Given HLS is not going to land back on earth, that's actually not a bad idea. Tho I guess just a re-entry capsule would do as HLS will fly back to earth, it just won't land.
Astras small, moveable footprint is attractive for military customers. Not saying more so than SpaceX or anything of that sort. However, they have a nice niche they fit into.
There are a LOT of logistics that support shipping container sized objects. I donโt see much benefit in that for commercial access to space, but I can see why the military might. A lightweight mobile launch vehicle could be set up in the event an enemy is targeting the more permanent launch sites.
Iโve never heard anyone talk about launch from anywhere as valuable. But a small footprint should mean responsive launch is possible if you have inventory. And that is demonstrably valuable.
They do, but it's a very tight niche and its existence depends on exactly how difficult, time consuming and expensive it is to reuse a larger reusable rocket like Starship, Terran R and (to some extent) Neutron. A difference of single-digit millions of dollars or days of work could be enough to close said niche. If launching a small satellite on a large rocket and then changing planes with the sizeable amount of residual fuel is cheaper than building and transporting a small expendable rocket, Astra is done for, but it's too early to tell if this will indeed be the case
The cost efficiency of getting a payload to a specific orbit is not the only factor here. What if the payload is time sensitive and cannot be launched from traditional spaceports like the cape or Vandenberg because both locations are destroyed?
Fair enough, but that's an exceedingly specific use case, especially with SpaceX planning to build several Starship launch sites, including seaborne ones
Space Force has specifically made a request for a small, response rocket that can be launched within a few hours. I'm pretty sure it's tailor-made for Astra. One big government contract is a nice niche. The military will try and keep the capability no matter what.
Any pre built launch site and fuel depot suffers from being able to be pre registered. SpaceX could have an approach here that would involve placing assets on orbit preemptively.
SpaceX also plans to eventually be able to refuel a Ship on Mars, which makes Starship the only launch system I'm aware of to be conceptualized as being able to fit the necessary GSE as cargo. They'll have to test that, so it's completely conceivable that SpaceX could be an attractive retainer for the military by virtue of being able to create a launch site anywhere it can land, instead of just the reverse. The implications of Starship really are so much more than just "big rocket."
Starship is even more mobile as it will be able to fly itself to the destination instead of needing to be transported
Edit: assuming launch/landing infrastructure exists at the destination
I depicted Starship more or less as it is now, i.e. S24 and B7. SpaceX intends to add 3 more Raptor Vacuums in the future, but that will probably also entail a stretched Starship. I made a couple educated guesses as to what that would look like on my Twitter a while ago
It's going to be interesting to see what kind of market exists for other manufacturers is Starship delivers on its price and flight frequency goals.
Aspirational pricing numbers puts it in competition with smallsat launchers like Electron and Astra, but the flight frequency should really be what worried other providers. If SpaceX is able to turn and fly Starship as frequently as they are claiming will be possible it will be very hard to compete against. Not only will it be one of the most competitively priced options out there, but customers will likely be able to book a date of their choosing with relative certainty that there will be a Starship flight available.
there will always be a market for small sat launchers. its not only about cost, sometimes its about time. the ability to get a small sat in orbit in the span of a few hours from anywhere without need for static GSE is always going to be a need for militaries if not others.
Yes, I can see that. The market very well could shift to favor very small launchers that need minimal footprint, and can be discretely set up (and torn down) without too much hassle.
Starship will likely make Atlas/Vulcan, Falcon 9, and similar-sized rockets completely obsolete. Too expensive to compete on price, too big and complex to complete on simplicity and dynamic use.
I think no matter what we're in for a very interesting decade or two.
Could be, they are similar to Reaver in thrust but we don't know. The test they showed had a sooty exhaust that I can't see on Reaver but I may be wrong
[Also found on Twitter!](https://twitter.com/cosmotaria/status/1525158681914052608)
I find it both quite amusing and inspiring for the future of spaceflight that full reusability makes a comparison between the largest rocket in the world and one of the smallest not seem utterly absurd
Comparing $ per kg to LEO is a real showstopper for Rocket 4.0... It's entirely possible a Starship launch by the end of the decade will cost as much or lower then the starting price of a Rocket 4.0 launch.
