1
$\begingroup$

Elon Musk's Starship, formerly known as the BFR (then the ITS), is planned to be the workhorse to transport people and goods to Mars. Theoretically, the rocket could be ready for orbital testing within a few years, with the first launch to Mars happening before the end of this decade.

The specs of the current generation Starship are crazy - especially when you compare it to the Saturn V rocket. The Starship stands at 122 meters, has a launch mass 3.5X greater than the Saturn V (10,500 metric tons!!), and generates 3.6X more liftoff thrust compared to the Saturn V. The rocket also uses a liquid oxygen - liquid methane propellant, generating markedly more specific impulse and a higher thrust to weight ratio.

While a phenomenal rocket, there is no doubt that the design of this rocket will continue to be improved over time. Sometimes rocket designers add a stage - I don't see that happening with the enormous Starship. Sometimes a booster is added. I don't know if this is feasible for the Starship. Rarely it is a change in propellant or engine design - but the Starship is already cutting edge in both of these respects (I think).

I'm curious about what the next generation Starship will look like - a rocket ready for prime time by the year 2060. What will be the killer new feature that makes this THE rocket of the 21st century?

(As requested in the comments, this is for a sci-fi book I am writing, not to speculate on what someone will do next. I welcome plausible technology that could exist in the future)

$\endgroup$
9
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ITS is no longer what SpaceX is going with; they're using Starship instead. $\endgroup$
    – KEY_ABRADE
    Jan 7, 2022 at 3:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KEY_ABRADE well, more accurately they are using the same overall idea, Starship is just the renamed, more defined design of what BFR, ITS, and MCT originally were. $\endgroup$ Jan 7, 2022 at 5:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ would be funny if the stats read '3.5x SaturnV's mass and 3.4x SaturnV's thrust' - still impressive, but now a sessile artifact :) $\endgroup$
    – bukwyrm
    Jan 7, 2022 at 11:36
  • $\begingroup$ Which franchise is this Elon Musk lady from? $\endgroup$
    – Daron
    Jan 7, 2022 at 20:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Proving it can actually work would be a good start. $\endgroup$ Jan 9, 2022 at 7:51

5 Answers 5

2
$\begingroup$

Such specs are extremely up in the air, as SpaceX is constantly iterating their designs through extensive testing in Boca Chica. They've been pushing raptor 2 chamber pressure, adding more engines, lengthening the craft, etc.

So it is extremely hard to say what the specs of Starship will be when it is fully operational, around a year to three years or so, pending successful testing, let alone in 2060.

I would be apt to point out that you seem to have outdated or inaccurate information - ITS was only a very brief name of the system, later renamed to BFR, and then renamed to Starship, which seems to be the final name, as it has been stuck to for some years now.

For very technical estimates on the craft, I'd recommend looking at resources from Everyday Astronaut, NASASpaceflight, and others, like a personal favorite of mine, Apogee on Youtube.

The best we can figure, SpaceX seem to want to keep Starship, or at least the basic idea of it, their main workhorse going forward for decades. Elon has talked about vaguely making it bigger, and that there will be some eventual engine that they will employ to make life multiplanetary, but it is not clear if that engine will be just an upgraded raptor, a whole new engine model, something like a nuclear engine, or something not even used on Starship, something like a nuclear engine on a Mars transit cycler built by Starships.

The only clear answer I can give with some degree of confidence - if Starship succeeds, and is not superseded by a very different fully reusable architecture, it will likely be similar, but much more refined.

I'd imagine that the system would look much different, but still use the basic idea of a two stage fully reused vehicle, that refuels in orbit. We might see things like the removal of parts consider redundant, like the wings if SpaceX finds that they can get by without them somehow.

All in all, it's rather up in the air. Much can change, SpaceX could get complacent in the 2050s and get outdone by a new company - a lot of things can change on that timeframe, especially when there are so many unknowns.

Edit:

You mention at the end of your question "what will make this the killer rocket of the 21st century?"

To me, this speaks to reliability. Soyuz is one of the most reliable rockets out there. It has flown hundreds of flights without fail. Though if you look at the thing, you find that the cosmonauts that ride in the thing are tightly packed, and have to use a stick to manipulate the controls. It is outdated Soviet technology - but it is tried and true - it works well enough.

I can see Starship becoming something like this - they are trying their darndest to make the rocket as simple as they can, removing all unnecessary weight and parts. Their philosophy is "the best part is no part."

If you think in terms of murphy's law, then this is a rather good strategy.

