Your thoughts on Elon musk?

  • 1438 Replies
  • 94011 Views
*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #330 on: July 31, 2022, 04:31:01 AM »
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #331 on: July 31, 2022, 04:46:57 AM »
I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.
Do you think repeating it often enough will magically make it true?
Just why do you want them to only use solid fuel so much?

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #332 on: July 31, 2022, 04:56:51 AM »
I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.
Do you think repeating it often enough will magically make it true?

You mean like you repeating that throwing away things is better than reusing or making the most of things?

You will never win that argument. Are you a washing machine repair man? 'Oh the cheap $2 sensor on your machine is broken. You might as well buy a whole new washing machine because labour alone to fix it will cost more than a new one'

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #333 on: July 31, 2022, 07:29:12 AM »
I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.
Do you think repeating it often enough will magically make it true?
Just why do you want them to only use solid fuel so much?
Arianespace boosters/rocket use solid fuel that burns and produce hot gas that is ejected to propel the space craft oneway. Very cheap and simple. Liquid fuels are much more complex to handle. Keep it simple.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #334 on: July 31, 2022, 08:19:08 AM »
You left out another great quote for it:
"NASA will free up resources in its budget in three ways: holding down growth in existing programs that do not support the vision; retiring the Space Shuttle to free up billions of dollars in the next decade; and focusing on innovations that reduce the cost of sustained space operations"

Sure sounds like cost was a significant contributing factor.
And the first thing they did after STS was develop a rocket that costs more than the STS and flies at most once a year. All the same contractors that built the STS are being used to build SLS. The SLS is literally designed to be able to re-use STS components. The same expensive components.
SLS, however is safer with actual launch abort without red zones all the way to orbit.

So it is still not possible to have a downrange landing for all three boosters, at least not without a massive delay to move a drone ship.
2 operate in the Atlantic and 1 in the Pacific.
Is you goal to compare re-usability to disposable when re-usability is not utilised in its best practical configuration. Or are you specifically looking for scenarios where its less efficient? Because it looks like your trying to compare re-usability is its less ideal scenarios to ideal disposable scenarios.

And until there is more transparency from spaceX, or an independent audit, we will not know that.
The only time you will have some levels of transparency is from NASA, no where else. So your stuck comparing NASA built STS to the SLS, thats it. Or you end the conversation admitting that maybe the actual sources we have out there is the best we are going to get, and work off that.



The cold temperature of liquid oxygen can cause steel to undergo a ductile to brittle transition, causing similar embrittlement.
All cryogenic fluids have issues regarding metal embrittlement.
There is a difference between losing ductility due to low temperature and hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen does both, oxygen does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
Hydrogen is also the smallest particle, so it leaks through everything that would seal bigger particles like oxygen.
You also need to use specialised tools when working near hydrogen as it is very explosive in air and very hard to detect.
The RS-25 engines each cost as much as 3 entire disposable Falcon9 rockets for a reason.

Conversely, other fuels need a lot greater mass of the fuel.
This is a whole topic by itself. But Hydrogen engines are very efficient, as in, they have a very high ISP, but terrible thrust. This leads to larger gravity losses due to low acceleration, meaning they need more fuel and mass to get off the ground. This is why both the STS and SLS have side boosters that have high trust. Hydrogen is great in vacuum as a second stage engine, but not as a first stage engine.

You indicated that there are current examples of reusability at every stage.
Where is a reusable second stage?
I haven't seen one.
EVERY STAGE.
- Launch
- Orbit
- Return to orbit (even lunar orbit!!!)
 I never said there is a reusability that combines all stages into one LV.

And that is basically the issue with your comparisons.
F9 is too large for a disposable rocket for LEO for most payloads.
So what would a smaller version with a more appropriate payload cost?
Would it be more or less expensive than a reusable F9?
F9 R - 16.2t - $50m - $3086$/kg
Atlas V - 18.5t - $153m - $8270$/kg
Ariane 5 - 21t - $185m - $8800$/kg
Proton-M -23t - $65m - $2826$/kg * It had failed 1 out of every 10 launches so far
Soyuz-2 - 8.2t - $80/$48 - $9756$/kg - 5853$/kg (European vs Russian operation)
Proton-M and Soyuz built in Russia have an advantage of an engineer costing you about 5 times less (before the invasion) So these prices should be seen in this context. European and American labour costs roughly the same.

The Soyuz is one of the most successful rockets ever, but it still does not match F9 at cost. For a 8t launch, Soyuz costs about the same as a F9 reusable, but F9 has better reliability. If you launch the Soyuz from European operations where labour differences are not so stark, its still much cheaper to launch a F9R over a Soyuz at any payload mass.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2022, 08:21:21 AM by MaNaeSWolf »
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #335 on: July 31, 2022, 08:28:34 AM »
Anyway, the boosters are solid fuel fire works and I see no reason why the main rocket cannot be the same. Ariane 5 is just for one-way LEO and GTO trips and solid fuel is the best for it. Elon is going to Mars with passengers, he says, so he needs liquid fuel, poor sod.
Solid boosters are heavy and difficult to manage. It means more expensive logistics to get the rocket on a pad.
A typical rocket can weigh 50t dry, but be filled with 600t of liquid fuel. Liquid is a lot easier to move than one large 600t solid booster.
Then you have the issue that solids cant throttle, meaning its full power or nothing, making very very hard to get the correct orbital insertion. Imagine docking a ship, but you only have full power, and can only cut power once you run out of fuel.
Then solids typically have very low ISP's but high thrust. ISP is a measure of efficiency. So you need a lot more mass from a solid to accelerate your rocket. They have good thrust though, meaning they can help more efficient low thrust rockets get off the ground. Think of it as 1st gear vs 5th gear of a car. You need both, solids are only your 1st gears.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #336 on: July 31, 2022, 08:32:42 AM »
Elon Musk is not going to Mars. It's that 'Mars One' hoax all over again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One

