8 ms·

>Starship is intended to be able to transport a million tonnes of cargo to the surface of Mars in just ten launch windows. So at 100tons per starship sent to M

>Starship is intended to be able to transport a million tonnes of cargo to the surface of Mars in just ten launch windows. So at 100tons per starship sent to Mars that's 10,000 trips or 1000 per launch window. But the current plans call for something like 16 starship launches just for refuelling the one starship for the lunar mission. Suppose we can do the Mars trip with the same number of flights that's 170,000 launches to transport that 100million tons? And this guy is mad that nasa is not assuming that this is achievable?

ceejayoz 5y ago
By the time you're sending a thousand Starships in one go, the fuel's probably coming from an orbital refinery processing chunks of captured comets, not Earth launches. Or they've been replaced with some big Aldrin cyclers built using Starships.
- vanattab 5y ago
  That's exactly my point. This guy is pissed that NASA is not planning properly because Starship will unlock the ability to send millions of tons all over the solar system but in realty starship is only one of hundreds (thousands?) of advancements that will need to be made before we can think of sending 100's of millions of tons around the system.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    I think it's reasonable to think NASA should currently being doing exploratory thinking about "how would we build something like a space station, lunar base, or Mars mission if Starship is available within the decade", though. Which is what I think the author is advocating; to get a few years out in front, rather than waiting until Starship reaches the point where it can't be ignored.
    - vanattab 5y ago
      But isn't NASA already doing that? I mean SpaceX and starship was just awarded the solo lunar lander contract no? The first Artimis flights are in 2023 no?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        A little. I take the point as "Think bigger."
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    The whole point is that Starship actually allows you to start thinking of the very problems you speak of. Before you had it, suggesting mining a asteroid was just pointless and insane. Now you can actually think about. And that is what NASA should do. Now getting stuff to LEO is 'solved' what can you actually do.
    - chinathrow 5y ago
      > The whole point is that Starship actually allows you to start thinking of the very problems you speak of. Thank you for pointing that out - I just realized that with Starship, we even could start thinking about putting some smaller asteroids out of a potential collision course with it.
pjc50 5y ago
Would anyone like to estimate the CO2 emissions produced by that?
- micropresident 5y ago
  I am more concerned about the Ozone damage. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14777620902768867 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/147776209027688...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  A Starship's gonna generate about the same emissions as a similarly sized passenger aircraft generates from a full fuel load. We fly ~40M flights a year. It'd be a drop in the bucket.
  - vanattab 5y ago
    A 737-800 has a max take off weight of 175,000lbs Super Heavy Dry Mass: 350,000-440,000lbs Super Heavy Fuel Weight: 7,500,000lbs Starship Dry Mass: ~200,000lbs Starship Fuel Weight: 2,600,000lbs Starship+Booster total: 10,695,000lbs 175,000lbs vs 10,965,000lbs! There is no such thing as a similarly sized aircraft!
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      A 747-8's MTOW is about a million pounds. Ten-ish 747s for a Starship, as a roughly worst case estimate. Only so much carbon you can stuff into a ton of fuel. A single-digit percentage global increase in aviation emissions. (I'm also very skeptical of that level of Starship launches. By the time you're getting anywhere near that, you're likely to have captured some comets and are processing fuel for interplanetary missions in an orbital refinery. Net zero emissions except for getting the people and Earth-only parts up to LEO.)
      - ben_w 5y ago
        > By the time you're getting anywhere near that, you're likely to have captured some comets and are processing fuel for interplanetary missions in an orbital refinery. I think you’re underestimating both the mass of a comet and that the geopolitical implications of a private company being one industrial accident away from replicating something several orders of magnitude closer to Chicxulub than to Tsar Bomba would prevent them being allowed to even try it. I did a napkin estimate a while back, and even optimistically 10,000 Starship launches is just where you start going “hmm, perhaps we should think about starting to seriously plan the basics of an orbital ring or a launch loop” — a 40Mm circumference steel loop with a cross section of 1m^2 is still about 30 times less massive than 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
altcognito 5y ago
Blue Origin said it would be 16, Musk has claimed it won't be more than 8. https://wccftech.com/musk-rejects-blue-origins-claim-of-16-spacex-launches-for-moon-lander/ https://wccftech.com/musk-rejects-blue-origins-claim-of-16-s... It ends up being ~100,000 launches over 10 launch windows. Elon has talked about building 1000 starships (presumably you would need less boosters) https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/1000-starships https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/1000-starship... Anyway, it's absolutely the case that transferring a million tons of cargo will require a new way of thinking about the scale of launches.I would also not assume that the refueling launches have to all take place within the window, that's a bad assumption to start with. You would start your refueling launches well ahead of the window. added point - I do think the article overlooks that while Starship will change things, the timing is likely to be slow enough that NASA will be able to adapt. They do have ridiculous timelines on some of their projects, but just like everything else, they will just rewrite those timelines if new solutions present themselves.
- qayxc 5y ago
  Even 90,000 launches over 10 launch windows is 9,000 launches per window. Launch opportunities are about 30 days max per window (depending on the flight profile) so that'd be 300 launches per day or over 12 launches per hour . I'm not saying this is bonkers, but this is completely ridiculous and it doesn't matter whether it's 90,000 or 180,000 or even "just" 45,000 launches - it's completely impractical. Not to mention that proponents always act as if it's no biggie to just crank out thousands of metric tons of useful equipment for a permanent Mars settlement in just a couple of years. You, know, including R&D and engineering and paying for all that.
  - altcognito 5y ago
    Don't assume that launches for refueling operations happen during the launch window. The window is really as long as you want it to be for refueling. Yes, there are engineering challenges associated with having fuel in orbit over a longer period. I'll agree there is a shortage of plans and an excess of hope in what you're going to ship to Mars in the near term. But I can also see where others are saying -- something this big requires a slow organization like NASA to start planning now.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
I just can't see it happening. How many launches have there been in total since the first launch of anything in space? I can't see it being much more than 10K, and it's definitely in that order of magnitude. There's just not enough raw materials and fuel for that amount of launches, and environmental objections will catch up with them long before that.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  There's not enough aluminum and steel? There's not enough oxygen? Hydrogen? We can make renewable methane just fine. Even if we used oil a quick calculation says that 1000 tons * 10000 launches would barely break a tenth of a percent of our current semiannual oil use. I think that's an affordable impact for a truly massive mars campaign.
nsxwolf 5y ago
I wanted to get some sense of how much weight that is in Chicago building terms. 1 million metric tons is like sending 5 Sears Towers (aka Willis Tower) to Mars.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Mars trip with the same number of flights that's 170,000 launches to transport that 100million tons? And this guy is mad" I think the idea that Starship will get us cities on mars is pure fantasyland. You could have a decent base on the moon, and maybe a visit to Mars, but if you want million tons to Mars, you have to go beyong chemical rockets, build a mars transit vehicle, etc. It makes no sence to forgo those technologies if you are moving billions of tons.

