Copyright 2024 Robert Clark
To me it’s just stunning SpaceX is ignoring that an expendable Starship could be done for 40 ton dry mass, choosing instead the current 120 tons for the reusable version:
Probably no fairing either & just 3 Raptor Vacuum engines. Mass ratio of ~30 (1200 tons full, 40 tons empty) with Isp of 380. Then drop a few dozen modified Starlink satellites from empty engine bays with ~1600 Isp, MR 2. Spread out, see what’s there. Not impossible.
Keep in mind that every kilo of extra mass in an upper stage subtracts directly from the payload possible. Then that 80 tons difference in the dry mass between the reusable and expendable versions is a huge difference.
Now, note because of size, that, just like with the Falcon 9, the 1st stage is 2/3rd of the cost. So for ~$90 million total for the SuperHeavy/StarShip, the SuperHeavy is $60 million of that. But as the Falcon 9 shows it is much easier to get reusable 1st stage. So assume with reuse of SuperHeavy, its cost, is now, say, $5 million per launch. Now it’s a $35 million total cost for the partially reusable SuperHeavy/StarShip. BUT now because of the radically reduced upper stage dry mass, we have ca. 300 tons payload this version!(Assume SuperHeavy lands down range if you wish to maintain the high payload.) But this is about the same cost per kilo as fully reusable 100 to 150 ton payload fully reusable version at $10 million per flight cost.
Then the question is how realistic is it the Starship could have 40 ton dry mass as an expendable? I think it is quite realistic.
Consider the original Atlas rocket first used to send John Glenn to orbit:
SLV-3 Atlas / Agena B.
Family: Atlas. Country: USA. Status: Hardware. Department of Defence Designation: SLV-3.
Standardized Atlas booster with Agena B upper stage.
Specifications
Payload: 600 kg. to a: 19,500 x 103,000 km orbit at 77.5 deg
inclination trajectory.
Stage Number: 0. 1 x Atlas MA-3 Gross Mass: 3,174 kg. Empty Mass:
3,174 kg. Thrust (vac): 167,740 kgf. Isp: 290 sec. Burn time: 120 sec.
Isp(sl): 256 sec. Diameter: 4.9 m. Span: 4.9 m. Length: 0.0 m.
Propellants: Lox/Kerosene No Engines: 2. LR-89-5
Stage Number: 1. 1 x Atlas Agena SLV-3 Gross Mass: 117,026 kg.
Empty Mass: 2,326 kg. Thrust (vac): 39,400 kgf. Isp: 316 sec. Burn time: 265 sec. Isp(sl): 220 sec. Diameter: 3.1 m. Span: 4.9 m. Length:
20.7 m. Propellants: Lox/Kerosene No Engines: 1. LR-105-5
Stage Number: 2. 1 x Agena B Gross Mass: 7,167 kg. Empty Mass: 867 kg. Thrust (vac): 7,257 kgf. Isp: 285 sec. Burn time: 240 sec. Isp(sl): 0 sec. Diameter: 1.5 m. Span: 1.5 m. Length: 7.1 m. Propellants: Nitric
acid/UDMH No Engines: 1. Bell 8081
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/slvgenab.htm
The Atlas had an unusual design however. It dropped its main lift-off engine at altitude and continued on with what was called the “sustainer” engine. This engine due to much of the propellant mass being burned off had much lower thrust, and so much reduced required engine weight. Then looking at the specifications of this stage, note it had nearly a 50 to 1 mass ratio(!)
The comparison of this sustainer stage to the 3-engine Starship upper stage is appropriate since an upper stage typically doesn’t need to have the thrust of a stage needing to lift off from the ground. Weight growth of the Starship now at 120 tons dry mass required adding 3 additional engines, to now have 6 engines.
However, a key reason why the Atlas was able to achieve such a high mass ratio was that it used what was called “balloon-tank” design. This was a design that used pressurization to maintain its structure even on the ground. It would actually collapse under its own weight when not pressurized.
However, methanolox is at about 80% of the density of kerolox. So a corresponding methanolox version would be at 40 to 1 mass-ratio, better than the 30 to 1 mass ratio Elon suggested. But its not likely SpaceX would want to deal with the operational difficulties of having a stage be continually pressurized even when on the ground, unfueled, especially for a stage intended to have high launch rates.
So I’ll look at another stage, the S-II hydrolox 2nd stage of the Saturn V rocket. The Saturn V launcher of the Apollo program was remarkable in the lightweight features of its upper stages, the S-II and the S-IVB. This page gives a list of the fueled weights and empty weights of the Saturn V stages:
Ground Ignition Weights
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-19_Ground_Ignition_Weights.htm
The later versions of Apollo had improved weight optimization. We'll use the specifications for Apollo 14. The "Ground Ignition Weights" page gives the Apollo 14 S-II dry weight as 78,120 lbs., 35,510 kg, and gross weight as 1,075,887 lbs., 489,040 kg, for a propellant mass of 997,767 lbs., 453,530 kg, resulting in a mass ratio of 13.77 to 1.
Now, methanolox is 2.5 times greater density than hydrolox. Then the corresponding mass ratio for methanolox would be at 33 to 1. This comparison is particularly apt because the mass in the same size tanks would be approx. at the 1,200 propellant mass of the Starship.
So Starship could reach ca. 30 to 1 mass ratio when using the weight optimizing methods used during the Apollo program.
But if the price per kilo of this partially reusable version would be at about what the current version is what is the advantage? One advantage is as mentioned is you would not have the difficulty of making the upper stage reusable, no problematical heat shield tiles.
There is another advantage not as concrete, but in my mind just as important if not more so. In my opinion the approach SpaceX is taking with the SuperHeavy/Starship is ill-conceived. It is based on the idea the SuperHeavy/Starship should be the be-all-end-all for ALL of spaceflight.
But if you look at transport methods throughout history even going back to the horse-drawn era transports always came in different sizes. A comparison to the air traffic is most instructive. It turns our the largest air transports the jumbo-jet size aircraft actually make up a tiny percentage of air traffic. The great bulk of air traffic is carried by smaller aircraft.
And even looking at SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy demonstrates this. The per kilo cost is less than that of the Falcon 9. But the number of Falcon Heavy flights is tiny compared to the number of Falcon 9 flights.
The fixation on the reusable Starship as the be-all-end-all for all spaceflight also leads to the poorly-conceived notion that a Mars or Moon mission must be carried out by multiple refuelings of the reusable Starship. The number of refueling flights for the Artemis lunar missions might be 8 to 16 flights.
But it is a basic principle of orbital mechanics that high delta-v missions such as to the Moon or Mars are more efficiently carried out by using additional stages. Simply by giving the SuperHeavy/Starship an additional 3rd stage, flights to both the Moon and to Mars could be carried out in a single launch.
An expendable Starship would mean it being regarded as just another stage. And a 3rd stage could be set atop it as needed, such as for high delta-v missions.
As another illustration of the fact this approach to the SuperHeavy/Starship is ill-conceived, the payload of the SH/ST to GEO is nearly zero because that Starship dry mass is so high. This is the most lucrative satellite market, but a single SH/ST launch could not service that market. In order to just launch satellites to GEO the SH/ST would have to do multiple refuelings just to launch a satellite to GEO, just like when it had to launch manned interplanetary missions. This is an odd state of affairs for a rocket simply to launch satellites to GEO.
Or of course it could utilize a 3rd stage. But if you are going to use a third stage then, why not just use it also for the manned interplanetary missions that would allow you to do such missions in a single flight?
Robert Clark
