Global future space architecture thread

[BoraTas]

Moderator edit:

Use this thread for discussion for global future space launch architectures, including SpaceX.
Chinese future efforts can also be discussed here but it is not a primary China space thread, rather it is for discussing the pros and cons of various global space launch architectures, including SpaceX.

The military probably.

Possible but I doubt even that one. They are currently launching less military satellites than China. There are proposals like the Golden Dome but they will be limited by satellite costs in such projects. Internet satellites are special in the sense that they cost less than $1 million each. 6 years ago the Starlink satellites already costed below $500k. The current satellites are more complex but I would say the cost should be lower now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

$500k is not realistic for any military satellite. The US spends more on individual SAMs and the SM-3 costs $100M each as you know too. The space based analogue of it won't be cheap.

 

[Jason_]

Possible but I doubt even that one. They are currently launching less military satellites than China. There are proposals like the Golden Dome but they will be limited by satellite costs in such projects. Internet satellites are special in the sense that they cost less than $1 million each. 6 years ago the Starlink satellites already costed below $500k. The current satellites are more complex but I would say the cost should be lower now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

$500k is not realistic for any military satellite. The US spends more on individual SAMs and the SM-3 costs $100M each as you know too. The space based analogue of it won't be cheap.

If dollar per kg to orbit is sufficiently low the launch capacity can be used up. The simple way is to add propellants to satellites to give them extra delta-V to maneuver. Another thing that can be done is to put ISR payloads inside starship and fly it at low (<200km) orbit. This orbit cannot be sustained indefinitly due to drag but then Starship just deorbit and land. This has clear advantages over a standard 400km LEO orbit.

 

[nativechicken]

The Starship is two-thirds heavier than the Saturn V yet the Saturn V was capable of 40% higher payload by weight. Even more so by volume... Therefore we could conclude that full reusability and the Starship's use of SS hit the payload by 57% even when we assume the tech remained the same for 60 years.

He has been marketing it as if it was for Mars but everything about the design screams LEO focus. The numbers suggest 15-20 launches will be required for a single moon trip, which is unsustainable. He reportedly wanted SS to cheapen and accelerate the refurbishment of the upper stage. Where is the need though? Non-internet launch demand in the USA is stagnant is actually below that of China. Who needs 5k tonnes of extra annual launch capacity?

The fundamental concept behind Starship is flawed (as evidenced by its v3->v4->vX… iterative cycle), and Elon Musk’s aerospace capabilities and understanding are deficient.

His paradigm is, in fact, a regression for the aerospace industry—a throwback to an older era—and is meaningless from a macro-level perspective.

The current Starship follows a specialized-purpose rocket philosophy, whereas the industry has long since adopted a general-purpose rocket design approach. Starship’s second stage is directly integrated with the function of its space application. In essence, this means custom-building a rocket’s second stage for a specific space application. Anyone with a deep understanding of engineering research will naturally recognize the dreadful implications of such a customized rocket approach.

China suffered from this problem for decades (the CZ-2 and CZ-3 series were, frankly, specialized-purpose rockets; only with the CZ-5, CZ-6, CZ-7, and CZ-8 did China enter the era of general-purpose rockets). The United States, on the other hand, largely moved away from the custom-rocket mindset starting in the 1980s, which is why it achieved such a high degree of standardization.

Today, Musk’s Starship is essentially a bespoke, in-house system (unlike Falcon 9) that forces payloads to adapt to its design, completely integrating the payload with the Starship second stage. It is evident that he has not yet solved the problem of deploying individual, independent payloads, as Starship cannot deliver oversized or exceptionally large payloads.

The maximum standard payload Starship can deploy in a single go is, at best, four bundled 5-6 ton class satellites (limited by its 6x8 meter payload bay door). A single mission could deploy two batches of these, totaling eight satellites (approximately 50 tons, which would fully utilize the payload bay’s volume), and only to Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

This vehicle is less practical than even the Falcon 9. Let SpaceX continue down this path. In 10 to 15 years, when Americans look back, they will regret it, much like the current situation with China’s electric vehicle industry.

