An always cool Falcon 9 launch (and other Space News)

[CarlBar]

13 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

SLS hasn't blown up and is based on proven, reliable, NASA technology That has already flown past the moon in Artemis 1.  

 

Artemis 2 will be launching next year crewed.   I'll put money on Artemis II going off without a hitch before even one person flies a Star ship into LEO let alone to the Moon. 

 

And, thats relevant to the fact that NASA isn't going to meet it's own deadline how?

 

The fact that them transferring to the lunar starship for landing is somehow a mystery to you as to why also makes me question how much you actually know about NASA's plans for their moon return? This isn't just going to be a flag planting exercise. And whilst i'm sure they'll send more moon rock back to earth along the way, the main goal is to do the science on the lunar surface. Eventually leading into building a lunar base on the moons surface.

 

The problem is that requires a lander with more cargo carrying capacity, more ability to stay on the lunar surface for extended periods, and more instrumentation and other such items to do science from the lander. Getting all the capability in a single craft and having the capability for it to fly to and from the moon's surface all the way from and to a launchpad here on earth is beyond the capabilities of any rocket in service or being developed. The craft would have to be too big to fit all the fuel as well as all the internal capabilities for the moons surface.

 

Instead NASA are going to build a station in an orbit near the moon and have the lander sent there, (using the fuel it would normally use for a landing to achieve the necessary burns), then dock it at the station and send tankers to refill it. Then after it's been refilled they send the landing crew out on artemis and they transfer to the lander at the station for descent to the surface. When they come back up from the moon, the lander redocks with the station to be refuelled for the next landing and the crew returns to earth via Artemis.

 

The problem with all of that is that based on what i understand the plan to be for the first human landing attempt, they need to launch a minimum of 3 more flights, (Artemis 2, the Gateway station core, and the caretaker crew), before HLS can be sent out towards the moon. Then a bunch of stuff needs to happen out at the moon, (an unmanned landing is going to be made first to test the HLS), and assuming NASA doesn;t change out the caretaker crew they then need to launch the final landing crew.

 

This comes to a total of 4 flights before the end of 2026. Thats just not possibble for NASA to do, new SLS components are not being produced fast enough. And thats assuming the SLS can launch the gateway station core in just one flight. If it needs to be sent up in several pieces it could be more.

 

My take is that SLS probably can't do more than 1 flight a year and they'll leave the station unmanned between the HLS tests and the final landing. That puts the final landing date probably in early 2028 at best.

[manikyath]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

 

This comes to a total of 4 flights before the end of 2026. Thats just not possibble for NASA to do, new SLS components are not being produced fast enough. And thats assuming the SLS can launch the gateway station core in just one flight. If it needs to be sent up in several pieces it could be more.

lovely writeup on the plans, but i do have two details to add;

- 4 flights is a LOW estimate, because you arent counting all the fuel hauls needed for this.

- not only is the number of flights problematic for artemis, the cost of these flights is a huge issue, which afaik is why they want to rely on the MUCH cheaper starship for the "heavy lifting", while relying on their own stuff for moving humans around.

 

as for using starship as a lander, to be fair i do feel like "there must have been a better idea for this".. but landing a block of flats on the moon might be part of the marketing strategy of returning to the moon for all we know.

[HenrySalayne]

I think this video is a very good summary of all the problems with the new "moon programm".

 

[CarlBar]

3 hours ago, manikyath said:

as for using starship as a lander, to be fair i do feel like "there must have been a better idea for this".. but landing a block of flats on the moon might be part of the marketing strategy of returning to the moon for all we know.

 

The HLS is going to be pretty different to starship, using it is honestly a case of SaceX repurposing somthing they were already doing and paying to develop for NASA's benefit. It's why they were so much cheaper than everyone else. Large parts of the development cost are allready paid off in starship development.

 

Also i didn't mention the refueling flights because those are going to b SpaceX's responsibility via Starship, not NASA's via SLS. So it won't affect NASA's ability to meet it's own deadline, just SpaceX's.