Mars can not be colonised or terraformed. You'd have more luck making a cloud city on Venus or living on Saturns moon Titan. Mars is dead
If Musk goes to Mars, it will be with NASA and other agencies. No way they have the resources to do it alone.
But Mars can be colonised, and a lot easier than Venus.
Also, Saturn is very very very far away. Your not sending people there until we have a very well established space industry. As in Mega large space ships

Explain to me how you land and take off from a cloud city with a 5000ton rocket?
Then what ever explanation you give me, think how that cant be applied to Mars, just easier.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #337 on: July 31, 2022, 08:47:08 AM »
Elon Musk is not going to Mars. It's that 'Mars One' hoax all over again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One

Mars can not be colonised or terraformed. You'd have more luck making a cloud city on Venus or living on Saturns moon Titan. Mars is dead
If Musk goes to Mars, it will be with NASA and other agencies. No way they have the resources to do it alone.
But Mars can be colonised, and a lot easier than Venus.
Also, Saturn is very very very far away. Your not sending people there until we have a very well established space industry. As in Mega large space ships

Explain to me how you land and take off from a cloud city with a 5000ton rocket?
Then what ever explanation you give me, think how that cant be applied to Mars, just easier.

This video explains it pretty well why Venus may be a better candidate for colonisation over Mars


And we could probably terraform Venus much quicker than the dead planet Mars



And here is some info about the habitability of Titan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Titan
Quote
Saturn's largest moon Titan is one of several candidates for possible future colonization of the outer Solar System.

According to Cassini data from 2008, Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth. These hydrocarbons rain from the sky and collect in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.[1] "Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material—it's a giant factory of organic chemicals", said Ralph Lorenz, who leads the study of Titan based on radar data from Cassini. "This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan." Several hundred lakes and seas have been observed, with several dozen estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than Earth's oil and gas reserves. The dark dunes that run along the equator contain a volume of organics several hundred times larger than Earth's coal reserves.[2]
Titan 'sea' (left) compared at scale to Lake Superior (right)

Radar images obtained on July 21, 2006 appear to show lakes of liquid hydrocarbon (such as methane and ethane) in Titan's northern latitudes. This is the first discovery of currently existing lakes beyond Earth.[3] The lakes range in size from about a kilometer in width to one hundred kilometers across.

On March 13, 2007, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that it found strong evidence of seas of methane and ethane in the northern hemisphere. At least one of these is larger than any of the Great Lakes in North America.

Suitability

The American aerospace engineer and author Robert Zubrin identified Saturn as the most important and valuable of the four gas giants in the Solar System, because of its relative proximity, low radiation, and excellent system of moons. He also named Titan as the most important moon on which to establish a base to develop the resources of the Saturn system.[5]

Habitability

Robert Zubrin has pointed out that Titan possesses an abundance of all the elements necessary to support life, saying "In certain ways, Titan is the most hospitable extraterrestrial world within our solar system for human colonization."[6] The atmosphere contains plentiful nitrogen and methane. Additionally, strong evidence indicates that liquid methane exists on the surface. Evidence also indicates the presence of liquid water and ammonia under the surface, which are delivered to the surface by volcanic activity. While this water can be used to generate breathable oxygen, more is blown into Titan's atmosphere from the geysers on the icy moon of Enceladus (also a moon of Saturn), as they start as water molecules and evolve into oxygen and hydrogen. Nitrogen is ideal to add buffer gas partial pressure to breathable air (it forms about 78% of Earth's atmosphere).[7] Nitrogen, methane and ammonia can all be used to produce fertilizer for growing food.

In situ energy resources

In situ energy resources on Titan for use by future humans include chemical, nuclear, wind, solar and hydropower. Electrical power could be produced using chemical power plants adding hydrogen to acetylene (i.e. hydrogenation; oxygen is not freely available), or turbines in large methane seas such as Kraken Mare where the tidal pull of Saturn causes up to a meter of tidal change each Titan day. Nuclear and solar power might also be feasible.[8]

Gravity is going to be a bitch but Mars presents the same problem

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #338 on: July 31, 2022, 09:11:18 AM »
I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.
Why do you say such stupid things?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #339 on: July 31, 2022, 09:30:41 AM »
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?


*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #340 on: July 31, 2022, 10:06:01 AM »
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #341 on: July 31, 2022, 10:43:45 AM »
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.

I know you "say" that, but that's not rooted in reality.

What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong?

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #342 on: July 31, 2022, 10:48:55 AM »
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.

