[HN Gopher] SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it c...
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA
hurdle
Author : rbanffy
Score : 184 points
Date : 2024-02-27 12:48 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| martythemaniak wrote:
| This is good. Flight 1 had 63 corrective actions and it took 5
| months to complete the report. This one took 3 months and had 17
| corrective actions. They'll get to orbit this year for sure
| rbanffy wrote:
| I love that Superheavy/Starship can be profitable even if they
| are expendable.
| baq wrote:
| There are customers from three letter agencies who could find
| a use for this payload capacity, for sure.
|
| OTOH imagine if a reusable launch of this costs approximately
| the same as an expendable Atlas 5 in it's most performant
| configuration and reliability is proven - NASA could launch a
| Pluto probe like New Horizons, except it'd be able actually
| make orbit over there.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Atlas 5 is already completely obsoleted by the Falcon Heavy
| which costs about half as much, for a reusable launch, and
| carries about 3x as much.
|
| But for Starship, most people don't seem to realize what a
| potential game changer this is. The goal for Starship is to
| get costs down to about 15x less than Falcon Heavy. When
| you can start sending stuff to space for a few dollars per
| pound, we're not talking about just probes, but rather
| opening the door to the complete commercialization and
| exploitation of space.
|
| Such an exponential jump (downward) in prices would also
| largely end the only-for-the-super-rich phase of space
| we're currently in. You could be doing a flyby around the
| Moon for what you might spend on a holiday to Asia, in the
| very foreseeable future. That's what makes Starship so
| tantalizing. If it succeeds - this is a revolutionary step
| forward for space. Of course, there's no guarantee that it
| will succeed, but it increasingly looks like it will!
| misiti3780 wrote:
| Also, wont it theoretically speed up and decrease
| international shipping + travel. We should be able to go
| from the US to Japan in an hour or two in the future.
| Sanzig wrote:
| I am pretty skeptical of Starship ever getting used for
| suborbital transportation, other than _maybe_ for ultra-
| elite VIP transport or something like a rapid deployment
| system for military special forces. It seems highly
| unlikely they will ever get the price down to where it
| can compete with commercial airliners, and Concorde 's
| commercial failure showed us that people will happily
| choose cheap subsonic flight over fast supersonic flight.
| You can get almost anywhere on Earth in 36 hours' notice
| with conventional jet travel relatively cheaply on 1-2
| weeks of US median income for a return ticket - that
| sweet spot of speed and cost is hard to beat.
| deprecative wrote:
| Watch Elon call it something like Airship and have it be
| fit for tens to hundreds of people per launch with no
| need for a pilot (though one may be present). It'd take
| twenty years to get to market, sure, but hey that's
| progress.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Getting it to airline-level safety will take at least
| that much, unless they start flying multiple times a day
| without any anomalies whatsoever.
| njarboe wrote:
| I think there is a pretty large market for a trip to
| space and an hour flight from LA to New Zealand, New
| York-Sydney, London-Shanghai, etc. for $10-20k. What an
| amazing combination that would be.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Add a couple hours for the trip between town and pad,
| security and so on. Still it's 3-4 hours.
| lupusreal wrote:
| I don't think there are many cities that have suitable
| launch sites near them. It's unlikely they'll ever get
| approval to launch over populated areas, or even from
| most populated coastal locations.
|
| Also, the issue of getting boosters to all of these
| destinations seems like a problem. Planes don't split in
| two and have half return to the launch site but Starships
| do. So you could land the upper stage in Tokyo, but then
| what? How do you get a booster there for the return
| journey?
|
| Personally I doubt they'll even use these to bring people
| to orbit anytime soon. I think they're purpose built for
| launching massive LEO constellations.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Yeah the short term approach for crewed Starship seems
| likely to involve transporting crew to a Starship once it
| is already in orbit and vice versa for return.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| You'd probably have to launch from international waters,
| after taking a boat/helicopter.
|
| >Also, the issue of getting boosters to all of these
| destinations seems like a problem
|
| You launch them, presumably.
| skissane wrote:
| > Also, the issue of getting boosters to all of these
| destinations seems like a problem. Planes don't split in
| two and have half return to the launch site but Starships
| do. So you could land the upper stage in Tokyo, but then
| what? How do you get a booster there for the return
| journey?
|
| IIRC, the suborbital point-to-point transport use case
| doesn't use the booster (SuperHeavy), just Starship.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| Half the point of special forces is to be covert, which
| is made hard when your transportation is a giant rocket
| streaking through the suborbital zone.
| Sanzig wrote:
| But imagine the PsyOps impact of the enemy looking up and
| seeing the US raining down literal ODSTs on them ;)
|
| Realistically, they'd be dropping into an allied base in-
| theatre with a pad able to support a Starship landing,
| and then taking conventional means the rest of the way.
| Of course, I suspect that when it comes to "drop
| operators from space" vs. "train extra operators who can
| be forward deployed," the latter is probably going to be
| way more cost efficient. Would make for a cool movie
| though.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Imagine how much of a sitting duck is a rocket glowing
| infrared on a ballistic trajectory to the landing site.
| zardo wrote:
| Like an aircraft carrier, good at projecting power below
| a certain threshold of conflict and capability where they
| turn into a liability.
| PBnFlash wrote:
| Worth noting that flying to the equator can provide a
| pretty significant increase of payload mass. Just a quick
| layover to orbit.
| TMWNN wrote:
| >Concorde's commercial failure
|
| I thought Concorde failed commercially because it
| couldn't get approval to fly over the US elsewhere over
| land because of sonic booms. I know reentering spacecraft
| cause sonic booms but thought that they occur high enough
| to not cause the same problems on the ground.
| Covzire wrote:
| Mini-factories in space could become a thing, supposedly
| a lot of industrial processes are only difficult because
| of friction and gravity.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Asteroid mining I think is one of the most interesting
| initial space industries. Something silly like a single
| asteroid having metals with current valuations of a
| million times the global GDP. Obviously you can't sell
| for that much but asteroid mining could make a lot of
| commodities become insanely cheap, and that would enable
| some pretty amazing things here at home, and in space.
|
| Like what if steel were cheaper than plastic? If there
| was enough of it around to build a bridge between New
| York and London? If you could build a ship the size of
| Manhattan and then a city on top of it to roam the
| oceans? If you could build entire cities in orbit or
| city-ships that slowly wandered the solar system.
| mjevans wrote:
| Yes, send up the robot miners. Plow the results onto the
| moon a safe but close distance to a base. Manufacture
| parts in lower G and far easier vacuum (it's super useful
| for MANY industrial things). Possibly even use solar
| collector ovens to melt/cook.
|
| Returning bulk products to earth might not be viable in
| the short term, but this could really bootstrap what we
| do off planet and I'm hopeful it might eventually make
| space elevators viable which would open a lot of options.
| floxy wrote:
| The biggest coup d'etat was training an entire generation
| of children to be virtual mining operators.
| TMWNN wrote:
| >Asteroid mining I think is one of the most interesting
| initial space industries.
|
| I hope to see in my lifetime a large asteroid brought to
| Earth orbit, for both mining and as a very large space
| station.
| pfdietz wrote:
| > ending stuff to space for a few dollars per pound
|
| That's about what it costs to fly freight across an
| ocean.
| thereisnospork wrote:
| That begs an interesting comparison in fuel usage (kJ or
| $ basis): supplying dV for one pound to orbit vs. the
| energy required to perform the work needed to overcome
| ~8,000 miles of marginal drag from +1lb of cargo on a
| ship.
|
| Fuel usage being the limiter of terminal economics once
| launch systems are commodified to the degree ships are.
| euroderf wrote:
| For that price I'd send up a partially-eaten block of
| cheese, just because I can.
| newzisforsukas wrote:
| > When you can start sending stuff to space for a few
| dollars per pound, we're not talking about just probes,
| but rather opening the door to the complete
| commercialization and exploitation of space.
|
| It almost sounds too good to be true or something.
| jibe wrote:
| It's not uncommon to see much bigger improvements in cost
| than what SpaceX is targeting. E.g., solar.
