News

I fell asleep after making my original comment, but you are correct that the velocities and altitude achieved are indicative of something capable of achieving orbit.

So for that, thank you for the correction.

I will caveat that with: We still have literally no idea what this things LEO payload capacity is.

Up until a few months ago, Musk was saying its 100 tons. Then he says its more like 50 tons, and we're gonna make Starship+Booster 2 and 3, 2 will be capable of 100 tons, 3 will be even more.

So far its proven payload capacity is 'banana'.

=/

so much that it may jeopardize the Artemis program.

Which means he's successfully cornered the market and he hasn't even launched his product yet! What a great billionaire, I'm sure he's a great fit for a government position.

First, musk is an ass. No defense of him.

Spaceflight, however, is awesome.

I’m a space systems propulsion design engineer by profession. I worked on a project which I will not name that requires on-orbit refuelling. (It’s not this one and I don’t and will never work for Elon Musk).

I'm just an enthusiast so I trust your professional opinion more than my own knowledge.

The technology for in-orbit refuelling doesn’t exist, and there’s a whole lot of new technology required.

I'm assuming your referring to the SpaceX on-orbit refueling of cryogenic propellants requirement, which I agree hasn't happened yet in history by anyone. However, there is a regular on-orbit refueling of cryogenic propellants for years on a regular basis with Progress spacecraft refueling the 400 liters worth of tanks (860kg of hydrazine) on the ISS for its orbit raising rocket engine located on the Zvezda module of the ISS. Cryogenic propellants would be a whole different animal however.

I’m sceptical that they do have current solutions which are feasible and useful, rather than something like a one-shot refueling subsystem that weighs 250kg and delivers 15 litres of hydrazine.

As this technology is in regular use in space today, I don't doubt SpaceX could do this, but we agree this doesn't accomplish anything close to what is needed for the lunar mission SpaceX signed up for.

I appreciate your expert input!

Yeah the only stuff I could find about actual orbital refueling was basically some tests with cryogenic fuel pumping on the ISS, which had some fairly serious problems, and a few times that basically a small satellite was refueled / serviced by another small satellite, which yeah as you say, just deliver a tiny amount of hydrazine, an exceptionally less volatile and easier fuel to deal with.

The original timeline NASA gave to SpaceX was to have a successful landing on the moon, with humans, and their safe return, in Q2 2025.

7 months from now.

...

You could theoretically refuel the S-IVb, the Apollo/Saturn V third stage, in LEO, with Falcon Heavies...

...assuming you redesigned both to do refueling in orbit, which has never been accomplished before with huge volumes of cryogenic fuel.

But you could not actually launch even a completely unfueled, completely dry S-IVb with a Falcon Heavy.

The S-IVb is about 22ft in diameter.

The Falcon Heavy's final ascent rocket is about 12 ft in diameter.

There's almost certainly no way that would be aerodynamically stable through launch.

The service module and lander are just too wide.

...

NASA did actually award another contract to Blue Origin (Bezos Private Space Program) for an updated, embiggened Apollo style lander.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/05/blue-origin-wins-pivotal-nasa-contract-to-develop-a-second-lunar-lander/

That's going to be mated to a Locked Martin designed orbiter, and they'll all launch on the SLS.

... Assuming the SLS does not also fall (further) behind schedule or suffer from quality control problems.

A whole lot of SLS is built by Boeing. Not doing so great in the quality control department lately.

But hey at least one of the things so far has actually completed an uncrewed lunar fly by!

...

To conclude: Yes, Space is indeed hard.

But uh, the last thing Musk said about Starship+Booster is that it will actually have... half... the originally promised payload capacity to LEO.

... and they're going to making a Starship+Booster 2, that will have the original promised payload, and then a 3rd version that will have even more!

If you have to cut your effective payload capacity in half, thats a whole lot more than quality control problems, its fundamental design mishaps.

They've also blown their entire development budget and have received another billion dollars in development funds.

The sheer number of people looking at starship's delays and cost overruns and not seeing the exact same issues SLS had with Boeing are kind of staggering.

A lot of people have cars, there's still hope.

too bad they probably weren't driving a FSD tesla.