 

[nativechicken]

Elon wants to love stainless steel and wants validation, but between two iterations of Starship being unable to make orbit, and NASA now talking about cancelling Starship contract for Artemis 3 because I'm guessing their internal data on future payload looks even worse, Elon might not love stainless steel anymore, not as much has his ego want to.

It's one thing to forget Falcon Heavy exist with Starship, it's another to come up with something else to make people forget Starship exist.

One of the reasons NASA would cancel the Starship HLS contract is that the current Starship design is completely non-compliant with requirements.

Another significant reason is the slow progress. Starship HLS must achieve four major milestones before the Artemis III-V missions can be executed:

Starship must achieve orbit with a payload capacity of >100 tons. (This is the foundation of the entire HLS program and, ironically, the easiest step.)
Demonstration of hundred-ton scale cryogenic fuel transfer in space. (Previously, only transfers of several tons of storable, toxic fuels have been conducted on space stations.)
High-cadence, rapid launches of Starship to enable the storage of a thousand tons of cryogenic propellant in space. (Cryogenic storage in space is a major challenge due to boil-off.)
A safe landing on the lunar surface and subsequent relaunch. (Starship is a tall, slender, pen-like spacecraft; the unprepared and un-reinforced lunar surface makes problems almost inevitable.)
Only after these four key milestones are resolved can a demonstration mission be conducted (this demo must prove the ability to relaunch from the surface, a point for which NASA specifically added funding in 2023). Furthermore, the human-rated components must pass all reviews before the Artemis III mission can proceed.

Currently, SpaceX has not yet achieved even the easiest and most fundamental milestone, Milestone 1, which isn’t expected to be met until at least version 3 of the vehicle. This milestone needed to be achieved by 2023 at the latest to have any chance of meeting the 2027-2028 window for the Artemis III mission.

Internally at NASA, frustration has been boiling over for a long time (there are countless stories surrounding Starship HLS, the veracity of which can be observed from the outside). Even a former NASA cost manager who previously awarded contracts to Musk has publicly stated that the Starship lunar landing will likely be delayed until after 2033. Notably, this person is actually a supporter of SpaceX and Musk.

Therefore, it is no surprise that the lunar landing is facing delays and that a switch to an alternative plan is being considered. Selecting Starship HLS in the first place was a mistake.

 

[Blitzo]

The fundamental concept behind Starship is flawed (as evidenced by its v3->v4->vX… iterative cycle), and Elon Musk’s aerospace capabilities and understanding are deficient.

His paradigm is, in fact, a regression for the aerospace industry—a throwback to an older era—and is meaningless from a macro-level perspective.

The current Starship follows a specialized-purpose rocket philosophy, whereas the industry has long since adopted a general-purpose rocket design approach. Starship’s second stage is directly integrated with the function of its space application. In essence, this means custom-building a rocket’s second stage for a specific space application. Anyone with a deep understanding of engineering research will naturally recognize the dreadful implications of such a customized rocket approach.

China suffered from this problem for decades (the CZ-2 and CZ-3 series were, frankly, specialized-purpose rockets; only with the CZ-5, CZ-6, CZ-7, and CZ-8 did China enter the era of general-purpose rockets). The United States, on the other hand, largely moved away from the custom-rocket mindset starting in the 1980s, which is why it achieved such a high degree of standardization.

Today, Musk’s Starship is essentially a bespoke, in-house system (unlike Falcon 9) that forces payloads to adapt to its design, completely integrating the payload with the Starship second stage. It is evident that he has not yet solved the problem of deploying individual, independent payloads, as Starship cannot deliver oversized or exceptionally large payloads.

The maximum standard payload Starship can deploy in a single go is, at best, four bundled 5-6 ton class satellites (limited by its 6x8 meter payload bay door). A single mission could deploy two batches of these, totaling eight satellites (approximately 50 tons, which would fully utilize the payload bay’s volume), and only to Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

This vehicle is less practical than even the Falcon 9. Let SpaceX continue down this path. In 10 to 15 years, when Americans look back, they will regret it, much like the current situation with China’s electric vehicle industry.