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices
| TMWNN wrote:
| >Atlas 5 is already completely obsoleted by the Falcon
| Heavy which costs about half as much, for a reusable
| launch, and carries about 3x as much.
|
| Which is why the rocket has been discontinued.
|
| This is also why Boeing Starliner is dead man walking.
| Starliner is _only_ certified for Atlas 5, and there are
| enough spare boosters for the launches NASA contracted
| with Boeing for, no more. The consensus is that Boeing
| will fulfill the contract then that 'll be the end of
| Starliner, which is great for Boeing in the sense that
| it'll finally close that money-leaking wound, but not
| great for NASA because the whole point of Starliner +
| Crew Dragon was to have two separate US-owned ways to
| send people into space.[1] Even if Starship passes every
| test going forward ahead of schedule and gets man-rated,
| NASA would prefer to not have one company provide both
| methods, but I don't know what would be a better
| alternative. Sierra finally gets that big contract to
| man-rate Dream Chaser? Blue Origin?
|
| [1] Setting aside how everyone at the time believed that
| Starliner would be the first one into orbit
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Expending the second stage would almost certainly be cheaper
| per kg than Falcon 9, but I doubt this is still true if you
| have to expend the booster.
|
| Keep in mind we would have to compare it to the ~20M marginal
| cost of a F9 launch, not the $70M sticker price that a
| customer would pay.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| It might actually be cheaper even if the booster is
| expended.
|
| Falcon9 is estimated to cost about $30M/launch. $20M to
| build the upper stage, and $10M to launch. Starship is
| estimated to cost about $100M to build both the booster and
| the second stage. Add $10M to launch.
|
| So 17t/$30M vs 150t/$110M.
| looofooo0 wrote:
| 110m crazy, a380 was 4x
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| $110M is insane. Anything under $1B seems unfathomable.
| $25M for a 2MN full flow staged combustion engine seems
| cheap. SpaceX plans on building them for $250K a piece.
| They're not there yet, but current estimates of $1M a
| piece are just as insane.
| stoneman24 wrote:
| I suspect if test flight 3 makes orbit then flight 5 will be
| delivering starlink satellites and then testing on the way back
| down.
|
| If I remember correctly, a starship can deliver 440+ starlink
| satellites compared to around 60 for falcon 9.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Probably why they're hoping to get permission for 9 launches
| this year. Even if they throw away the entire stack, it
| probably costs less than the equivalent number of F9
| launches.
| mjevans wrote:
| I strongly suspect they'll achieve at least partial re-
| usability if not full by 9 launches. If not SpaceX will at
| least have a very clear understanding of the engineering
| problem by that point. I'm most worried about the final
| landing which I would not want to be anywhere close to
| until they've had a solid string of successes without any
| issues.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| I'm not sold on them achieving partial reusability in
| practice in 9 launches (assuming that the 9 launches
| happen mainly this year as they have requested). I think
| they'll have achieved it in theory (ie demonstrated a
| hover landing of the booster over water), but they've
| only just started to build out the second tower that'll
| be needed to actually test reusability without risking
| the entire launch infrastructure.
|
| Between the construction pauses during testing/launch,
| and things they can't really speed up like concrete
| hardening times, I don't think they'll be able to both
| have 9 flights AND operationalize the second tower this
| year.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| Current falcon 9 launches can lift 22-24 starlink v2 mini
| satellites
| Casteil wrote:
| Starlink V2 sats are bigger, so they definitely won't be
| sending 400+ up at a time with Starship - probably more like
| 100-200.. but I don't think they've had any official
| updates/figures on this in a while.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| They just confirmed that 24 V2 minis are 17.5 tons. So ~200
| v2 minis would be 150 tons. But v2's are probably bigger
| than v2 mini's...
| ianburrell wrote:
| The V2 are 1.25 ton according to Wikipedia. Which means
| 150 tons would be 100-120.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| With the Falcon 1 they also needed a several attempts before
| they started getting it right. The Falcon 9 went through a
| similar set of launches and also it took a while from
| successful launch to successful landing.
|
| The ambition level is really high with Starship but if there's
| any company that can get it done it's spacex.
|
| Basically what they are doing is a form of agile development
| where instead of speccing out the whole thing years in advance,
| they basically iterate and redesign what needs redesigning.
| Even if the project ultimately fails, there are multiple things
| coming out of the project that are at this point valuable. Like
| the merlin engines. Or their welding innovations. The notion of
| launching a steel contraption this size to orbit is ludicrous.
| Yet, they almost pulled it off last time. Worst case they have
| learned a lot to do a better falcon rocket. Best case, this
| thing actually starts working.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Even here on HN plenty of people seem to misunderstood the
| fundamentals of "hardware-rich development" and assume that
| it must be fantastically expensive and/or reckless.
|
| It is not exactly cheap to do it like SpaceX does, but the
| savings in time and increases in robustness may very well
| offset the cost of all the prototypes that undergo a RUD.
| evilduck wrote:
| Even SpaceX's methods of fail fast (and often explosively)
| is relatively cheap. SLS is doing it the hard and expensive
| way.
| bumby wrote:
| The downside is that rapid iteration doesn't always give
| the same insight in terms of scientific understanding.
|
| E.g.,
|
| Design_A fails. We quickly pivot to Design_B, which
| works. However, we don't spend the time ultimately
| understanding why Design_A failed. This can be
| operationally great, but it can also risk conflating
| being lucky with being good. If you don't fundamentally
| understand why the thing failed the first time, it's much
| harder to understand if those failure modes are fully
| mitigated.
|
| Personally, I think the ideal approach is to have SpaceX
| continue the rapid enginneering iterations, but give NASA
| (or some other entity) the resources to research the
| rest.
| hotstickyballs wrote:
| You can understand why design A failed. Just don't need
| design B to be blocked on that with agile because the
| last iteration was working.
| bumby wrote:
| Sure, you can if you dedicate the resources to
| understanding the failure. What I saw personally is that
| is not always the case with SpaceX. In my experience,
| they changed a design and seemingly used that as an
| excuse to not further investigate the original design.
| (This was related to COPV failures. The general consensus
| seemed to be "we don't need to understand why it failed
| because we've moved on to a different design.")
| Teever wrote:
| What's stopping them from choosing to revise design A
| over chosing design B?
