SpaceX Starship

[Elckerlyc]

Looking at the current state of the launch pad I don't see how they can repair this within 2 months. Also, without flame diverter you will probably get the same level of damage as now. Damage that likely also included Starship itself. It was crippled and doomed even before liftoff.

 

[BAYLOR]

The fact that they are prepared to accept a number of $billion failed launches shows just how much money there is to be made in achieving commercial space flight.

It also shows just how far away we are from achieving it.

But the hardest thing is setting off down the path, and now that has been achieved it is only a matter of when, not if.

Ultimately , they will be successful in this endeavor.

 

[Justin Swanton]

The Common Sense Sceptic does an interesting breakdown of the launch. Essentially a collection of failures that doesn't do SpaceX any credit.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

The Common Sense Sceptic does an interesting breakdown of the launch. Essentially a collection of failures that doesn't do SpaceX any credit.

Wow, I finally found someone who has even less time for Musk than I do. I didn't think it was possible.

There is a major 'emperor's new clothes' effect with Musk. Very suddenly everyone is going to switch from seeing him as a genius (which he isn't) to a clown (which he most certainly is). He has built his reputation - such as it is - off the endeavors of others. I wouldn't trust his technical expertise in overseeing the design of a toaster let alone a Mars mission. If Tesla and Space-X can somehow rid themselves of him then they may be able to thrive. Otherwise they will be dragged down when he finally implodes completely.

 

[Dave]

If Tesla and Space-X can somehow rid themselves of him then they may be able to thrive. Otherwise they will be dragged down when he finally implodes completely.

+ Twitter

He's like the opposite of King Midas.

 

[Astro Pen]

Excuse me if I don't join your hate fest.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

The fact that they are prepared to accept a number of $billion failed launches shows just how much money there is to be made in achieving commercial space flight.

Interesting point. But they are not worried about vulgar details like making a profit. SpaceX got $2.8 billion in government contracts last year, according to The Information, and a total of $15.3 billion from the government since 2003.

 

[Dave]

hate fest.

I don't hate the man. I do however hate that some people with no talents, but with inherited money placed into well-advised investments, can then buy up companies, and run them as their own playthings... but that is current affairs, and we don't do that here.

The point is that it has been reported that he has over-ridden Tesla engineers regarding safety to increase car production, and the result is car batteries busting into flames on the highway. I don't know what goes on at SpaceX, but his personality and style of management is exactly the same at Twitter, where he sacked the moderators, and it has become the Wild West. If it is also the same at SpaceX, in what needs to be an extremely safety conscious project, then more explosions on launch pad seem quite likely. (Sorry, did I say explosions? I meant more rapid unscheduled disassemblies before separation.)

 

[Astro Pen]

Some people, maybe, but not Musk,

 

[Dave]

He does have a selective memory for facts. Quite a lot of what Musk says is either disputed or even proven lies i.e. his degrees and the dates awarded. It may not have seemed like that large a financial gift to him, but he and his brother were given $28,000 by their father to start their first company, Zip2. Compaq later bought it, and his share was $22 million, of which I've no doubt that he did deserve, for all the work he put into that companies success. He does have does have a sixth sense for what technology will make a profit in the future. No one can be that lucky without some talent. However, investing wisely is one thing. Competency at managing a company is something else.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

and the result is car batteries busting into flames on the highway

The electrical system and batteries have caused recalls in a couple of companies producing electric vehicles. The batteries are dangerous at any speed. They are like bombs without fuses. There is a fire caused by defective electric bike batteries/chargers every other day in New York City. Granted there is little or no quality control in the electric bike after market but it does demonstrate how bad the batteries are in general. With his money and position Musk could have developed a safer battery set up sooner than later. All he had to do was look at what people had already learned in the past through trial and error in other vehicle industries, but that would be admitting that one didn't know everything.

“With a test like this, success comes from what we learn, and we learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems today that will help us improve on future flights of Starship.” There are many reasons launch pads are designed the way they are. ---With a test like this, success comes from what we learn--- From what we learn means that they probably don't pay any attention to anything that has been done before. To ignore all that work was just plain stupid. And probably nothing has changed.

Meanwhile China is on the fast track to getting a prominent space presence by copying things that worked in the past.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Increasingly, the starship appears to me to be designed for no real purpose. It's no good as a Mars ship - no shielding - and you don't need a thing that size to go back to the Moon.

