>>11835028Thanks man
>>11834942>>11834994>>11835005>>11835023A final scenario that popped up.
What if Starship really underdelivers? Like really really badly. Let’s say it can only put fifty tons into LEO. Yeah I know right. But hey let’s do the math.
In this scenario, Starship is still overweight (150 tons vs the planned 120 tons), and has underperforming engines (375 sec vs 383 sec isp). So this vehicle is ultra-ultra-conservative.
1000 tons of cargo a year, with shipments of 50 tons, would require a total of twenty UC (ultra conservative) Starship flights a year.
At a mass of 150 tons, with 50 tons of payload, UC-Starship has a dry mass of 200 tons. With its engines burning at 375 sec ISP, and with a planned delta V of 4800 m/s (which is incredibly conservative by the way), our UC-Starship would need 550 tons of methalox fuel per mission.
550 tons of fuel over a series of 50-ton launches means that for ever one cargo flight to mars, UC-Starship needs 11 tankers. For a full flight of 50 tons of cargo to mars, 12 launches are needed.
As 1000 tons of payload are needed each year, that means a total of 20 cargo departures, each with 12 Flights each, are needed. This equates to a total of 240 flights of UC-Starship a year!
However, 240 flights a year, although hard, is not impossible. It translates to around one launch every 36 hours. SpaceX has two launch pads on the East coast. Assuming the rockets take off from 39A, then 36 hours later, a second takes off from SLC-40, you need a las turnaround time of 72 hours. That’s...very doable.
So in summary, even if Starship can only put 50 tons into LEO (which is less than the Falcon heavy), is fat (150 tons versus the planned 120 tons), and has shittier engines (375 sec isp vs 383 planned)...
IT CAN STILL SUPPORT A VIABLE HUMAN POPULATION ON ANOTHER WORLD!