| bumby wrote:
| Nothing, other than it may just be easier to change the
| design to avoid the effort of a deeper investigation.
| gibolt wrote:
| The focus on making lots of prototypes reduces cost. They
| streamline the largest and most expensive manufacturing
| bottlenecks.
|
| Each Starship has 30+ engines required per flight and tons
| of precision welding. All of it can now be made in a month.
| That means massive cost savings going forward, the faster
| each can be made
| jwells89 wrote:
| It's so exciting to keep track of. Feels like everything I
| hoped to see happening in spaceflight back in the 90s and 00s
| is finally (maybe) becoming reality and absolutely shattering
| the stagnancy that had overcome the field, hopefully this time
| for good.
|
| If this pace can continue unabated, maybe it's not too
| unrealistic to hope that my grandkids' generation in a few
| decades has astronaut as one of their most aspired careers much
| as was the case for the kids of the 70s, 80s, and 90s... except
| this time it'd be much more practically achievable since
| there'd be greatly increased demand for people with that
| skillset.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I am not sure if there is enough profitable space industry.
|
| Last I checked asteroid mining was not super feasible, but
| maybe some like space based solar.
| jwells89 wrote:
| In my mind the potential for profitable industry beyond
| earth orbit depends almost entirely on how low we can
| manage to bring cost of kg to orbit.
|
| It doesn't have to be cheap enough to make e.g. asteroid
| mining profitable on its own (which is an awfully high
| bar), just high enough to make construction of large,
| permanently spacebourne ships feasible.
|
| Ships like that ease the bootstrapping problem and make it
| more feasible to mine asteroids in-place instead of having
| to move them to an orbit that's not expensive to reach.
| Their flexible, multipurpose nature also helps pay for them
| over time; they can for example drop crew and cargo off at
| the moon and Mars en route to the asteroid belt.
| Animats wrote:
| The asteroid Psyche is expected to have a lot of gold
| content. NASA sent a probe last year, but it's a long trip
| and will take until 2029 to get there. Even then it just
| orbits.
| tromp wrote:
| > "The most likely root cause for the booster RUD (rapid
| unscheduled disassembly) was determined to be filter blockage
| where liquid oxygen is supplied to the engines, leading to a loss
| of inlet pressure in engine oxidizer turbopumps that eventually
| resulted in one engine failing in a way that resulted in loss of
| the vehicle," the company stated. "SpaceX has since implemented
| hardware changes inside future booster oxidizer tanks to improve
| propellant filtration capabilities and refined operations to
| increase reliability."
| rbanffy wrote:
| I wonder the kind of sensor package they fly to be able to get
| to this conclusion. I have a real passion for monitoring things
| (for me, mostly web apps and data/message flows) and this is a
| really interesting case.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Seems to be as simple as a bunch of pressure sensors, in this
| case.
| rbanffy wrote:
| True, but add telemetry, and all other sensors who have
| shown nominal performance throughout the flight and that
| gave them the information they needed with the time
| resolution required to see an highly energetic cascading
| failure from one engine to the others.
|
| It's a very interesting space (no pun intended).
| mrgaro wrote:
| SpaceX is at least known to have some kind of high
| resolution/precision microphones around the structure
| recording constantly so that they are able to do 3D
| triangulation inside the vehicle.
| teeray wrote:
| Interesting, so they monitor the vehicle like it's an
| earthquake
| mezeek wrote:
| yes, it's also what helped them solve CRS-7
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Why do those rockets have a fuel filter at all? I get why we
| have them in cars; we refuel quite often, in dirty environments
| and with possibly low quality fuel. For space rockets, it seems
| that it would be (comparatively) easy to ensure that the tanks
| are clean and the fuel is of high quality.
|
| On the other hand, if there wasn't any dirt, the filters would
| not have clogged, so I guess it does make sense after all.
| guhidalg wrote:
| Don't forget about all the equipment needed to fill the tanks
| and transport the fuel to the tanks. Probably easier to
| assume contamination gets introduced somewhere and just slap
| an in-line filter.
| foxyv wrote:
| Imagine if the engine failed from FOD. The reaction would
| be "Why don't they use filters on their fuel pumps?"
| Whenever you make an engineering decision there are trade
| offs like this.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Most rockets don't have fuel filters, but this requires their
| tanks to be kept in a much more strict state of cleanliness,
| and any failure to do so would result in mission failures.
|
| SpaceX has long had a very different idea about FOD than most
| other rocket companies, famously Merlin engine qualification
| testing contains ingesting stainless steel nuts.
| cduzz wrote:
| That's bonkers.
|
| What size nuts do they pass through their engine? Every
| engine before it goes to space has to have a nut passed
| through the system? Like a 12mm "go into space" grade nut
| or a little itty bitty nut like I might find holding down a
| heat sink assembly in a 1998 vintage motherboard?
|
| I'm off to the googles to find videos...
| HPsquared wrote:
| Probably more "qualification of the design", like those
| bird ingestion tests they do on airliner engines. And the
| test probably doesn't look too interesting, the nut might
| not even come out the other end.
| toss1 wrote:
| Let us know what you find. I find it not 'bonkers' but a
| great idea, and hope they are qualifying with the largest
| nuts found upstream, in 'go to space' grades.
|
| Robustness and anti-fragility may not be so critical for
| an expendable vehicle that operates once for something
| like 12 minutes, but seems a key attribute for a refuel-
| able and reusable spacecraft?
| cduzz wrote:
| Oh I agree it's not bonkers from the perspective of "wait
| you want to put people on that bomb and then explode it?"
|
| You can make all sorts of rules about what's not allowed
| to happen, but often those things happen.
|
| I'm just ... astonished if they've got a little practice
| room somewhere in their factory where they give each of
| their new rockets a nut to process... "Okay kid here's
| your graduation test!". A "we need screens to cope with
| big things and filters to deal with small things" is
| probably smart for any anything that's going to be
| reused.
|
| A nut's probably in some ways easier to deal with than a
| blob of wd40 (in your lox tank).
| infogulch wrote:
| Rockets: "Hey what if we strap people to a giant bomb and
| explode it juuust slowly enough that they're launched
| into space alive?"
| avmich wrote:
| Steam engines: "No problems, we're doing that already for
| centuries, just with less speed and mostly horizontally."
