to build?

[–]greymancurrentthing7 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Don’t know. But the chopsticks are near the end of the basic construction. The KSC tower has been under construction for a bit.

The 2nd tower at boca chica is just starting.

Even if starships 2nd stage takes a few years to be reliable at landing out of orbit.

Just reusing the boosters at 3 different towers will allow for cheap launches perhaps 3 launches in just the span of a few days.

The future is coming even if it’s a little farther out than we’d like.

[–]makoivis -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

We will have starship be something at the end of the process, it just won't be something that delivers on all the impossible promises. It'll be watered down.

[–]greymancurrentthing7 2 points3 points  (3 children)

The Commercial Airliner idea is the absolute stretch goal spacex doesn’t mind putting that far flung stuff out there.

If Starship can launch reliably at a cadence of once a week for less than 150million dollars.

Stuff will get real weird. The entire game will be flipped.

Human missions to basically anywhere will get very cheap. Well within any nasa budget.

[–]makoivis -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

That's a big if.

Even then the airliner thing is never ever going to happen for technical, economical and regulatory reasons.

[–]Shawnj2 -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

HLS isn’t going to be ready until like 2030 at the earliest lol basically all of SpaceX’s existing predictions are BS

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Lots of starship-related claims are very suspect and don't stand up to scrutiny, yeah.

[–]Decronym 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters More Letters
BE-4 Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN
BO Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry)
CST (Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules
Central Standard Time (UTC-6)
GAO (US) Government Accountability Office
GLOW Gross Lift-Off Weight
HLS Human Landing System (Artemis)
Isp Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube)
Internet Service Provider
KSC Kennedy Space Center, Florida
LEO Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)
Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)
LOX Liquid Oxygen
N1 Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift ("Russian Saturn V")
NET No Earlier Than
NRHO Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit
RTLS Return to Launch Site
RUD Rapid Unplanned Disassembly
Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly
Rapid Unintended Disassembly
SECO Second-stage Engine Cut-Off
SLS Space Launch System heavy-lift
ULA United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)
Jargon Definition
Starliner Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100
Starlink SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation
cryogenic Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure
(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox
hydrolox Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer
hypergolic A set of two substances that ignite when in contact
iron waffle Compact "waffle-iron" aerodynamic control surface, acts as a wing without needing to be as large; also, "grid fin"
methalox Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer

NOTE: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.

[Thread #9622 for this sub, first seen 11th Jan 2024, 04:02] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

[–]Neptune-retro 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Hopefully it holds and potentially we get 4 Starship launches this year.

[–]Tystros 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I'm sure we will get 5 this year at least

[–]Neptune-retro 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If the next one follows through its flight plan. 5 could be definitely on the cards.

[–]EarnSomeRespect 3 points4 points  (34 children)

Help me understand, the HLS will need to refuel no less than 8 times in orbit in order to have enough fuel to land on the moon and return to LEO?

[–]Tystros 20 points21 points  (1 child)

what about it is not clear to you?

[–]greymancurrentthing7 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No one is sure on the amount yet.

It depends if starship is using reuse or fully expended rockets then. Or if the actual HLS counts as a launch.

[–]rocketsocks 12 points13 points  (0 children)

No, Starship-HLS goes from LEO to the Lunar Gateway Station (in NRHO around the Moon) where it will stay until Orion delivers astronauts from Earth, then Starship-HLS drops to low lunar orbit then to the lunar surface then back up to orbit and then back to the NRHO and the Gateway Station. Orion brings the crew back from Gateway to Earth.

But that will require 8 refuelings in LEO. Note that the whole Starship architecture is designed around reusability and orbital propellent delivery so "8 launches per trip" is not as crazy as it seems, it's a very flexible and resilient mission architecture (at least that part of it). Also keep in mind that Starship-HLS is kind of overkill for Artemis III as it has the capability to deliver tens of tonnes of payload to the lunar surface.

[–]makoivis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

it will not return to LEO. it will dock with the gateway, and once that is done, HLS is sent to a heliocentric orbit and discarded.

[–]BrangdonJ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Probably it will be a depot Starship in Earth orbit that will be refuelled 8ish times and then the HLS will be refuelled once from the depot. It doesn't return to LEO.

