Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

NASA’s Starship Award

39 Comments

Five reasons it’s a watershed moment in human spaceflight.

It’s the biggest departure from the ancient Apollo mentality that the agency has ever made.

[Sunday-morning update]

Casey Handmer does a thorough analysis of just how revolutionary this capability is. We will get not only cheap lunar (and other space) transportation, but cheap lunar bases based on one-way trips of Starships. It also probably means that, for a long time, lunar ISRU for propellant will make no economic sense.

[Bumped]

39 thoughts on “NASA’s Starship Award”

  1. The most depressing part of the article: “It is therefore difficult to see a SpaceX-only exploration program winning broad congressional support for Artemis. History suggests that all of the losing contractors would urge the politicians they bolster with contributions to actively oppose the program.”
    So we have become a nation/people/world of people who oppose success… Sad.

  2. ” Imagine the kind of space program NASA could have with the capacity to launch 100 tons into orbit every two weeks—instead of a single annual mission—for $2 billion a year. Seriously, pause a moment and really think about that.”

    Just because SpaceX can do a launch every two weeks doesn’t mean they will be for NASA or that NASA will have the money for payloads. Instead, let’s imagine what they could do with a handful of launches a year, similar to the frequency crew and cargo are launched to the ISS.

    Berger posed a question about SpaceX being too dominate. Check out this NASA press conference from a couple of days ago. https://youtu.be/KGMn0IVK-Z0?t=290

    1. If Musk gets Starship launch costs down to the level he claims possible (less than $30 million per) NASA could, for the $2 billion SLS launch cost, not only afford 100 tons every two weeks it could also fund the payloads.

      1. Not only NASA, if there was a government demand of 26 launches a year from Space-X, I’m pretty sure Musk could scale up and launch 26 private launches a month….

        1. Musk envisions doing far more than 26 launches a month, although ptp launches make up a big portion.

      2. Or at least make a Starship mission affordable for smaller space agencies and other research institutions…

        That is sort of how I could see a Starship enabled South Pole base on the Moon look like by the 2040’s: not unlike Amundsen-Scott at our own South Pole. A permanent base, hosting scores or even hundreds of scientists from various countries, agencies and institutions, rotating in and out. But unlike Antarctica, there’d also be growing commercial resource exploitation, too. And tourists. Because Starship could reduce the cost of access so low that lots of parties could find it within reach — and not just a tiny handful of elite government employees.

        1. It will be great if customers other than NASA take advantage of breaking the cheap launch bottleneck. UAE, Israel, India maybe, who else?

      3. What is NASA’s cost? The crew and cargo contracts cost NASA a lot more than SpaceX’s cost.

        You are right the NASA can do a lot more than now. At $100-200 million a launch that is 10-20 launches a year, so close to what you expect and fuel is a cheap payload. But there are backend costs similar to running Mars rovers and planetary probes.

        Perhaps congress will give NASA more money when they can demonstrate a way to use it effectively.

        How many years do you think it would take NASA to be able to utilize the new launch capacity?

  3. I legit cheered when I first heard about this–once the shock had worn off. I never thought in a million years NASA would decide to go in the one direction that *didn’t* look like Apollo V 2.0. OTOH, I also thought, if I was spending *my* money (as opposed to some government agency choosing how to spend it for me) it’s the decision I would have made.

    BTW, if you haven’t read Eric Berger’s /Liftoff/ yet, do so. In addition to simply being a fascinating yarn, it may be the most–inadvertently or intentionally, I’m not sure which–pro free enterprise and capitalism tome I’ve encountered in quite some time.

  4. No one forced old space to drag their feet. Elon is proving re-usable is possible and profitable. If someone was within a decade of Spacex’s capability, NASA would probably have awarded them one of these contracts, too.

  5. NASA and SpaceX plan to return to the moon as soon as 2024.
    The agency will give up some control but also save money, said Scott Hubbard, a SpaceX advisor.
    “There is no backup plan in place should SpaceX fail,” said another former NASA engineer.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-nasa-signal-new-space-age-public-private-space-exploration-2021-4

    Unrelated..but what if Trump does manage to run/win in 2024? Think it would be appropriate if he was in the White House when we land start moonbase in 2024-2025ish. Luv to hear the stirring speech he would give beaming with pride at America’s accomplishents. Rather than prez dementia Joe who probably would need to have the whole thing explained to him multiple times to even understand what was going on. Or worse (ugh) prez Kamala PMS Harris.

    1. Moonbase Trumptonopolisberg1

      And why no backup? I thought NASA/SLS/ORION was supposed to be on Luna in 2024?

  6. I may be the last person in the room to think of this, but Starships making one-way flights to the Moon would not have to be expended. With some hardening and maintenance they could fly again whenever it becomes desirable. Whoa.

  7. “I may be the last person in the room to think of this, but Starships making one-way flights to the Moon would not have to be expended. With some hardening and maintenance they could fly again whenever it becomes desirable. Whoa.”