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "anti-fragility" is probably not a design goal for
| Merlins and Falcon.
|
| Anti-fragility means more than robustness, it means that
| the system is getting _stronger_ with each adverse event,
| and it is not a realistic goal that ingestion of a nut
| should make the engine better /stronger etc.
|
| It is all "just" about robustness, resilience.
| toss1 wrote:
| Of course, not for individual rockets on individual
| flights (but self-repairing would be way cool!).
|
| But Anti-Fragility as you define it definitely _should_
| be a goal for their overall organization and system of
| building and operating the fleet.
|
| Each issue or incident should feedback into the
| engineering of new units and updating of existing units
| so that they are improved, stronger, less likely to
| create issues, more able to handle issues, etc. on each
| iteration. This actually seems to be the case at SpaceX,
| including this incident.
|
| Or, am I missing something?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Oh yes, that is an excellent observation. The components
| themselves cannot be antifragile, but the development
| process certainly can.
|
| Thinking about that, an important feature of that
| antifragility is not to risk human lives during the
| process if that risk can be avoided. Even though space
| exploration is inherently risky, any actual fatality is a
| huge setback.
| rob74 wrote:
| Actually I'd rather have such "bonkers" tests than the
| other extreme, like NASA not thinking about what could
| happen if pieces of foam from the external fuel tank
| impacted the Space Shuttle on launch until it was too
| late (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbi
| a_disaste...).
| ortusdux wrote:
| Or not thinking that an O-ring might experience
| temperatures below freezing in Florida
| https://priceonomics.com/the-space-shuttle-challenger-
| explos...
| lupusreal wrote:
| The really shitty thing is they knew early on the O-rings
| were slipping and partially extruding themselves, which
| wasn't part of the original design. They shrugged and
| ignored this, which then opened the door for disaster
| when the O-rings behaved differently (and still wrong)
| when cold. If they had pumped the brakes when the initial
| deviation from the design was discovered, it wouldn't
| have ended in disaster.
| bbarnett wrote:
| My memory saya that some engineers objected, but they
| were ignored.
| ortusdux wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boisjoly#O-ring_safet
| y_c...
|
| _" Boisjoly wrote a memo in July 1985 to his superiors
| concerning the faulty design of the solid rocket boosters
| that, if left unaddressed, could lead to a catastrophic
| event during launch of a Space Shuttle. Such a
| catastrophic event occurred six months later resulting in
| the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster."_
| nordsieck wrote:
| The sad part about this issue is that this was an ongoing
| problem. NASA 100% knew about; they just ... didn't
| address it.
|
| Here's an account of just one such incident:
|
| https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts119/090327sts27/
| avmich wrote:
| The tradition of passing nuts comes at least from the
| history of developing engines for Soviet Moon launcher,
| N-1. The engines used on all four launches, NK-15, were
| notoriously unreliable, and the suspicion was that their
| turbopumps, having quite tight clearances, sometimes had
| rotors touching walls during work. In oxygen-rich
| environment that led to engine fire. The engine which
| fixed those problems, NK-33, was working much better, and
| to demonstrate that it's robust for the problems like
| turbine misalignment, some metal parts, like nuts, were
| intentionally dropped into the propellant flow.
| elteto wrote:
| I can guarantee you that "ingesting a nut" through the
| engine is not part of the official engine qual program.
| Maybe it happened once and somehow the engine survived and
| they were able to ascertain what had happened. But this is
| not a common thing.
|
| Edit: I will say that what actually is a test commonly done
| (also in industry in general) is doing a "roll test". They
| put the stages on these massive rollers and slowly turn
| them... listening for any "clinks". Pretty funny seeing it
| done.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/is-
| spacex-...
|
| > Part of the Merlin's qualification testing involves
| feeding a stainless steel nut into the fuel and oxidizer
| lines while the engine is running--a test that would
| destroy most engines but leaves the Merlin running
| basically unhindered.
|
| They're not running it _through_ the engine, they 're
| verifying that the filter is installed and functional so
| it doesn't get _to_ the engine.
| elteto wrote:
| 2012 article so it predates my time by quite a bit. Not a
| thing anymore though.
| inemesitaffia wrote:
| Things change.
|
| Maybe it's more of a type certification/ crash test
| thing. Test one to failure and assume it works
| justinclift wrote:
| Wonder how many of the nuts it took to fill up that filter?
| ;)
| RecycledEle wrote:
| Those are big tanks.
| chasd00 wrote:
| yeah and even if starship tanks are perfectly clean you
| would also have to assume the tanks on the trucks
| delivering the fuel/oxi are also perfectly clean. As well
| as storage tanks, plumbing, and everything else.
| codesnik wrote:
| wow. Where I can read about those steel nuts? I wasn't able
| to google anything on the matter.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| I was wondering about this as well. Maybe the filter isn't
| for dirt, but ice? (Water or solidified methane.)
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Also meaningful to consider that as a vehicle meant to be
| reusable, it's going to be pretty much impossible to keep the
| tanks pristine over time unless they add a cleaning process
| that would be expensive and time consuming to every
| refurbishment (which runs counter to Starship's goal of rapid
| reusability). Relative to all other rockets, SpaceX's are
| refueled pretty often.
|
| Better to just design with filters.
| foobarian wrote:
| In my mind a rocket engine would be much more tolerant of
| debris since you just pipe the fuel into a giant fireball
| (yes I can practically see the eyes rolling, sorry! :-). For
| ICEs I can understand clogging tiny injectors or carbs would
| be a problem, do rocket engines also have injectors or other
| narrow parts susceptible to clogs?
| bilsbie wrote:
| The problem is that that fuel gets routed through a thin
| tube around the engine bell and then goes through a turbo
| pump before going into the engine. Both of those would have
| tight tolerances.
| CarVac wrote:
| Yes, rocket engines have many small orifices to atomize and
| mix the propellant.
|
| It's like a showerhead, except if the fuel side clogs, the
| oxidizer might eat your chamber wall.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| > if the fuel side clogs, the oxidizer might eat your
| chamber wall
|
| Ah, good old 'engine rich combustion'
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I still remember the exhaust plume of one of the
| experimental Starships turning green. "Whoa, it is eating
| itself!" And verily it was.
| chasd00 wrote:
| yeah copper burns green and is commonly used in liners
| and other components. If it starts to burn, which it's
| not suppose to, you see green. You'll see a green flash
| when the merlin engines startup but that's because of the
| hypergolic fluids used to get the pumps running and
| ignition started, not copper burning. During Falcon night
| launches you can really see the green glow of the starter
| fluid on ignition.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| > do rocket engines also have injectors
|
| Yes[1]. You want the fuel and oxidizer mixed as well as
| possible to achieve efficient combustion.
|
| There are also other small channels fuel has to flow
| through, like the ones used for regenerative cooling[2].
|
| And not sure how well most turbopumps[3] would tolerate
| debris either, though that probably depends on the exact
| design.
|
| There are _some_ really simple rocket designs out there
| that I could imagine tolerating debris (like solid
| motors[4] or pressure fed hyperbolic engines[5]) but Raptor
| definitely doesn 't fall into those categories.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-
| propellant_rocket#Injec...
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_cooling_(ro
| cketry...
|
| [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbopump
|
| [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket
|
| [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant#Ch
| aracte...