I know you "say" that, but that's not rooted in reality.

What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong?

Heiwa, ever the contrarian will just say the opposite of what intelligent people say. He's in his twilight years and staring at death and reminded of his mortality every day in the mirror so I guess he wants to have a bit of a laugh before his other foot steps in the grave

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #343 on: July 31, 2022, 10:49:26 AM »
This video explains it pretty well why Venus may be a better candidate for colonisation over Mars


And we could probably terraform Venus much quicker than the dead planet Mars


And here is some info about the habitability of Titan
Venus has nice weather, temperature and pressure at an altitude of about 60-70km.

The problem is, you cant land there.

You can at best drop a very fancy light weight glider or balloon there. This glider needs to be able to return from orbital velocity. So it will need to be dropped from an orbital re-entry vehicle and exit that vehicle. If you took a vehicle like the Starship with 100t payload to Venus, it would need 100t max payload vehicle that can fly or float before you waste the starship. This means each flier or balloon's own mass needs to be account to what the actual payload to venus actually is - This is important in a later step
This means your sending one way craft to drop off relatively small gliders or balloons. Great, now how do you get back? Venus has similar gravity to earth, meaning you need a similar sized launch vehicle to get back. Think of the SLS or Starship, fully stacked with a launch tower and all that infrastructure, just its floating on a Balloon. This balloon will need to keep up a million tons of mass for not just the rocket, but all the fuel processing equipment. You can also only build this entire massive cloud city, 100t at a time AFTER you account for the fact that most of your payload your bringing down is made up of balloons or fliers to keep your equipment from sinking too low and crashing. So maybe 20-30 tons at a time.

Mars has 1/3rd the gravity, meaning a starship can return to earth without the booster stage. It needs far less fuel and infrastructure and most importantly, it has ground! You dont need to build a mega city, before you can return your first human back to earth. You land directly on the ground and most of your payload is not a giant balloon or aircraft.

Oh, and Mars has actual water on the Surface, where Venus only has hydrogen stored inside sulphuric acid as your only source of water.

Mars is a piece of cake compared to Venus.

As for terraforming Venus, That video just casually mentions shooting more mass off the surface of Venus than what an atmosphere on Mars would weigh. So I think not.

Titan is awesome, but getting there will require a new type of rocket. Trips to Mars using existing technology can be under 6 months. To Saturn, you would be lucky to make it in 6 years.

So Mars will be colonised generations before the other two. Because we have the technology to go to Mars withing the next decade or so, but not Titan or Venus.


If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #344 on: July 31, 2022, 10:51:55 AM »
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.

I know you "say" that, but that's not rooted in reality.

What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong?
Just study what I write on my web site. Copy paste what you think is wrong, and we discuss.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #345 on: July 31, 2022, 10:53:33 AM »
Just study what I write on my web site. Copy paste what you think is wrong, and we discuss.
You dont know how the rockets work from a company where you are allegedly an investor.
What on earth could you possibly know about rockets.

Zero, zero is the answer.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #346 on: July 31, 2022, 10:55:29 AM »
Just study what I write on my web site. Copy paste what you think is wrong, and we discuss.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #347 on: July 31, 2022, 10:57:09 AM »
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.

I know you "say" that, but that's not rooted in reality.

What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong?
Just study what I write on my web site. Copy paste what you think is wrong, and we discuss.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #348 on: July 31, 2022, 11:22:54 AM »
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #349 on: July 31, 2022, 11:30:40 AM »
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #350 on: July 31, 2022, 11:39:50 AM »
This video explains it pretty well why Venus may be a better candidate for colonisation over Mars


And we could probably terraform Venus much quicker than the dead planet Mars


And here is some info about the habitability of Titan
Venus has nice weather, temperature and pressure at an altitude of about 60-70km.

The problem is, you cant land there.

You can at best drop a very fancy light weight glider or balloon there. This glider needs to be able to return from orbital velocity. So it will need to be dropped from an orbital re-entry vehicle and exit that vehicle. If you took a vehicle like the Starship with 100t payload to Venus, it would need 100t max payload vehicle that can fly or float before you waste the starship. This means each flier or balloon's own mass needs to be account to what the actual payload to venus actually is - This is important in a later step
This means your sending one way craft to drop off relatively small gliders or balloons. Great, now how do you get back? Venus has similar gravity to earth, meaning you need a similar sized launch vehicle to get back. Think of the SLS or Starship, fully stacked with a launch tower and all that infrastructure, just its floating on a Balloon. This balloon will need to keep up a million tons of mass for not just the rocket, but all the fuel processing equipment. You can also only build this entire massive cloud city, 100t at a time AFTER you account for the fact that most of your payload your bringing down is made up of balloons or fliers to keep your equipment from sinking too low and crashing. So maybe 20-30 tons at a time.

Mars has 1/3rd the gravity, meaning a starship can return to earth without the booster stage. It needs far less fuel and infrastructure and most importantly, it has ground! You dont need to build a mega city, before you can return your first human back to earth. You land directly on the ground and most of your payload is not a giant balloon or aircraft.

Oh, and Mars has actual water on the Surface, where Venus only has hydrogen stored inside sulphuric acid as your only source of water.

Mars is a piece of cake compared to Venus.