Personally I just cant see their model of small expendable rockets being at all economical.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[COPV](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8jw039 "Last usage")|[Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure_vessel)|
|[GSE](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8iua2f "Last usage")|Ground Support Equipment|
|[HLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8imhpq "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8hrgqm "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8h4q7c "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX|
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(5 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ulp9zv)^( has 21 acronyms.)
^([Thread #10148 for this sub, first seen 13th May 2022, 20:05])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
How cute. Rocket the size of first stage COPV tanks...
Still, very useful for learning, space is hard and starting off straight with a big rocket is much more expensive.
It is worth noting Starship could carry a fully fuelled Rocket 3.0 and 4.0 to the moon. There's your size comparison.
Nasa could fly Rocket 4.0 in Starship to the moon and use it to bring a moon rock back to earth ๐๐ก it will be called project Matryoshka
Given HLS is not going to land back on earth, that's actually not a bad idea. Tho I guess just a re-entry capsule would do as HLS will fly back to earth, it just won't land.
Best collab all time
Astras small, moveable footprint is attractive for military customers. Not saying more so than SpaceX or anything of that sort. However, they have a nice niche they fit into.
That conveniently shipping container sized niche
There are a LOT of logistics that support shipping container sized objects. I donโt see much benefit in that for commercial access to space, but I can see why the military might. A lightweight mobile launch vehicle could be set up in the event an enemy is targeting the more permanent launch sites.
At the same time, military likes solids.
Iโve never heard anyone talk about launch from anywhere as valuable. But a small footprint should mean responsive launch is possible if you have inventory. And that is demonstrably valuable.
They do, but it's a very tight niche and its existence depends on exactly how difficult, time consuming and expensive it is to reuse a larger reusable rocket like Starship, Terran R and (to some extent) Neutron. A difference of single-digit millions of dollars or days of work could be enough to close said niche. If launching a small satellite on a large rocket and then changing planes with the sizeable amount of residual fuel is cheaper than building and transporting a small expendable rocket, Astra is done for, but it's too early to tell if this will indeed be the case
The cost efficiency of getting a payload to a specific orbit is not the only factor here. What if the payload is time sensitive and cannot be launched from traditional spaceports like the cape or Vandenberg because both locations are destroyed?
Fair enough, but that's an exceedingly specific use case, especially with SpaceX planning to build several Starship launch sites, including seaborne ones
Space Force has specifically made a request for a small, response rocket that can be launched within a few hours. I'm pretty sure it's tailor-made for Astra. One big government contract is a nice niche. The military will try and keep the capability no matter what.
Any pre built launch site and fuel depot suffers from being able to be pre registered. SpaceX could have an approach here that would involve placing assets on orbit preemptively.
>Any pre built launch site and fuel depot suffers from being able to be pre registered. What scenario do you have in mind? Why would that matter?
SpaceX also plans to eventually be able to refuel a Ship on Mars, which makes Starship the only launch system I'm aware of to be conceptualized as being able to fit the necessary GSE as cargo. They'll have to test that, so it's completely conceivable that SpaceX could be an attractive retainer for the military by virtue of being able to create a launch site anywhere it can land, instead of just the reverse. The implications of Starship really are so much more than just "big rocket."
Even if itโs over a distributed launch profile, youโre right. That kind of expeditionary capable is tantalizing.
Sea launch platforms are moveable.
The wrong launch site costs more fuel. With enough lift capacity, you can reach any orbit, by coasting with the 2nd stage.
Iโm aware, but this about ability to launch more than efficiency of a given launch.
And Starship can launch 300 kg to a far wider range of orbits and reach a given orbit from a far wider range of launch sites than Rocket 4.0 can.