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I posted upthread, but another concern is that stray
| particulate is an ignition source. Rocket fuel pumps are
| ~100,000 hp, and that energy is put into kinetic energy
| of the fluid flow. A stray particulate can cause the
| metal pump and fuel lines to burn in the presence of O2
| at 300 atmospheres.
| foobarian wrote:
| > Rocket fuel pumps are ~100,000 hp
|
| That is wild. I need to learn more about rocket fuel
| pumps :-) Thank you all for these comments.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| They also arent as big as you might think. Much of the
| engine size you see in pictures is the Nozzle
|
| https://www.teslarati.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2018/08/Block-5...
| db48x wrote:
| Yes, they do. All of the fuel and oxidizer goes through
| injectors to atomize it as it is sprayed into the
| combustion chamber. For a Merlin 1D, that's about 340
| pounds of propellant going through the injector plate every
| second.
|
| Rocket Fuel Injectors - Things Kerbal Space Program Doesn't
| Teach https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa4ATJGRqA0
| chasd00 wrote:
| The thing is the energy density, flow rate/volume, and heat
| flux in a raptor is just so extreme. For example, there's
| two turbopumps operating at around 100k HP each in a volume
| not much bigger than the propane tank on your grill.. and
| those are basically just fuel pumps, not even where the
| real party is (pre-burners and combustion). Anything not
| going according to plan like a very small piece of debris
| in a filter causing turbulence or a change in flow rate is
| almost always catastrophic.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Rockets and cars have fuel filters for different reasons.
|
| You car has a fuel filter because dirt causes wear and tear
| on the engine over time.
|
| In a rocket, a stray particulate is a potentially explosive
| event. the Fuel pumps are approximately 100,000 horsepower
| and particles in flow can have enough kinetic energy to
| trigger combustion with the walls of the system the fuel is
| flowing through. Most metals will burn as fuel in a high
| oxygen environment, even at standard pressures, let alone
| pressures 100x higher.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > Why do those rockets have a fuel filter at all?
|
| 1. Launch vibration is real. There's a reason why the Merlin
| 1 engine has to survive a nut being fed into the fuel and
| oxidizer lines while running.[1]
|
| 2. My understanding with this particular issue is that SpaceX
| uses autogenous pressurization. It pressurizes the LOx tank
| with the output from the oxygen-rich preburner. Well, that
| output is _mostly_ oxygen, but it contains various
| hydrocarbons. Which, when combined with pure oxygen can form
| ice and dry ice.
|
| It's generally not good to feed solid CO2 and H2O into a high
| performance turbopump that's designed to accept liquid
| oxygen.
|
| ---
|
| 1. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/is-
| spacex-...
| RecycledEle wrote:
| Thos
| DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
| > On the other hand, if there wasn't any dirt, the filters
| would not have clogged, so I guess it does make sense after
| all.
|
| Things can freeze at cryogenic temperatures. Water ice, dry
| ice ... or other gases solidifying. There can also be FOD
| knocked loose by vibrations.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| Here is a theory https://youtu.be/ZIisBG3NV8Y?t=4445 that there
| was a methane leak which could have caused solid methane which
| could block filters.
| cubefox wrote:
| He abandones that theory in the pinned comment.
| bilsbie wrote:
| I heard there can be issues with ice.
| cubefox wrote:
| Question is: What blocked the filter? They probably have some
| idea, since they sound confident they know what needs to be
| changed.
| cubefox wrote:
| It's funny that SpaceX is using the term "rapid unscheduled
| disassembly" unironically, despite it originally being a
| humourous euphemism.
| baq wrote:
| HR over there are having a field day every time this happens
| with 'win and have fun' corporate speak.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| The phrase is not an HR invention
| me_me_me wrote:
| its PR invention
| lupusreal wrote:
| It was an old meme in rocketry, SpaceX didn't come up
| with it.
| wiz21c wrote:
| Why can't they just say "exploded" ?
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Exploded is a loaded term that has been ruined by media to
| make it so that people interpret even development testing as
| a failure.
|
| RUD conveys the same idea of the vehicle losing structural
| integrity, serves as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor for those
| who understand it, and limits the number of idiots screaming
| "look this project is obviously a scam" slightly.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| in 10 years RUD will mean exploded, that's how language
| works.
|
| retarded used to be a medical term to replace loaded terms
| such as imbecile. You can see how successful that was.
|
| It turns out, dressing up an idea does absolutely nothing
| since it's the idea that has the negative connotation. And
| why shouldn't "exploded" be viewed in a negative light?
| dotnet00 wrote:
| The difference is between viewing exploded as simply
| something going wrong and viewing it as an indication of
| general failure.
|
| A starship prototype exploding in a flight right now is
| completely different from a Falcon 9 exploding in a
| flight. With the former it's almost desirable by making
| points of improvement obvious, with the latter it's a
| potential capacity crisis for the US launch industry.
|
| Yet that's not really how most journalists will report
| it, and also isn't how most people who don't actively
| keep up with developments will interpret it.
|
| Also, as you say, retarded replaced imbecile, and since
| then retarded has also been replaced, same will happen
| with RUD. Not really a big deal since they'll just change
| their language usage too.
| djmips wrote:
| Downvotes for language?
| mrsilencedogood wrote:
| Same energy as sqlite using etilqs as their file extension
| for no reason other than to mildly amuse onlookers who
| "know" and to deter the uninitiated from sending them
| unearned complaints.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| Actually there is a reason for that, as described in this
| source code comment[0] ** 2006-10-31:
| The default prefix used to be "sqlite_". But then
| ** Mcafee started using SQLite in their anti-virus
| product and it ** started putting files with the
| "sqlite" name in the c:/temp folder. ** This
| annoyed many windows users. Those users would then do a
| ** Google search for "sqlite", find the telephone numbers
| of the ** developers and call to wake them up at
| night and complain. ** For this reason, the
| default name prefix is changed to be "sqlite" **
| spelled backwards. So the temp files are still
| identified, but ** anybody smart enough to figure
| out the code is also likely smart ** enough to
| know that calling the developer will not help get rid
| ** of the file.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite/blob/18cf47156abe9
| 4255ae14...
| 7952 wrote:
| Also, rockets can fail without exploding. The tanks can
| just spill the fuel.
| tekla wrote:
| Explode actually has a definition.
| justrealist wrote:
| RUD very often means an anomaly triggered a self-destruct.
| Saying it "exploded" implies the explosion was not
| automatically triggered.
| cubefox wrote:
| I don't think RUD suggests self-destruction. It even
| suggests the opposite, because having a self-destruction
| system involved means the explosion wasn't entirely
| "unscheduled". Indeed, SpaceX describes the lower stage
| explosion, which wasn't caused by the flight termination
| system, as a "RUD", but not the upper stage explosion,
| which _was_ caused by the flight termination system.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Sometimes the thing just breaks into pieces.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Sometimes euphemisms are fun.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why can 't they just say "exploded" ?_
|
| The rocket exploded because it was instructed to explode. In
| fact, one of the problems was that it _didn't_ explode on
| time: the flight-termination system did _not_ destroy the
| vehicle immediately.
|
| Many rocket failures, especially those are high altitude, do
| not explode in a classical sense. The correct term would be
| that they failed; RUD seems more fun.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| That is a common phrase in rocketry
| PepperdineG wrote:
| It's like the Arboghast encountering the protomolecule
| mbostleman wrote:
| What about the term "Cato", is that still used? I think its
| meaning is limited to take off.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| After NASA decided to use lithobraking as a perfectly valid
| landing procedure, I decided nothing from rocket engineering
| would surprise me anymore.
| eagerpace wrote:
| It's nice to see that they don't use it, just to use it. For
| example, in describing what happened with the Ship, they didn't
| use it because it terminated autonomously as intended by the
| software.
| wilg wrote:
| I think they are using it ironically still.
| Culonavirus wrote:
| Of course. Other space companies would just say something
| about "an anomaly" and that would be it. "RUD" is just a
| rocketry inside joke. It is not - and it never was - anything
| else.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Because the lawyers are not yet involved. If SpaceX blows up
| over a major city, these terms will be banned.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Ok? Damn what a negative take.
