Apogee Podcast Ep. 2 | Starship Update What to Expect
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2022
- In this podcast I look ahead to next week's Starship presentation and discuss what topics may be covered.
Thumbnail Image by ERC X
Want to support Apogee? Consider becoming a Patreon supporter and get earyl access to podcasts & videos and patron-only discord channels - / apogeespace
Checkout the official Apogee Website for awesome merch! - www.apogeechannel.com/
Join in on the discussion on the Apogee discord server, open to all - / discord
Follow me on Twitter for updates - / apogeespace - Наука та технологія
It is time for you to bring this channel back to life. Your perspective is light-years ahead of most space channels.
With starship most likely getting to orbit this year, I have become obsessed with space and I am guessing that I am not the only one.
Don't give up. This channel is great.
Really hope they update their website with the new Starship design
The 2019 presentation was in front of the Mark 1 Starship, not SN1. And yes it was hella janky :D
Very janky
The 2019 presentation was after Mark 1 had popped; Mark 3 was either built from what was left of it or a new build completely from scratch, and renamed SN1 only after the presentation.
@@topsecret1837 MK1 popped november 2019, while the presentation was in september 2019.
I just discovered your channel. It's fantastic!
I appreciate the new content. It's good to see recognition of a relatively unbiased voice in spaceflight coverage.
prop transfer makes me think "when a mommy starship and a daddy starship love each other very much..."
I agree with you. We’ve been spoiled (first draft: ruined) by all the cameras in Boca Chica. We basically are going to get confirmations of everything we see on NSF and all the other cams.
It all depends on the questions and follow ups whether Elon divulges new information
Well covered, no distractions.
Good point about the difference in volume of information shared in his presentations before and after. Seems like he's traded the in-depth presentations for slow leaks on Twatter instead. The presentations are intended to "inspire," which he accomplishes through other means now apparently. :/
Agreed about the numbers - the more the better, even if they're just best estimates. Based on the hints we've been getting, it does seem like they're targeting well above 100 tons to orbit, which is exciting (and will mean far less than 16 refueling launches...)
Everyday Astronaut asked Musk about the 100 tons to orbit, saying that with the 21 tons to GTO in the Starship User Guide, that the payload should be closer to 156 tons to LEO and Musk agreed to ~150 tons to LEO (Mar 31st 2020 tweet). When the GAO report came out denying the HLS complaints, Musk stated that the 14 Tanker flights was old data and that with ~150 tons to LEO, it was a Max of 8 flights and maybe less, if lunar Starship is as light as they hope (Aug 11th, 2021 tweet).
You should start uploading the podcast to a podcasting app like pocket cast or spotify or something
I will look into this. Patrons get an RSS feed they can plug into their podcast player, but I don’t know how to preserve that early access and do this as well.
@@Apogeespace cool, love your content
More podcasts please. Great format
Thanks! They are much faster to produce so fingers crossed I can keep a nice cadence with them!
@@Apogeespace
Agreed. A weekly cadence will keep your channel active and viewers not needing to wait over a month until a video, but even then this is still great in quality.
Don't think cargo integration is going to be an issue with rapid reusability because rapid reusability is mainly needed for fuel.
This is very true. The most rapid launches will be fuel. Starlink may be next and they may be willing to subject their own payload to certain risks.
To note about Musk: his presentation over the phone in November, if anybody remembers that, seems to imply he’s shifting his thinking for it towards a more expansive ability to send probes and other equipment beyond Mars and all the way to Neptune and Pluto.
When we can refuel/resupply and have destinations like cities on other planets, starship or similar craft could easily bring people to the outer solar system; (assuming fair launch windows are present) burn out from Earth to Mars, stage at Mars, burn out to Ceres, stage, burn to Jupiter, etc… and it’ll be able to reach other planets faster as well because of it’s high ΔV, given a fully fueled tank and assuming cryogenic boil-off isn’t an issue.
If Starship payload is 150 tons, those chopstickes will have to be able to lift Starship dry mass PLUS that payload all the way to the top of the tower and all in one shot.
True, but it would probably be almost impossible for a payload that heavy to fit in the fairings. The majority of the time it will fly a full 150t payload, it will be fuel which can be filled after it is stacked.
I hope they will update user guide.
That would be awesome. Website too!
I agree 100%
I hope you sent your list of discussion items to Spacex. It seemed very comprehensive. I doubt that you left out any important things. I really enjoy the thoroughness of your presentations. Keep up the good work.
I love this channel
You've got a typo in the title there: Episdoe -> Episode
Lol that wasn't meant to be seen ;)
No worries :D
He should make the starship space station real. A 13 meters fairing would provide 3300 cubic meters of pressurised volume.
Or stick an inflatable module like Bigelow used to make. An 8m core should inflate to a really large size.
I don't know about the propellant depot being rumors with the GAO report that was released on Jul 30th last year. Footnote 13 at the bottom of page 27 pretty much confirms that [DELETED] is at least a propellant depot IMO. Note, Musk said that the number of Tanker Starship flights is based on old data and with ~156 tons to LEO, they are looking at 8 flights max for 1,200 tons of propellant to refuel Lunar Starship. Maybe less if Lunar Starship masses less, per Musk.
