Business, Space, Technology and Society

A Tour Of Starbase

54 Comments

I haven’t seen it yet, but this interview with Elon by Tim Dodd comes highly recommended.

[Friday-afternoon update]

A BBC article on the mating of SH and Starship, temporarily creating the largest rocket ever built, with a nice infographic.

[Bumped]

[Saturday-afternoon update]

Part 2 has been posted.

[Bumped again]

54 thoughts on “A Tour Of Starbase”

  2. It’s great, tons of info. As a product manager I completely agree with many things Elon said (I’m totally stealing his “the requirements are dumb” observation).

    Only comment would be that an active construction site — with multi-ton parts hanging from cranes in the air close-by — may not be the best place to conduct an interview.

    Especially with a loose dog, no matter how cute and well-behaved the little critter is.

    1. One of my new favorites:
      “Learn how to dig faster, unless it’s your own grave. Then stop digging!” – E. Musk

  4. A complete, more or less flightworthy SuperHeavy/Starship was just stacked on the launch pad at Boca Chica. It took roughly two dozen blue collar workers two hours to do it. Just a fit check, but it looks staggering in the morning sun.

    2. I made sure to take a look at it this morning via video streams.
      Agreed. The stack looked awesome.

      1. It fits!

        I made sure to watch it live, and enjoyed the NSF commentators making fun of the NSF Forum commenters who were sure SpaceX had miscalculated the height of the launch tower. Many of them are the same peckerheads who predicted the first launch of a Falcon 9 would result in “a big explosion,” as SpaceX would soon find out they hadn’t understood what would happen with “nine engines pluming.”

      2. I wonder how all those YouTubers feel about the SpaceX videographer(s) and if they will ever get any interviews with them.

  5. The five rules for production are absolutely key takeaways. And I particularly liked, “All designs are wrong. It’s just a matter of how wrong.”

  7. With regard to the chart. I wish someone would address the fact that probably two versions of Starship will be built. The first version will be the conventional cargo vehicle. The second version will be the tanker. I surmise that the cargo version will carry 100 tonnes. The tanker will probably carry 135 tonnes. The reason being that the tanker will never be required to land with cargo onboard, hence, less structure, less landing propellant, less TPS. So, when you say $/kg, you’re going to have to state the type of cargo.

    1. Or more versions. They will have a lunar and Mars version and maybe a crewed LEO version? Possibly cargo versions for those destinations? Then whatever they use for point to point.

    2. The tanker version might well carry even more than 135 tonnes to LEO. Elon has already mused publicly about the possibility of Starships with six RaptorVacs instead of three. Those three engine-level cargo lockers taking up space between the RaptorVacs on most renderings would serve no function on a surface-to-LEO tanker, but more engines would allow a faster climb uphill at higher G. Propellant doesn’t mind higher G.

      Maximizing tanker payload would minimize total tanker missions needed per Moon or Mars sortie being supported. Tankers look to be excellent, high-payoff targets for early and aggressive payload maximization efforts. After an initial cargo Starship version with payload bay door(s) is in service for Starlink deployments, I would expect an aggressively payload-maximized tanker to be the next highest priority, roughly co-equal with the propellant depot ship it will work hand-in-glove with. We will likely see all three types flying next year.

      1. The current design has three sea level and three vacuum raptors. The Rvacs are hard attach and the SL raptors gimbal. There probably isn’t enough room for six Rvacs and there certainly isn’t enough room in the Starship’s base if three Rvacs gimbal.

        1. And the Rvacs might not be able to run at sea-level for landing. Elon has said they can, barely, but it’s not advisable. If it was really important for performance they could probably come up with some kind of drop-skirt for them, though.

          1. My impression is, the Rvacs would run at sea level only in the event of a launch escape emergency. The Rvacs would not explode, but would be ruined. This is way better than Shuttle, with it’s two-minutes or so of “kiss your ass goodbye,” but still scary. That said, if Musk said, “We decided we need a grumpy old has-been SF writer on Mars,” I’d raise my hand. What would I lose if I was blown to bits on ignition, death from a thousand painful indignities? Even if it turned out to be “on impact,” at least I’d get the trip itself.

          2. Rvacs don’t need to run at sea-level. Except for passenger versions, Starships have no payloads when landing. Propellant remainders are just enough to land with. The sea-level Raptors are plenty enough.

        2. Musk has already shown images of the propulsion bay of a Starship with 6 Rvacs and 3 SLvacs. There’s clearly enough room, including enough room for the S:s to gimbal. He’s also stated that the 42 engine tanker (33 SuperHeavy, 9 Starship) will be able to carry 200+ tons to LEO, which cuts the bothersome tanker requirement in half.

          My semi-informed guess is there will be at least 3 versions of Starship (excluding the Lunar Starship and a hypothetical Earth P2P), those being crew/cargo, satellite launcher, and dedicated tanker. Mars Starship will be the crew/cargo version. I bet dear.Moon will be a prototype crew/cargo. I also think Musk will abandon Chomper for the satellite launcher in favor of STS-style payload bay doors. We’ve just seem prototyping of such doors at BC. I always wondered how stiuff the chomper door would be.

          1. Since they are reusable, it makes sense to tweak things for their intended use. A crew/cargo, fuel tanker, or payload launcher for the Moon and Mars might be based off the same design but tailored to their use. So, versions with variations or models with trim packages. However, that assumes maturity and by the time that happens, who knows what other systems will exist?

            I’ve always wondered why this approach wasn’t used more for satellites.

          2. There would also be the propellant depot type. No flaps and TPS tiles as with HLS, but wrapped in insulation topped with conformal PV arrays on one side and radiators on the other – like a Dragon 2 trunk.