| wmf wrote:
| Rockets don't pass over cities for that reason.
| bradley13 wrote:
| I haven't watched launches since the space shuttle days. I have
| watched both of the Starship launches, and will watch all of them
| that I can.
|
| Excitement about space is back with a vengeance!
| DinaCoder99 wrote:
| > Excitement about space
|
| What does this even mean if we can't scrape together funding
| for NASA
| inglor_cz wrote:
| It means that the field has grown a lot, and is now more
| diverse than ever.
|
| NASA is great in some tasks (interplanetary probes etc.), but
| not so great in others (getting people into orbit). That is
| quite normal in every quickly developing field:
| specialization.
|
| As an analogy, Microsoft is quite good at Windows on desktop,
| but failed miserably with Windows Mobile, and other players
| are dominating that field.
| Xirgil wrote:
| It means that private industry is doing a better job of
| allocating funding and meeting demand.
| user_7832 wrote:
| I think NASA also has higher public/pr standards they're
| held to. A few spacex failures no one cares much about. If
| nasa fails a few times everyone (particularly more
| conservative leaning folk) starts complaining about their
| precious taxpayer money. Hence NASA likely sticks to
| project that are very low risk. I'm not saying this is good
| or bad per se, but public opinion is what it is.
|
| It's also a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't
| with nasa - play safe and people complain they're not doing
| much, why are they funded. Play more risky and inevitably
| end up with a failure, get questioned why they're wasting
| money. I don't think I've seen much criticisms of when
| SpaceX or blue origin win govt grants for funding.
|
| Again, this isn't to say that enterprises don't deserve
| govt support if they're truly helping (lobby concerns
| aside). But it's a multifaceted issue.
| thegrim22 wrote:
| There's also a political angle since NASA represents the
| US. If anything goes wrong with a NASA project it's a
| massive propaganda opportunity for agitators and rival
| countries to mass spam the internet about how horrible
| America has become, what a laughing stock, etc., etc.,
| doing everything they can to push their anti-US
| propaganda as hard as they can. There's more
| repercussions for NASA to fail at something than a
| private company.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| This is an interesting angle that I haven't thought of.
|
| NASA projects carry a lot more gravitas than "move fast
| and break things" Musk projects. If something explodes at
| SpaceX, as long as people aren't hurt, no one really
| cares. People who dislike Musk will simply point at the
| debris and say: "We told you he's an idiot" and people
| who like him will rush to his defense, but the standing
| of the US as a whole isn't on the line.
| Xirgil wrote:
| SpaceX absolutely gets a lot of criticism. There's people
| shouting to nationalize it for crying out loud.
| alemanek wrote:
| I think it is more that SpaceX has a fail fast
| engineering culture and was clear about that from the
| start. I mean they made a blooper real "How not to land
| an orbital rocket booster".
|
| Also SpaceX's launch stream production quality and PR has
| been surprisingly good from the start as well.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| The Obama administration opened the doors for private
| companies to do what they're doing now. NASA is moving more
| to the roles of regulator, purchaser of services, and deep
| space science. Seems to be a better path now than the one we
| were on before opening spaceflight to commercial entities.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Who says NASA isn't getting funding? They're getting billions
| of dollars for Artemis. If your complaint is that NASA is
| contracting out to companies... they always have.
| robertoandred wrote:
| Didn't SpaceX stop streaming their launches?
| inemesitaffia wrote:
| It's on Twitter and NASAspace flight on YouTube.
|
| You might even be able to get a periscope link
| rozab wrote:
| Their own streams are now only on Twitter, but 3rd parties
| like NasaSpaceFlight run their own streams, usually with
| worse visuals but better commentary
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Everyday astronaut is, last I checked, the only one on
| YouTube streaming starship launches in 4k. And in my
| experience there's less commentary, just the SpaceX audio.
| sebazzz wrote:
| The Launch Pad on YouTube proxies most streams verbatim, so
| it is a good alternative.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| Yeah I disagree on NasaSpaceFlight being "better
| commentary"...
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I wouldn't notice. I stop watching them, because _they got
| boring_.
|
| Let me say that again: space launches _got boring_. I hoped,
| but never believed, I 'll live long enough to see this
| happen.
| foobarian wrote:
| Not only that, but freaking _first stage landings_ got
| routine. Not quite boring yet - I still tear up any time I
| see one :-)
| gibolt wrote:
| Watched up until #30, but it gets old watching the exact
| same thing that many times.
|
| Exactly what you want for a reliable space vehicle.
| baq wrote:
| Yeah they won when insurance on used rockets became less
| than on new ones. If you said that in public a decade or
| so ago, you'd be laughed at all the way to the psych
| ward.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Oh yes. I don't bother watching them anymore. Initially,
| I was excited about the possibility of successful
| landing, after a while, I was secretly waiting for RUDs,
| but past the first Falcon Heavy launch with a pair of
| boosters landing safely at the same time, I started to
| feel they've _solved automated powered landing_ and didn
| 't tune in again until Starship trials.
|
| Funny thing though: I occasionally see some old (like,
| 1970s old) book or comic cover with a rocket ship landed
| vertically, or most recently, such drawings in my
| daughters' books; I used to laugh at them being nonsense,
| but after first few successful booster landings, I'm no
| longer laughing. I'm ashamed to admit that our
| forefathers got that thing _right_ , and Star Trek et al.
| got it wrong.
|
| Also, one of the books my little daughter has a picture
| of Falcon 9 next to the usual lineup of Vostok-K / Saturn
| V / Space Shuttle lineup. I shed a few tears when I saw
| this - for the first time it _really hit me_ that there
| was meaningful progress in space exploration that
| happened within my adult lifetime, a fundamental shift I
| got to see and follow closely as it developed, and which
| my kids will see as "just how the world is". Sure, same
| is true about the Internet and smartphones, but neither
| made me _feel_ the generational perspective gap, the way
| SpaceX rocket landings (and subsequent uptick in space
| missions) did.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| The Starship test flights are _very much_ not boring yet.
| Those are worth tuning into.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > Excitement about space
|
| Genuinely, or just because the marketing for it is that good?
| blendergeek wrote:
| Starship is the most powerful rocket in history and should be
| the first ever orbital launch system that is fully reusable.
| I don't know what you consider to be "genuinely" exciting,
| but I would consider entirely new generations of rocket
| launch tech to be genuinely exciting.
| gibolt wrote:
| Starship is expected to be 3x as powerful as the Saturn 5,
| once 'complete'.
|
| The size+weight+frequency of payloads this enables will
| drastically alter the industry and how we interact with
| space.
|
| Edit: Image for scale of other rockets:
| https://www.visualcapitalist.com/comparing-the-size-of-
| the-w...
| ordu wrote:
| What the difference? Do you think people pretend to be
| interested in a product when marketing is good?
|
| I think they become genuinely interested. People pretend when
| there are some benefits from pretending, social or monetary
| or whatever.
|
| I can say for myself that my excitement about space is
| genuine, but I cannot say is it a result of the marketing.
