[HN Gopher] SpaceX acquires former oil rigs to serve as floating...
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX acquires former oil rigs to serve as floating Starship
spaceports
Author : eddieoz
Score : 228 points
Date : 2021-01-20 09:18 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nasaspaceflight.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nasaspaceflight.com)
| janpot wrote:
| They also plan to catch the first stage using the launch tower
| instead of landing them on the platform. There's some fan-art
| around, but I can't wait to see some SpaceX originated concept
| designs of this.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Rockets have very high mass ratios. A fully fueled rocket is by
| mass almost all propellant. This is counterintuitive, other
| vehicles do not have that. Rockets also have very high thrust to
| weight ratios.
|
| One of the effects is that flying an almost-empty rocket is
| really easy. When landing, the Falcon 9 first stage actually has
| too much thrust to even hover stably with one ninth of engines
| running and that at only partial thrust.
|
| So an empty rocket flying doesn't produce nearly as much noise or
| pressure waves. So, you could do it like this:
|
| 1. The light, almost unfueled rocket stands at airfield
|
| 2. People board the light rocket
|
| 3. The light rocket flies a short hop to an oil rig (20 km or
| so). Only one rocket engine needed for takeoff and landing.
|
| 4. The light almost empty rocket is fully fueled at the oil rig.
| It becomes a heavy fully fueled rocket. People stay inside.
|
| 5. Heavy fully fueled rocket takes off with all engines blasting
| with massive noise.
|
| 6. Most propellant is expended during acceleration. Heavy fully
| fueled rocket becomes light almost empty rocket.
|
| 7. The light almost empty rocket lands at destination airport
| with one engine.
|
| 8. People offboard
|
| 9. Goto 1.
| mulmen wrote:
| How is this better than using a fast ferry or aircraft? Those
| have the benefit of being able to pick people up and drop them
| off from multiple points.
| [deleted]
| jessriedel wrote:
| Yes. And it also means the passengers don't have to wait
| around for the rocket to fuel up on the platform. I think
| that takes at least an hour or so?
| Gravityloss wrote:
| The advantages are that you don't need to offboard and
| onboard, and you don't need personnel facilities at the
| refueling stop. Also fueling doesn't need to take an hour.
| The rocket consumes its fuel in minutes, fueling could be
| as fast.
| mulmen wrote:
| The fuel pumps are literally powered by the rocket and
| use high pressure tanks to prevent vacuums from forming
| in the tanks. How do you plan on achieving that on the
| pad?
| Gravityloss wrote:
| It's just engineering. It's much easier than the
| turbopumps on the rocket. The rocket pumps have a much
| harder job than these refueling pumps, since the rocket's
| pumps have to raise the pressure to higher than the
| engine chamber pressure, so in Raptor that would be about
| three hundred bars (4500 psi). No such issue in tanking
| as the rocket tank pressure is low.
|
| You can also just use electrical pumps with no weight or
| size constraints, since it's not flight hardware. Large
| scale LNG pumping solutions at least are off the shelf
| items for LNG tanker ships. There also exist solutions
| for what to do with the gases in the LNG tank when it's
| filled. Oxygen tank contents you can of course just vent
| to the atmosphere.
|
| Falcon 9 first stage flight lasts 2 minutes and 34
| seconds. Tanks go from full to empty. [1] You could
| design the refueling operation to be ten minutes if it
| provided some benefit to you.
|
| 1: https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/01/07/falcon-9-launch-
| timeli...
|
| There are other reasons though why flying a lot of people
| routinely won't be a thing.
| mulmen wrote:
| Yeah I'm sure it is solvable. It just doesn't seem like
| the kind of thing worth doing. But if you told me 5 years
| ago a first stage booster could land and be reused I'd
| have laughed in your face.
|
| So yeah, maybe!
|
| Would be pretty funny if SpaceX could refuel a Starship
| faster than Tesla can recharge a Model S!
| [deleted]
| nwah1 wrote:
| Seems more practical to use conventional transport to go to and
| from the rig, such as a helicopter.
|
| A crash with a rocket is both more likely and more devastating,
| and thus should happen away from population centers. Even if
| the return trip is less noisy.
|
| Also rockets pollute, which is another reason to keep them far
| away from people.
| penagwin wrote:
| > Also rockets pollute, which is another reason to keep them
| far away from people.
|
| The falcon rocket's use RP-1 which is kerosene, so the
| exhaust is just H20, and C02 - Granted C02 isn't great, but
| it isn't too toxic.
| Azrael3000 wrote:
| The last point you make is only partially true. The Starship
| is using Methane and Oxygen and produces mostly CO2 and Water
| as output. Since they plan to produce propellant using the
| Sabatier process using renewable energy you get a nearly
| closed cycle. There's a fantastic video by EverydayAstronaut
| on Youtube about this topic.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _Also rockets pollute, which is another reason to keep them
| far away from people._
|
| Some rocket engines use oxygen & hydrogen fuels which, after
| combustion, turn into water. I'm not sure I'd count water as
| pollution.
| simonh wrote:
| There's confidence for you. I suppose at this point with
| Starship, failure is not an option.
| ryanmercer wrote:
| They could still make use of them without Starship. Payloads
| could be delivered via ship, crane to lift and install, launch.
|
| If they get it working with one, they can get it working with
| most, and then they can create launch sites off the coast of
| many countries.
| Tepix wrote:
| Here's a video (not by SpaceX) showing what these spaceports may
| look like one day
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtAC6s4PYj8 "SpaceX Starship sea
| launch concept" by SpaceXvision
|
| There's also an official video by SpaceX showing a sea platform
| at 0:25minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
| loceng wrote:
| The coolest part? They will scale it up to have hundreads of
| platforms, clustered fairly close likely, so they'll be able to
| continuously launch 1,000 Starships as Elon's stated goal.