As for terraforming Venus, That video just casually mentions shooting more mass off the surface of Venus than what an atmosphere on Mars would weigh. So I think not.

Titan is awesome, but getting there will require a new type of rocket. Trips to Mars using existing technology can be under 6 months. To Saturn, you would be lucky to make it in 6 years.

So Mars will be colonised generations before the other two. Because we have the technology to go to Mars withing the next decade or so, but not Titan or Venus.

But Venus can be terraformed. People need to stop thinking if something cant be done in their lifetime then it's not worth doing

Problem with Mars is, its geologically inactive. This makes living there somewhat a problem as it's not exactly favourable for sustaining life and eco systems. The planet is dead. The only thing you could put there are research bases but trying to make it into a 'Planet B' is doomed to failure. A planet needs more than just people living on it. It needs ecosystems and food chains. It needs to sustain life not just have life put on it and hope for the best. It is not even within the realm of imagination to kickstart Mars's core 'somehow' and make it geologically active.

I wouldn't say cloud cities on Venus make for a decent 'Planet B' either but if you are going to colonise a world, every colonist would have to understand they are pioneers leaving behind an advanced luxurious world to go on a one way trip to a very hard life and even harder work. Zero prospect of ever going back to Earth and whichever planet you go to, be it Venus, Mars or Titan - that world will be entirely dependent on Earth for resources and supplies for generations. That's just how it is.

I have an easier idea though and one that doesn't require humans at all

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if humans are living on the worlds or not. The important thing is leaving a legacy. I say we get lots of probes to start seeding these worlds that have potential. Leave our mark. So lets say we smash a shit load of biological matter, cyano bacteria, tardigrades, seeds and building blocks for protein and life all over Mars. Over the next billion years as the sun gets brighter and hotter, who knows what could come from that when Mars begins to warm? Who cares if we are extinct by that point and are not there to see it?

And do the same for Titan and other Moons further out that could support life someday as the sun gets hotter. Even Pluto will be in the 'goldilocks zone'. Just because we likely wont be around doesn't mean we shouldn't bother leaving our mark.

The 'interplanetary protection' protocol is dumb. Like we want to send people to LIVE on these planets some day. Who cares about bacteria. What are we going to do on these worlds when we want to take a shit?


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #351 on: July 31, 2022, 12:03:58 PM »
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
It is better you visit my popular website.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2022, 06:59:34 AM by Heiwa »

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #352 on: July 31, 2022, 12:04:55 PM »
But Venus can be terraformed. People need to stop thinking if something cant be done in their lifetime then it's not worth doing

Problem with Mars is, its geologically inactive. This makes living there somewhat a problem as it's not exactly favourable for sustaining life and eco systems. The planet is dead. The only thing you could put there are research bases but trying to make it into a 'Planet B' is doomed to failure. A planet needs more than just people living on it. It needs ecosystems and food chains. It needs to sustain life not just have life put on it and hope for the best. It is not even within the realm of imagination to kickstart Mars's core 'somehow' and make it geologically active.

I wouldn't say cloud cities on Venus make for a decent 'Planet B' either but if you are going to colonise a world, every colonist would have to understand they are pioneers leaving behind an advanced luxurious world to go on a one way trip to a very hard life and even harder work. Zero prospect of ever going back to Earth and whichever planet you go to, be it Venus, Mars or Titan - that world will be entirely dependent on Earth for resources and supplies for generations. That's just how it is.

I have an easier idea though and one that doesn't require humans at all

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if humans are living on the worlds or not. The important thing is leaving a legacy. I say we get lots of probes to start seeding these worlds that have potential. Leave our mark. So lets say we smash a shit load of biological matter, cyano bacteria, tardigrades, seeds and building blocks for protein and life all over Mars. Over the next billion years as the sun gets brighter and hotter, who knows what could come from that when Mars begins to warm? Who cares if we are extinct by that point and are not there to see it?

And do the same for Titan and other Moons further out that could support life someday as the sun gets hotter. Even Pluto will be in the 'goldilocks zone'. Just because we likely wont be around doesn't mean we shouldn't bother leaving our mark.

The 'interplanetary protection' protocol is dumb. Like we want to send people to LIVE on these planets some day. Who cares about bacteria. What are we going to do on these worlds when we want to take a shit?


If you are putting that much energy to terraform Venus, you can do the same with Mars. The amount of energy to move that mass off Venus is truly insane. If you have that much energy, just move a small bit of mass from Europa to Mars to build its atmosphere. Once you have about 10t/m2 of atmosphere, you have 30Kpa pressure and enough radiation protection that you can live outside. You need 16kpa of pressure to get the water on Mars to start flowing.
but without a magnetic field, the atmosphere will blow away! The atmospheric losses are in the1000 or so tons a day. Mars lost its atmosphere over 3 billion years. If you can import the trillions of tons to build its atmosphere, then 1000 tons is nothing. We emit millions of times more emission on earth.