"In this regard, SpaceX’s concept of operations contemplated sixteen total launches, consisting of: 1 launch of its [DELETED]; 14 launches of its Tanker Starships to supply fuel to [DELETED]; and 1 launch of its HLS Lander Starship, which would be [DELETED] and then travel to the Moon."
I would say that [DELETED] is pretty clearly at least a propellant depot from the context. My question is, why SpaceX would have the GAO redact the information on [DELETED] if it was only a propellant depot? Especially since the context confirms it is at least a propellant depot.
I wonder if it is something more, like maybe a transfer node for crew to board something like a Starship Shuttle for LEO to lunar orbit and back trips. Strip the legs off of a Lunar Starship so it is even lighter and maybe give up some of the cargo mass as Lunar Starship can carry the really big cargo, and use it for crew and small cargo to and from the Moon. One of the issues NASA has is returning cargo from the Moon on Orion and something like a Starship Shuttle could solve that. Since it won't be landing, it has more dV for a return trip. I'm not sure NASA would be happy wtih aerobraking to enter Earth orbit with crew onboard Starship, so I'm thinking it would need to keep cargo mass low to have enough dV for an orbital insertion burn back at Earth. If the dV works out, even at the HLS launch prices (~$147M), it is competitive even with needing 10 flights to send it to the Moon. And if [DELETED] can hang around in orbit after the unmanned Lunar Starship leaves for the Moon, then that is one less flight needed for a Starship Shuttle.
IF [DELETED] is a crew transfer node and IF it can sustain a LEO spacecraft in standby mode like the ISS does, then you can take even more crew to the Moon. NASA said in the HLS Option A Source Selection Statement that Lunar Starship is already set for 4 crew for the Artemis IV+ flights. Starship has enough cargo margin that adding 2 more crew should not be hard. The once Lunar Starship is on the way and the Starship Shuttle is fueling up, you could send up a Crew Dragon and a Starliner to [DELETED] to transfer 8 crew to Starship Shuttle. You would then leave 2 in lunar orbit like usual and send 6 crew to the surface of the Moon instead of 4. Since Starliner and Crew Dragon have separate launch and recovery systems, getting both up in a short time frame would be easier than launching two Crew Dragons or two Starliners when the pad needs to be reused. Boeing should get the kinks out of Starliner at some point in the next few years. Once the lunar mission is done and Starship Shuttle has returned the crew to Earth orbit, then they fire up the capsules that they came up in and land back on Earth.
IF at some point in the future Starship is reliable enough for crewed Earth launches and landings, then you just send the crew up on a regular style Starship with thermal protection tiles and take the crew to lunar orbit. It could then aerobrake and land back on Earth. That's a BIG IF though and something that likey would not happen for years, IF Starship can be that reliable.
Yes, you could do the plan you outlined in an earlier video of bringing back Lunar Starship, but that requires a refueling in lunar orbit for the crew to return and I don't think NASA will be that bold. With a Starship Shuttle, it's kind of just replacing Orion in the mission architecture instead of having the crew do something completely new. Capsules have been going up and down to the ISS for years, so that part isn't new and with only needing to refuel the Starship Shuttle in LEO before it boards crew, that's not all that bad either.
You would like my “How to use HLS” video! These are all very good thoughts and while it probably just says depot, I hope you are right!
@@Apogeespace I have seen that video and all of the rest of your videos. Your channel is one of the few go-to channels for SpaceX news. You have great content.
I very well could be wrong and the [DELETED] is something else other than a crew node/propellant depot. It just seems silly to redact the info on [DELETED] to only confirm that it is a propellant depot in the context, UNLESS it is also something more. A crew node would be able to support crewed flights on Starship while it proves its reliability. And if Starship can't be reliable enough for manned Earth launches and landings, a crew node/propellant depot could help fulfill a need for a cheaper solution to SLS/Orion.
I've seen suggestions that [DELETED] could be filled and then take itself to lunar orbit for refueling there. Without having thermal protection tiles for aerobraking, that seems like the burn needed to return to Earth orbit would eat into the propellant cargo. If SpaceX/NASA were to do refueling in lunar orbit, a regular style Starship Tanker seems like the better plan, as it can aerobrake when coming back to Earth, so it can deliver more propellant to lunar orbit.
Eagerly awaiting the Starship talk by Musk and even more so your thoughts on it.
Quick question, where is the first podcast?
Patreon and Discord server booster only
It was very long ago (October 2021) and I was just getting my feet wet with the format so it won’t go public.
From now on the will though!
I have a feeling we're gonna hear how "really cool" a lot of things are. I'm hoping for a great presentation!
He went light on technical details and revealed almost nothing new
Anyone remember if we had a stream of the presentation 3 years back or did we learn everything after the fact?