| stuaxo wrote:
| Imagine the pollution around there. It'll just be full of
| smoke and smog, with the light and sound from the rockets as
| they launch.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Eh, the Starship rocket doesn't really make smog itself.
| High levels of liquid nitrogen may if it interacts with
| organics from sea spray.
|
| With all that said, oceans tend to be pretty windy around
| 90% of the time so things that cause air to be still on
| land are much more rare in most parts of the ocean.
| loceng wrote:
| Maybe they will have to space them out a fair amount then
| to help reduce that, allowing the area current to
|
| Hell, maybe they can build a catch system surrounding the
| launch pad and vacuum in to capture the pollution. You just
| need big or many motors - probably could use Tesla's
| motors?
|
| Maybe what they can capture at the level of the landing pad
| is moot though...
| mpweiher wrote:
| One of the reasons for moving to methane is that it burns
| clean, dramatically reducing soot, and thus smoke.
|
| AFAIK, this is primarily so you can reuse the engine
| without major cleaning/refurbishment, but it should also
| significantly reduce pollution.
|
| Noise, on the other hand... -\\_(tsu)_/-
| baking wrote:
| Also, you can make methane on mars.
| nickik wrote:
| Raptor has a combustion efficiency of close to 98.5%, there
| is no smog from them.
|
| Sound pollution is the real issue, and the shockwave.
| jacquesm wrote:
| They will eh?
| loceng wrote:
| Maybe not, I got excited when imagining it. The ocean is
| the easiest place to be away from people, and then you're
| not wasting land.
|
| P.S. Wasn't me that downvoted you, I don't downvote
| anything.
| jacquesm wrote:
| No problem, couldn't care less about the downvotes. Yes,
| it is an impressive thing to imagine. But the scale you
| are talking about is not something that I expect to see
| in a very long time, if ever. The degree of international
| cooperation that would require just isn't on the books in
| the present climate, and Musk has a habit of throwing
| grand visions with unspecified or wildly optimistic time-
| tables out there.
|
| He's our generation's Howard Hughes, genius but flawed.
| That doesn't mean he isn't moving the needle forward in a
| very meaningful way but at the same time I don't believe
| every word he says.
| loceng wrote:
| Naw, the moment SpaceX starts capturing astroids or
| mining on Mars there's a whole new world, literally,
| worth of economic value unlocked. There are other
| defensive strategic reasons to have many launch pads as
| well. They're creating a manufacturing line for Starships
| to be able to "mass" produce them. Elon gets
| exponentials, and he'll build whatever technology or
| follow whatever strategy he figures out that's needed to
| make what he's doing self-sustaining. There's plenty of
| opportunity to tap and revenue streams, profits, he can
| direct towards SpaceX if needed.
| Gustomaximus wrote:
| From article: "The super heavy lift launch vehicle will have a
| large blast danger area and pose noise concerns if launched
| frequently near populated areas."
|
| Why a sea platform vs a remote area? It can't be that hard to
| find a few remote areas and significantly cheaper being on land?
|
| Any other reason to do this? Ability to move? Stay within range
| of key cities where remote areas are harder to find?
| wil421 wrote:
| Do they have to clean up a crash if it happens in the ocean or
| let most of it sink?
|
| I'd imagine a crash on land would require significant cleanup.
| jessriedel wrote:
| The same reason they currently land Falcon 9's on ocean
| platforms: because rocket trajectories are almost always
| required to go over water for safety reasons. The only time
| they use land landings is when there is sufficient excess fuel
| to return to the launch site (which is along the shore).
| Beached wrote:
| you need a HUGE area of exclusion incase if explosion, and it
| need to have a large down range uninhabited area (ocean or
| desert). it is actually very difficult to find a large coastal
| land area uninhabited, or large inland area that is uninhabited
| for hundreds of miles down range.
| codercotton wrote:
| The US doesn't fly rockets over land due to population - I'm
| sure this is probably law, but I don't know specifically. It's
| also easier to clear launch zones in water vs land, as vessels
| have maritime transponders (not sure of law or terminology
| here). Your last point is probably the most important - being
| close to cities but far enough away to not bother folks is the
| dance.
| eloff wrote:
| Where they're launching now is fairly remote, and they bought
| out anyone who lived nearby.
|
| I wonder if it's really about that. Presumably if you could
| launch at the equator it would be a little cheaper to get to
| space, but having floating platforms that far away might eat
| up those benefits and more.
|
| I'm very curious about the reasoning behind this.
| baking wrote:
| I think it is really the number and frequency of orbital
| launches required for refueling that is the concern right
| now. SpaceX would love to get approval for unlimited
| orbital flights from Boca Chica, but it is four miles away
| from South Padre Island and it would probably require a
| massive deluge system and huge water storage to get
| approval for that. The can also launch from Kennedy, but
| they are trying to keep all three options on the table for
| now.
|
| The reality is that they bought the platforms for cheap,
| but haven't made any renovations yet so for now it may just
| be a backup plan.
| nickik wrote:
| The people are really not that far away. Much closer then
| at the Florida launch sites.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Sea Launch did ride a semi submersible platform to the
| equator for every launch. But indeed, it was not profitable
| in the end.
| sto_hristo wrote:
| When it goes boom, they won't have to clean it up, that is all
| done automatically for them. And vanity of course - "sea launch
| master race vs peasant land launches."
| phkahler wrote:
| More importantly, if it goes boom the pieces dont fall on
| anyone. There's a big difference in area between a launch
| site and the down range keep-out area.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >It can't be that hard to find a few remote areas and
| significantly cheaper being on land?
|
| The shore along the oceans tend to be the most populated areas
| on the planet. Unless of course they have some terrible
| geographical issue like being a bottomless swamp or unscalable
| mountain.