But there is an easier way. You built pressurised tents on Mars. Imagine 4 cables in a square about 10-20m apart that go about 10m deep in the ground. Those cables are tied to a transparent membrane overhead. This membrane keeps pressure inside. Then you have thousands of these together. For only a few kg/m2, you can create a tented structure on Mars that keeps a earth like pressure. This means for 100tons, you can build a massive pressurised area where you can walk, farm or do what ever, directly on Mars surface. We can do this weeks after they land on Mars. Again, no new technology needed. By the time Venus is Terraformed, Mars can have 5 Billion people living on it.

If you try to spread life on places that will kill 100% of it, you wont be adding any new life.
Europa's surface has more radiation than inside irradiation sanitizing machines. Venus has no water in the atmosphere for any life to reproduce, and below that is a powerful acid and temperatures hot enough to melt lead. Pluto has a very elliptical orbit and could conceivably be thrown out of our solar system by Neptune before the sun expands that big (which wont be for a very long time, if it ever gets that expanded). Titan is too cold for anything to survive, as is everything beyond Jupiter's orbit.

I think we should expand life, but we should probably find out of there is life there, before we kill it off with our own.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #353 on: July 31, 2022, 12:33:38 PM »
Mars has the currently insurmountable problem of how to you get it to sustain life when it is geologically inactive/dead?

Maybe in a billion years when the sun warms it up to Earth like temperatures and water begins to flow again maybe something could happen. But humans wont be living there in a matter of decades, centuries or even in millennia

Look at how fragile Earths own eco system is. If the phytoplankton was killed off thanks to climate change, it would take most of the life on Earth down with it. For life to evolve and sustain the planet needs to be active. You need moving tectonic plates. You need active volcanoes and such. Mars is dead.

And a magnetosphere is more important than just keeping an atmosphere from wisping away. It deflects charged particles from impacting you or any technology you need to function.

If we worked really hard on both planets for the next several thousand years, Venus would be the better place to live. Of course it will also be the quicker planet to fry as the sun expands 8)

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #354 on: July 31, 2022, 01:02:38 PM »
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
It is OT.

You brought it up:

Being a share holder of French Arianeespace BV company I always recommend our one-way rockets to LEO or GEO. They have no engines but just solid fuel burning to produce hot gas through a nozzle catapulting the pay load into orbit. The best and cheapest way.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #355 on: July 31, 2022, 03:00:25 PM »
Is you goal to compare re-usability to disposable when re-usability is not utilised in its best practical configuration.
Is your goal to compare re-usability to disposable when disposable is not utilised in its best practical configuration? Or are you specifically looking for scenarios where its less efficient? Because it looks like your trying to compare disposable in its less ideal scenarios to ideal re-usable scenarios.

Are you saying 8 t to GTO isn't a good measure for the Falcon Heavy reusable?
If so, why is that listed by space X as the standard?

The only time you will have some levels of transparency is from NASA, no where else. So your stuck comparing NASA built STS to the SLS, thats it. Or you end the conversation admitting that maybe the actual sources we have out there is the best we are going to get, and work off that.
Or I go based off the cost that they are charging.

There is a difference between losing ductility due to low temperature and hydrogen embrittlement.
I know, but the fact remains that those cryogenic temperatures for oxygen cause issues, just like hydrogen.
Hydrogen embrittlement is far more important to consider when you are dealing with things which aren't already brittle due to cryogenic temperatures.

The RS-25 engines each cost as much as 3 entire disposable Falcon9 rockets for a reason.
Because spaceX wants to make things cheap?
Because the engines are big and designed to operate efficiently from sea level to space, instead of a multi-stage craft which can be designed to operate in space or designed to operate in atmosphere.
And they were part of a much larger rocket, capable of lifting the F9's payload into orbit; while still taking people to orbit, and bringing the 78 t shuttle back down.
If you just wanted to launch the shuttle into LEO, that would require more than 3 disposable F9s.

If instead you want to focus on the SLS, that uses 4 of these engines and is claimed to be able to launch 130 t into LEO, which is equivalent to roughly 5.7 F9s.

And of course, this isn't an honest apples to apples comparison.
You are comparing the marginal cost of producing 3 disposable F9 rockets, which using the cost for a consumer of space X would be $67 million each or $201 million for the 3.
You are comparing this to the cost of setting up the facility to produce the RS-25 engines and produce a certain number of them. But even then, the cost I find is only $146 million each, closer to 2 F9s. And it only cost $40 million each for the shuttle. So what is the marginal cost for 1 RS-25 engine?

And before you even suggest I should be comparing how much it costs SpaceX to produce a disposable F9, that would only work if you are looking at the cost to produce an RS-25 engine, rather than how much NASA would pay for one.

And none of that indicates it cost so much because it uses hydrogen.

This is a whole topic by itself.
That's right. It is a complicated issue of choosing the best fuel.
It isn't a simple case of hydrogen bad, RP-1 good and doesn't have issues.
The point was that all rocket fuels have issues associated with them.
So switching to RP-1 doesn't magically solve all their issues.

EVERY STAGE.
- Launch
- Orbit
- Return to orbit (even lunar orbit!!!)
 I never said there is a reusability that combines all stages into one LV.
Well that is quite a dishonest twisting of your claim.
"Every stage" when referring to a rocket, especially in the discussion of a reusable second stage, should indicate the different stages of the rocket.
Not "hey look they recovered a sub orbital booster, so that means launch is covered"; "hey look, they recovered something in orbit, so that means orbit is covered".

