What are some hypothetical specs for Elon Musk's next generation Starship for 2060?

Question

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)

Answer 1

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I would be apt to point out that you seem to have outdated or inaccurate information - ITS was only a very brief name of the system, later renamed to BFR, and then renamed to Starship, which seems to be the final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

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.