|
| In addition you want to generally launch to the east to get a
| boost with the earths rotation. In the US the east coast is
| generally flat and mostly easy to build on, which means a ton
| of people live along it.
| ghaff wrote:
| This has actually been done previously. The former Ocean Odyssey
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_(launch_platform) was used
| as a launch platform for a time after it was damaged by a
| blowout. (I had a very small part in the original drilling rig
| design.)
|
| Semi-submersible rigs, of which this is an example, basically
| flood ballast tanks in lower pontoons to sink lower in the water
| for stability and then use typically 8 anchors to keep the rig in
| place. You can also use dynamic positioning although I think that
| was only used on drillships when I was involved.
| iandanforth wrote:
| Can you say a bit more about the anchors? I have in mind just
| large pieces of metal dragging on the ocean floor but I'm sure
| that's not representative.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Offshore anchors aren't that different than what you imagine
| https://www.franklinoffshore.com.au/news/offshore-anchors-
| pu...
|
| They are designed to lodge and get partially buried in the
| sea floor soil.
|
| Some oil rigs might be anchored more permanently to submerged
| concrete blocks or very heavy metal anchors, you basically
| drop them off a ship then when the rig moves into place you
| have divers connect the anchor cables to the previously
| submerged anchors.
|
| Some also use steering engines for station keeping but that
| is usually for smaller exploration and mobile rigs.
| ghaff wrote:
| >Some also use steering engines for station keeping but
| that is usually for smaller exploration and mobile rigs.
|
| Yeah, I'm just familiar with exploration rigs. I was
| actually trying to remember if the Ocean Odyssey, which
| ended up being used by Sea Launch, for a launch platform,
| had dynamic positioning or not. I _think_ it may have but I
| left before it launched and wasn 't involved in that aspect
| of its design.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| I think for sea launching dynamic positioning can be used
| the engines should be powerful enough and you have more
| control on under which sea conditions you'll be operating
| under.
|
| At that point the exhaust might be the biggest problem
| but if you design your exhaust deflectors correctly they
| themselves can be used for station keeping as long as you
| don't vent everything from one side of the rig I think
| you'll be all right.
|
| Deep enough ballast tanks and dynamic positioning should
| be more than stable enough for launch.
|
| I think the rigs in the med use dynamic positioning even
| on a semi permanent basis because the Mediterranean is
| much calmer compared to say the North Sea or even the
| Atlantic.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah, I would think you'd want DP for that.
|
| With drilling, your big constraint was stresses on the
| marine riser (the big pipe that connects the drill floor
| to the subsea blowout preventer) and the parts connected
| to it. As I recall you wanted to keep your horizontal
| deviation at less the 2-3% of water depth.
| ghaff wrote:
| Sure. I actually did a fair bit of work related to mooring
| system analysis.
|
| Basically, the rig would be towed on station. Each of the
| four columns in the corners of the rig largely consisted of
| chain lockers and there were two big anchor windlasses at
| each corner. Each anchor would be lowered down in sequence
| and a work boat would carry the anchor out some distance with
| the chain playing out and drop it. It would then be tensioned
| using the windlass so that the anchor digs into the sea
| floor. This operation was then repeated. So you basically end
| up with a pair of anchors coming from each corner in some
| sort of a spread configuration.
|
| I'm sure there were later designs that used dynamic
| positioning rather than anchors but those were just on drill
| ships when I was working.
| avmich wrote:
| > This has actually been done previously.
|
| Absolutely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broglio_Space_Centre
| . Italy was perhaps the pioneer in such uses?
| snake_plissken wrote:
| Wow, acquiring a semi-submersible drilling rig (in use for 12
| years it seems, came into service 2008) for $3.5 million? It cost
| $312 dollars to build. I get there are a lot of environmental
| concerns with these kinds of things but this just seems like a
| steal.
| jessriedel wrote:
| The market for off-shore oil drilling has collapsed, as it
| can't currently compete with on-shore (e.g., shale). So most of
| them are now only worth their scrap value, which isn't trivial
| but from which you also need to subtract scrapping cost. It's
| not surprising to me that a $300M piece of machinery has <$10M
| of metal scrap value, and you loose half in the scrapping
| process. Your $30,000 dollar car is only worth about $200 as
| scrap.
| Azrael3000 wrote:
| Apparently it was sold as part of a liquidation, that's why it
| was so cheap.
| baking wrote:
| If it had more value to someone else, they would have bid for
| it.
| heshiebee wrote:
| This has become boring. Time to send up a school teacher.
| heshiebee wrote:
| Guys, this was a joke. But if downvoting helps you get through
| your day I'm humbled to take part.
| mam2 wrote:
| Anyone has an input on how the salt of the water could impact the
| rockets on reusability ? I've been wondering since they catch the
| rockets in the ocean
| garydevenay wrote:
| Starship will use 304L stainless steel due to it's good
| performance at cryogenic temps. 304L just so happens to be the
| best kind of stainless steel for salt water exposure.
|
| Not sure if any other steps will need to be taken for greater
| protection (for the ceramic heat shielding etc).
| varjag wrote:
| Marine grade is 316L. 304L main advantage is lower cost.
| qayxc wrote:
| I'd be more concerned about the engines than the hull.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They seem to have managed it with the Falcon 9s.
| garydevenay wrote:
| Engine out redundancy is built in (as with Falcon 9)-- hull
| redundancy typically isn't.
| qayxc wrote:
| The hull isn't affected that much by being exposed to
| salty sea air and salt water spray, is what I mean by
| that.
|
| Engines are more sensitive in that regard (think salt
| crusts, etc.).
| lmilcin wrote:
| Poor fish or marine mammals that will get killed due to blast
| noise.
| abledon wrote:
| iirc, they use a large sound barrier around the blast area in
| the ocean. the 'fence' is a giant fence of bubbles rising to
| the top, and the bubbles act as a sonic barrier.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| At least it's not the Sea Dragon rocket.