[–]ergzay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't get too worried about the flight count. Falcon 9 launches every 3 days on average.

[–]cadium 0 points1 point  (22 children)

I've heard at least 10 refuelling launches.

It looks like Blue Moon (mk2) from Blue Origin also got funding, let's hope they provide more competition and a quicker timeline.

[–]KitchenDepartment 17 points18 points  (4 children)

They also need orbital refuelling, but for liquid hydrogen, which is even harder to do.

[–]makoivis -1 points0 points  (2 children)

the upside is that they only require one fuel stop IIRC

[–]KitchenDepartment 12 points13 points  (1 child)

It requires two fuel stops. Which is a highly suspect number because it relies on the assumption that they can produce a propellant tug that actively cools the propellant in flight, resulting in zero boiloff. No such thing has ever been built in space before. That's not to say it is impossible, but it has some very important implications for the race between blue moon and starship

Liquid hydrogen has a boiling temperature near absolute zero, liquid methane has a boiling temperate that is 90 degrees hotter.

If Blue Origin can produce a tug that actively cools liquid hydrogen in space. Then it will be absolutely trivial to do the same for liquid methane, meaning spaceX gets away with far fewer refueling launches.

If Blue Origin can not produce a tug that actively cools hydrogen, then it is questionable if the plan is even possible to begin with. Starship is always going to be able to do the job so long as orbital refueling is possible, and that spaceX can ramp up the launch rate.

[–]makoivis 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If Blue Origin can produce a tug that actively cools liquid hydrogen in space. Then it will be absolutely trivial to do the same for liquid methane, meaning spaceX gets away with far fewer refueling launches.

Absolutely true. This is a case where a rising tide fits all boats and everyone benefits from the technology.

It'd be interesting to see what the power requirements are for active cooling.

[–]ergzay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah it's kind of nuts because they want zero boiloff, which means they basically need to launch an entire deep cryogenic refrigeration plant into orbit. It'll need absolutely massive radiators, and those radiators may need to be shielded from the sun.

I personally think they're going to de-scope the zero boiloff and instead go for additional flights.

[–]mfb- 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Don't hold your breath. BO got the contract later, they are far behind in development (expected of course), they need to refuel with a more challenging fuel, and BO isn't particularly known for its speed.

[–]greymancurrentthing7 3 points4 points  (2 children)

We are still waiting on new Glenn which is years.

[–]NeWMH 1 point2 points  (1 child)

If BO buyout of ULA is successful, BOs story changes pretty fast - they basically outsourced the F9 sized rocket step to ULA so they could focus on shepherd. If they then acquire ULA they jump ahead quite a bit in real capability and experience - launching New Glenn would put them in a real competitive place, especially in a potential future where starship development ends up running in to multiple significant delays(1-2 years worth). And they’d potentially be able to cannibalize Vulcan launch contracts for New Glenn.

This isn’t speaking to their moon mission so much as general relevancy as a rocket company. They have potential to go from questionable to credible really fast.

[–]ergzay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're engaging in quite a lot of wishful thinking.

Saying Vulcan is a "F9-sized rocket" is wrong in both fact (it's bigger than F9) and implication (it'll operate nothing like F9).

Launching New Glenn doesn't put them in any kind of competitive pace until they show that they can reuse it. The first prototype vehicle that's been shown doesn't have any reuse hardware on it. New Glenn, right now, is a very expensive expendable heavy launch vehicle.

especially in a potential future where starship development ends up running in to multiple significant delays(1-2 years worth)

New Glenn's HLS payload also needs to do in-orbit refueling.

They have potential to go from questionable to credible really fast.

Buying a company and trying to integrate cultures is not an easy or automatic process. Especially BO's culture which has so many issues with it.

[–]Anderopolis 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Blue origin Started later and are on a slower delivery schedule by design. And they will also need to refuel their lander in orbit.

[–]EarnSomeRespect 1 point2 points  (11 children)

I would hope, but BO has yet to do much. Why can’t one tanker fill up the HLS? Can they not send up a full tank? Is it not 1:1 amounts of fuel?