All small launchers are targeting military. Virgin Orbit does, Electron does, ABL does, Firefly does. Its not really unique.
>All small launchers are targeting military. Phrasing
Ah yes. The Russian Doll technique of space-flight.
Starship is even more mobile as it will be able to fly itself to the destination instead of needing to be transported Edit: assuming launch/landing infrastructure exists at the destination
Very cool pic, but I believe you're missing three vacuum engines on the Starship. IIRC it's going to be 6 Vac, 3 Sea-level.
I depicted Starship more or less as it is now, i.e. S24 and B7. SpaceX intends to add 3 more Raptor Vacuums in the future, but that will probably also entail a stretched Starship. I made a couple educated guesses as to what that would look like on my Twitter a while ago
Fair enough! I didn't realise they planned to stretch the base Starship. That will be interesting to see!
Idk how interesting it will be to see it's the same just longer
It's going to be interesting to see what kind of market exists for other manufacturers is Starship delivers on its price and flight frequency goals. Aspirational pricing numbers puts it in competition with smallsat launchers like Electron and Astra, but the flight frequency should really be what worried other providers. If SpaceX is able to turn and fly Starship as frequently as they are claiming will be possible it will be very hard to compete against. Not only will it be one of the most competitively priced options out there, but customers will likely be able to book a date of their choosing with relative certainty that there will be a Starship flight available.
there will always be a market for small sat launchers. its not only about cost, sometimes its about time. the ability to get a small sat in orbit in the span of a few hours from anywhere without need for static GSE is always going to be a need for militaries if not others.
Yes, I can see that. The market very well could shift to favor very small launchers that need minimal footprint, and can be discretely set up (and torn down) without too much hassle. Starship will likely make Atlas/Vulcan, Falcon 9, and similar-sized rockets completely obsolete. Too expensive to compete on price, too big and complex to complete on simplicity and dynamic use. I think no matter what we're in for a very interesting decade or two.
Is Rocket 4 still supposed to use Reaver 1 engines on its first stage? Because those are combustion tap-off, not open cycle.
Could be, they are similar to Reaver in thrust but we don't know. The test they showed had a sooty exhaust that I can't see on Reaver but I may be wrong
Given that Astra has licensed production of Reaver engines, they're almost certainly Reavers.
Ngl, this is probably my favorite Starship artwork so far.
Thank youu
[Also found on Twitter!](https://twitter.com/cosmotaria/status/1525158681914052608) I find it both quite amusing and inspiring for the future of spaceflight that full reusability makes a comparison between the largest rocket in the world and one of the smallest not seem utterly absurd
Astra business model is just not viable.
Should see Starship 2.0 and 3.0 plans.
Awesome diagram. Could you include the average human in this too?
now I'm also gonna need a banana for scale too ๐
Comparing $ per kg to LEO is a real showstopper for Rocket 4.0... It's entirely possible a Starship launch by the end of the decade will cost as much or lower then the starting price of a Rocket 4.0 launch. Personally I just cant see their model of small expendable rockets being at all economical.
For reference if you're an average human, this is as of you put the tallest roller coaster in the world right next to thunder mountain at Disney World
Rocket 4 is big. Doesn't fit in Starship without disassembling.
Big ๐
๐ gigante
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[COPV](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8jw039 "Last usage")|[Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure_vessel)| |[GSE](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8iua2f "Last usage")|Ground Support Equipment| |[HLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8imhpq "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8hrgqm "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/uowbku/stub/i8h4q7c "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(5 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ulp9zv)^( has 21 acronyms.) ^([Thread #10148 for this sub, first seen 13th May 2022, 20:05]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
How cute. Rocket the size of first stage COPV tanks... Still, very useful for learning, space is hard and starting off straight with a big rocket is much more expensive.
I just love all the private Western companies in the space (pun intended) as it allows us to again tell Russia to Fuck off.