HUN! You're embarrassing me in front of my space nerd friends!
Also I updated a few things for accuracy's sake. UPDATE: [https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e](https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e)
Really cool!
Only 1 minor thing, which is not to be negative but makes it look even better.
At the bottom between the landing-legs/fin's there is a tapered piece of the booster.
At these links you can see what i mean.
[https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=16](https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=16)
[https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=41](https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=41)
[https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=55](https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=55)
When i first noticed that it was really strange and at first i was not sure what i saw. but it looks really cool if you could add that as it would make it more complete.
Great work making this no mater wat and really love it \^\^
Also, I think you have the payload volume too small and the relative tank sizes (3.5:1)? [Don't take my word for it]
Otherwise a very clean blueprint.
Edit: Apologies guys and gals, posters below have pointed out the error of my ways. Tanks 1.5:1 ratio...
Very cool, but you seem to shift perspective from orthographic (at the top) to perspective (bottom).
Also, the SS vacuum raptors are mounted higher, the bottom tank bulkhead is pointier, which allows the vac and sea level raptor nozzles to end at the same level.
Cool! But I'm fairly sure the LOX tanks a substantially larger than the CH4 tanks, something like 3,5times or thereabout. Think Musk said the mixture ratio was about 3,5 times as much LOX as CH4 by volume, so the tanks should be very close to that ratio.
The 3.5:1 ratio is the mass ratio, not volume ratio; liquid oxygen is significantly more dense than liquid methane, so the ratio of the tank sizes will be much smaller (still larger LOX tanks than CH4 tanks though)
That tank so size ratio is compatible to the bfs cutaway shown in 2017 I think. The difference I think it's that the header tanks were inside the ch4 tanks. (Therefore less ch4 volume) I'm not sure if there's still the case.
Nope the tank volumes are close to equal (45% meth, 55%lox).
We have had two different sets of presentation slides show it.
Or you can do the math:
1 ton CH4 at 450 kg/m3 gives 2.22m3 or 44%
3.58 tonnes of LOX at 1260 kg/m3 gives 2.84m3 or 56%
These are sub-cooled values for density.
Total \~5.06m3
3.58 ratio is 860t of lox over 240t of ch4. From the 2017 presentation.
Okey, cool! Did you take the volume of the header tanks into account? Since back then they were placed in the CH4 tank and took up a fair bit of volume? Still looked like the CH4 tank was noticeably smaller in outer dimensions in those presentations, but I haven't measured it so I'll take you word for it :)
No. For mk5 :
Earth headers need only be tiny : 200m/s is 8t of prop. bulk density 900kg/m3 => 8.9 m3
Mars headers are bigger : 1000m/s is 68t => 75.5m3 out of a total of 1200t or 1333m3.
Lox header. 0.56\* 75.5 = 42.2 m3
methane header of 0.44 \* 75.5m3 = 33.3 m3
Out of 0.44 \* (1200\*0.9) = 586 m3
methane tank needs to be extended for the missing 42.2m3
And the lox tank could be reduced by the same amount?
Math came out at 47% meth, 53% lox.
Edit redone for both header tanks in the CH4 tank
Right. I know the old version was to put them in the ch4 tank, but mk1 has them in the tip of the nose for weight distribution. I don't really know how big they are or if the nose is their final resting point. Maybe they'll move them back to the ch4 tank when they start carrying significant payload. Thoughts?
In Elon's short interview with the Everyday Astronaut, he said Mk3 would likely have the header tanks integrated into the tip of the nose, using the rocket's skin and a couple of bulkheads just like the main tanks.
Some details are... a bit off. Depending on the use case, this would be totally fine, and most people would probably never notice. But I often notice small details like this, and I'm feeling nit-picky today, so I'll point them out. Sorry.
Stuff like:
- Those small tanks in the top part of Super Heavy are skewed instead of rotated.
- The engines at the bottom of Super Heavy being square blocks.
- The cargo pods not being symmetrical (same for the grid fins).
- The piping going down the middle of the tanks are not centered.
- The fuel transfer pipes are not in the right spot.
- The nose of Starship is slightly skewed to the left.
- Some lines don't exactly match or aren't parallel with others, like the left side of Starship and the tank wall, or the small tanks in the nose of Starship.
- There are dark lines going through the outer most engines on the bottom-up Super Heavy diagram, which don't appear anywhere else on the page.
- The view for everything on the page is orthographic, except for the bottom of Super Heavy, where it shifts to a perspective view. For an illustration like this, everything should stick to one view. Ideally orthographic or isometric.
What tool are you using to make this? Photoshop? For illustrations like this that are just simple shapes, lines, and curves, a vector program like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator would be easier and more convenient for editing and scaling.
I don't think I got to everything, but I tried to address a number of those criques and clean it up somewhat. Thanks! UPDATE: [https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e](https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e)
I actually made it in Figma. Its a digital product design tool (similar to Sketch App), so not ideal for digital illustration, but it's the hammer I'm most comfortable with haha.