| detritus wrote:
| Not sure why you were downvoted - given how well sound travels
| in a medium like sea-water, and given how incredibly loud
| rockets are it's going to make life hell for sealife within a
| very large radius/volume.
|
| I'm a huge fan of what SpaceX is doing, but to simply ignore
| environmental impact here would be quite blinkered.
| mrgroucho wrote:
| I understand the Martian connection, but I'm not sure that Fear
| and Panic are the best choices of name for interplanetary
| departure terminals...
| rout39574 wrote:
| Well, why not start there, when we're going to "War" ?
| zhaphod wrote:
| only if names affect the performance of the rocket
| pulkitsh1234 wrote:
| Reading the title I thought this oil rigs will be floating in
| space, i.e. some kind of pitstop in space.
| scotty79 wrote:
| How much does used up oil rig cost?
| jacquesm wrote:
| They're a liability, you can buy them at a fraction of the
| their original value but to unload them you have to find a
| sucker who will be on the hook for the eventual cleanup.
| trollied wrote:
| The owners filed for bankruptcy. The linked article states:
| "The two rigs sold for $3.5 million each".
| rmm wrote:
| A steal. Given what the going rates for rental of these
| things are.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| The rental rate reflects potential productivity of the
| platform.
|
| Once they're old enough to not be useful as oil rigs the
| price falls to the scrap floor pretty quickly.
|
| The scrap value is still pretty high since they're chock
| full of all sorts of industrial and maritime machinery that
| can simply be unbolted and sold.
| chasd00 wrote:
| i would imagine they're very polluted. it's surprising the
| price isn't negative, in that someone pays you to take
| ownership because the EPA is forcing a clean up.
| trollied wrote:
| I do wonder what they're worth purely for the steel scrap
| value.
| steerablesafe wrote:
| It wouldn't surprise me if they worth negative value in
| that regard.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Depends where you scrap 'em. There are massive improvised
| "ship breaking" yards e.g. in Bangladesh.
| RobertKerans wrote:
| Yes, but you need to get them there, even then it's going
| to be negative money so owners would want subsidies. So
| for example, as the North Sea fields die, the Cromarty
| Firth in North East Scotland is getting rigs at an
| increasing pace, they just mothball them in the firth in
| the hope they can get a refit or sell them, but they
| rarely seem to be able to do either these days (there's a
| set of jack up legs that have been there for at least 15
| years for example). Nobody's buying them for scrap and
| paying to drag them halfway across the world any more
| (there was a suggestion money was going to get pumped
| into a breaking yard down the coast in England, at
| Middlesbrough, but looks like wasn't financially viable).
| Financial incentives aren't there, so it's easier to just
| find a coastal location to moor them that's cheap, where
| they rot. There's no cash value in them, it's usage that
| makes money and that ain't happening a lot now, the
| owners of the ones Musk's bought will have bitten his
| hand off.
|
| Edit: for clarity, it's a massive financial bet building
| a platform -- they have specific purposes and take a long
| time to plan and build, but the deployment environment
| (physical/political/economic) is volatile relative the
| build timespan. That doesn't matter in boomtime, any hits
| are absorbable, but it is not boomtime. The above
| Scottish example, a fair % of the rigs in the firth at
| any one time are "new" (as in unused). They get kept in
| hopes of refits, not scrapped; it's too expensive to
| scrap.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Construction cost $500 million.
| pmontra wrote:
| The passenger experience would be:
|
| 1. Get to the SpaceX terminal somewhere (maybe a major airport
| because of connecting flights), security checks, check in luggage
| and board an helicopter.
|
| 2. Fly to the launch platform.
|
| 3. Disembark, get up to Starship.
|
| 4. Many Gs of acceleration.
|
| 5. Fall to destination.
|
| 6. Many Gs of deceleration.
|
| 7. Disembark, board the helicopter.
|
| 8. Fly to the airport, immigration checks, collect luggage.
|
| 9. Leave the airport.
|
| The two helicopter hops cost time, maybe not much more than some
| long rides on airport buses. The acceleration and deceleration
| will be exciting but maybe not everybody fit to fly can withstand
| them. I guess it's not for everybody.
| reddog wrote:
| I wonder by how many orders of magnitude that this would be
| less safe and more expensive that as commercial airline first
| class ticket to the same destination.
|
| Those two helicopter hops probably make the trip 100x more
| dangerous by them selves.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| They're not gonna be trying to land rockets in bad weather so
| the helicopter rides should pretty much all take place during
| ideal conditions. Point to point helicopter rides are also
| very safe relatively speaking. Industrial and emergency
| helicopter usage really drags down the average.
| beerandt wrote:
| >Point to point helicopter rides are also very safe
| relatively speaking
|
| Not for coastal ops. It falls in the more dangerous
| category.
|
| All rig workers are required to pass HUET- Helicopter
| Underwater Egress Training.
|
| The gyro forces of the rotating blades ensure any
| splashdown is followed immediately by the helicopter
| inverting itself- so underwater and upside down. It also
| involves the immediate need for survival swimming, with a
| presumption of a burning oil slick at the surface that must
| be splashed clear each time you surface, until you can
| clear the wreckage.
|
| And since the water might be dirty, or covered in oil slick
| or debris, this training is often done _blindfolded_.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Can you honestly not see the difference between a taxi
| that will only be used on days clear enough to land a
| rocket and regular ship to shore operations
| characteristic of the oil industry?
|
| Tesla's use case is likely less dangerous than the
| helicopters that fly VIPs all around NYC simply because
| the airspace will be so much less cluttered allowing for
| higher faster flights that are more tolerant of things
| going wrong.
| beerandt wrote:
| If you see a significant difference, it's only because
| you want to see one.