It is a way to ignore the main issue.
Having enough mass in the form of rocket engines and fuel tanks to get a craft up to orbital speed, and then slow it all back down without a massive payload penalty.
The best comparison you have is to the shuttle, which ditched the main fuel tank before getting into orbit and made no attempt to recover it.

F9 R - 16.2t - $50m - $3086$/kg
Stick to a single company, and try to find all prices from the same time.
F9 R (2021) - 16.2 t - M$50 - $3086 /kg.
F9 D (2021) - 22.8 t - M$62 - $2719 /kg
F9 D GTO (2022) - 8.3 t - M$67 - $8072 / kg
FH R GTO (allegedly) - 10 t - M$97 - $9700 / kg

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #356 on: July 31, 2022, 07:55:57 PM »
Mars has the currently insurmountable problem of how to you get it to sustain life when it is geologically inactive/dead?

Maybe in a billion years when the sun warms it up to Earth like temperatures and water begins to flow again maybe something could happen. But humans wont be living there in a matter of decades, centuries or even in millennia

Look at how fragile Earths own eco system is. If the phytoplankton was killed off thanks to climate change, it would take most of the life on Earth down with it. For life to evolve and sustain the planet needs to be active. You need moving tectonic plates. You need active volcanoes and such. Mars is dead.

And a magnetosphere is more important than just keeping an atmosphere from wisping away. It deflects charged particles from impacting you or any technology you need to function.

If we worked really hard on both planets for the next several thousand years, Venus would be the better place to live. Of course it will also be the quicker planet to fry as the sun expands 8)
You don't need evolutionary life on Mars to be able to live on Mars. Your talking about a process that is millions of years. Im talking about a process that happens in decades and centuries. The only planet that can sustain life on our solar system is Earth, and only through incredible luck did it happen.

Venus does not have a magnetosphere or plate tectonics either, its not different to Mars in this instance.

Not that you really need it, but you can make an artificial magnetosphere.

Our atmosphere provides the vast majority of our radiation protection from space. The magnetosphere only blocks charged particles which are mostly from the sun. These charged particles dissipate very quickly in an atmosphere.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #357 on: July 31, 2022, 08:43:37 PM »
Is your goal to compare re-usability to disposable when disposable is not utilised in its best practical configuration? Or are you specifically looking for scenarios where its less efficient? Because it looks like your trying to compare disposable in its less ideal scenarios to ideal re-usable scenarios.

Are you saying 8 t to GTO isn't a good measure for the Falcon Heavy reusable?
If so, why is that listed by space X as the standard?
Can a disposable F9 launch more than 8.3t? No
Can a reusable FH launch more than 8t, yes. 10 tons as shown.

Or I go based off the cost that they are charging.
Which says that reusability is better for the customer in 99% of cases.

I know, but the fact remains that those cryogenic temperatures for oxygen cause issues, just like hydrogen.
Hydrogen embrittlement is far more important to consider when you are dealing with things which aren't already brittle due to cryogenic temperatures.
Your making the same mistake that you did when comparing aluminium to stainless steel in terms of handling temperature.
This is another factor that makes Hydrogen HARDER to work with. Its not the same issue, its an additional issue on top of existing issues.
Going to space is already hard. Making it harder is not a good idea.

Because spaceX wants to make things cheap?
Because the engines are big and designed to operate efficiently from sea level to space, instead of a multi-stage craft which can be designed to operate in space or designed to operate in atmosphere.
And they were part of a much larger rocket, capable of lifting the F9's payload into orbit; while still taking people to orbit, and bringing the 78 t shuttle back down.
If you just wanted to launch the shuttle into LEO, that would require more than 3 disposable F9s.

If instead you want to focus on the SLS, that uses 4 of these engines and is claimed to be able to launch 130 t into LEO, which is equivalent to roughly 5.7 F9s.

And of course, this isn't an honest apples to apples comparison.
You are comparing the marginal cost of producing 3 disposable F9 rockets, which using the cost for a consumer of space X would be $67 million each or $201 million for the 3.
You are comparing this to the cost of setting up the facility to produce the RS-25 engines and produce a certain number of them. But even then, the cost I find is only $146 million each, closer to 2 F9s. And it only cost $40 million each for the shuttle. So what is the marginal cost for 1 RS-25 engine?

And before you even suggest I should be comparing how much it costs SpaceX to produce a disposable F9, that would only work if you are looking at the cost to produce an RS-25 engine, rather than how much NASA would pay for one.

And none of that indicates it cost so much because it uses hydrogen.
RS-25's are very efficient at the loss of a lot of thrust. Because they have such low thrust they have to have side boosters. (this is by design, as they needed to keep funding those contractors) SLS is a 2.5 stage rocket. The RS-25's simply cant lift the vehicle off the ground by themselves, so they need a lot of help. Efficient at sea level is really not even a consideration, its only at altitude where the ISP becomes useful.
And I find it interesting that your comparing the cost of ONLY the 4 engines to the cost of a Falcon9, while ignoring the rest of the vehicle costing another $1-2B you need to launch something to space. (I also meant 2 DF9 not 3)
NASA is paying $3.5B for 24 engines, thats how much they are paying.