    Well if we land & build the base in perpetual sunshine mountainous areas near the lunar south poles proximate to permanently shadowed ice containing crater regions near same lunar southern Polar regions we would have a supply of potential rocket fuel/propellant. We could then refuel the starships if we wished; furthermore the ice mined converted by electrolysis to produce H2/O2 which could be transported off the Moon itself. Fuel depots could then be established in high earth orbit as well as regions like the L5 zone to use to refuel ships for trips to Mars and beyond.

      1. It’s far from certain that the moon does not contain obtainable concentrations of carbon.

        The Apollo samples indicate the moon is extremely carbon-poor, but, there are indications this may not be the case, such as satellite observations mentioned here,
        https://www.sciencealert.com/the-moon-is-emitting-carbon-putting-our-formation-theory-to-question

        A definite maybe at best, but there’s at least hope. (After the Apollo samples were examined, the experts were still pretty positive there was no water on the Moon, which has since proved untrue).

        1. An interesting new theory of lunar formation is that after the moon initially formed, very close to the Earth, both bodies were molten and the moon was tidally locked. The heat from the molten Earth baked the near side of the moon.

          Astronomers observe some planets that orbit their parent stars so close that one side is perpetually cooked and the back side stays frozen, and this adds to the tidal locking because all the volatile elements boil out of the sunward surface and condense onto the far side, so that the far crust is thick and rich in lighter elements while the near crust is thin a depleted of lighter elements.

          Taking all that together, the side where Apollo was looking was the worst place to find light, more loosely bound elements. Those are all in the thicker crust on the far side.

        2. “It’s far from certain that the moon does not contain obtainable concentrations of carbon.”

          Perhaps the permanently shaded crater regions near the lunar poles contain in addition to water other volatiles like ammonia, hydrocarbons or even carbonaceous chondrite deposits from Asterodial or cometary impacts in the remote pasts?

      2. “Starship uses methane for fuel.”

        Yes. On Earth it does but does that mean it can’t burn H2/LOX? Thought it was primarily an ease of storage issue why they decided on Methane.

        1. I wouldn’t think the existing LCH4 turbopump could pressurize LH2 very well, as liquid hydrogen is much lighter, and thus a spinning column of it in a centrifugal pump doesn’t create nearly as much head pressure. The Raptor’s fuel turbopump is fed at 6 or so bar (plus some head pressure from the tanks), whereas the RS-25 turbopump was fed by an axial pump to get the main pump’s infeed pressure over 250 psi to prevent cavitation. Then the RS-25 used a three-stage hydrogen turbopump, whereas the Raptor only uses a single stage.

          1. “Close-cycle staged-combustion engines are specifically designed for a specific fuel. You can’t just put anything in them.”

            Well that blows guess we will be limited then to specifically designed to use H2/LOX lunar landers. Well maybe there is frozen Carbon Dioxide in the same shadowed craters to use in the Sabatier reaction.

            CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O + 165 kJ/mol

            Don’t know if recovering CO2 from the crew’s respiration for use in said reaction would prove practical; probably not. Some kind of mineral deposits on the moon might bear fruit though.

        3. Well, Starship is designed to colonize Mars, and Mars can provide abundant methane and LOX…

          Ease of storage helps; but above all, Elon wanted a propellant readily producible on Mars.

          So far we’re only sure we can do LOX on the lunar south pole. But as Arizona CJ says, there’s a lot we don’t know yet about the possbilities for methane there.

          1. “So far we’re only sure we can do LOX on the lunar south pole.”

            Actually we can pretty much do LOX (liquid Oxygen) anywhere on the Moon. (Though I suppose in areas outside the polar regions it might prove tough to cool the generated oxygen to liquid temp during lunar day) The Moon is Hydrogen & Carbon poor. The moon is replete with high O2 concentration minerals. Like I said Wendell Mendell did lots of work on said Oxygen extraction from Lunar regolith.

          2. If you want the chemistry:

            “4 Oxygen
            An indigenous source of lunar water, either in the form of polar ice or in hydrated regoliths and/or pyroclastic deposits, would be the preferred choice as a source of oxygen on the Moon. Nevertheless, it has long been recognized that, if necessary, oxygen could be extracted from anhydrous oxide and silicate minerals in the lunar regolith (see the extensive reviews by Taylor and Carrier, 1993; Schrunk et al., 2008). Indeed, Taylor and Carrier (1993) discuss twenty different possible processes for extracting oxygen from lunar regolith, and produce a short-list of eight which they consider to be the most practical. It does have to be noted that all are quite energy intensive: Taylor and Carrier estimated that their eight shortlisted processes would require between 2-4 megawatt-years of energy (i.e. 6-12×1013 J) to produce 1000 tonnes of oxygen. The small scale experiments reported by Li et al. (2012) actually required energy levels about two orders of magnitude higher, although they noted that the efficiency can probably be increased significantly. In any case, these power levels would require a small nuclear reactor or several thousand square metres of solar panels.
            Historically, one of the most studied of these processes involves the reduction of the mineral ilmenite, for example: FeTiO3+2H.Fe+TiO2+H2O
            In common with all proposed oxygen extraction schemes, high temperatures (700-1000°C; Taylor and Carrier, 1993; Zhao and Shadman, 1993; Li et al., 2012) are required for this reaction, which in part accounts for the high energies required. Note that this particular route to oxygen produces water in the first instance, and is therefore a possible route to producing water on the Moon if indigenous sources (as described above) are unavailable, provided that a source of hydrogen exists.”

