banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 14:22 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 15:13 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I missed that, but if he can drop the number of launches by 75% that's a heck of an improvement.

That's expendable rocket thinking where each flight is a loss of the vehicle.

SpaceX aims to reuse 100% of the Super Heavy and Starship.

Land, refuel, go again. So what if the payload to orbit is less, the total cost isn't since you get the entire rocket back.

There's safety in doing something over and over again, the process gets refined, improved, monitored, tested.

I'm sure people would have said they were crazy to put 1500 satellites into orbit in less than 2 years and not lose any payloads. Well, they did it, and landed every booster involved in the Starlink project.

I find it weird that Blue Origin makes claims that what SpaceX is doing is "untested". Blue Origin needs to do something at least resembling an orbital rocket before they can have any credibility on that score. I think they just want to disrupt the progress of SpaceX more than it being a serious competitive issue.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 15:34 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/06/08
Posts: 4665
Post Likes: +2678
Aircraft: B55 P2
I thought Blue Origins was just doing the lander. That is similar to the upper stage they have been testing.



Username Protected wrote:
I missed that, but if he can drop the number of launches by 75% that's a heck of an improvement.

That's expendable rocket thinking where each flight is a loss of the vehicle.

SpaceX aims to reuse 100% of the Super Heavy and Starship.

Land, refuel, go again. So what if the payload to orbit is less, the total cost isn't since you get the entire rocket back.

There's safety in doing something over and over again, the process gets refined, improved, monitored, tested.

I'm sure people would have said they were crazy to put 1500 satellites into orbit in less than 2 years and not lose any payloads. Well, they did it, and landed every booster involved in the Starlink project.

I find it weird that Blue Origin makes claims that what SpaceX is doing is "untested". Blue Origin needs to do something at least resembling an orbital rocket before they can have any credibility on that score. I think they just want to disrupt the progress of SpaceX more than it being a serious competitive issue.

Mike C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2021, 17:54 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 12813
Post Likes: +13206
Company: Cogswell Cogs, LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
Blue Origin sues NASA over the Artemus/HLS lander award to SpaceX:

https://www.space.com/blue-origin-sues- ... r-contract

Reminder:

- Blue's BE-4 engine for their New Glenn rocket is 4+ years late.
- New Glenn will not launch before 4Q22
- Jarvis is BO's fully reusable upper stage

_________________
Life is a DiY project.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 17 Aug 2021, 08:17 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19762
Post Likes: +19430
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
I thought Blue Origins was just doing the lander. That is similar to the upper stage they have been testing.

Blue Origin is (theoretically) building part of the lander for the Human Landing System in concert with Northrup Grumman, Draper, and Lockheed Martin. They are also (theoretically) building the New Glenn rocket, which is intended to be an orbital launch vehicle similar to but larger than, Falcon 9. They are also (theoretically) developing the BE-4 engines for the Vulcan Centaur rocket that ULA needs to replace the Atlas. The issue with Atlas is the Russian built РД-180 engines on the first stage which the government no longer wants to use for political reasons. A deadline has already been set, so without a replacement first stage motor, we lose that lift capability.

Notice that I've said "theoretically" several times. In each case, none of the described items has been functionally demonstrated even once.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 17:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 12813
Post Likes: +13206
Company: Cogswell Cogs, LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
Brain drain at Blue Origin:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/20/jeff-be ... fight.html

_________________
Life is a DiY project.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 19:00 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19762
Post Likes: +19430
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:

Leaving a sinking ship?

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2021, 17:20 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 12813
Post Likes: +13206
Company: Cogswell Cogs, LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
[youtube]https://youtu.be/-Lsbi-bVfk0[/youtube]

_________________
Life is a DiY project.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2021, 19:42 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/07/17
Posts: 7026
Post Likes: +5805
Company: Malco Power Design
Location: KLVJ
Aircraft: 1976 Baron 58
Username Protected wrote:
I thought Blue Origins was just doing the lander. That is similar to the upper stage they have been testing.

Blue Origin is (theoretically) building part of the lander for the Human Landing System in concert with Northrup Grumman, Draper, and Lockheed Martin. They are also (theoretically) building the New Glenn rocket, which is intended to be an orbital launch vehicle similar to but larger than, Falcon 9. They are also (theoretically) developing the BE-4 engines for the Vulcan Centaur rocket that ULA needs to replace the Atlas. The issue with Atlas is the Russian built РД-180 engines on the first stage which the government no longer wants to use for political reasons. A deadline has already been set, so without a replacement first stage motor, we lose that lift capability.