[–]PhD_Alchemist 5 points6 points  (9 children)

A full starship tank is ~1200 tons of methalox, and the payload to orbit is 100-150 tons… probably 100 for rn as they improve the design. Hence the 10+ refuel launches needed. But since boil off on something this large is an unknown, different estimates are 12 to 18.

The other unknown is launch cadence. if Space X can hammer these out in a week with multiple launch towers, they would need fewer than if it sits on orbit for a month waiting to be filled all the way.

I assume Elon has said 4-8 because he wants a tanker version of starship that is optimized for the 150+ tons fuel to orbit rather than satellite payload volume. Remember current starship has like 750-1000 cubic meters of fairing volume in there which could be chopped off and stretch the ship tanks a bit more.

So to summarize we’ll see how it goes! Should be interesting to watch over the decade.

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (8 children)

So when are they going to make a tanker? Or even finalize design on one?

[–]15_Redstones 5 points6 points  (1 child)

In theory any Starship could act as a tanker if it's simply launched with an empty cargo bay. Once they finish the docking adapter to transfer propellant between ships. In the long run they'll probably build dedicated tankers with stretched tanks and no payload.

[–]makoivis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The plan nasa is paying for includes dedicated tankers and a propellant depot. They

None of those have been seen anywhere.

[–]PhD_Alchemist 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Not sure. The current version stops at ship 28, so after the next 3-4 flights they’ll be on a new version. That one might get a tanker model since it’s rumored to go from 6 engines to 9 and stretch the tanks, but we won’t know until enough is built to tell the difference. Maybe next year.

That said the current version is going to test fuel transfer on the February flight if it makes it to orbit this time, so even if they stick to the current design it could probably be used as a tanker in a year or two of practice flights. Not to mention the HLS mockup that’s already been getting worked on for the crew lander version.

SpaceX may be a few years late for Artemis III, but if Boeing keeps it up they’ll be just as late. Artemis II is already delayed and Boeing management seems to have created lots of problems across their engineering divisions lately. Between SLS delays, Starliner and the 737 Max issues, they should really be getting much more flak than they are.

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Did you ever read the GAO report?

SpaceX is late, Axiom is late. Orion is Lockheed Martin, not Boeing, so I don't know why you're bring Boeing up? The GAO estimate would indicate that there's a slim chance of SpaceX being able to hit even the 2026 date for A3, so it will likely be pushed back again.

[–]TbonerT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are bringing up Boeing because it was a race between SpaceX and Boeing to be the first to send astronauts to the ISS in a new capsule. Not only did SpaceX win the race, they’ve completed the original contracted flights before Boeing has managed to finish their test flights.

[–]PhD_Alchemist 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I haven’t had the chance to read it but I was aware that everyone is late. I was referring to prior years of delay for SLS to be fair. I remember back when SLS was claiming to launch in 2018 originally. Same as I remember claims of starship launching in 2020 or Vulcan launching in 2019.

It’s great that they’re all moving forward, but for the money they received I’ll still poke them for how poorly the program was handled. And to your point the GAO has previously ripped on Boeing for SLS timelines and budget. In the end at least it looks like we’ll get a moon landing this time unlike the Constellation program.

Side note: the Vulcan launch was gorgeous wasn’t it!

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (1 child)

GAO rips on everyone because that's their job and I love them for it.

In the end at least it looks like we’ll get a moon landing this time unlike the Constellation program.

This is also partly because the contracts are cost plus, everyone's neck is in a noose here and there's no way for anyone to back out.

[–]PhD_Alchemist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

True GAO reports are always spicy

[–]cadium 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Blue Origin's BE-4 engines were just used as part of ULA's vulcan rocket launch.

[–]DarkUtensil 9 points10 points  (31 children)

At this rate, starship may be rated for humans sometime in 2027.

[–]ThickWolf5423 20 points21 points  (21 children)

So in time for Artemis?

[–]alphagusta 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Well it took 10 years from the first falcon 9 to Demo-2, so while very optimistic it wouldn't be out of the question given the experience they've gained.

That will be only for uncrewed launches that then are loaded by Orion.

Manned starship launches will take a lot longer.

