Possible uses for star ship

[terryg]

As star ship creeps closer to becoming a reality, I wonder about possible uses for that lift capacity. I do not see manned mars or even moon missions being practical without nuclear propulsion break thru's.
However I can see great possibilities for larger and more powerful space telecopes. Newer generations of deep space probes would be awesome. Super Voyager perhaps? What other uses do you see that do not take dozens of refueling missions?

 

[cwbullet]

Missions to the moon and Mars are near capable now. Heck, we have already been to the moon without nuclear propulsion and it was expensive but practical.

 

[cvanc]

Pizza delivery.

(Hey, I get hungry sometimes!)

 

[NTP2]

Missions to the moon and Mars are near capable now. Heck, we have already been to the moon without nuclear propulsion and it was expensive but practical.

Practical in 1960, you can’t go to congress and say USSR and get a million dollars anymore.

Well nuclear stuff is heavy (because you have to lug around uranium) so it could boost it up to LEO.

 

[dhbarr]

Radio telescope constructed in a crater on the far side of the moon. Robot factory that assembles dozens of fliers on Mars. Synthetic aperture telescope constellation perpendicular to the ecliptic. Upgrade the entire deep space network.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

As star ship creeps closer to becoming a reality, I wonder about possible uses for that lift capacity. I do not see manned mars or even moon missions being practical without nuclear propulsion break thru's.
However I can see great possibilities for larger and more powerful space telecopes. Newer generations of deep space probes would be awesome. Super Voyager perhaps? What other uses do you see that do not take dozens of refueling missions?

Just to quibble a little bit with your premise, I think the moon missions will be practical, even if they do require multiple refueling missions. SpaceX launched something like 100 Falcon 9s last year, and plans around 150 next year, so about 2 to 3 a week. If Superheavy and Starship can reach that pace, even a dozen refueling launches could be done in a month. And it’s possible the lift capacity of the system will be improved, and it won’t require as many refueling launches as things move forward.

It sounds like your question is about what kinds of new payloads could be launched in a single flight. Definitely, like you said, large space telescopes and much larger and more capable probes to the solar system.

On space telescopes, I think it will be a lot less expensive and much more reliable to be able to build and test the entire instrument in its final form here on Earth, rather than rely on a tricky procedure to unfold and deploy the scope in space like they did with the JWST.

That‘s probably true for anything you launch into space — if you can build it in full on Earth rather than assemble it in space, it will cost less and be more reliable. You could build a decent sized space station and launch the whole thing fully assembled. Or if you did want to assemble it from modules, each one could be very large.

I remember back in the 90s when software designers and computer programmers were so constrained by the capacity of the hardware. They had to be very mindful of the limited speed and capacity of the processors and the amount of memory available. They spent a lot of effort trying to find the most efficient ways to stretch the limited resources of the hardware. But it wasn’t long before advances in processing speed and memory made that less of a concern. Software engineers had to adapt to an environment of abundance rather than scarcity. It required a different mindset. I think we are about to have a shift like that in space technology and spacecraft design. It won’t be as important to squeeze every gram out of every design, and engineers will be able to focus on different things.

 

[NTP2]

I remember back in the 90s when software designers and computer programmers were so constrained by the capacity of the hardware. They had to be very mindful of the limited speed and capacity of the processors and the amount of memory available. They spent a lot of effort trying to find the most efficient ways to stretch the limited resources of the hardware. But it wasn’t long before advances in processing speed and memory made that less of a concern. Software engineers had to adapt to an environment of abundance rather than scarcity. It required a different mindset. I think we are about to have a shift like that in space technology and spacecraft design. It won’t be as important to squeeze every gram out of every design, and engineers will be able to focus on different things.

This!!! So much this!!!! Moon colony here we come!

 

[drewnickel]

IMO Starship's ideal role would be freight shipping to LEO. In-space refueling hasn't even been demonstrated yet, and even when it is we're talking about a dozen Starship launches to get to the moon for the Artemis missions. Money is only part of the equation, having everything where you need it when you need it and logistics of managing multiple concurrent flights come into play, and if you have to abort a launch after setting everything else up, they aren't going to wait for you to launch they are going to continue on their trajectories. Use Starship to send a couple hundred tons of supplies for a reusable nuclear tug (similar to Copernicus for the Constellation program), and let the dedicated deep space vehicles do their job. Use Starship to re-supply as they loop back around Earth and repeat.