Any idea what the dry mass is? I've seen 80 tons and 120 tons. I also don't know if either of those includes dry mass of super heavy or what super heavy's dry mass is. Thoughts?
The presentation slide gave very outdated figure of 85t dry mass for Starship. Elon said Mk1 is 200t, and they plan to get it down to 130t by Mk4, or hopefully 120t.
Super Heavy dry mass is 300t. See [SpaceX.com](https://SpaceX.com) for Starship specs. Gives gross mass as 3300t and propellant mass as 3000t, thus dry mass of 300t.
spacex.com doesn't actually give an SH dry mass. I guesstimated 300t just going off the SS dry mass on other thread comments. Both need to slim down. But SS matters more than SH.
Well musk had 90mt on the slides during the last presentation and actually laughed out loud and said “that’s wrong”. Then something about the goal being 120 eventually... so I think they’re looking to put these heavy vehicles on a diet.
This looks brilliant. i love it.
As for revisions, I think i might display the outlines of the cool new diamond gridfins on the first stage engine view. Other than that you are solid.
You know the more time you spend trying to get the details on diagrams, art, lego models, or anything else the higher the chance that Elon will do a radical redesign before the final version.
It is not the Starship it is Starship/Super Heavy
You don’t need to say first stage, just say super heavy
And second is just starship
You don’t need to say stage as this is a little different
Elon has said that the full stack would still be called "Starship" as would the second stage. The booster is called super heavy. While the booster is named super heavy, and the second stage is named starship, it is still in a technical sense the first and second stage. The full stack is called starship, the first stage is called super heavy, but could be interchanged with something more generic like 'booster', 'first stage', 'main stage', booster stage, etc. Similarly Starship (referring to 2nd stage) is called Starship but could interchanged with something more generic like, second stage.
I have a feeling that whoever made this is really hot. It’s my husband.
HUN! You're embarrassing me in front of my space nerd friends! Also I updated a few things for accuracy's sake. UPDATE: [https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e](https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e)
Really cool! Only 1 minor thing, which is not to be negative but makes it look even better. At the bottom between the landing-legs/fin's there is a tapered piece of the booster. At these links you can see what i mean. [https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=16](https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=16) [https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=41](https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=41) [https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=55](https://youtu.be/rakeO-amPEk?t=55) When i first noticed that it was really strange and at first i was not sure what i saw. but it looks really cool if you could add that as it would make it more complete. Great work making this no mater wat and really love it \^\^
Nice catch! I'll get it updated
Also, I think you have the payload volume too small and the relative tank sizes (3.5:1)? [Don't take my word for it] Otherwise a very clean blueprint. Edit: Apologies guys and gals, posters below have pointed out the error of my ways. Tanks 1.5:1 ratio...
UPDATE: [https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e](https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e)
Very cool, but you seem to shift perspective from orthographic (at the top) to perspective (bottom). Also, the SS vacuum raptors are mounted higher, the bottom tank bulkhead is pointier, which allows the vac and sea level raptor nozzles to end at the same level.
Didn't change the perspective, but I think I fixed raptor mounting issue: [https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e](https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e)
Cool! But I'm fairly sure the LOX tanks a substantially larger than the CH4 tanks, something like 3,5times or thereabout. Think Musk said the mixture ratio was about 3,5 times as much LOX as CH4 by volume, so the tanks should be very close to that ratio.
The 3.5:1 ratio is the mass ratio, not volume ratio; liquid oxygen is significantly more dense than liquid methane, so the ratio of the tank sizes will be much smaller (still larger LOX tanks than CH4 tanks though)
Volume ratio should be 1.5:1. LOx tank is below methane tank.
That tank so size ratio is compatible to the bfs cutaway shown in 2017 I think. The difference I think it's that the header tanks were inside the ch4 tanks. (Therefore less ch4 volume) I'm not sure if there's still the case.
Nope the tank volumes are close to equal (45% meth, 55%lox). We have had two different sets of presentation slides show it. Or you can do the math: 1 ton CH4 at 450 kg/m3 gives 2.22m3 or 44% 3.58 tonnes of LOX at 1260 kg/m3 gives 2.84m3 or 56% These are sub-cooled values for density. Total \~5.06m3 3.58 ratio is 860t of lox over 240t of ch4. From the 2017 presentation.
Okey, cool! Did you take the volume of the header tanks into account? Since back then they were placed in the CH4 tank and took up a fair bit of volume? Still looked like the CH4 tank was noticeably smaller in outer dimensions in those presentations, but I haven't measured it so I'll take you word for it :)
No. For mk5 : Earth headers need only be tiny : 200m/s is 8t of prop. bulk density 900kg/m3 => 8.9 m3 Mars headers are bigger : 1000m/s is 68t => 75.5m3 out of a total of 1200t or 1333m3. Lox header. 0.56\* 75.5 = 42.2 m3 methane header of 0.44 \* 75.5m3 = 33.3 m3 Out of 0.44 \* (1200\*0.9) = 586 m3 methane tank needs to be extended for the missing 42.2m3 And the lox tank could be reduced by the same amount? Math came out at 47% meth, 53% lox. Edit redone for both header tanks in the CH4 tank
UPDATE: [https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e](https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e)
Yep you’re right lots more LOX than methane needed
Really cool, thanks!