    3. So far, SpaceX has mentioned:
      1) The base passenger/cargo model (i.e., the Mars transport)
      2) The cargo model for satellite delivery (commonly called the “Chomper” for reasons obvious to anyone who sees SpaceX’s renderings of it)
      3) The tanker model–we know the design exists, but not much in the way of details (does it use expanded tanks? Extra tanks in the cargo section?)
      4) The lunar model (no TPS, an extra set of high-mounted engines–unless Elon has them removed (see Tim’s video) after testing Raptors against simulated regolith)

  8. The linked video is terrific. It goes much further than any previous source in laying out Elon’s continually developing philosophy about design, development and production.

    Long-term, Edison’s greatest contribution was not his inventions of particular classes of device but his invention of the whole modern idea of research and development. Musk has been compared to Edison. I think it’s a very fair comparison.

    Design, development and production are three things crucial to the continued health and progress of industrial civilization. All have gone badly astray in recent decades. A Reformation is needed and Musk is stepping up to be its Martin Luther.

    1. I wouldn’t say Musk is the first guy to go with “Let’s try a bunch of stuff and see what works.” That’s pretty much how aviation and rocketry got started. But as the aerospace companies got bigger, and the contracts and programs got bigger, they wanted more and more certainty built into the process.

      1. The other innovation that he’s brought to the table is focusing on mass production from the beginning. He did tell us several years ago that he wasn’t “building a new rocket”, but “building a factory that builds new rockets”. For an example of the difference that this attitude can make, look up Jonathon Parshall’s presentation on WWII tank factories across the three primary combatants.

      2. Which, in combination with cost-plus contracting and byzantine procurement rules that effectively act as barriers to entry, has sent the entire U.S. aerospace establishment into a blind box canyon.

  10. In Part 2, Musk states that they will fuel Starship with the Quick Disconnect Arm on the tower, rather than from SuperHeavy. He also states they’ve put aside the payload bay doors in favor of concentrating on getting to orbit and getting through EDL. They’ll figure out orbital refueling once they need to, with a comment of, You need refueling for the Moon and Mars, but not for LEO.

    1. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to see quick disconnects used in LEO refueling once they’ve mastered it with Stage 0 on the ground. So key to all this is Elon labeling Stage 0 for what it is. They key enabling component of the rocket system that incidentally just happens not to lift-off.

      It would also not surprise me one bit to see the engine turbo-pumps used at slow spin to transfer fuel and oxidizer either. Firing only the preburners in a low pressure operation that uses fuel rich reduced pressure in the pre burners to slow spin the filling turbo pumps while keeping the system at a manageable temperature in space. The exhaust vented circularly sideways via louvers in the Rvac nozzles in a zero thrust configuration.

      Not in this version of Starship tho.

  11. Part 2 was cool. They have artwork on the doors, not just some of the engines. Musk says you can’t iterate design changes when you have people on board and that their main focus is getting to orbit, so once they know they can get to orbit, will they launch payloads for customers to fund their future iterations?

    It will be really interesting to see who their customers are and what they do.

    1. SpaceX will retain that advantage over the Shuttle because the Shuttle couldn’t be flown unmanned, whereas every conceivable iteration of Starship can. So even after they’re flying people, they can still design and test new iterations as uncrewed flights.

      1. This is absolutely key to reusable Spacecraft. Allow iterative development to reduce costs and improve reliability. Musk totally nails why Shuttle could not advance in this area.

  12. I’m going to have to watch again and make notes, unless some kind person has done so and publishes a list of those engineering nuggets on line.

    Edison? I think Elon Leonardo Isambard Musk is more like it.

  13. Does anyone know what is happening with Starlink? The Aug 10 launch was delayed, and that was the first in a while, after beginning the year at a blistering pace. Has SpaceX stopped doing anything beside Starship?

    1. There’s a lull because they’ve now completed deployment of the first shell.

      This coming week there will be a Starlink launch from Vandenburg, which will deploy sats on a polar orbit, which will start to fill in coverage of extreme polar latitudes, not covered by the first shell as it exists now.

  14. Musk isn’t D.D. Harriman, he’s Harriman and Bob Coster rolled into one.
    If it’s been a while, Bob Coster was Harriman’s Chief Engineer.

    1. One of my favorite Coster-isms

      “Because I’ve had to add in too much dead weight, that’s why. Mr. Harriman, you aren’t an engineer; you’ve no idea how fast the performance falls off when you have to clutter up a ship with anything but fuel and power plant.”

      Or to Elon’s point #2 – try very hard to delete the part or process. If you are not occasionally adding things back in then you are not deleting enough

  15. The more I see, the more I admire Elon. And the more I wish I was still at FAA/AST to run interference for him. But that ship has sailed, big time, and I don’t know whether he can prevail over the impediments to come. I can only hope so.

    1. Are you afraid that the FAA will make Musk tear down the recovery tower because it doesn’t meet their standard for launch towers?

  17. Another interesting comment made by Elon was that, to save weight and complexity, they will have no stage separating mechanism. (“The best part is no part!”) Instead they will do a delicate “ballet” during which Superheavy will gimbal its engines to initiate a tumble and then release (lob) Starship as they do Starlink satellites.

      1. Well, it makes sense if you think about it. If you’re not susceptible to crosswinds, gravity and thrust will keep the stage on top, and you’ve eliminated the need for a mechanical separation device. Just cut back thrust as the upper stage starts to thrust and voila, separation.

        1. Even better, they’re going to swing the engines just before shutdown to initiate a pitch or yaw, and then use the hot ullage gases as 6 Bar maneuvering thrust. And based on a question from Tim Dodd, they’re going to do that on the top stage too. Elon decided right then to change the design.

          When’s the last time you heard a CEO change the design of a product on the spot due to an insightful question from a reporter?

Comments are closed.