ceejayoz 5y ago

By the time you're sending a thousand Starships in one go, the fuel's probably coming from an orbital refinery processing chunks of captured comets, not Earth launches. Or they've been replaced with some big Aldrin cyclers built using Starships.

vanattab 5y ago
That's exactly my point. This guy is pissed that NASA is not planning properly because Starship will unlock the ability to send millions of tons all over the solar system but in realty starship is only one of hundreds (thousands?) of advancements that will need to be made before we can think of sending 100's of millions of tons around the system.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  I think it's reasonable to think NASA should currently being doing exploratory thinking about "how would we build something like a space station, lunar base, or Mars mission if Starship is available within the decade", though. Which is what I think the author is advocating; to get a few years out in front, rather than waiting until Starship reaches the point where it can't be ignored.
  - vanattab 5y ago
    But isn't NASA already doing that? I mean SpaceX and starship was just awarded the solo lunar lander contract no? The first Artimis flights are in 2023 no?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      A little. I take the point as "Think bigger."
- panick21_ 5y ago
  The whole point is that Starship actually allows you to start thinking of the very problems you speak of. Before you had it, suggesting mining a asteroid was just pointless and insane. Now you can actually think about. And that is what NASA should do. Now getting stuff to LEO is 'solved' what can you actually do.
  - chinathrow 5y ago
    > The whole point is that Starship actually allows you to start thinking of the very problems you speak of. Thank you for pointing that out - I just realized that with Starship, we even could start thinking about putting some smaller asteroids out of a potential collision course with it.

pjc50 5y ago

Would anyone like to estimate the CO2 emissions produced by that?