[–]JaggedMetalOs 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They're not going to use starship for human launches, the starship based lunar lander will launch unmanned then they'll rendezvous with it.

[–]Anderopolis 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It doesn't need to be human rated for Artemis.

At least not for the launch part.

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just the launch and landing off the moon.

[–]DarkUtensil 5 points6 points  (8 children)

I was being optimistic with 2027. Starship was NASA's primary lander if I recall correctly. It was going to be extremely close even if starship launches went smoothly.

In 2018 I thought we'd be on the moon sometime before 2025. Now, someone else may end up beating us back to the moon.

I'm optimistic we will land before 2030 but NASA is going to have to get it's shit together.

[–]greymancurrentthing7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It didn’t help SLS being 6 years late and NASA waiting till 2021 to commission a new lander.

[–]_MissionControlled_ 6 points7 points  (3 children)

It does but its focus is very spread out. During Apollo their eyes were fixed on the Moon. Now they've got hundreds of projects all asking for funds. Right now they are trying to tell everyone to do more with less while Artemis gets what it barely needs. It's going to give soon and major projects will have to be cancelled. Notably, Mars Sample Return.

Right now NASA is on a hiring freeze and layoffs are happening. We've been told to curtail all but mission essential expenses.

Boots on the Moon needs to be a NASA wide agenda. Our eyes should be fixed on it again.

[–]cadium 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Apollo had funding mostly secured, it seems like NASA needs some more congressional funding in order to do all the things it wants to do. All hands are on deck if there are hands on a deck that contains funding.

[–]greymancurrentthing7 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Apollo had basically a blank check. No joke.

NASA SLS/Orion has had plenty of money. It’s just stuck with bad designs.

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apollo had a lot of funding but certainly no blank check and there was a lot of oversight into how the money was spent. Various documentaries and interviews go into this.

[–]mfb- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The original goal was 2028. Then a certain administration determined it has to be 2024, the end of the following term for the US president (may or may not be coincidence). Since then realism has gotten more space, moving the target closer to 2028 again.

[–]Skrivus -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

SpaceX has to get their shit together and get this thing to orbit, then has to demonstrate the in orbit refueling, then has to repeat that a dozen+ times reliably enough to attempt a mission.

[–]greymancurrentthing7 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Don’t blame spacex for NASA/congress waiting till 2021 to choose a lander.

SLS/Orion was 6 years late and 100% overbudget(40billion instead of 20billion). A single launch of SLS/Orion costs(4billion) more than the entire HLS development and first ship(2.9)

[–]rocketsocks 4 points5 points  (1 child)

And? Starship doesn't need to be rated for human flight from/to Earth at all in order to fulfill all the Artemis contract obligations.

[–]makoivis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just for landing and departing the moon

[–]JaggedMetalOs -5 points-4 points  (6 children)

I think it'll take a lot longer than that for NASA to human rate a rocket with no launch abort or passive landing capability.

[–]SadMacaroon9897 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Humans are not launching on it. It goes to lunar orbit uncrewed, docks to Gateway, and then lands on the moon. On the moon, it has the same number of launch escape systems as Apollo's lander: 0.

[–]makoivis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Apollo lander had two engines: if the descent engine failed for whatever reason, they could abort with the ascent engine. The engines were pressure-fed and hypergolic, which is as reliable as you can possibly get.

[–]JaggedMetalOs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I also mentioned that further down the thread, I was thinking DarkUtensil meant human rating for rocket launches which is what "human rated" is usually used for (don't think any landers have been referred to as "human rated" have they?)

[–]greymancurrentthing7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By the time it’s ready, whenever that may be, NASA could use it or get left behind by spacex and it’s customers.

[–]Quantillion 3 points4 points  (13 children)

Question from someone who hasn’t quite grasped Starships purpose and place in SpaceX lineup of offerings short term.

On the one hand Starships ultimate purpose is paving the way towards space colonization. However, in the here and now there is no private company producing hardware dependent on Starship to my knowledge. Aside from NASA’s moon contracts, what is the planned commercial application for Starship in the immediate future?