That's right. It is a complicated issue of choosing the best fuel.
It isn't a simple case of hydrogen bad, RP-1 good and doesn't have issues.
The point was that all rocket fuels have issues associated with them.
So switching to RP-1 doesn't magically solve all their issues.
Hydrogen 1st stages tend to cost more as you need larger tanks and either a lot more engines due to low thrust or side boosters.
DeltaH costs $350-$450m.
Hydrogen is great once you are out of the atmosphere and are not fighting gravity.
You want hydrogen in space and another fuel on the ground. The issue comes in additional complexity in handling more than one fuel on the ground. This is why its generally not mixed.

Well that is quite a dishonest twisting of your claim.
"Every stage" when referring to a rocket, especially in the discussion of a reusable second stage, should indicate the different stages of the rocket.
Not "hey look they recovered a sub orbital booster, so that means launch is covered"; "hey look, they recovered something in orbit, so that means orbit is covered".

It is a way to ignore the main issue.
Having enough mass in the form of rocket engines and fuel tanks to get a craft up to orbital speed, and then slow it all back down without a massive payload penalty.
The best comparison you have is to the shuttle, which ditched the main fuel tank before getting into orbit and made no attempt to recover it.
That was my original claim, literally what else could I have meant?
And again, for the 10 millionth time, who gives a crap about losing unused payload capacity?

Stick to a single company, and try to find all prices from the same time.
F9 R (2021) - 16.2 t - M$50 - $3086 /kg.
F9 D (2021) - 22.8 t - M$62 - $2719 /kg
F9 D GTO (2022) - 8.3 t - M$67 - $8072 / kg
FH R GTO (allegedly) - 10 t - M$97 - $9700 / kg
Great, now go find what the customers are flying. And why.
Because by your rational, F9 would only fly in disposable mode. Why has it not done this in over a year?
Your cost per kg as the only metric to measure a rocket by is idiotic, as it actually increases how much clients pay per launch for 99% of launches.
Does a F9 D still cost $2719$/kg to LEO at 10t? No
Does a F9 D still cost $8072$/kg to GEO at 8.4t? No
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #358 on: August 01, 2022, 03:59:22 AM »
Can a disposable F9 launch more than 8.3t? No
Can a reusable FH launch more than 8t, yes. 10 tons as shown.
As claimed.
Where has it actually been shown?

Likewise, can a reusable F9 launch more than 17 t? No.
Can a disposable F9 launch more than 17 t? Yes.

Which says that reusability is better for the customer in 99% of cases.
When using an oversized rocket.

Your making the same mistake that you did when comparing aluminium to stainless steel in terms of handling temperature.
No I'm not.
I am pointing out there are comparable issues regardless of which you use.
Removing hydrogen doesn't magically fix it so you no longer need to consider the issue of embrittlement.
Going down your path seems to be if there was an alternative which behaved just like hydrogen, but isn't hydrogen, then it woudln't have to deal with "those issues" even though the issues it had to deal with would be virtually identical.

And I find it interesting that your comparing the cost of ONLY the 4 engines to the cost of a Falcon9
You are the one wanting to compare it to the cost of the Falcon 9. I just continued with that.

Hydrogen 1st stages tend to cost more as you need larger tanks and either a lot more engines due to low thrust or side boosters.
And a similar argument could be made the other way.
Ultimately it will depend on the specifics of each rocket.

You want hydrogen in space and another fuel on the ground. The issue comes in additional complexity in handling more than one fuel on the ground. This is why its generally not mixed.
Which allows either to be the better choice, depending on the specifics.

That was my original claim, literally what else could I have meant?
Your original claim was:
The fundamental issues are still there.
You are taking a craft and accelerating it to orbital speed at orbital height.
You then need to slow it down, get it through the atmosphere without burning up and being destroyed, and then recovering it.
This is like explaining how a car and horse are fundamentally the same because they accelerate you through the landscape, can be steered and can drop you off at your house.
All stages you just described have craft that can be reused for that stage. Starship is just putting all those stages together in 2 (Booster and SS) components.
Which in turn came from a direct reference to spaceX abandoning second stage reusability for the F9.
And this was from discussing starship, where it would be the second stage that is accelerating to orbital speed and then slowing back down to return to Earth.

So it certainly seems like I was talking about a stage which goes to orbit and then comes back to Earth. Not a stage which goes to orbit, then discards a large portion of it, for some of it to come back to orbit.

And again, for the 10 millionth time, who gives a crap about losing unused payload capacity?
The issue is for people that want to use it, or need to pay more for that unused capacity.

Again, how much cheaper would an F9 be if it was appropriately sized?

Because by your rational, F9 would only fly in disposable mode.
Based on what?
We have already covered that the F9 is ridiculously oversized for the majority of the payloads it carries.
I also wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX is trying to force people to reusable to boost their image.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #359 on: August 01, 2022, 04:46:56 AM »
As claimed.
Where has it actually been shown?

Likewise, can a reusable F9 launch more than 17 t? No.
Can a disposable F9 launch more than 17 t? Yes.
I showed you the source with one of the Chief SpaceX engineers presenting that information.
But its fairly obvious that a FH returning to down range will have more capacity than returning to launch site.
Your comparing the best of a F9 D to a less ideal FH R.
What exactly are you trying to show?