In deep space, specific impulse and mass fraction are the most important parameters. Lugging around landing legs and fins and enough extra fuel to land hurts mass fraction, and running off methane and oxygen instead of hydrogen or even nuclear energy means that specific impulse is limited. For all its faults, SLS would be capable in its current state of sending a probe to Uranus without a gravity assist, but Starship can't even get itself to the moon without refueling with another Starship that has to be launched to the same orbit. For Mars you'd have to launch the Starship that is going to Mars, launch another Starship to boost it out past the moon, launch another Starship for re-fueling the main one for the Mars transfer and possibly capture burn, and launch another Starship to re-fuel the one you are using to re-fuel the main one. That's if you don't plan on a return trip, and assuming one Starship could completely re-fuel the other which is a stretch with tank boil-off and payload mass fraction requirements.

 

[NTP2]

Use Starship to send a couple hundred tons of supplies for a reusable nuclear tug (similar to Copernicus for the Constellation program), and let the dedicated deep space vehicles do their job. Use Starship to re-supply as they loop back around Earth and repeat.

That is almost certainly how it should be done.

 

[Rschub]

 

[cerving]

Radio telescope constructed in a crater on the far side of the moon. Robot factory that assembles dozens of fliers on Mars. Synthetic aperture telescope constellation perpendicular to the ecliptic. Upgrade the entire deep space network.

I think there are going to have to be more revenue-generating uses for space... pure science is nice, but nobody's going to put out the money for this stuff if they're not going to get any of it back. That's what NASA found out in the 70's... and Elon is cleaning up because he's figured out that the future of space is commercialization.

 

[Tyeeking]

In-space refueling hasn't even been demonstrated yet,

Sure it has. Didn’t you watch the movie Armageddon? Admittedly there were a few glitches. LOL

 

[dhbarr]

I think there are going to have to be more revenue-generating uses for space... pure science is nice, but nobody's going to put out the money for this stuff if they're not going to get any of it back. That's what NASA found out in the 70's... and Elon is cleaning up because he's figured out that the future of space is commercialization.

Where uh... where exactly did Mueller, Thompson, and Koenigsmann get all their pure science? Sure, somebody will commercialize it, but for-profit companies don't seem to have either the appetite or the vision to do fundamental science work.

 

[cvanc]

I can't believe you guys didn't like my pizza idea. And here I thought you were visionaries!

C'mon, imagine Tony Stark, arms outstretched, with a wall of fire behind him and pizzas everywhere falling from the sky while a giant silver beast with a 65 foot GrubHub logo lands.

Best. Pool party. EVER.

Signed,
That payload door is the perfect shape for flinging pies

Alternate signed,
No pineapple

 

[cerving]

Almost all of the Marvel movies have an Evil Corporate America message in there somewhere...

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Even before creative new ideas for Starship, I’m looking forward to seeing all the variations of Starship they already have planned.

Tanker, fuel depot, and lunar lander are the ones they are under contract for with NASA.

Then there’s the space tourist trip around the moon they have planned with the Japanese billionaire and something like 10 passengers — so there’s a passenger variant planned.

And there’s the satellite launch vehicle/pizza delivery/pez dispenser variant.

Are there any others they already have plans for?

 

[techrat]

Once you have regular, reliable, heavy lift capability like StarShip, many more things become possible. Think about how many shuttle launches it took to build the ISS. With Starship, you can do that in 3 launches. With the inflatable modules Sierra is building right now, you could build a 2x ISS in a single Starship launch. Building a permanent hab on the moon is 5 Starship launches (plus a few more for refueling) and then regular re-supply perhaps via Falcon Heavy, or Vulcan Centaur.

Point is: heavy lift capability is a MUST for any long-term off-planet work.

 

[cvanc]

On a more serious and less fattening note, how about instead of 'deploying' a big telescope, just build a telescope into the structure of the ship?

 

[kramer714]

On space telescopes, I think it will be a lot less expensive and much more reliable to be able to build and test the entire instrument in its final form here on Earth, rather than rely on a tricky procedure to unfold and deploy the scope in space like they did with the JWST.

That‘s probably true for anything you launch into space — if you can build it in full on Earth rather than assemble it in space, it will cost less and be more reliable. You could build a decent sized space station and launch the whole thing fully assembled. Or if you did want to assemble it from modules, each one could be very large.

um, maybe, sort of......

One issue for satellites is the design for handling / launch loads vs. design for service loads. Back in the day, I worked on satellite bus structures, and antenna mounts. The loads from launch are orders of magnitude higher than the loads in space, to the point that we never tested for loads in space, just the launch loads. Don't get me wrong, bigger payload bay gives the designer more options for 'folding and stowing' than a small payload bay. Plus if the cost per lb to (fill in velocity or orbit here), is lower the trades for simple folds vs origami become easier.