|
| The Gulf of Mexico already has the highest amount of
| helicopter traffic in the country. It's always cluttered.
| I'd expect most of the local helicopter services and
| pilots that ferry the oil industry would be also be
| ferrying for SpaceX.
|
| >Tesla's use case
|
| The _SpaceX_ use case is based on high frequency
| launches. You don 't get high frequency by sticking to
| Space Shuttle blue-sky launch requirements. (And the
| safety-obsessed oil industry isn't flying in weather it
| shouldn't be.)
|
| But it's still coastal weather, and even blue-sky
| launches are going to require pre-dawn (or after dark),
| foggy and/or windy flights out to the rig (and back to
| shore).
|
| If it's point-to-point rocket travel, daylight at the
| launch site means it's likely to be dark at landing, and
| vice-versa. Otherwise flight windows are going to be very
| restricted.
|
| If anything, time windows are likely to be more
| constrained for launches than for the oil industry (who
| might have a day-long+ window for personnel changes),
| which means more flying when you have to, not waiting for
| when conditions are ideal.
| ghaff wrote:
| >All rig workers are required to pass HUET- Helicopter
| Underwater Egress Training.
|
| Interesting. Never heard of that in the 80s. I wasn't a
| "rig worker" but I was an engineer who flew out to
| drilling rigs a lot.
| beerandt wrote:
| Also an engineer, but was first required to do it way
| back as a summer intern working on a deepwater support
| ship. A helicopter ride for me at the time would have
| only been for an emergency, but it was still required
| training.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm sure safety standards went up over time. For example,
| after the Ocean Ranger went down off Newfoundland,
| survival suits became standard (which they amazingly
| hadn't been previously even in cold weather operations).
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| It was a thing back then I used to share an office with
| some one who had worked at RAE and flew on choppers for
| experiments who mentioned it.
|
| He also would have like to do the proper bail out
| (parachute course ) but never got a chance.
| shiftpgdn wrote:
| My father was a rig worker in the 80s in the gulf. He has
| a lot of interesting stories to tell.
| skinkestek wrote:
| > And since the water might be dirty, or covered in oil
| slick or debris, this training is done blindfolded.
|
| Is the blindfold rule new? I never heard about it when I
| took HUET.
| beerandt wrote:
| It's not a rule (that I know of), but it's a standard
| part of the more serious training classes. The companies
| I'm familiar with have been teaching it that way for 15+
| years. Edited to "often"
| TameAntelope wrote:
| By the time it's open to the public, I'd expect for it to be
| approximately as safe as air travel currently is, possibly
| even more safe, given the very reasonable apprehension the
| public will have to rocket travel.
|
| And I'd expect the US Government to be heavily involved in
| ensuring that to be the case.
| mncharity wrote:
| > how many orders of magnitude [...] more expensive [...]
| commercial airline first class ticket
|
| Estimates are order zero. Amortization on more frequent
| (because quicker) flights. Rocket vs airliner simplicity.
| Fuel is only a fraction of airline opex.
| thomasmg wrote:
| Many Gs of acceleration: I don't think it would be a huge
| problem, when lying on your back, in a g-suit or submerged in
| water. I don't think it would require liquid breathing, which
| is not fully developed yet.
|
| Many Gs of deceleration: for the passenger, acceleration and
| deceleration have the same effects.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Will the passengers require a class-3 flight physical? High-G's
| can be risky to some people. _blood pressure, risk of stroke,
| etc..._ Examples would be the number of medical issues that
| arise at roller coasters and the related posted warnings on
| them.
| 3327 wrote:
| Potentially burn in atmosphere twice.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| It is my impression that suborbital jumps are much, much
| slower than a launch to the orbit and return from the orbit.
|
| That would mean that a Starship decelerating to the
| destination would not create a classic "ball of fire" in
| front of it and risk a burnup.
|
| Returning 1st stages of Falcon 9 do not require thermal
| protection either.
| peeters wrote:
| I don't think they're as different in energy as you're
| thinking. "Suborbital" ranges from throwing a baseball
| 100ft to going almost into orbit, and going halfway around
| the earth is just shy of a circular orbit. It would be
| different if you were doing a short hop, but Starship is
| impractical for short hops.
| DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
| Given suborbital speeds and availability aerodynamic lift means
| that they can significantly limit the G's on re-entry.
| ragebol wrote:
| > I guess it's not for everybody.
|
| Neither will the ticket price be, I guess. At least at first.
| phkahler wrote:
| I doubt point to point on earth will be used for humans.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I am almost certain that, at a certain point, the US military
| will use Starship to deploy some extra forces (specialists
| and equipment) to a distant theater of operations under a
| tight schedule. Or perhaps evacuate the sick and the wounded,
| if they can tolerate this rough ride but need to see a top
| hospital urgently. So as far as humans go, that will probably
| happen.
|
| A regular service for civilian customers, that is another
| story. Just like Concorde, it might prove economically
| infeasible.
| iso1631 wrote:
| Will starship land with enough fuel to take off and return
| to friendly territory?
|
| Can starship land in Earth like gravity on a standard
| concrete area?
|
| Concorde's heels were
|
| 1) No supersonic over water
|
| 2) Limited Range
|
| 3) Limited use to reclaim development costs and ongoing
| maintenence costs
|
| 4) Eating into their owners fares -- standard London-NY
| cost was PS8k return, or PS13k today. That's in the same
| ballpark as an F return pre-covid, so BA weren't making
| more money.
| jccooper wrote:
| > Will starship land with enough fuel to take off and
| return to friendly territory?
|
| No. If you want it back, you land at a friendly base. The
| nominal use would not likely to be for insertion but
| logistics, like a really fast C-17.
|
| It's intended to be quite cheap to build, however, so
| it's not impossible that it could be used one way (in a
| very high-value operation.)
|
| > Can starship land in Earth like gravity on a standard
| concrete area?
|
| Yes. They're doing that right now. Taking off from a flat
| pad, however, is unlikely, at least in current
| configuration. A "tactical" version with pre-main-
| ignition "hop" engines, like planned for the lunar lander
| version, might allow such ops (providing you can provide
| large quantities of liquid methane and oxygen on site!)