So I'd say that in trying to envision what a refined version of Starship would be, I'd say bigger maybe, and as simple as possible. Maybe they might reach a point this decade where they stop pushing the tech, and focus on making it as hum drum as possible, lowering the cost and making it as stalwart of a machine as they can.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ which current designs can lift 1100 hundred tons into LEO? $\endgroup$
    – Slarty
    Jan 7, 2022 at 21:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Slarty current designs of Starship hover around 100 tons. ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED HUNDRED tons is just... no rocket would ever need that. Even the sea dragon, the largest rocket ever designed, was ONLY capable of lifting 550 tonnes. $\endgroup$ Jan 8, 2022 at 0:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is helpful. Having a reliable rocket that is cost-effective is nothing to sneeze at. That's not a bad angle to play at all. Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – FontFamily
    Jan 8, 2022 at 0:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Slarty I think you meant to comment on Mon's answer. $\endgroup$ Jan 8, 2022 at 4:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes thanks - that was what I meant and it has now been corrected. $\endgroup$
    – Slarty
    Jan 8, 2022 at 11:29
2
$\begingroup$

Starship will continue to be refined over the years, but improvements will not necessarily be to increase the size of the rocket by very much. It seems more likely that after the initial drive to reach the target payload goal that changes will be more focused to make it easier and cheaper to mass produce as well as safer to fly.

It is very expensive to develop a new rocket and there are limits to how tall a rocket can be built and how big the diameter can be. beyond the size of Starship the engineering moves quickly into uncharted territory and modeling only goes so far. The cost of prototypes increases and perhaps more importantly the explosive potential on the launch pad and the noise level may make it impractical to launch from anywhere but the ocean.

More likely there will be an evolution of Starship as more is known. There will probably be many variants like the HLS variant. For example a tug starship that was permanently based in space and optimised for that environment (eg only vacuum engines) and a modified heat shield / flaps. Designed for long low energy cargo transfers.

There could also be a crew transfer starship with a much greater propellant capacity and limited cargo capacity. Launched only partly full and re-tanked in orbit to allow the fastest possible interplanetary transfers.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

At some point the BFR becomes redundant for interplanetary travel and it will be simpler to use Musk's rockets to lift payloads into orbit where larger craft more suited to interplanetary travel can be assembled in a modular fashion. If current designs can lift 1100 hundred tons into LEO (less into higher orbits of course) future iterations should increase that significantly.

This isn't underselling Musk's rockets btw because by far and away the hardest part of any interplanetary journey is escaping Earths gravity well to begin with. The main problem as I see it is simply engineering i.e. the best shape for a chemical rocket is the familiar pencil shape we're all familiar with or some variation (say more conical perhaps) of that basic design. Interplanetary craft on the other hand (apart from atmospheric landers) simply aren't tethered to the same design constraints. They can be put together in whatever engineering configuration best serves the mission.

Take a simple manned mission to the moon as a example. The BFR is what? 100 meters or more tall. Technically there's nothing stopping some version of Musk's rockets performing such a mission but when it lands on the moon the crew module is still going to be where it was at launch i.e 100 meters above ground level. That's one hell of a long rope ladder! In other words it's not really the ideal shape for such a mission. Which also means it's probably not the ideal shape for landing anywhere else either (other than Earth of course.)

So perhaps the best bet is to use later, more powerful versions of the BFR to boost components e.g. engines modules, crew compartments and landers etc into orbit and then 'Lego' them all together into one larger, more versatile ship. For that matter part (or all) of one of Musk's rocket designs could also be integrated into a larger ship as say boosters or tankage etc.

So as far as I can seem apart from adding more or more powerful boosters (which gives you a wider vessel and therefore potentially a wider payload bay), the 'killer feature' would be at the top end of the rocket i.e. some radical redesign of the payload module so that unmanned freighters delivering large objects into orbit can be easily opened and resealed and have some inbuilt mechanism for making the detachment and removal of cargo as simple and easy as possible. Something that makes the turnover in orbit from loaded to unloaded a matter of minutes not hours.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's 100 tons, not 1100 hundred tons. Looks like you glommed together the Starship propellant load and the payload. Also: Starship's only ~50 m tall, HLS Starship has a crane and elevator, not a rope ladder, and in lunar gravity it's no huge stretch for an established moon base to have access ramps that can reach 30-40 m off the ground. The long and thin form factor also isn't just for aerodynamics, it's helpful for control. Think about engine gimbal angles, moment of inertia, and changing center of mass due to propellant shifting around or different payloads. $\endgroup$ Jan 8, 2022 at 16:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yep, I just recalled total weight (thought the lift capacity seemed awfully high). And I know it doesn't have a rope latter BTW - that was satirical! A crane and lift are fine IF there's one conveniently waiting for you at your landing site. In the example I gave (random moon mission) or for that matter a random mission anywhere that's not going to happen. So I think that point still stands. Starship could be used for missions to established bases if you wanted but someone still has to land and build those bases first, and that's work it's not really suited for. $\endgroup$
    – Mon
    Jan 9, 2022 at 2:27
1
$\begingroup$