| When two Falcon 9 boosters land side by side with a sub-
| second interval is it marketing or engineering excellence? I
| do not care, I like that moment, it seemed unreal at the
| time, it changed my perception of what is real and what is
| not. In other words it changed my perception of reality. It
| is a big deal, and I cannot care less if it is a marketing.
| neverrroot wrote:
| Elon bringing excitement to the human race.
|
| His way of pushing through is something that gives me hope in
| the capabilities of humanity.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| Every time Elon says or does something cringey nowadays, I
| just keep repeating the same mantra to myself: "There's no
| way he can fuck up SpaceX with his antics now, it's too far
| advanced for his ego to ruin it all and plunge us back into
| another space exploration winter, stay calm".
| baq wrote:
| I'd love to be a fly on the wall in meetings with both
| Gwynne and Elon in the room, no matter which way they're
| going.
| qiine wrote:
| Considering how strategic SpaceX has become I wonder
| sometimes if the us gouv would just intervene if Elon did
| anything funny with it.
| neverrroot wrote:
| We should maybe remember that he is still in his full
| mental capacity and keeps improving things from the
| drivers seat. Look at what he's done after the first
| launch.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > Look at what he's done after the first launch.
|
| Blew up the second launch?
| neverrroot wrote:
| That is correct, but there is much more success than
| failure if you look into it unbiased, they delivered all
| commit tasks and then some stretch ones too.
|
| Based on your response I won't go any deeper, it would be
| time wasting, you appear to have made up your mind
| already.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| How many launches did SLS need?
| neverrroot wrote:
| How many successful launches do they have in total? How
| many did they have 5 years ago?
|
| Elon delivered when nobody did, now it's quite a bit
| easier.
| runeofdoom wrote:
| One in over a decade, for $23 billion.
|
| (And it's arguablely a failure, as the Senate is still
| earthbound, and likely to remain so for the forseeable
| future.;))
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| >remember that he is still in his full mental capacity
|
| I have serious doubts.
| sneak wrote:
| They have, if by "funny" you mean "trying to avoid being
| sucked into the US's empire building and perpetual
| foreign wars":
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/24/house-china-committee-
| elon-m...
|
| They also overrode his decision to try to stay out of the
| Russian-Ukrainian war, and SpaceX satellites are now
| being used to conduct mass murder operations there, too.
|
| https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/09/10/europe/ukraine-
| starlink-n...
|
| It was widely reported that he ordered it "turned off" in
| Crimea, but it wasn't active there to begin with. It
| seems he was trying to stay out of it entirely.
|
| His regulatory overlords did not permit that.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| > being used to conduct mass murder operations there,
| too.
|
| That's what we nowadays call helping a democratic nation
| defend its citizens from a fascist invasion and literal
| massacres of civilians, huh.
| sneak wrote:
| If it weren't for his extremism, none of this would be
| happening.
|
| Maybe stop looking for reasons to hate on him simply
| because it's popular to do so? His works speak for
| themselves.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| I don't hate him, I simply find his views on most (?)
| topics reprehensible, naive and/or delusional. I think
| he's doing great harm to his businesses by oversharing
| them. I particularly despise his pathetic bothsidesing of
| the war in which fascists are invading and murdering my
| relatives in my country of birth.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Every time Elon says or does something
|
| I remind myself that the real genius at the head of SpaceX
| is Gwynne, and hope that Elon continues to let her be
| awesome.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| You have said the actual truth
| ein0p wrote:
| His "antics" is why SpaceX became possible in the first
| place. If he cared what others think he wouldn't have
| started it, and wouldn't be who he is.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Hear hear! Without Elon, inter alia, pointing out the
| Democrat plan with Jewish support to take over the US
| political system via illegal immigrant votes replacing
| good honest Americans, SpaceX wouldn't have happened. Put
| an extra set of quotes around "antics", it's time to
| shame these short-sighted people.
|
| ~ Jonathan Swift, demonstrating Horatian satire,
| characterized by its attempt to raise questions with
| gentle humor rather than attacking -- that is
| characteristic of the Juvelian school of satire
| ein0p wrote:
| What Elon is pointing out, in his own, unconventional
| way, is that this is not a game, and bringing in 30
| million low skilled minimum wage earners (3+M in 2023
| alone) of unknowable backgrounds is not conducive to
| national security or solvency. But your politics make you
| blind to that fact. Maybe the problem isn't Elon in this
| case, wdyt?
| refulgentis wrote:
| Horatian satire is used to point out flaws in
| argumentation, without making people feel attacked, the
| idea is to put a smile on their face.
|
| I see now the idea is it is _further evidence of Great
| Man theory to question Jewish involvement_ in this
| serious problem.
|
| So yes, not antics in your book.
|
| It makes me sad some subset of Congress decided this
| didn't need solving suddenly, for no apparent reason.
| croes wrote:
| Without NASA money SpaceX wouldn't exist anymore
| neverrroot wrote:
| They're number one in the world and keep successfully
| launching like it's just a game. They deliver.
| croes wrote:
| But deliver what exactly?
| neverrroot wrote:
| Results.
| croes wrote:
| But what is the benefit of these result?
|
| At the moment we put more debris into Earth's orbit, Star
| Link is nice but not a sustainable solution, same with
| many other satellites
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| In what way is it not sustainable?
| croes wrote:
| Without constant replacement it's gone pretty fast.
| ein0p wrote:
| Yes. But NASA money is available to others, too. Elon is
| not.
| croes wrote:
| Elon is busy tweeting cringy memes so it's not him doing
| the hard work.
| ein0p wrote:
| Do tell, who's doing the hard work, and why do they only
| succeed at anything "impossible" if Elon is there?
| croes wrote:
| The engineers who build the rockets, and they didn't
| succeed and anything impossible.
|
| Building landing rockets was thought to be too expensive
| not impossible.
|
| Why is Tesla's FSD still not working? Wasn't Musk around?
|
| The Spaceship is also nothing impossible, let's wait for
| his Mars colony.
| ein0p wrote:
| If it's all so possible, how come SpaceX has no viable
| competition? I get it, you don't like Elon, that's
| understandable, but let's please give adequate credit
| where credit is due. Pulling off just one of the things
| he did would be a monumental achievement for anyone. He's
| done what at this point, 3-4? Does that really mean
| nothing to you just because you don't like that he has
| the gall to use the First Amendment?
| neverrroot wrote:
| It's something that has increasingly bewildered me: why
| do we as people get so biased when we don't like someone?
| So biased that we can't see anything good in them
| anymore, and we can't recognize (sometimes any of) their
| accomplishments?
|
| Biden, Trump, Elon, etc., depending on what side you are,
| there's always someone to think of as an example.
| croes wrote:
| BTW Musk is the guy who thinks that if one man with a
| plough can't produce enough food in his field, we need
| more men with more ploughs instead of just one man with a
| tractor.
|
| Or how do you explain his desire for a growing
| population?
|
| The concept of increasing productivity seems to be
| foreign to him in this context.
| neverrroot wrote:
| Yes, I suspect you are right, productivity is something
| foreign to Elon Musk. Definitely.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Also, anything elon does is by definition not antics,
| because he made SpaceX.
