Hopefully now that Musk is no longer dabbling in politics (and alienating his electric car buyers, who are mostly Democrats), his rockets will stop exploding.
Edit so being distracted was a net benefit for Tesla and Spacex? Down voters have not addressed this assertion, must be true.
Edit: The launch was scrubbed for today. "Standing down from today's tenth flight of Starship to allow time to troubleshoot an issue with ground systems" https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1959755893324865963
The only official SpaceX stream will be here closer to launch: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1yoKMPRjeYYxQ but the YouTube channels will be rebroadcasting it after their own cameras lose sight of the rocket.
There may or may not be an official SpaceX technical update presentation before or after the launch. There was supposed to be one last time too but it was silently canceled, so TBD.
When these rockets crash, is it because their digital simulations are inaccurate? Why do they need data from the actual test is the question instead of just relying on a bullet proof simulation?
I was able to see the (under construction) launch stand for Starship at KSC last week; it sounds like they built it and are rebuilding it constantly in response to pad learnings in Texas. It'd be amazing to get at least the first stage to a reliable state so the launch site could be complete in Florida without major concerns about the Falcon 9 launch tower situated close nearby!
The main thing I took away from visiting KSC the first time (alas missed out on any launches) was how incredibly huge all things orbital-launch-related are, even for smaller rockets. Also didn't realize how large the Blue Origin facilities are there. It's one thing to see glimpses in a spaceflight YouTube channel video, it's another to drive alongside them.
SpaceX is a private company, but a significant part of the funding for the development of its Starship spacecraft, especially for lunar missions, comes from U.S. taxpayer money via NASA contracts.
The Starship rocket is the most powerful launch vehicle ever constructed. If controlled by a maniacal megalomaniac it could be turned into a powerful weapon. Hopefully that won't ever happen. But it raises the question: should a private citizen ever be in control of such powerful technology whose development was funded by taxpayers?
I'm still going to be interested to see if Starship is ever an economic success.
These test launches are expensive and it's going to take a long time to recoup that R&D, in large part because of... the Falcon 9. You have to look at what problem Starship is solving. Typoical answers are:
1. Greater payload capacity. This is true but is there demand for that? This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem but we can point to the Falcon Heavy as a useful data point. There have only been ~13 launches thus far. Some might say "you can launch multiple payloads in one launch" but you really can't unless they're on pretty much the exact same orbit. Starlink works fine for this because they are on basically the same orbit.
2. Maybe it's "reusable second stage". This is only a fraction of the total cost, like an order of magnitude less than the impact of the reusable first stage and Falcon 9 already has taht. And it's proven; or
3. Which brings us to "landing humans on the Moon or Mars" but it's not really a suitable vehicle for that. Think about it. How are you going to land? They're reduced launch weight with the chopstick catching mechanism for the first stage such that it can't land on its own (unlike Falcon 9) so we'd need the second stage to be able to land on its own and take off again. We're nowwhere near even testing that. And it's going to take a lot of testing for human-rating flight.
But OK, let's look past all that and say it lands on the Moon. Well, how do the astronauts get out and back in? They're 30-40 meters off the ground.
> This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem but we can point to the Falcon Heavy as a useful data point. There have only been ~13 launches thus far.
Falcon Heavy is only useful for specific missions as it doesn't improves cost economics to LEO over Falcon 9.
> "you can launch multiple payloads in one launch" but you really can't unless they're on pretty much the exact same orbit
This is not true. First of all, many things often go into the same orbit and many orbits are pretty standard.
Second, as you avg kg to orbit goes down, there is an ever greater intensive to use low mass high efficiency engines to do an orbital transfer after launch.
SpaceX just doesn't do that because they do actually need many sats in the same orbit. But its very possible.
> This is only a fraction of the total cost
Its not that small a fraction as you suggest. Internal cost at SpaceX for a Falcon 9 flight is somewhere between 15-30 million $. And of that at least 5-10 million $ are the upper stage. So its actually a huge fraction of the cost.
And the engine on the Upper Stage is also the longest lead most complex to manufacture part.
So you are right, the first stage was a bigger deal in absolute terms but the second stage re-usability is still a gigantic opportunity.
> but it's not really a suitable vehicle for that.
Seems like NASA disagree with that assessment.
> We're nowwhere near even testing that.
They did test launch and landing of the second stage on earth many times. Why do you suggest we are nowhere near testing that.
> And it's going to take a lot of testing for human-rating flight.
Seems like a good place to be for a company that does a lot of testing as part of its development.
Here's where I curmudgeonly insist that manned space exploration is a terrible idea, and the insistence on it has held back unmanned space exploration by decades. We would have livestreaming Jobian dirigible drones right now if we didn't insist on trying to get humans into the least permissive environment there is.
Raptor engine fuel lines. The most obvious candidate is diamond nano threads. If they plan on using for cabling for a Space elevator. Then they should be suitable as a flexible fuel line outer layer. Having looked into the future(pressurised fuel lines at present stainless steel), I am sure that Space Ex Starship should have a successful launch. As the previous launch should have been successful, checking every component, like a Halo Elite Spacecraft 'load master', checking individuals equipment before deploying into space on a space flight. Is the right way to go. So getting it right takes time, regardless of the media circus!
32 comments
[ 1.2 ms ] story [ 70.5 ms ] threadEdit so being distracted was a net benefit for Tesla and Spacex? Down voters have not addressed this assertion, must be true.
Everyday Astronaut's live stream has started already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv97hecvwfI
NASASpaceflight also, with guest Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7WmlTp7ue0
The only official SpaceX stream will be here closer to launch: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1yoKMPRjeYYxQ but the YouTube channels will be rebroadcasting it after their own cameras lose sight of the rocket.
There may or may not be an official SpaceX technical update presentation before or after the launch. There was supposed to be one last time too but it was silently canceled, so TBD.
The main thing I took away from visiting KSC the first time (alas missed out on any launches) was how incredibly huge all things orbital-launch-related are, even for smaller rockets. Also didn't realize how large the Blue Origin facilities are there. It's one thing to see glimpses in a spaceflight YouTube channel video, it's another to drive alongside them.
The Starship rocket is the most powerful launch vehicle ever constructed. If controlled by a maniacal megalomaniac it could be turned into a powerful weapon. Hopefully that won't ever happen. But it raises the question: should a private citizen ever be in control of such powerful technology whose development was funded by taxpayers?
These test launches are expensive and it's going to take a long time to recoup that R&D, in large part because of... the Falcon 9. You have to look at what problem Starship is solving. Typoical answers are:
1. Greater payload capacity. This is true but is there demand for that? This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem but we can point to the Falcon Heavy as a useful data point. There have only been ~13 launches thus far. Some might say "you can launch multiple payloads in one launch" but you really can't unless they're on pretty much the exact same orbit. Starlink works fine for this because they are on basically the same orbit.
2. Maybe it's "reusable second stage". This is only a fraction of the total cost, like an order of magnitude less than the impact of the reusable first stage and Falcon 9 already has taht. And it's proven; or
3. Which brings us to "landing humans on the Moon or Mars" but it's not really a suitable vehicle for that. Think about it. How are you going to land? They're reduced launch weight with the chopstick catching mechanism for the first stage such that it can't land on its own (unlike Falcon 9) so we'd need the second stage to be able to land on its own and take off again. We're nowwhere near even testing that. And it's going to take a lot of testing for human-rating flight.
But OK, let's look past all that and say it lands on the Moon. Well, how do the astronauts get out and back in? They're 30-40 meters off the ground.
I just don't know how this program succeeds.
Falcon Heavy is only useful for specific missions as it doesn't improves cost economics to LEO over Falcon 9.
> "you can launch multiple payloads in one launch" but you really can't unless they're on pretty much the exact same orbit
This is not true. First of all, many things often go into the same orbit and many orbits are pretty standard.
Second, as you avg kg to orbit goes down, there is an ever greater intensive to use low mass high efficiency engines to do an orbital transfer after launch.
SpaceX just doesn't do that because they do actually need many sats in the same orbit. But its very possible.
> This is only a fraction of the total cost
Its not that small a fraction as you suggest. Internal cost at SpaceX for a Falcon 9 flight is somewhere between 15-30 million $. And of that at least 5-10 million $ are the upper stage. So its actually a huge fraction of the cost.
And the engine on the Upper Stage is also the longest lead most complex to manufacture part.
So you are right, the first stage was a bigger deal in absolute terms but the second stage re-usability is still a gigantic opportunity.
> but it's not really a suitable vehicle for that.
Seems like NASA disagree with that assessment.
> We're nowwhere near even testing that.
They did test launch and landing of the second stage on earth many times. Why do you suggest we are nowhere near testing that.
> And it's going to take a lot of testing for human-rating flight.
Seems like a good place to be for a company that does a lot of testing as part of its development.