            http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbiac/Lunar_resources_review_preprint_accepted_manuscript.pdf

  8. “Starship uses methane for fuel.”

    So use the black tarry stuff from the same comets that brought the water to form the ice. In any case, 80% of propellant mass is oxygen. Reduces the refueling problem considerably even if the methane comes from Earth.

  9. “In any case, 80% of propellant mass is oxygen. Reduces the refueling problem considerably even if the methane comes from Earth.”

    Yes. And while the moon is relatively Hydrogen poor it is oxygen rich; with many lunar minerals with high oxygen content just waiting to be liberated. Wendel Mendel did work on that years ago.

  10. I read Casey’s 2019 article arguing against the value of lunar water and he is largely incorrect in his analysis on several points.

    There is plenty of water at the lunar poles in that there is far more than enough for use by lunar ferries to retrieve cargo and crew modules coming from Earth. Dr. Spudis estimated that, if the water were converted to propellant that it could fuel the equivalent of one Space Shuttle launch per day for 2,200 years. I would certainly hope that, within a century, we will be able to direct asteroidal and cometary water to the Moon. So, as a practical matter, lunar water places no limits to the growth of a lunar settlement.

    Casey refers to the least valuable use of lunar water to make his case rather than the most valuable use. Lunar water is less valuable when brought to LEO than when used on the lunar surface for ascent propellant.

    He is also mistaken to say that lunar water should be used for hopping around the Moon. The energy required to do suborbital trajectories is far, far greater than if that power were used to recharge surface electric vehicles. It has to do with 1/2 mv2, the rocket equation, and the need to spend an equal amount of energy decelerating. It’s several orders of magnitude greater energy requirement.

    He talks about needing to produce enough propellant to ship 100 T back to Earth. Can’t imagine what that payload would be. Rather, one only needs to refuel a ferry to retrieve about 20 T coming from Earth. And then there’s the comparison of the 100 kW ISS solar arrays & the need for 1,200 kW for propellant production. That’s only a factor of 12. Let’s bear in mind the size of payloads that Starship will be able to deliver.

    “Reducing mass requirements and shipping costs for a lunar base is awesome, but it won’t pay for the base itself. ”

    Whereas this is technically true, the saying is also true, “A penny saved is a penny earned”. If a transport company wants to turn a profit, reducing costs definitely helps towards that goal.

    An error that many skeptics of lunar development make is that they can only imagine revenue coming from some material resource. But Elon has it right. The main revenue will come from the savings of settlers who are moving for the experience not to mine ore. Get the transport and cost of maintaining settlers low enough and you’ve got your business case. The incremental production of lunar derived water is very valuable.

    1. He is also mistaken to say that lunar water should be used for hopping around the Moon. The energy required to do suborbital trajectories is far, far greater than if that power were used to recharge surface electric vehicles. It has to do with 1/2 mv2, the rocket equation, and the need to spend an equal amount of energy decelerating. It’s several orders of magnitude greater energy requirement.

      Which makes me think that for rapid transit between moon bases, maybe a fuel-cell powered electric hyper-loop would be the answer? No air resistance and mag-lev makes for a very fast train.

      1. Hi David. Something like that could well be the long-term transportation solution. But it would take a lot of industrial capacity to produce that much metal for the tracks. Given the vacuum, you wouldn’t need to Hyperloop’s tube so that helps. So basically we’re talking about a maglev I believe. Given the lack of air and ground resistance, I suspect that one could traverse from pole to equator with a single large battery charge rather than needing to go the fuel cell route.

  11. Let’s get the thing going reliably up and down first.

    Come to think of it, are there any technologies in Starship that need to be tested on orbit? Vacuum Raptors maybe?

    Maybe put one or two in temporary orbit as expendable testbeds?

  12. So. if we can make hydrogen and oxygen on the Moon, and there’s no meaningful carbon on the Moon, how much graphite do you have to bring to refuel your Starship? Is it 180 tons?

    1. Ya load 16 tons and whattya get?
      Another day older and deeper in debt.
      St. Peter don’t take me cause I can’t go.
      I owe my soul to the SpaceX store….

Comments are closed.