Every spacecraft before it was carefully tailored for a specific mission profile. Apollo had to get two men on the Moon and keep them alive there for a few hours before getting them back to the Earth (success). Soyuz had to get three men into LEO and back to the ground (success). The ISS has to keep an average of six men alive indefinitely in LEO (success). The reusable Falcon, like the Shuttle before it, is supposed to get a payload into LEO at a much lower cost than a single-use launcher like the Russian Proton (fail thus far). But what do you do with a starship? Again, forget Mars. It will need several hundred tons of shielding so the crew don't come back in body bags. Is it just meant to look cool?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Increasingly, the starship appears to me to be designed for no real purpose. It's no good as a Mars ship - no shielding - and you don't need a thing that size to go back to the Moon.

Every spacecraft before it was carefully tailored for a specific mission profile. Apollo had to get two men on the Moon and keep them alive there for a few hours before getting them back to the Earth (success). Soyuz had to get three men into LEO and back to the ground (success). The ISS has to keep an average of six men alive indefinitely in LEO (success). The reusable Falcon, like the Shuttle before it, is supposed to get a payload into LEO at a much lower cost than a single-user launcher like the Russian Proton (fail thus far). But what do you do with a starship? Again, forget Mars. It will need several hundred tons of shielding so the crew don't come back in body bags. Is it just meant to look cool?

Aesthetics are an important factor in just about everything humans do.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Aesthetics are an important factor in just about everything humans do.

Soyuz? Ugly beast but it works.

And I don't find the ISS especially attractive. Rather a shapeless mess. And the Eagle, nah.

 

[BAYLOR]

Soyuz? Ugly beast but it works.

The Soviet N1 Moon Rocket was ugly and a dangerously catastrophic failure which prevented them from ever getting to the moon.

 

[Justin Swanton]

The Soviet N1 Moon Rocket was ugly and a dangerously catastrophic failure which prevented them from ever getting to the moon.

So it was. Ugly can fail just like pretty. The shuttle was pretty...

 

[paranoid marvin]

Soyuz? Ugly beast but it works.

And I don't find the ISS especially attractive. Rather a shapeless mess. And the Eagle, nah.

The rocket it went up in looked pretty neat. ISS is a bit trickier as it's more functional than aesthetic, as different bits have been added by different countries from time to time.

I can't speak for the reliability of the N1, but I thought it looked impressive on the launchpad. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and the designer).

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Increasingly, the starship appears to me to be designed for no real purpose. It's no good as a Mars ship - no shielding - and you don't need a thing that size to go back to the Moon.

Every spacecraft before it was carefully tailored for a specific mission profile. Apollo had to get two men on the Moon and keep them alive there for a few hours before getting them back to the Earth (success). Soyuz had to get three men into LEO and back to the ground (success). The ISS has to keep an average of six men alive indefinitely in LEO (success). The reusable Falcon, like the Shuttle before it, is supposed to get a payload into LEO at a much lower cost than a single-user launcher like the Russian Proton (fail thus far). But what do you do with a starship? Again, forget Mars. It will need several hundred tons of shielding so the crew don't come back in body bags. Is it just meant to look cool?

Interesting question that, and surprisingly difficult to answer. I looked at Space X's website and it says Starship is intended to carry "up to 100 people on long-duration interplanetary flights". This claim is demonstrably nonsense. If mankind ever does achieve such a thing, it will be on a very different platform; nothing like Starship. Just think of the hundreds of tonnes of water, food, fuel and oxygen required, as well as the equipment needed for the journey and for survival at destination. Think of the complexities of creating artificial gravity, protecting the crew from radiation, giving them enough space and recreation to ensure some minimal quality of life. To pretend that Starship is the platform that will achieve all this is pure insanity. Just the existence of such a claim on the website of a company that expects to be taken seriously, well, it makes me question the mental state of the person in charge. Honestly, its a bit embarrassing.

Maybe Starship is actually intended for some other purpose (like mass launches of low orbit satellites) and the stuff on the website is just for the kids. It still doesn't make sense, but its somewhat less crazy than the interplanetary travel nonsense.

 

[BAYLOR]

So it was. Ugly can fail just like pretty. The shuttle was pretty...

From what ive read the Soviets launched 4 of these N1 rockets and all 4 of them failed. The thing of it is the Russian even with better rocket , they would faced all kinds of difficulties, They lacked key computer technology so getting them back safely to earth would have been a problem.


The Space Shuttle was an amazing vehicle that enjoy a fair amount of success . but it too had it to drawbacks with in the end brought about its retirement.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

The starship, with plenty of redundant engines, and rotating crews possibly drawn from all the space navies that haven't got one ship to their name, is a we haul to get stuff to the moon. Like Quonset huts that unskilled labor can assemble in a matter of hours, plus other handy Amazon items that Bezos can't get up there. Everyone will be going to the Moon first. Its the easiest place to get to, so anyone unable to get to Mars, which is probably everyone, will hit up the Moon first. No one will want to get up there last and lose out on all the mud front property that will be claimed by waves of homesteaders looking for place to hang there helmets at the end of a long prospecting day.