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| And the NIMBY / NIH lobbying
|
| I think you meant no supersonic overland
| theptip wrote:
| It's worth noting that Musk quoted 30-60 minutes rocket trip
| time for any pair of source/destination in the world, so there
| is a lot of room for time wasted around the launch while still
| being way faster.
|
| That said, they probably have to run hundreds of thousands or
| millions of non-crewed launches before they can demonstrate
| it's safe enough for civilian use. Current tech must be in the
| range of 3-4 orders of magnitude more dangerous?
| zhoujianfu wrote:
| The genius of this IMO is operating in international
| waters... I assume that puts them out of FAA/etc
| jurisdiction?
|
| If so, we'll be riding these way before UAVs.
| peeters wrote:
| Typically people flying on a helicopter to an oil rig need to
| be trained to ditch in the water. I think most would consider
| that prohibitive for the Starship transit clientele, so I
| wonder if they just live with the risks.
| m4rtink wrote:
| There are regular _commuter_ helicopter services between
| islands over the ocean in Japan, like this one:
|
| http://www.tohoair.co.jp/english/shuttle/
| nickik wrote:
| No. It would be a loop/hyperloop type system you get into.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Do your security/customs checks on the helicopter ride and that
| transport costs you zero time.
| janmo wrote:
| Sounds like a nightmare. One key aspect is also the weather.
| Flying will only be possible under perfect weather conditions
| for both take off and landing.
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| Why helicopter ride to platform not by boat?
| zhoujianfu wrote:
| I believe the original mock up video had a boat.
| mncharity wrote:
| > The passenger experience would be:
|
| Hundred(s) of people per flight, on helicopters? High Gs?
|
| Perhaps something more like...?
|
| 1. Fly to coastal airport with SpX marine terminal. Board high-
| speed passenger ferry. Security, immigration, and luggage
| processing on board.
|
| 3. Disembark. Board Starship. (Maybe motion-compensated
| gangways? [1] - fun tech)
|
| 4. Few Gs acceleration.
|
| 5. Fall to destination. A comfort challenge - limiting head
| motion helps a lot.
|
| 6. Brief couple of Gs. It's only ~100 m/s terminal velocity.
|
| 7. Disembark. Similar ferry.
|
| 9. Leave airport marine terminal.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=latTbgwdywo
| pmontra wrote:
| Those gangways look nice. They could make them look like
| normal jet bridges with the nice side effect of not scaring
| people with the fear of falling into the sea, etc.
|
| About accelerations, many people scream when they are in a
| car braking or turning at some low 0.x G, so I wonder what a
| couple of Gs would be to them. Anyway, there will always be
| plenty of planes and they'll be much cheaper too.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| Maybe 1 and 2 could be combined by using Seaplanes?
| fiftyfifty wrote:
| Musk has mentioned using Hyperloop to transport people to the
| launch platforms. I don't have time to dig up the interview I
| heard it in but I'm pretty sure he said as much at one point.
| motoboi wrote:
| Nah!
|
| 1) Get into a rocket, lift-off, land on the platform. 2) Play
| with a complimentary Space Grenade Launcher(tm) on the rim of
| the platform while you wait for refuel. 3) Go to space for some
| time 4) Land in your destination platform 5) Summon your Tesla
| over the under-the-ocean tunnel 6) Go home.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Don't forget all the vomit. Put ten passengers in a single
| space, even trained astronauts, and at least one of them will
| be vomiting during the zero-G portion of the flight. Compare
| this to a first class seat on a BA transatlantic crossing.
|
| (And the carbon costs of rocket-powered passenger services are
| maddening. This is not a service that anyone should support.)
| ulfw wrote:
| Depends on the fish of the day that's served ;)
| emilecantin wrote:
| Starship is methane-powered. There are ways to generate
| methane sustainably (from C02 and water); that's even an
| essential part of the plan for Mars. I strongly suspect
| they'll want to test it on Earth before, and having an
| appliance on the platform that generates the needed
| propellant for passenger flight would be a very good test
| (developing something that works reliably with minimal / no
| human intervention).
| aphextron wrote:
| > Starship is methane-powered. There are ways to generate
| methane sustainably (from C02 and water);
|
| It's not about the generation. Burning methane results in a
| 1:1 emission of CO2 [0]; literally the equivalent of just
| dumping pure carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
|
| https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-products-of-methane-
| burne...
| jcims wrote:
| In the process that would likely be used the CO2 would be
| sourced from the atmosphere.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Ya, but that isn't happening. Look at where liquid
| hydrogen for rockets is sourced. It could be made from
| water. In reality, it is made from hydrocarbons because
| that is cheaper. And even if CO2 is pulled from the air,
| a huge amount of energy is need to compress/store that
| rocket fuel, energy that could be put to far better uses.
| Instead of launching a passenger rocket to london, I'd
| rather divert that energy into shutting a coal-fired
| powerplant for a week or two. Once all those powerplants
| are shut, then we should look at passenger rocket
| services.
| emilecantin wrote:
| I don't doubt you're right for most existing rockets, but
| I think the main difference here is that SpaceX has every
| reason to test the hell out of their propellant-producing
| appliances here on Earth, even if it's not economical at
| the beginning. They depend on these appliances working
| perfectly on Mars for the return trip, so they need to be
| _very_ reliable.