| croes wrote:
| He founded it, that's not the same, that's like saying
| Sam Altman made ChatGPT.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Yes, satire.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Not sure we're referring to the same "antics". You cannot
| deny that Elon has changed as a person ever since he got
| hooked on Twitter. A lot of his personality and how he
| acts these days is very much focused on trying to get the
| most likes. Pre-Twitter "fame", it's true that he
| disregarded what others thought, but he also wasn't so
| focused on maximizing his likes either. Twitter was like
| heroine for him, and he now lives for the dopamine rush
| of going viral by pandering to lowest common denominator.
| He's far more focused on seeking attention.
| ein0p wrote:
| Maybe he didn't "change". Maybe you just see more of him
| now, and see how he actually is, foot in mouth and all.
| People who got very rich very early often lack the
| "filter" - they don't have to consider your opinion of
| them. In fact, considering it would probably be strongly
| counterproductive if they're ambitious. Popular opinion
| is akin to a lawn mower - stick your head out too far
| above others and you'll lose it. But that's for you and
| I, that logic doesn't really apply to centibillionaires.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > If he cared what others think he wouldn't have
|
| Bought twitter and assigned an entire team to work
| overtime and figure out why his follower count is
| dropping? And banned the 'Elon-jet' account? And called
| cave diver that rescued children a pedo after Elon's
| rescue - submarine failed?
| everyone wrote:
| Even if he does, I think SpaceX's success has spurred the
| creation of some competitors / imitators, perhaps with more
| sane CEOs.
|
| ..
|
| I love "Stokes Space" design for example...
| https://youtu.be/EY8nbSwjtEY?feature=shared
|
| I cant wait to see that progress.. Imo the upper stage /
| re-entry design so much more elegant and practical than
| Starship. It re-enters just like an Apollo capsule, not
| like the space shuttle or starship's weird bellyflop. Also
| it doesnt rely on ceramic tiles, which were a big problem
| with the space shuttle. Even forgetting about Columbia,
| maintaining and replacing the tiles after each mission was
| incredibly expensive and time consuming. Imo re-entry is
| the biggest hurdle to a re-usable upper stage and Stokes
| Space have based their design around nailing that issue
| first and foremost.
| kanbara wrote:
| funnily enough, elon himself gives me such great shame. he
| perpetuates an us vs them mentality with his personal
| beliefs, boosts racists, fascists, and antisemites, and uses
| his loudspeaker to attack minorities almost every day.
|
| he has put a lot of money and taken risks on interesting and
| useful ventures, but i don't think his vision for humanity
| outweighs the negativity and hatred; we can't go to mars if
| we all kill each other
| jakearmitage wrote:
| Do you have any examples of him attacking a minority?
| croes wrote:
| >pushing through It's basically still the same technology as
| the first rockets, just bigger.
|
| We have more and cheaper satellite launches, but we're not
| really any closer to colonising space.
|
| That's Musk's trick, selling revolution, delivering
| evolution.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Rovers and helicopters on Mars, leaving the solar system,
| close-ups of Pluto, asteroid material brought back to Earth,
| etc. etc. Those weren't exciting, but reaching orbit real cheap
| is?
| soperj wrote:
| I was excited about a number of those things, but the
| production values on some of them (leaving the solar system,
| helicopter on mars) was pretty bad.
| bagels wrote:
| Rocket euphemisms are so silly, "one engine failed energetically"
| andrewflnr wrote:
| That's why they're fun. I always got the impression they're
| making fun of the usual management euphemisms. No one is under
| any illusion about what an "energetic engine failure" or "rapid
| unscheduled disassembly" is.
| bagels wrote:
| Oh, I'm fully aware. It's a tradition.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Oh good. You never know on the Internet, though. I found
| out last time that some people think Musk was trying to
| pull something over on us with "RUD".
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| "Engine-rich exhaust" is another one that gets a chuckle.
|
| For those wondering, it refers to when a rocket engine is
| literally burning itself into oblivion--so the exhaust plume
| is compromised less of fuel particles and more of, well...
| engine :)
| ionwake wrote:
| This is hilariously brilliant thx for sharing.
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| Lithobraking is my favorite. It is the most cost-effective
| way of delivering a payload!
| darknavi wrote:
| They (SpaceX) also use RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly)
| which is fun.
| sneak wrote:
| Building these things is incredible amounts of time, money,
| and, most importantly, effort and labor.
|
| Doing something to keep spirits up when months of hard labor
| explodes in a few milliseconds is practically required.
|
| There are a lot of hands at very hard work here in the Texas
| heat. It's easy to abstract away whilst sitting in an Aeron
| with a text editor.
| teraflop wrote:
| I mean, it makes sense. Rocket engines are machines for
| controlling the release of enormous amounts of stored energy.
| So, many of the failure modes can be broadly categorized as
| either "not enough energy" or "too much energy in the wrong
| place".
| tekla wrote:
| Rocket engineers have a sense of humor
| everyone wrote:
| Question: Who is the actual brain at SpaceX?? They must have at
| least one mega-genius level engineer / project manager with a lot
| of authority to have progressed so far.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Elon
| coryfklein wrote:
| Metaculus shows a 74% chance Starship reaches orbit in 2024, and
| a projected date of March 26 for the next launch. That seems
| pretty bullish to me! Next year (2025) will probably see the
| beginnings of practical customer usage of Starship.
|
| [0]
| https://www.metaculus.com/questions/?status=open&has_group=f...
| bumby wrote:
| How does Metaculus make such predictions? I assume it can't be
| in the reliability engineering fashion used in industry.
| chpatrick wrote:
| Wisdom of the crowds.
| johnsimer wrote:
| but also skin in the game and supply/demand
|
| Should be much more accurate than a simple poll, because
| people with the belief that the odds are undervalued will
| put money in the game to hopefully profit off their belief
|
| It's more like the Efficient Market Hypothesis
| samatman wrote:
| There's no skin in the game with Metaculus, it's a
| prediction aggregator, not a prediction market. Nothing
| is at stake.
|
| This is why you see a somewhat absurd skew on AI
| doom/safety questions, using Metaculus is a hobby of the
| cult^H^H^H^H movement, and no one's swooping in to steal
| their money because there isn't any.
| bumby wrote:
| How well does this work when there is fundamentally little
| information? It works in stock trading because so much
| information is standardized and regulated. I am skeptical
| of it being as useful here simply because the crowds don't
| have much relevant information, as far as I know. For
| example, do the crowds know about the design redundancy?
| What about the supplier quality control? Or the reliability
| data on the check valves used? etc. etc.
| avmich wrote:
| Engineering, physical principles, I guess. Those who
| place bets or making predictions may know a thing or two
| on mechanics, rocket science and history of building
| launchers.
| bumby wrote:
| To put a finer point on it, those seem like rather blunt
| instruments for prediction compared to how risk is
| typically measured by aerospace reliability engineers.
| avmich wrote:
| I'm sure some aerospace professionals are wondering how
| it's possible to predict stock behavior on an exchange,
| but have no problem with educated predictions of launcher
| performance.
| gibolt wrote:
| They are aiming for 6 launches this year. That is a lot of
| chances to make it work.
|
| Even if there is a catastrophic failure that destroys the
| launch tower, they are building another and will still likely
| get 2-3 attempts.
| SergeAx wrote:
| So, next launch when?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-27 23:00 UTC)