micropresident 5y ago
I am more concerned about the Ozone damage. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14777620902768867 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/147776209027688...
ceejayoz 5y ago
A Starship's gonna generate about the same emissions as a similarly sized passenger aircraft generates from a full fuel load. We fly ~40M flights a year. It'd be a drop in the bucket.
- vanattab 5y ago
  A 737-800 has a max take off weight of 175,000lbs Super Heavy Dry Mass: 350,000-440,000lbs Super Heavy Fuel Weight: 7,500,000lbs Starship Dry Mass: ~200,000lbs Starship Fuel Weight: 2,600,000lbs Starship+Booster total: 10,695,000lbs 175,000lbs vs 10,965,000lbs! There is no such thing as a similarly sized aircraft!
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    A 747-8's MTOW is about a million pounds. Ten-ish 747s for a Starship, as a roughly worst case estimate. Only so much carbon you can stuff into a ton of fuel. A single-digit percentage global increase in aviation emissions. (I'm also very skeptical of that level of Starship launches. By the time you're getting anywhere near that, you're likely to have captured some comets and are processing fuel for interplanetary missions in an orbital refinery. Net zero emissions except for getting the people and Earth-only parts up to LEO.)
    - ben_w 5y ago
      > By the time you're getting anywhere near that, you're likely to have captured some comets and are processing fuel for interplanetary missions in an orbital refinery. I think you’re underestimating both the mass of a comet and that the geopolitical implications of a private company being one industrial accident away from replicating something several orders of magnitude closer to Chicxulub than to Tsar Bomba would prevent them being allowed to even try it. I did a napkin estimate a while back, and even optimistically 10,000 Starship launches is just where you start going “hmm, perhaps we should think about starting to seriously plan the basics of an orbital ring or a launch loop” — a 40Mm circumference steel loop with a cross section of 1m^2 is still about 30 times less massive than 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.

altcognito 5y ago

Blue Origin said it would be 16, Musk has claimed it won't be more than 8. https://wccftech.com/musk-rejects-blue-origins-claim-of-16-spacex-launches-for-moon-lander/ https://wccftech.com/musk-rejects-blue-origins-claim-of-16-s... It ends up being ~100,000 launches over 10 launch windows. Elon has talked about building 1000 starships (presumably you would need less boosters) https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/1000-starships https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/1000-starship... Anyway, it's absolutely the case that transferring a million tons of cargo will require a new way of thinking about the scale of launches.I would also not assume that the refueling launches have to all take place within the window, that's a bad assumption to start with. You would start your refueling launches well ahead of the window. added point - I do think the article overlooks that while Starship will change things, the timing is likely to be slow enough that NASA will be able to adapt. They do have ridiculous timelines on some of their projects, but just like everything else, they will just rewrite those timelines if new solutions present themselves.

qayxc 5y ago
Even 90,000 launches over 10 launch windows is 9,000 launches per window. Launch opportunities are about 30 days max per window (depending on the flight profile) so that'd be 300 launches per day or over 12 launches per hour . I'm not saying this is bonkers, but this is completely ridiculous and it doesn't matter whether it's 90,000 or 180,000 or even "just" 45,000 launches - it's completely impractical. Not to mention that proponents always act as if it's no biggie to just crank out thousands of metric tons of useful equipment for a permanent Mars settlement in just a couple of years. You, know, including R&D and engineering and paying for all that.
- altcognito 5y ago
  Don't assume that launches for refueling operations happen during the launch window. The window is really as long as you want it to be for refueling. Yes, there are engineering challenges associated with having fuel in orbit over a longer period. I'll agree there is a shortage of plans and an excess of hope in what you're going to ship to Mars in the near term. But I can also see where others are saying -- something this big requires a slow organization like NASA to start planning now.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

I just can't see it happening. How many launches have there been in total since the first launch of anything in space? I can't see it being much more than 10K, and it's definitely in that order of magnitude. There's just not enough raw materials and fuel for that amount of launches, and environmental objections will catch up with them long before that.

Dylan16807 5y ago
There's not enough aluminum and steel? There's not enough oxygen? Hydrogen? We can make renewable methane just fine. Even if we used oil a quick calculation says that 1000 tons * 10000 launches would barely break a tenth of a percent of our current semiannual oil use. I think that's an affordable impact for a truly massive mars campaign.

nsxwolf 5y ago

I wanted to get some sense of how much weight that is in Chicago building terms. 1 million metric tons is like sending 5 Sears Towers (aka Willis Tower) to Mars.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Mars trip with the same number of flights that's 170,000 launches to transport that 100million tons? And this guy is mad" I think the idea that Starship will get us cities on mars is pure fantasyland. You could have a decent base on the moon, and maybe a visit to Mars, but if you want million tons to Mars, you have to go beyong chemical rockets, build a mars transit vehicle, etc. It makes no sence to forgo those technologies if you are moving billions of tons.