| ben_w wrote:
| If these vehicles were from _anyone_ besides a company
| whose explicit goal is to develop an interplanetary
| colony ship whose duty cycle will require the launch
| infrastructure on the other planet to convert atmospheric
| CO2 into methane using solar power, I'd agree -- it
| hasn't been done, it's not economical to do it that way
| yet.
|
| But Musk needs this process to become economical so that
| Mars can become economical.
|
| (The same tech may, ironically given Tesla, compete with
| batteries for the energy storage PV calls for).
| emilecantin wrote:
| If that CO2 was taken from the air in the first place,
| it's a neutral process overall:
|
| Take CO2 from air => Turn it into methane => Put it into
| rocket => Burn it back into the air
| aphextron wrote:
| This process requires far more energy than just using it
| to power normal modes of transportation. There's no free
| lunch.
| DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
| Doesn't matter if it is solar.
| ejolto wrote:
| That doesn't matter if you made the methane by extracting
| CO2 from the atmosphere. Then you are just putting the
| CO2 back from where you got it.
|
| The bad part with burning fossil fuels is that you are
| putting carbon in the form of CO2 into the air which was
| previously locked under ground in the form of
| coal/gas/oil. If you are burning carbon that you
| extracted from CO2 in the atmosphere, there is no such
| problem, assuming you didn't use fossil fuels to extract
| that carbon.
| aphextron wrote:
| >That doesn't matter if you made the methane by
| extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. Then you are just
| putting the CO2 back from where you got it.
|
| It's not that simple. What you're describing is free
| energy. We're still burning fossil fuels to extract the
| methane. Maybe that could be powered by renewables one
| day. But as of now, it is not.
| ejolto wrote:
| The point is you could do it with renewables without
| burning fossil fuels. There would be losses in the step
| between renewables and methane sure, but it doesn't
| require "free energy".
| beambot wrote:
| Indeed, it's more like molecular assembly & disassembly
| powered by renewables. Here's a good explanation for a
| well-tested ethanol process:
|
| https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/former-
| playwright-ai...
| sandworm101 wrote:
| The fuels in the rocket. The fuels in the support vehicles.
| The fuels for the platform. The fuels in the helicopters.
| Even if all of them are produced from solar power, a 747
| needs less than 1% of the same total fuel per passenger. No
| matter how it is fueled, a ballistic rocket needs orders of
| magnitude more energy than conventional flight. It is not
| an energy-efficient means of realworld transport.
| jackric wrote:
| Then price in carbon neutral fuel production to the
| ticket. There will be passengers rich enough to pay it.
|
| If you've got a problem with that I imagine your real
| issues are about status envy not environmentalism.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Lol, I'm no communist but I do appreciate that market
| forces alone will never address the carbon/energy
| problem, let alone the wider problem of pollution
| overall. Just because someone has the money do to so
| doesn't mean that we should support them burning away the
| energy to light a small city simply to get to their
| vacation spot a few _hours_ faster than on a private jet.
| sacred_numbers wrote:
| Do you have any numbers to back that up? A 747 burns
| 10-11 tons of fuel per hour and carries about 360
| passengers. For a 12 hour flight, that is about 350kg of
| fuel per passenger. Starship's tanks hold approximately
| 250 tons of fuel and 950 tons of liquid oxygen. In order
| to match the per passenger fuel efficiency of a 747 they
| would need to carry about 700 passengers. Starship has
| about 20% more internal volume as a 747, so it seems
| likely that they would be able to fit at least the same
| number of passengers. That puts them at about 50% of the
| fuel efficiency of a 747.
|
| In addition, methane combustion produces 2.75kg of CO2
| per kg of fuel, while kerosene produces 3kg CO2 per kg of
| fuel. If they are able to fit 20% more passengers than a
| 747 due to the larger internal volume then they would be
| within about 66% efficiency on a CO2 emissions per
| passenger basis.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| As I replied to others, rocket fuel is very different.
| The total carbon emissions include not just the fuel used
| by the rocket but the fuels used to create those fuels
| before the flight. Liquid oxygen is not carbon-free as
| creating liquid oxygen requires lots and lots of energy.
| So too methane which is heavily
| refined/compressed/cooled, processes that take more
| energy, create more emissions, than burning the fuel
| itself during flight. The fuel for a 747 is not nearly as
| energy/carbon-intensive to create.
| eyesee wrote:
| Not sure where you're getting these figures. Here's an
| analysis which estimates CO2 emissions from Starship for
| E2E will be roughly similar to those from a 777 flight
| based on fuel consumption. Depending upon how the methane
| is generated it could be a carbon-neutral flight. This
| doesn't include support vehicles, but that would be quite
| speculative at this stage.
|
| https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/12/spacex-rocket-
| emission...
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Look deeper at those numbers. Net fuel
| consumption/emissions is different than "rocket
| emissions". Rocket fuel isn't diesel. The emissions from
| the actual rocket in flight do not capture the total
| emissions generated in the
| creation/preparation/compression of rocket fuels. Some
| rockets produce literally zero carbon during flight
| (liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen = water) but that
| doesn't mean plenty of coal/oil wasn't used in the
| creation of those fuels.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Yep - pushing air away for 12+ hours at high sub sonic
| speeds might indeed be less efficient than a sub orbital
| flight where you exit the atmosphere in a couple minutes
| and cover most of the distance without meaningful air
| resistance in the vacuum of space.
| d_silin wrote:
| Just FYI, you can expect launch and reentry Gs <3, which a
| healthy adult can handle no problem.
|
| Instead of helicopter, ferry can do.
|
| Overall the process will be not dramatically different from
| modern airport experience.
| [deleted]
| ghaff wrote:
| I haven't been in the oil business for a long time but to get
| from a boat deck to the rig deck (actually the heliport in my
| experience) requires a transfer by a personnel basket which
| is apparently still used.
| https://www.grandoceanmarine.com/marine-safety-
| equipments/pe...