Starship is currently in a constantly evolving stage. No doubt by the later part of the year (2022) it will be ready for orbital flights. By 2060 probably it will be powered by on-board mobile nuclear reactors. There will be a larger launch window for flights to Mars. The controlling computer might be a quantum computer. Though SpaceX hasn't been talking about quantum computers right now, but they are the future of civilization. These will be transporting people across globe and be used more frequently.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I'd love to see nuclear reactors on a launch rocket, but am concerned that their weight would destroy any reasonable thrust to weight ratio. I think if we ever figure out how to miniaturize them, they'll be assembled in space. $\endgroup$
    – FontFamily
    Jan 9, 2022 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ Nuclear propulsion roughly doubles your engine performance, at way more than double the added cost and complexity, and the radiation and propellant density issues make them something you really can't just add on to something like Starship. And controlling a spacecraft is simpler than running a GUI, the hard parts are radiation tolerance and redundancy. Quantum computers aren't useful for this problem. $\endgroup$ Jan 10, 2022 at 6:10
0
$\begingroup$

A killer feature (apart from the obvious pun if it is flying manned) would be if there was a repeated need to throw 110 tons into LEO, or if a planet worth settling on would materialize in a convenient sun orbit. Webb cost billions and weighed <7 tons, Ariane5 was enough to launch it into GTO. BFR/Starship/ITS are not economically viable because they fill no need.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KerrAvon2055 i quote that link: "ground-based solar is already cheaper to install than shoveling coal into existing power stations, and in orbit it produces four times as much electricity per unit area" coupled with "Assuming a roughly 70% transmission loss from orbit" So it produces 400% energy, loses 280 percentage points of that, and the remaining plus 20% percent vs earth based PV make a profit? Either geostationary (meaning it has nightime-problems), or some weird all-sunlight polar orbit (meaning it rains energy all around the world)? May you live in interesting times, at least :-) $\endgroup$
    – bukwyrm
    Jan 7, 2022 at 13:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This comment feels extremely subjective - and I feel like you lack the knowledge of the launch market to know that it is in the process of growing. One important detail also - SpaceX recently launched two very small payloads on Falcon 9 - payloads that could've been launched on small sats. They got it because they got a better price. If Starship is flying so reliably, they have the potential to undercut competitors. Also, Starship's excess in lifting capacity allows less precise manufacturing of payloads, with no need for fighting to bring down mass. $\endgroup$ Jan 7, 2022 at 17:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You mean the SmEx launch in december 21? The one that only used 30% of Falcon9 capability and was executed for 50M$ (from NASA, which has ongoing business with SX, and also loans the start facilities to SX, finances SX research and does other SX-related things, muddying the actual money that changed hands) ? what does the existing Falcon9 and nominally successful Falcon9, in the same market as Ariane5 have to do with Starship? $\endgroup$
    – bukwyrm
    Jan 7, 2022 at 18:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ JWST cost billions in large part due to the severe mass constraints imposed by the Ariane 5. In particular, the sun shield was a major problem during development, so delicate and lightweight that it tore the first time they tested its deployment. And even ignoring Starlink, SpaceX has a thriving launch business with the semi-reusable Falcon 9, which Starship can simply replace. And then there's the NASA HLS contract, which relies heavily on Starship's payload capacity for delivering propellant to orbit. They clearly have work for it to do. $\endgroup$ Jan 7, 2022 at 19:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @bukwyrm the mission I had in mind was IXPE. The benefit of the Falcon 9 was that SpaceX undercut Pegasus I believe on price. Pegasus was originally going to launch near the equator with their small sat air launcher. With the Falcon though, SpaceX was able to launch from Florida, and use their excess of Delta V to change the orbit's inclination. Starship would be able to do this with larger payloads, and thus could be very versatile in what orbits it could attain from different launch sites. $\endgroup$ Jan 7, 2022 at 21:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .