SpaceX (general discussion)

Byeman said:
Too heavy and too expensive. No need to build rockets like bridges. And when has a launch vehicle structurally failed or landing legs stove in the sides of a tank?
Click to expand...
I am inclined to think that added complexity of cluster tankage can create more problems than it solves. Or does it?
 
I assume you realize that is a hell of reach for a number technical and historical reasons…

That’s kinda like saying “who makes a three engined airplane?” And answering with Ju-52…

ETA: or more like “if you liked the movie ‘Twisters’, you’ll love ‘Gone with the Wind’!”.
 
C0de.R.E.A.M. said:
I am inclined to think that added complexity of cluster tankage can create more problems than it solves. Or does it?
Click to expand...
It would allow wider booster cores to still be rail/road transportable.

In fact, you see more and more SPMTs (self propelled modular transporters) on the road.

Less solid augmentation and more OTRAG.

Single core not enough--attach a rocket module with this propellant and that engine.

Even nukes are dial a yield.
 
publiusr said:
In fact, you see more and more SPMTs (self propelled modular transporters) on the road.
.
Click to expand...
No, SPMTs are not for long distances. SPMTs are for wide objects anyway. And water transport or build on site take care of the size iusse.
publiusr said:
Less solid augmentation and more OTRAG.
Click to expand...
OTRAG wasn't going to work
Solids are cheaper.
publiusr said:
Single core not enough--attach a rocket module with this propellant and that engine.
Click to expand...
No, just make the rocket cheap and reusable and then costs are low enough to fly small payloads. No need to change things
publiusr said:
Even nukes are dial a yield.
Click to expand...
Not at all. it makes no sense to use on a weapons system.

1950's, 60's and 70's solutions are not longer relevant to space launch issues.
 
publiusr said:
It would allow wider booster cores to still be rail/road transportable.

In fact, you see more and more SPMTs (self propelled modular transporters) on the road.

Less solid augmentation and more OTRAG.

Single core not enough--attach a rocket module with this propellant and that engine.

Even nukes are dial a yield.
Click to expand...
publiusr said:
It would allow wider booster cores to still be rail/road transportable.

In fact, you see more and more SPMTs (self propelled modular transporters) on the road.

Less solid augmentation and more OTRAG.

Single core not enough--attach a rocket module with this propellant and that engine.

Even nukes are dial a yield.
Click to expand...
publiusr said:
It would allow wider booster cores to still be rail/road transportable.

In fact, you see more and more SPMTs (self propelled modular transporters) on the road.

Less solid augmentation and more OTRAG.

Single core not enough--attach a rocket module with this propellant and that engine.

Even nukes are dial a yield.
Click to expand...
Good points all around. SPMTs aren’t really a solution for long-distance transport, and water transport or on-site construction already solve the size issue for wider cores. That’s probably why we still see monolithic core designs dominating over clustered tankage. BUT, I can definitely agree that modular transportability is a huge factor in modern launch vehicle designs, making it easier to move larger structures.

As a fan of OTRAG’s efforts, I think it’s a cool concept, but even with modern tech, it doesn’t seem like it would scale well compared to fully reusable designs. To Byeman’s comment, solids are cheaper no doubt. Yet the 50s-70’s rocket designs are not exactly 1:1 relevant today, I would say they are a legit foundation for modern rocketry and where it is today. To that end, I’m inclined to believe that modularity and scalability are great for adaptability, just like dial-a-yield nukes allow mission flexibility, except the unfortunate reality being the structural engineering headaches coming with the structural add-ons.

I think we will continue to see a rise in SPMTs, which will be interesting to see how industry balances how more modularity can mean more joints, more plumbing, and more potential failure points. I'm of the opinion as well that there is room in the field to allow for more tailored mission flexibility rather than a static fixed approach, kind of like a 'LEGO' rocket rather than a monolithic one. Whether automation advances and internal discussions are really pushing the field in that direction is hard to say, but it’s interesting to watch!
 
Forest Green said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFyc1GQXY3w
Click to expand...
Regarding modular design this is a great example of a scalable concept that leans into modularity rather than a single monolithic structure. Very cool! I love the idea of this moonbase. Such an exciting thing to witness, even if it proves to be overambitious like the 1960's idea of Lunex, it's still fascinating to think about as a human being. And Starship can certainly shoulder a ton of mass. Kind of a missed opporunity on the name though, would have loved to see Elon's subtle humor. But maybe that will come later when it's been established for a while and it's characteristics will naturally incur a nick name like 'The Big Cheese.' If it ever develops a research institution I hope it's "Lunaversity."
 
Well the hardware to have the rocket lean down to the horizontal is unrealistic. (think for example of the anchor points).
They would better rethink their design and redo their math to see that there are probably simpler solutions for this.

Screenshot_20250201_003604.jpg

Generally speaking, I don't see the same quality in design with their Artemis team. I wonder if that translates Musk own ambitions, what would be bad for NASA.
 
Last edited:
first Picture from Inside of SpaceX new HQ in Texas
GixoF11XkAAOOqw
 
bit off Topic

The Aircraft Carrier USS Kennedy is pulled into harbour of Brownsville Texas, for scrapping.
The Carrier is named after John F. Kennedy, who started the Race to send Men on Moon.
is odd to to see this Carrier ending near by Starbase of Elon Musk, who started the race to Mars.
 