Notice that I've said "theoretically" several times. In each case, none of the described items has been functionally demonstrated even once.


My question would be why do we need that lift capability? We have Falcon. Soon we will have Super Heavy. I understand wanting to have redundant suppliers but at what cost?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2021, 20:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 12813
Post Likes: +13206
Company: Cogswell Cogs, LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
Username Protected wrote:
My question would be why do we need that lift capability? We have Falcon.


Unlike Apollo, goal is to deliver many tons to the lunar surface and to Mars and to return a (few?) tons.

Perhaps Falcon (Heavy?) has insufficient energy to reasonably get the necessary HLS/Mars gear to LEO? Then there is the matter of getting those many tons of HLS mass past escape velocity and on its way to the destination … and the return trip.

Reminder: The SpaceX winning proposal required 16 Starship launches … and Starship dwarfs Falcon.

_________________
Life is a DiY project.


Last edited on 26 Aug 2021, 07:10, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2021, 22:29 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/07/17
Posts: 7026
Post Likes: +5805
Company: Malco Power Design
Location: KLVJ
Aircraft: 1976 Baron 58
Username Protected wrote:
Unlike Apollo, goal is to deliver many tons to the lunar surface and to Mars and to return a (few?) tons.

Perhaps Falcon (Heavy?) has insufficient energy to reasonably get the necessary HLS/Mars gear to LEO? Then there is the matter of getting those many tons of HLS mass past escape velocity and on its way to the destination … and the return trip.

Reminder: The SpaceX winning proposal required 16 Starship launches … and Starship dwarfs Falcon.


My question wasn’t about Starship. It was about the, as yet vaporware, replacement for the Russian engine in the Atlas platform were paying Blue Origin to develop. Why are we doing that? Why do we need Atlas anymore in a world where Falcon and Starship/Super Heavy both exist.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2021, 07:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 12813
Post Likes: +13206
Company: Cogswell Cogs, LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
1. Competition drives innovation
2. Diversity in the supply chain
3. It is a jobs program
4. National pride

_________________
Life is a DiY project.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2021, 12:44 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19762
Post Likes: +19430
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
1. Competition drives innovation
2. Diversity in the supply chain
3. It is a jobs program
4. National pride

There you go.

BTW, while Bezos says sixteen launches per landing for Lunar Starship, Elon and others are saying that it's going to be closer to half that, with improvements in lift capability, weight reduction, etc.

Bezos is off the rails. He's swinging blindly, not even seeing that what he's doing is going to have zero effect. SpaceX isn't even slowed down in their development since 99% of what they're working on for the moon also works for their Mars missions. NASA telling them to "stop work" on the Lunar lander program causes exactly zero change in work at SpaceX.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2021, 00:13 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 7975
Post Likes: +6844
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: Debonair C33A
The biggest irony is, Elon will likely have the capability to land people on the Moon directly, without the whole SLS/Orion shebang sooner than NASA will have them ready. Then he can just tell them “oh, you want to go to the Moon? Sure, buy a ticket on my ship. Or your can go build your own”. :dance:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2021, 08:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 12813
Post Likes: +13206
Company: Cogswell Cogs, LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
Username Protected wrote:
BTW, while Bezos says sixteen launches per landing for Lunar Starship, Elon and others are saying that it's going to be closer to half that, with improvements

Whoa.

Not Bezos. The SpaceX (winning) proposal said 16. Bezos simply highlighted the SpaceX (winning) plan for 16 with a graphic.

After the snickers began, Musk said maybe as few as four if they ditch the thermal protection and landing/recovery system.

I do agree that Bezos/BO is badly trailing and does not seem to have a plan or the leadership necessary to compete.

_________________
Life is a DiY project.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Starship & Moon Landing Complexity …
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2021, 11:22 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/06/08
Posts: 4665
Post Likes: +2678
Aircraft: B55 P2
What is odd, is that unlike Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin's technology is not fundamentally flawed. I think they pioneered powered rocket landing (though SpaceX gets the attention for that) and high specific impulse H2/O2 engines are not a bad approach for orbital launch vehicles. (personally I think hydrocarbon / LOX first stag and H2/LOX second stage is probably optimal).

I think Blue Origins has OK technology but lacks the business and marketing sense.

Virgin Galactic is just a joke.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.