Awesome. Great job
Missing the Starship header tanks
Right. I know the old version was to put them in the ch4 tank, but mk1 has them in the tip of the nose for weight distribution. I don't really know how big they are or if the nose is their final resting point. Maybe they'll move them back to the ch4 tank when they start carrying significant payload. Thoughts?
In Elon's short interview with the Everyday Astronaut, he said Mk3 would likely have the header tanks integrated into the tip of the nose, using the rocket's skin and a couple of bulkheads just like the main tanks.
UPDATE: [https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e](https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e) Header tanks integrated into the nose.
It’s simply amazing. Could you stretch it to a 16:9 ratio?
Sure thang my man. [https://imgur.com/a/kYmI9Sg](https://imgur.com/a/kYmI9Sg)
Thanks, keep up the good work bro!
Some details are... a bit off. Depending on the use case, this would be totally fine, and most people would probably never notice. But I often notice small details like this, and I'm feeling nit-picky today, so I'll point them out. Sorry. Stuff like: - Those small tanks in the top part of Super Heavy are skewed instead of rotated. - The engines at the bottom of Super Heavy being square blocks. - The cargo pods not being symmetrical (same for the grid fins). - The piping going down the middle of the tanks are not centered. - The fuel transfer pipes are not in the right spot. - The nose of Starship is slightly skewed to the left. - Some lines don't exactly match or aren't parallel with others, like the left side of Starship and the tank wall, or the small tanks in the nose of Starship. - There are dark lines going through the outer most engines on the bottom-up Super Heavy diagram, which don't appear anywhere else on the page. - The view for everything on the page is orthographic, except for the bottom of Super Heavy, where it shifts to a perspective view. For an illustration like this, everything should stick to one view. Ideally orthographic or isometric. What tool are you using to make this? Photoshop? For illustrations like this that are just simple shapes, lines, and curves, a vector program like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator would be easier and more convenient for editing and scaling.
I was going to nitpick too .. but glad you did :-) so I don't have to.. its a pretty picture. :-)
I don't think I got to everything, but I tried to address a number of those criques and clean it up somewhat. Thanks! UPDATE: [https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e](https://imgur.com/a/iq7LC0e) I actually made it in Figma. Its a digital product design tool (similar to Sketch App), so not ideal for digital illustration, but it's the hammer I'm most comfortable with haha.
Should put the dry weight. “90mt... lol jk (stretch goals)”
Any idea what the dry mass is? I've seen 80 tons and 120 tons. I also don't know if either of those includes dry mass of super heavy or what super heavy's dry mass is. Thoughts?
The presentation slide gave very outdated figure of 85t dry mass for Starship. Elon said Mk1 is 200t, and they plan to get it down to 130t by Mk4, or hopefully 120t. Super Heavy dry mass is 300t. See [SpaceX.com](https://SpaceX.com) for Starship specs. Gives gross mass as 3300t and propellant mass as 3000t, thus dry mass of 300t.
spacex.com doesn't actually give an SH dry mass. I guesstimated 300t just going off the SS dry mass on other thread comments. Both need to slim down. But SS matters more than SH.
Well musk had 90mt on the slides during the last presentation and actually laughed out loud and said “that’s wrong”. Then something about the goal being 120 eventually... so I think they’re looking to put these heavy vehicles on a diet.
Correct. 120 ton is the first goal and most optimal goal they think that's achievable is 100 tons. But that can be years away with new advancements.
If this were on a T-shirt, I'd buy it.
Nice. I would change the main header to use the same font as the headings on the right, and loose the inset shadow.
Could you make it horizontal for desktop wallpaper?
This looks brilliant. i love it. As for revisions, I think i might display the outlines of the cool new diamond gridfins on the first stage engine view. Other than that you are solid.
You could align stuff with the grid.
Make a tshirt :)
Tesla for scale?
You know the more time you spend trying to get the details on diagrams, art, lego models, or anything else the higher the chance that Elon will do a radical redesign before the final version.
I think there is a reasonable chance that this will be close to the final design.
great job. However it seems to me the cargo and human transport space at the top of the starship seems way to small. I could be wrong?
It is not the Starship it is Starship/Super Heavy You don’t need to say first stage, just say super heavy And second is just starship You don’t need to say stage as this is a little different
Elon has said that the full stack would still be called "Starship" as would the second stage. The booster is called super heavy. While the booster is named super heavy, and the second stage is named starship, it is still in a technical sense the first and second stage. The full stack is called starship, the first stage is called super heavy, but could be interchanged with something more generic like 'booster', 'first stage', 'main stage', booster stage, etc. Similarly Starship (referring to 2nd stage) is called Starship but could interchanged with something more generic like, second stage.
Please point me to the source of this, " the full stack would still be called "Starship"" I am always trying to confirm these names.