FighterJock said:
That will be THE biggest rocket ever built, it will have to be launched by THE most powerful booster rocket ever developed.
Click to expand...
the 18 meter ø about 60 ft Starship would be NOVA class booster (post Apollo Saturn study)
with payload around 450 metric tons or one million lb.
interesting is that allot of NOVA design were planned with reuse of first stage or entire vehicle.

however if SpaceX or Blue Origin ( as New Armstrong) build this they need bigger engines
BE-4 or Raptor 4 in size of F-1 engine for Saturn V !
Tank will no big problem for SpaceX since they use Steel to build starship
i guess Blue Origin will change to Steel too for New Armstrong
 
Michel Van said:
bit off Topic

The Aircraft Carrier USS Kennedy is pulled into harbour of Brownsville Texas, for scrapping.
The Carrier is named after John F. Kennedy, who started the Race to send Men on Moon.
is odd to to see this Carrier ending near by Starbase of Elon Musk, who started the race to Mars.
Click to expand...
Replacement getting close.

the-future-uss-john-f-kennedy-cvn-79-begins-topside-testing-v0-17sc3wji25kc1.jpg
 
Michel Van said:
The Aircraft Carrier USS Kennedy is pulled into harbour of Brownsville Texas, for scrapping.
Click to expand...

It's disgraceful that this carrier wasn't preserved as a museum-ship and it should be scuttled as an artificial reef instead of being ignominiously by scrapped by Vandals.

Michel Van said:
60 ft Starship would be NOVA class booster (post Apollo Saturn study)
Click to expand...

I won't be surprised at all if SpaceX does commission such a monster sized rocket.
 
Well if they send Musk himself, I'm all for it. More seriously: considering the crazy whacky flight rates needed to sustain a Mars colony ("megatons in orbit") Im' wondering whether we may run into the limits of VTOVL TSTO. http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2020/09/star-raker-1978.html
Things like returning boosters sonic booms, and the larger the booster, the worse the booms. Or raining debris on Caribbean islands. Just sayin' .

In October 1977, a team of 14 Rockwell International engineers studied a Space Freighter alternative. The Star-Raker space plane, 103 meters (310 feet) long with a wing span of about 93 meters (280 feet), would have carried a maximum of 89.2 metric tons (98.3 U.S. tons) of cargo into LEO. More than 1100 flights would have been required each year to support the SPS program, or about one launch every eight hours.

In its fully developed form, however, Star-Raker would have had important advantages over (Boeing) Space Freighter which might have made its required high flight rate feasible. For example, it would have begun its flights to LEO by taking off horizontally from a conventional 2670-to-4670-meter-long (8000-to-14,000-foot-long) runway at virtually any civilian or military airport capable of supporting 747 or C-5A Galaxy cargo planes. No specialized launch and landing site would have been required.

Every bit as important, Star-Raker would have been capable of flying routinely between such airports. The Rockwell team explained that this would "reduce the number of operations required to transport material and equipment from their place of manufacture on Earth to [LEO]." For example, rolls of solar cell blankets would not need to be shipped by train, barge, or plane to a specialized launch and landing site; they would, potentially, need only be transported to a local airport for Star-Raker pickup.
Click to expand...
 
Given the volumes involved, I think a nuclear option makes more sense. I think I read somewhere that Musk ruled out nuclear propulsion - is that true and if so, did he give a reason why?
 
Josh_TN said:
Given the volumes involved, I think a nuclear option makes more sense. I think I read somewhere that Musk ruled out nuclear propulsion - is that true and if so, did he give a reason why?
Click to expand...
I agree. But yea I've read that too, Musk has been pretty dismissive of nuclear propulsion, at least for Mars travel. IIRC, he’s ruled out NTRs mainly because SpaceX is optimizing for reusability and mass production, and NTRs introduce a whole new level of complexity. Plus, you can’t just casually launch a nuclear reactor into orbit without serious oversight, but nothing surprises me anymore. So who knows.

I also read though NASA and DARPA are still pushing ahead with DRACO (Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations), a nuclear thermal project that could work for deep-space travel. Maybe Musk figures Starship’s sheer fuel efficiency with refueling depots makes nuclear unnecessary.. at least for right now?
 
A Methalox version of the craft from the old MARS ONE CREW MANUAL might be the best option.

Model

Modelling Mars

Modelling Mars
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

I love the optics of a silver rocket with fins landing on Mars--but the smaller lander of the Mars One manual is good enough for now.


Nuclear
www.mdpi.com

Mars One-Year Mission Craft

A human Mars mission is more challenging to astronauts than the Apollo mission because of travel time, life support requirements, and the space environment. Although plans for Mars exploration by NASA and SpaceX based on conventional rockets have been presented, there are considerations that...
www.mdpi.com www.mdpi.com
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
A Methalox version of the craft from the old MARS ONE CREW MANUAL might be the best option.

I love the optics of a silver rocket with fins landing on Mars--but the smaller lander of the Mars One manual is good enough for now.
Click to expand...
How could it be the best option? You haven't provided any data.
It is already methalox and isn't much smaller. It is the same diameter. Also, how is it to get to earth orbit, Mars transfer and brake into Mars orbit? And where is the crew to live during transit?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom