The Perpetual MEGA Space Thread

[Random8145]

They're not knocking years off the DTE cycle. They're trying to spin failure as success. It's still going to take them just as long to figure this out than if they slid the program to the right to get an entire successful flight in. Remember that they still haven't tried establishing, changing, or maneuvering in orbit, nor have they tried reentry and recovery.

Artemis 1 didn't fail and it made it to the moon and back in 6 years from program start. Artemis started in 2016. SpaceX started Starship development in 2012. in 11 years they haven't made it into low Earth orbit.

Not really a fair comparison though. Two very different vehicles. The Space Launch System is not reusable and as such, costs a lot more than what Starship will cost if SpaceX is successful with it. In addition, Starship is larger and far more powerful than SLS. Yes the SLS made it to the Moon, but by sending a small capsule designed to carry four people. The Starship is designed to be capable of carrying ONE HUNDRED people and also to function as a member of a fleet. Also, not sure where you are getting the six years, the SLS was in development for more than a decade.

Yes Starship has been in development for a decade, but in that period of time SpaceX has also achieved repeated vertical rocket landings, developed the Falcon Heavy and launched it successfully, repeatedly sent humans into space, and now full-flow staged combustion engines.

 

[Brett327]

The Starship is designed to be capable of carrying ONE HUNDRED people

Not yet, it isn't. There's a big difference between a concept and a design. In any case, carrying 100 people anywhere in space is dumb at this point, unless, of course, we're launching 100 SpaceX fanbois directly into the sun.

 

[FLGUY]

Not yet, it isn't. There's a big difference between a concept and a design. In any case, carrying 100 people anywhere in space is dumb at this point, unless, of course, we're launching 100 SpaceX fanbois directly into the sun.

I guess being inflammatory is ok as long as it’s against a group of people you don’t like.

 

[Brett327]

I guess being inflammatory is ok as long as it’s against a group of people you don’t like.

Lighten up, Francis.

 

[Random8145]

Not yet, it isn't. There's a big difference between a concept and a design. In any case, carrying 100 people anywhere in space is dumb at this point, unless, of course, we're launching 100 SpaceX fanbois directly into the sun.

I'd say it's likely more than a concept at this point. I am sure SpaceX has done quite a bit of actual design by now. And launching one hundred people into space may or may not be dumb. The point is to make humans a multiplanetary species, to ensure our survival in case something happens to Earth. It also will give us improved technology to deal with things like an incoming asteroid that could be an extinction level event if it was to hit.

And the capability it will grant will be extraordinary. We will be able to establish sizeably large space stations, a Moon base, and a Mars base/colony.

 

[Brett327]

I am sure SpaceX has done quite a bit of actual design

No, you're engaging in conjecture. You have no idea what SpaceX has or hasn't designed.

And the capability it will grant will be extraordinary. We will be able to establish sizeably large space stations, a Moon base, and a Mars base/colony.

Again, this is a concept. Nothing about Starship makes it inherently suited to do any of these things. That's not to say that some future SpaceX vehicle won't accomplish some of these goals, but it's extremely unlikely that the US will have permanent outposts on Mars before the end of this century, and one that could exist self-sufficiently will take even more time.

 

[AllAmerican75]

Right. And the Saturn V didn't have two catastrophic failures either.

Starship is O for 2 so far. Not a good look for a rocket that is supposed to be certified to carry people.

False. The Saturn V had two major failures: The first on the launch pad and the second in high Earth orbit.

I know SpaceX likes to cheerlead their fly-fail-fix-fly development model and since they‘re a private company, they can obviously do things as they wish. The problem is that unlike the early Falcon efforts, SpaceX is a lot more high-visibility now. And the primary customer for Starship is going to be NASA - it’s the key element in the current Artemis landing mission model. Too many more of these “successes” carried out in the glare of publicity and it’s going to seriously erode confidence in the company at the Agency and in Congress. They’ve already cut a contract to Blue Origin for another lander design effort because going sole-source to SpaceX was considered too programmatically risky.

By the bye, SpaceX damn near went bankrupt with this model during development of Falcon.

I don't think so. NASA is no stranger to massive failures. They're okay with SpaceX taking the risk and eating the costs for them.

How many successful launches in a row would it take for anyone on here to strap yourself into one. My over/under would be 7, I think... ?

Both Gemini and Apollo only had a few successful flights before astronauts strapped in and Apollo only got those flights after the Apollo 1 disaster.