When using an oversized rocket.
Define what this means. Because its not oversized for reuse.
An AtlasV is sized at a F9 R and costs a lot more even than a disposable.

You have additional issues that for every rocket you reuse, you dont need to build an additonal booster.
This means lower fixed cost, which adds to the picture.
Your ignoring that SpaceX can launch 60+ rockets a year because of reuse while keeping fixed cost low.

So removing reusability would mean you need to increase the price for disposable launches as you increase your fixed cost. Or massively decrease your launch rate.

Its a business model, not just a rocket.

No I'm not.
I am pointing out there are comparable issues regardless of which you use.
Removing hydrogen doesn't magically fix it so you no longer need to consider the issue of embrittlement.
Going down your path seems to be if there was an alternative which behaved just like hydrogen, but isn't hydrogen, then it woudln't have to deal with "those issues" even though the issues it had to deal with would be virtually identical.
Hydrogen means you cant use certain materials that could be used for other fuels. Its not a cold problem, its a Hydrogen problem.
Almost all launches that are held during countdown for hydrolox rockets are due to Hydrogen leaks.
You even get issues like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D
"While evacuating the shuttle, the crew was doused with water from the pad deluge system, which was activated due to a hydrogen fire on the launch pad caused by the free hydrogen (fuel) that had collected around the engine nozzles following the shutdown and engine anomaly.[8] Because the fire was invisible to humans, had the astronauts used the normal emergency escape procedure across the service arm to the slidewire escape baskets, they would have run into the fire"
I am not even sure why your arguing against this, its a well recorded issue that has caused loads of issues on the STS.

And a similar argument could be made the other way.
Ultimately it will depend on the specifics of each rocket.
I just said hydrogen is not the all and be all of rocket engines. Its just a thing, im not even making a specific arguement here.

Your original claim was:
This is like explaining how a car and horse are fundamentally the same because they accelerate you through the landscape, can be steered and can drop you off at your house.
All stages you just described have craft that can be reused for that stage. Starship is just putting all those stages together in 2 (Booster and SS) components.
Which in turn came from a direct reference to spaceX abandoning second stage reusability for the F9.
And this was from discussing starship, where it would be the second stage that is accelerating to orbital speed and then slowing back down to return to Earth.

So it certainly seems like I was talking about a stage which goes to orbit and then comes back to Earth. Not a stage which goes to orbit, then discards a large portion of it, for some of it to come back to orbit.
You have very badly misunderstood what I was saying here.
So im going to leave this and only circle back if you really want to.

The issue is for people that want to use it, or need to pay more for that unused capacity.

Again, how much cheaper would an F9 be if it was appropriately sized?
According to all other rockets given as examples, it would cost more.
Its not just the fact that reusability is cheaper for the targeted payloads.
Its that the entire business model allows it to be cheaper.

Lets expand this
F9 booster and upper stage use the same tooling to make.
They are the same size, use the same engines and fuel. And share a lot of other components.
SpaceX can keep a small team to just make F9 2nd stages and engines that never return. There is fixed cost and variable cost attached to this.

Now, if they can produce 10 upper stages and 1 boosters a year, then they have a cost of X
To produce a 2nd booster would mean they need to expand their factories, tooling and team. But your booster is about 3times bigger with 9 times more engines.

Lets look at what a reusable factory needs to produce a year vs a disposable for 10 launches a year

Reusable
1 Booster stage + 9 engines
10 Upper stage + 10 engine
Total of 19 engines and 11 boosters + upperstages

Disposable
10 Booster stages + 90 engines
10 Upper stages + 10 engines
Total 100 engines and 20 boostes + upperstages
You have now more than doubled or trippled the factory (boosters are bigger than upper stages) that produces boosters + upperstages and made your engine factory 5 times bigger.

At the very least, your launching for 3 times the price as previous, which is what we see if we look at other rockets.
Yes, we now have a 16t to orbit craft and not a 28t to orbit, but most customers want 16t or less tonnage.

So now you have the same amount of launches
can launch 30% more mass that no one is asking for
for 3 - 5 times the price

To make a 16ton Disposable rocket is not half as big or complex, its maybe 3/4 as big and complex.
AtlasV is about 58m in height vs F9's 71m but they weight very close to the same.

They can afford a extra disposable here and there as they are still producing boosters. Especially disposing of well used rockets which have paid for themselves over multiple times. But moving to a disposable rocket business model dramatically increases the cost of your launches.

You have to see this in context. And the context is why ULA and the others have taken so long to adjust to the new market.

It really comes down to one thing more than actual cost/kg for the makers of these rockets

Cadence

Reusability depends on a high flight rate. This model falls apart if you only fly a few times a year, as your fixed cost stays the same, even if you only fly one rocket a year. For disposable rockets, low flight rates dont matter as much. For high flight rate, you want re-usable rockets.

Based on what?
We have already covered that the F9 is ridiculously oversized for the majority of the payloads it carries.
I also wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX is trying to force people to reusable to boost their image.
Clients can use all those other cheaper disposable rockets, oh wait, they dont exist.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2022, 08:11:07 AM by MaNaeSWolf »
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat