TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Starship lunar lander missions to require nearly 20 launches, NASA says

26 点作者 ironyman超过 1 年前

7 条评论

jjk166超过 1 年前
20 launches of reusable vehicles. At an estimated $40 Million per launch, 20 launches is still way cheaper than a single launch of an expendable moon rocket (Saturn V ~ $1.3 Billion per launch, Artemis ~ $ 4.1 Billion per launch).
评论 #38308798 未加载
评论 #38308158 未加载
cubefox超过 1 年前
2021 Blue Origin on SpaceX&#x27;s Artemis III plan doesn&#x27;t seem far off:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2Fhodq59wvaUjv7c5eqw2KWAsYFAs7UH3fQZOVmVwZIJY.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Df7552ac7ce972045599f81e6c67765d78036ca78" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...</a>
avmich超过 1 年前
According to Wikipedia: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft)</a><p><pre><code> Launch mass: 1320 tons (120 tons dry) Payload capacity: 100 - 150t (fully reusable)[1] 250 - 300t (expendable)[2] </code></pre> So, to fully fuel up a Starship on LEO 1200 tons of fuel are needed, which are between 8 and 12 full payloads of said Starship.<p>Yes there could be some boil-off.<p>Refueling station could be protected both by Sun screens (a-la JWST if you wish) and include active coolers. This is an old topic in space technology, e.g. both Buran (30 days of orbital flight while keeping LOX liquid onboard) and Vulcan&#x27;s second stage (LH2 onboard) focused to an extent on that.<p>We do have a long history of refueling - since at least station Mir the visiting Progresses used to refuel the station, only the liquids were different, and of course the amounts were very different. Still this increases hopes that we can develop the refueling technology since we&#x27;ll soon need more of it.<p>Those multiple launches don&#x27;t necessarily spell doom to the lunar plans for Starship. For example, Falcon-9 is reliable enough to have a hundred consecutive successful flights. And even in 1960-s the idea to have multiple launch pads to be able to launch even after catastrophic event on one of them wasn&#x27;t too radical. And majority of activity of this kind is probably going to be unmanned, which makes things faster and cheaper to repeat if something goes wrong.
idlewords超过 1 年前
No one seems to mention that this whole architecture requires a specific technology, in-orbit refueling, that does not exist.<p>It would be cool to have it! But it&#x27;s one of those technical problems that grows in difficulty and complexity the more you look at it in detail. It is very hard to move tons of propellant around in zero-G (or fractional G) and the learning curve for it has to be done in space. Multiply the difficulty by a factor of 10 or so if the propellant is also a cryogen.
评论 #38321831 未加载
评论 #38310867 未加载
评论 #38309154 未加载
flerchin超过 1 年前
How did the folks in the 60s do this? Starship is going to be vastly more capable, but it&#x27;s not finished, and it&#x27;s vastly more complex.
评论 #38307700 未加载
评论 #38307909 未加载
评论 #38308616 未加载
评论 #38307947 未加载
评论 #38308850 未加载
评论 #38307806 未加载
评论 #38307679 未加载
评论 #38307891 未加载
评论 #38307766 未加载
asciimov超过 1 年前
I wonder, is it science that limits our payload sizes or is this just modern bureaucracy that forces so many launches. My money is on bureaucracy.
评论 #38308979 未加载
评论 #38308051 未加载
评论 #38307998 未加载
ge96超过 1 年前
man is on drugs comment<p>I look forward to the time in the future when life is more than about living eg. going to work, paying bills, etc... the greater picture of what is out there and spreading ourselves out, in case we are the first which is hard to believe.<p>I&#x27;m sitting at a work cubicle now typing this, my mind is constrained to the system on Earth.<p>It is sad to think you&#x27;re just a cause-effect driven machine eg. if happy&#x2F;good = continue.
评论 #38308611 未加载