 

[Random8145]

No, you're engaging in conjecture. You have no idea what SpaceX has or hasn't designed.

Given their level of accomplishment thus far and the fact that they are actually launching Starships right now, it would be pretty foolish of them to have not started doing actual design work on the thing. From glancing at the Wikipedia, it says they initially constructed and destroyed via various engine firing and pressure tests multiple Starships and have been putting the design through numerous changes. Last April, they launched the first Starship atop a Super Heavy booster. It failed to separate from said booster, so SpaceX executed a controlled detonation and then engaged in a multitude of design changes. On the second recent launch this month, the Starship did successfully separate. So they clearly have been doing real design work on it.

Again, this is a concept. Nothing about Starship makes it inherently suited to do any of these things. That's not to say that some future SpaceX vehicle won't accomplish some of these goals, but it's extremely unlikely that the US will have permanent outposts on Mars before the end of this century, and one that could exist self-sufficiently will take even more time.

If Starship can carry large numbers of people and is cheap and you can send multiple of them, the design will very much be inherently suited. The idea for Mars I know is to send a fleet of them, the Moon probably similar (for a Moon base anyway). Some Starships would be used as tanker vehicles. I agree that a Mars outpost is at a minimum decades away, but regular travel of humans to the Moon and maybe a smaller manned mission to Mars might not be.

 

[Brett327]

Still just conjecture.

It failed to separate

A fundamental misunderstanding of what went wrong.

 

[Swanee]

False. The Saturn V had two major failures: The first on the launch pad and the second in high Earth orbit.

Yeah no. There was no launch pad failure. There was launch pad damage, that if SpaceX took notes would have not repeated. But that damage did not cause catastrophic loss of the vehicle.

Apollo 6 also recovered. They didn't blow up mid flight.


So no, Saturn V didn't have the catastrophic failures that Starship has had.

The Space Review: If the Saturn V went boom: The effects of a Saturn V launch pad explosion

www.thespacereview.com

 

[AllAmerican75]

Yeah no. There was no launch pad failure. There was launch pad damage, that if SpaceX took notes would have not repeated. But that damage did not cause catastrophic loss of the vehicle.

Apollo 6 also recovered. They didn't blow up mid flight.


So no, Saturn V didn't have the catastrophic failures that Starship has had.

The Space Review: If the Saturn V went boom: The effects of a Saturn V launch pad explosion

www.thespacereview.com

I'm pretty sure the loss of all three astronauts is a "catastrophic failure" in manned spaceflight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

Also, you seem to have forgotten about Apollo 13 and how they almost lost the crew and spacecraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13

Seems like you're mincing words, so I'm out. Continue to hate Elon Musk and SpaceX for your own personal reasons.

 

[Brett327]

Continue to hate Elon Musk and SpaceX for your own personal reasons.

You seem to be one of the fanbois who give him a pass on everything, which I find inexplicable, frankly. The perception you have of "Elon hate" is primarily borne from that mindset. It's cultish - knock it off.

 

[Random8145]

You seem to be one of the fanbois who give him a pass on everything, which I find inexplicable, frankly. The perception you have of "Elon hate" is primarily borne from that mindset. It's cultish - knock it off.

Keep in mind fan of SpaceX != fan of Elon Musk.

 

[AllAmerican75]

You seem to be one of the fanbois who give him a pass on everything, which I find inexplicable, frankly. The perception you have of "Elon hate" is primarily borne from that mindset. It's cultish - knock it off.

I appreciate the "Build a little, test a little, learn a lot" approach and Elon's tireless working style to keep SpaceX and Tesla on track and constantly innovating. That approach seems to be what most people don't like despite the fact that it's almost exactly what NACA/NASA and the US Army originally did at the beginning of the Space Race. They continue to buy down actual operational and budget risk with each launch whereas NASA and the traditional acquisitions and development process bought static operational risk in order to cut costs, and that eventually killed astronauts.

Is Elon perfect? Absolutely not, but SpaceX gets results and has totally transformed the way we get to space over the last 10-15 years which something neither Boeing, NASA, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, nor ULA can say. If that makes me a SpaceX fanboy, then so be it.

 

[BattlingTrain]

I'm looking forward to driving down to Cape Canaveral on December 7th to see a Falcon Heavy launch the X-37B. Anyone have a good website to see what time the launch will be? All my usual websites do not have it listed.