There will always be a need to reduce the loads on structures during launch by reducing the bending moments. Imagine holding your arms out with 10 kg weights in your hands vs holding your arms dangling at your side with 10kg weights. Now imagine that a 6G's (I think Falcon is something like that MAX).

 

[NTP2]

Tanker, fuel depot, and lunar lander are the ones they are under contract for with NASA

Is it just me or does starship look like it’ll tip over the moment it touches the ground. I mean the LEM looked like a bug for a reason.

Ps and the moon doesn’t have landing pads.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

On a more serious and less fattening note, how about instead of 'deploying' a big telescope, just build a telescope into the structure of the ship?

Absolutely. I think that’s going to be the case in a lot of instances. They will likely build something to be boosted on Superheavy, and it will have something other than Starship push it the rest of the way into orbit or on its final trajectory. There won’t be need for all the reentry and landing-related equipment, like heat shielding, landing legs, flaps, sea-level engines, etc.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Is it just me or does starship look like it’ll tip over the moment it touches the ground. I mean the LEM looked like a bug for a reason.

I would not be surprised if the lander variant has a different leg setup from the ones designed to land on Earth. It will need to land on more uneven terrain. The other thing I wonder is how big of a hole the engine exhaust is going to dig when it touches down on the moon. The LEM was a much lighter vehicle. The Starship lander is going to be blasting the surface with a lot more powerful thrust.

 

[NTP2]

I would not be surprised if the lander variant has a different leg setup from the ones designed to land on Earth. It will need to land on more uneven terrain. The other thing I wonder is how big of a hole the engine exhaust is going to dig when it touches down on the moon. The LEM was a much lighter vehicle. The Starship lander is going to be blasting the surface with a lot more powerful thrust.

That and you would be flying with instruments only, which was a big problem in 1960s but not as much now.

 

[Rob Campbell]

Well nuclear stuff is heavy (because you have to lug around uranium) so it could boost it up to LEO.

And lead shielding.

 

[NTP2]

And lead shielding.

No you have hydrogen fuel for that it’s a lot lighter and you need a lot of it anyway.

Ps also the inverse square law helps a lot.

 

[techrat]

Is it just me or does starship look like it’ll tip over the moment it touches the ground. I mean the LEM looked like a bug for a reason.

Computers these days are considerably faster than they used to be, so Starship can put down pretty easily with Computer control. Plus, the engines gimbal. I don't think the LEM had that, just thrust vector controls. Also, you're coming down in 1/6 the gravity. Also, let's remember when they designed the LEM in the 60's, they had NO IDEA if the moon was "solid" enough. They thought for sure, you'd sink down into soft sand, like in a desert. One of the reasons Neal was instructed to first step onto the landing pad of the LEM after coming down the ladder, before stepping onto the Moon itself was they weren't sure if he'd sink.

If they need to, they'll add bigger feet to the landing gear, but all that's going to be on the outside of Starship when it launches from Earth, so, added drag, among other things, that might cause problems before you get into orbit.

 

[NTP2]

Computers these days are considerably faster than they used to be, so Starship can put down pretty easily with Computer control. Plus, the engines gimbal. I don't think the LEM had that, just thrust vector controls. Also, you're coming down in 1/6 the gravity. Also, let's remember when they designed the LEM in the 60's, they had NO IDEA if the moon was "solid" enough. They thought for sure, you'd sink down into soft sand, like in a desert. One of the reasons Neal was instructed to first step onto the landing pad of the LEM after coming down the ladder, before stepping onto the Moon itself was they weren't sure if he'd sink.

If they need to, they'll add bigger feet to the landing gear, but all that's going to be on the outside of Starship when it launches from Earth, so, added drag, among other things, that might cause problems before you get into orbit.

Still I don’t like it, it should be at least possible for a human to land it.

 

[kramer714]

I would not be surprised if the lander variant has a different leg setup from the ones designed to land on Earth. It will need to land on more uneven terrain. The other thing I wonder is how big of a hole the engine exhaust is going to dig when it touches down on the moon. The LEM was a much lighter vehicle. The Starship lander is going to be blasting the surface with a lot more powerful thrust.

and melt the cheese....

Sorry, had to do that

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

and melt the cheese....

Sorry, had to do that

Comin’ in hot!

 

[bad_idea]

Plus, the engines gimbal.

They won't be using the Raptors for the landing due to the debris they would kick up. The last 100m of the descent will be using GOX/Methane thrusters mounted far higher on the lander.