There is not much stopping SpaceX from developing a more conventional, expendable second stage -- i.e.: to aim for reusability only for the first stage of Starship (Super Heavy), which in turn will enhance the useful payload to orbit in terms of mass and volume.

Putting it another way, the excess focus and critique of Starship (second stage) should not obscure the more real and significant potential in the first stage/Super Heavy, and the current course of development allows the US and SpaceX significant ability to pivot and integrate a more conventional second stage to Super Heavy.

 

[enroger]

There is not much stopping SpaceX from developing a more conventional, expendable second stage -- i.e.: to aim for reusability only for the first stage of Starship (Super Heavy), which in turn will enhance the useful payload to orbit in terms of mass and volume.

Putting it another way, the excess focus and critique of Starship (second stage) should not obscure the more real and significant potential in the first stage/Super Heavy, and the current course of development allows the US and SpaceX significant ability to pivot and integrate a more conventional second stage to Super Heavy.

That is certainly a significant capability. However the cost structure is no different than a Falcon-9, in fact the LEO cost per kg would be worse because such a super heavy will never reach the launch tempo of Falcon-9 as the market demand isn't there.

 

[AndrewJ]

dual pupil bird
A sacred bird that can destroy animals on the ground when it flies

So, China just launched a space-based laser gun or rail gun?

 

[iewgnem]

Not if Trump cancels them first.

Withoit NASA there will also be no HLS contract lol

 

[iewgnem]

There is not much stopping SpaceX from developing a more conventional, expendable second stage -- i.e.: to aim for reusability only for the first stage of Starship (Super Heavy), which in turn will enhance the useful payload to orbit in terms of mass and volume.

Putting it another way, the excess focus and critique of Starship (second stage) should not obscure the more real and significant potential in the first stage/Super Heavy, and the current course of development allows the US and SpaceX significant ability to pivot and integrate a more conventional second stage to Super Heavy.

Two things are stopping SpaceX from developing a conventional expendable upper stage:
1. Elon's ego
2. Time

When a pivot involve building an entirely new rocket thats not a pivot, thats admiting the old design failed and trying again. Remember they went stainless steel to avoid having to develop 10m aluminum welding and structure tech, its not trivial to start from scratch.

Elon posted that Starship V2 can do 35 tons to LEO when its velocity altitude chart clearly shows it cant make orbit, which overwhelmingly suggest 35 ton is Starship v2's theoretical expendable LEO payload, which also align with their payload claims on F9 and FH both of which advertise theoretical expendable numbers.

35 ton expendable to LEO on 5000 ton takeoff mass is absolutely atrous.

 

[gelgoog]

If dollar per kg to orbit is sufficiently low the launch capacity can be used up. The simple way is to add propellants to satellites to give them extra delta-V to maneuver.

Useless ever since ion propulsion started becoming standard.

Starship’s second stage is directly integrated with the function of its space application. In essence, this means custom-building a rocket’s second stage for a specific space application. Anyone with a deep understanding of engineering research will naturally recognize the dreadful implications of such a customized rocket approach.

I do not think that is so bad. But Elon should have started with an expendable upper stage that is for sure.

Putting it another way, the excess focus and critique of Starship (second stage) should not obscure the more real and significant potential in the first stage/Super Heavy, and the current course of development allows the US and SpaceX significant ability to pivot and integrate a more conventional second stage to Super Heavy.

The Superheavy has too many engines which I suspect will make it unreliable. Assuming you could even find the payloads to make it economically viable which is highly doubtful.

That is certainly a significant capability. However the cost structure is no different than a Falcon-9, in fact the LEO cost per kg would be worse because such a super heavy will never reach the launch tempo of Falcon-9 as the market demand isn't there.

And this is the sore point. The Superheavy is just a gigantic waste of resources.

There is no reason why the Falcon 9 could not have been improved instead to further reduce turnaround time. Or at least a rocket around that size.