[–]tanrgith 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I don't think there's a lot of of announced commercial missions for Starship yet beyond the Artemis missions and the moon fly by mission that the japanese billionare Yusaku Maezawa paid for, which will take some artists along on the trip.

SpaceX will obviously also switch to using Starship to launch their Starlink satellites

However the potential commercial applications for a rocket like Starship is completely game changing due to the payload size, lift capacity, orbital refueling, and full reusability

[–]wgp3 4 points5 points  (1 child)

There's actually two planned tourist flights around the moon now. There's also a company that is planning to use Starship for a rover to the moon I believe. And then another that hasn't officially confirmed going on Starship but seems to be designing to be launched on Starship for a space station I believe. Not to mention starlink which does count as commercial. But otherwise yes, not a lot of commercial flights bought yet. We shall see as it matures how quickly people try to take advantage of it.

[–]makoivis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hard to start planning your payload or mission before the design of the rocket is locked down. Right now a customer has no idea of pulls attach fittings etc etc.

[–]BrangdonJ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Initially satellites. SpaceX has been agreeing contracts to launch satellites that lets them pick whether Falcon 9 or Starship gets used. The two vehicles have compatible payload adaptors. So in addition to all of the Starlink satellites moving to Starship, so will a lot of customer satellites. Given how Falcon 9 dominates the launch industry, that's a lot of satellites.

There are also some crewed flights booked, including dearMoon and Polaris III and I think one other that I forget the name of, but those won't be for a while. There's potential to put an HLS variant in low Earth orbit and ferry people to it with a crewed Dragon, as an alternative to visiting the ISS. That could be done relatively soon. There's the Artemis missions, which includes a demo mission to land an uncrewed HLS on the Moon plus Artemis III.

Musk has hinted at other projects, presumably along the lines of building a space hotel.

[–]brohamianrhapsody 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Larger payload satellites are already being developed that will initially be specific for Starship. Larger lenses, bigger power sources, more equipment, etc.

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Which plans are you referring to?

[–]TheBroadHorizon 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Lockheed Martin and Nanoracks Starlab is one. An 8m diameter space station sent up in a single launch. Starship is the only vehicle that could plausibly launch it.

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn’t that also the diameter of SLS cargo?

[–]RavenLabratories 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The proposed LUVOIR space telescope, for example.

[–]makoivis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NET 2039, and they’re targeting either SLS Block 2 or Starship. The only details available for each rocket payload bay is an 8m interior diameter.

See what I mean?

[–]NeWMH 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Starship will have enough work to justify its existence from starlink satellite launches alone. That’s a part of the reason the company did starlink to begin with.

If industry drags their feet utilizing SpaceX launch capacity like they did F9, SpaceX will likely do a repeat and create their own demand with low hanging fruit again. (As someone else said, space hotel is possible)

There are plenty of companies that want to do space projects but get caught in the weeds and risk issues. SpaceX ultimately doesn’t encounter the same hangups since they already have the launch capability secured and the opportunity cost/risk is made up by the benefit of further growing the launch capability/development.

[–]ergzay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Aside from NASA’s moon contracts, what is the planned commercial application for Starship in the immediate future?

The intention is that Starship will be cheaper to launch than Falcon 9, so all Falcon 9 launch contracts will shift to launching on Starship over time and then Falcon 9 gets retired.

In the even more immediate future is the launching of additional Starlink satellites. They'll be able to launch a lot more on Starship. So if you're talking immediate commercial opportunities, that's the one.

[–]pgnshgn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • Satellite constellations. Multiple companies want to launch large numbers of satellites. Doing that in 1/5 or fewer launches will save them a ton of time and money

  • Several modular private space stations are being developed. Being able to launch multiple modules at once will save them time and reduce complexity

  • I'm aware of at least one startup that is building specifically for Starship. There's probably more in stealth and/or that I don't know about

  • Longer term: Tourism. It could dramatically drop the price for orbital tourism.

Only a startup will invest in a Starship only payload before it flies, it's too high risk high reward for an established company, but there are plenty that can adapt what they do to take advantage. And once it flies, you'll see a lot more investment designed around it specifically

It will eventually replace the Falcon family. If it offers more capabilities for the same or lower price, it won't have to be full on every flight to make economic sense