We know the flaps have been updated. Weve seen the new design at a conference building a few months ago minus the engines. The new design i think will just be taller and narrower due to flap sizing changes. Raptor 2 will 100% get a reveal here as its basically confirmed how it looks.
I missed the new flap design from a conference. Do you have a link?
@@Apogeespace i dont have a link no. Was just a photo of a banner with the flaps shown much farther up and leeward on the nose
Where’s the first episode? I can’t find it anywhere :(
Here’s how it will be: Elon stutters ahead about what we basically already know, and a little bit of answering our Twitter questions (partly). The. People will be asking stuff we all want to know and we’ll be our answers.
And killer music from TSS
People will ask about life support and radiation concerns, Elon will downplay the issues. He will say they have ideas and they are working on some things, that they won't be able to travel when there are solar storms happening. He will mention they will have a sheltered area in Starship for people to go when the radiation gets too high and then he will deflect with the big rocket behind him.
He has said these exact same things for the past 3 or 4 years in his presentations and interviews. I don't doubt their ability to design and manufacture a vehicle. Yes, it will be tough and it will probably take longer than they think to get it done and working as intended, but they will do it. What I am interested in at this point is all of the life support systems. I wonder if NASA has given SpaceX designs or anything related to the ISS's?
@@dr4d1s Since there is at least a year or two, at best, before Starship is operational, SpaceX may not have finalized the life support and radiation protection systems. AIUI, research continues in those areas, so maybe they are waiting to see what develops, since Starship is still in early testing right now anyway. It is my understanding that SpaceX prefers to buy parts it needs and will move in-house when it can't find the parts for a price/schedule that they need. So SpaceX may not be reinventing the wheel on life support and rad shielding, but might be waiting to if what is available now, is better when they need it.
What's your opinion on the Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) Source Selection Statement? They revealed that SpaceX actually proposed a Starship space station, as you suspected in your other video, but NASA declined for several reasons.
There wasn't enough new info to really make a video out of tbh. Seems like the Starship offered was pretty much just HLS starship (which is in line with the rumors that SpaceX's bid was sort of last-minute)
Seems to me that the stations they picked were the right ones.
@@Apogeespace That's fair. I found it interesting what they identified as strengths and weaknesses in the three proposals they picked.
The last starship update was sort of useless and left us with almost no information. I'm hopeful that it provides even half of what you are speculating on.
2:00 fairing? what fairing?
The empty space above the fuel tanks is an integrated fairing, where the cargo will go.
I've been arguing that Elon might have gone overall larger for the Raptor engines. There is a "sweet spot" re appropriate size...what that is, I don't know. This argument is based on the precept of economies of scale. Indeed, (as an example) Raptor 2 is less complex than Raptor 1, but what is the mass of two Raptors vs say one that is 50% larger, but produces the same thrust? A larger Raptor would require less plumbing and of course a less complicated engine controlling system.
There are also savings on labor. The F1 engines of Saturn V booster although not anywhere as efficient as the Raptor, along with the Saturn 2nd stage were still able to heave 140 tonnes to LEO, (which is no small feat even by todays standards!) A constraint on engine size would be "throttlability" and minimum thrust for landing/capturing...it goes without saying that the superheavy booster requires "hoverablility" to be captured by mechazilla....no F9 suicide landing burns.
It's my understanding from the rocket engine nerds, that as your engine gets bigger, making it stable just gets harder and harder. The F1 had some pretty bad combustion instabilities that were mitigated, but not entirely eliminated I understand. It's also my understanding that SpaceX also likes to keep the first and second stages as similar as they can from a propulsion stand point to keep costs low. The Vulcan Centaur for example, will have a LCH4/LOX first stage with the BE-4 engine (when it gets delivered) and a LH2/LOX second stage with the RL-10 engine. SpaceX on the other hand has the second stage of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy use RP1 and the Merlin 1D engine, even though that sacrifices some capability to a LH2/LOX stage. SpaceX has said that the commonality is more important for cost than having the extra capability.
@@steveaustin2686 Yes, right on re combustion instability/instabilities. If memory serves it wasn't just the baffles that were incorporated into the CC, but changes to the injectors. Yes,(?)
This is the first that I've heard that the CI wasn't eliminated completely. There are many a report that small explosives were employed to try to "trigger" CI during testing once they felt they had the problem licked.
By no means was I suggesting a modern engine the size of F1 to replace Raptor.
Can only imagine given today's tech... color flow fuid dynamics and improvements in materials + add on full flow staged combustion cycle and an increase in CC pressure what you get for a F1 sized engine. Scares me to think.
Thanks, for getting back on my comment. Take care, Kevin
@@ritterkreutztrager I misunderstood a second problem that I thought was related to combustion instability, but it was not. The center engine on the first stage was shut down on purpose to control pogo oscillations from the fuel pumps. I mixed the two up. So the combustion instability for the F-1 engine was solved, but the center engine was shutdown early for dampening pogo oscillations to stay under 4G of acceleration.
.
🙌 P"R"O"M"O"S"M!