|
| That's a bit different from a "modern airport experience." We
| would usually take helicopters out but if weather didn't
| cooperate (or the oil company we were working for didn't want
| to pay for it), we would sometimes take work boats.
|
| Added: I assume though if someone wanted to do so, they could
| design an enclosed capsule of some sort that people could sit
| in and that capsule could be lifted with a crane which would
| be a bit less "exciting."
| Retric wrote:
| Yea, construction companies also occasionally use similar
| baskets from a crane. Ex: https://www.lifttech.com/crane-
| suspended-man-baskets
|
| The general public is going to get something looks like
| elevators, even if their all just baskets suspended from a
| wire. Honestly saving ~17 hours NYC to Auckland is going to
| be worth some inconvenience. However, a bigger issue is how
| calm the weather needs to be before their going to launch
| rockets, though that means people aren't going to go out to
| the launch platform in bad weather.
| ghaff wrote:
| Boat to boat transfers are tricky. I'd still put my money
| on some sort of lift. Though TBH if we're stipulating a
| level of science fiction that allows routine human
| suborbital flight, getting people out to a launch
| platform comfortably and safely is not a hard problem by
| comparison.
|
| >However, a bigger issue is how calm the weather needs to
| be before their going to launch rockets, though that
| means people aren't going to go out to the launch
| platform in bad weather.
|
| I'm honestly not sure why you wouldn't just use
| helicopters. They're not that unsafe if flown in good
| weather. VIPs fly in them all the time.
| Retric wrote:
| Most cities have regulations around helicopters which may
| cause issues. I think the boat concept is based around
| moving people from the city center rather than speed
| after pickup.
|
| Really, a 40+ MPH boat ride gets you to a launch site 8
| miles out to sea in around 5 minutes which is both safer
| and good enough to not really benefit from using a
| helicopter.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Maybe they can use these for transfer?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4FUBfp9kS0
| jessriedel wrote:
| They plan to use high-speed ferries, not helicopters.
| beerandt wrote:
| Re-read his comment. Boat to rig personnel xfer is
| usually done by a crane/basket lift.
|
| In this case, the helipad is just where they drop the
| basket, since it's already a designated clear zone.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Small children, babies, 85 year olds, disabled people all fly
| and probably make much more of the passenger population than
| you think. Also with the levels of obesity in many countries
| and other conditions I'm not sure how many "healthy adults"
| over the age of 30-35 you'll find that could handle 3G
| without any risk.
|
| I think the start ship on earth concept is a pipe dream, I
| give hyperloop a better chance of succeeding.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > Instead of helicopter, ferry can do.
|
| What about a seaplane? Depending on the number of passengers,
| that might make sense.
|
| I also wondered about Hyperloop tunnel starting under the
| seabed, which a submersible capsule could dock with, but that
| seems much less realistic.
| cnlevy wrote:
| Or standard high-speed train on a floating bridge ?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Point_Floating_Brid
| g...
| ghaff wrote:
| No real way to get from a seaplane up to the rig deck.
| m4rtink wrote:
| What about a simple floating pier ? Then elevator or
| stairs from that to the deck.
|
| It's not like you need to park these ex-oil-rigs in the
| super hardcore sea state areas many of them need to
| operate when actually drilling.
| christkv wrote:
| Reminds me of Sea-Launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| Didn't realize oil rigs float. Some do. Found this WP even more
| interesting than the OP.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_platform
| michaelscott wrote:
| Oil rigs are super fascinating from an engineering perspective.
| Ironically, outside of space the ocean is probably the most
| inhospitable environment for man-made structures to be built
| where we still want them. Anybody wanting to build
| platforms/cities/anything else in the ocean would probably do
| well to start by looking oil rig construction.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Absolutely back when I worked in Hydrodynamics RnD we built a
| test rig that could simulate some aspects of that - 21 Cumecs
| flow rate! (fist time we turned it on its set the alarms of
| on Cranfield Universities Power supply)
| bnralt wrote:
| That's an interesting point. The article says that the rigs
| were bought for $3.5 million each. At that price, it seems
| pretty obtainable for people interested in creating a
| floating city at sea to buy a few as a starting point.
| m4rtink wrote:
| I'm afraid maintenance costs will quickly eclipse any money
| saved by buying a second hand rig due to the rather hostile
| marine environment.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| That's exactly why they are so cheap. They aren't an
| asset that you can mothball very easily. You have to
| either run it or scrap it.
|
| I would expect the cost of running them for a year is far
| more than 3.5 million.
| spyspy wrote:
| We've come full Armageddon.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > Anybody wanting to build platforms/cities/anything else in
| the ocean
|
| For anyone interested I think the term is "Seasteading"
|
| And for the SV crowd, a little pie-in-the-sky:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueseed
| ortusdux wrote:
| I would love to see the modeling they must be doing to make
| sure that the floating rig is stable while 11mil lbs of rocket
| with 15mil lbs of thrust launches.
| tobmlt wrote:
| Heck yeah they do. For anyone else interested who hasn't seen
| it, check out "types" in the wiki article linked above for a
| nice picture of some variations in common use. Fun stuff to
| compute the wave induced motions of... The math is very similar
| to a circuit analysis (linear time invariant systems). But the
| properties of your "circuit" (your boat, craft, platform,
| whatever) are solved by hydrodynamics to account for the shape
| dependence, environment dependence, etc. and depending what you
| want to know - done in the time domain or frequency domain as
| well.
| jcims wrote:
| Check out Dockwise Vanguard
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=dockwise+vanguard&tbm=isch
| 3395810 wrote:
| Oil rigs aren't build in place. They need to be moved to where
| the oil is.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| The "spaceports" are a total loss but he can deduct that from his
| taxes plus receive BILLIONS more in subsidies because its
| "green".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-20 23:03 UTC)