[manikyath]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

The HLS is going to be pretty different to starship, using it is honestly a case of SaceX repurposing somthing they were already doing and paying to develop for NASA's benefit. It's why they were so much cheaper than everyone else. Large parts of the development cost are allready paid off in starship development.

as far as i've seen, HLS is essentially 'just' a purpose-made starship.

 

what i meant by "there must be better" is something that doesnt require an elevator to get in and out of... but i assume the engineers that figure out these plans have determined this is the best option.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

The HLS is going to be pretty different to starship, using it is honestly a case of SaceX repurposing somthing they were already doing and paying to develop for NASA's benefit. It's why they were so much cheaper than everyone else. Large parts of the development cost are allready paid off in starship development.

IF Space X's renderings of what HLS is going to be it's going to be a big @$$ starship landing vertically on the lunar surface. 

 

I very much hope they don't do that and go with something more like.... Making the manned portion of star ship just a Big Freaking Capsule.  Basically instead of a two stage system a three stage system.  Especially since to take off from the Moon or even Mars needs not nearly that much fuel. 

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Also i didn't mention the refueling flights because those are going to b SpaceX's responsibility via Starship, not NASA's via SLS. So it won't affect NASA's ability to meet it's own deadline, just SpaceX's.

Exactly.  NASA has met its milestones so far.  As much as funding would allow they have done what they needed to do.  Now building a second SLS could take longer or could be easier.  We'll see.  Seeing as it is based on things NASA and its partners have been doing for decades it should not be super hard to do it again. 

 

56 minutes ago, manikyath said:

as far as i've seen, HLS is essentially 'just' a purpose-made starship.

 

what i meant by "there must be better" is something that doesnt require an elevator to get in and out of... but i assume the engineers that figure out these plans have determined this is the best option.

I assume Elon musk says "I want a Big ffing rocket that can land on the Moon".  Then if they propose anything that is not his Big Fffing rocket landing on the Moon he fires them. 

I assume they proposed making the manned final stage of HLS a big freaking capsule or something.  That Elon vetoed that because he does not want that for aesthetic, marketing, and other personal reasons. Because he is known to do that. 

 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-engineer-fired-eric-frohnhoefer/

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk-ruthlessly-fired-anyone-who-disagreed-spacex-report-2021-8

 

 

[manikyath]

15 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I assume Elon musk says "I want a Big ffing rocket that can land on the Moon".  Then if they propose anything that is not his Big Fffing rocket landing on the Moon he fires them. 

here's the thing... in the end NASA chooses what landing module they go for, iirc there were 3 designs proposed, and NASA chose the starship lander out of the 3 options. landing a block of flats is ridiculous.. but i presume there's some detail about the block of flats that NASA liked if they went for it. i'm sure that if they didnt want the block of flats, they'd ask SpaceX to do exactly this;

18 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

something more like.... Making the manned portion of star ship just a Big Freaking Capsule.

 

 

and as for:

19 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Exactly.  NASA has met its milestones so far.  As much as funding would allow they have done what they needed to do.  Now building a second SLS could take longer or could be easier.  We'll see.  Seeing as it is based on things NASA and its partners have been doing for decades it should not be super hard to do it again. 

NASA has published estimated costs for building an SLS, again: the costs for the hardware itself. and the cost for a second SLS, ironically, isnt that much less than the contract NASA awarded to SpaceX for developing the lunar lander. there's a lot to dislike about how musk runs his businesses, but fact of the matter is that they're putting stuff in space for a budget that NASA cant even dream of.

 

also - saying NASA has met it's milestones.. is a matter of where you place the goalposts.. because you seem to have skipped over this detail, i'll say it again: the milestone for SLS was 2016 at some point. now.. they did finally manage to launch 6 years late, but if that is meeting milestones, we're at a stage where spaceX could still be testing raptor engines on starhopper.

 

you are constantly setting double standards in favor of NASA. no one here is coming to say starship better, we're trying to talk sense into your double standards that keep claiming SLS is some known quantity, while the known quantity of SLS has more delays than it has successful launches. ofcourse Starship's successful launches is still at zero, but they're also plenty ahead of the deadline set to have successful launches on the roster.

 

to put this into perspective - blue origin is apparently also working on a lunar lander, as part of the artemis program.. and so far all they have to show for their efforts is renders and business photo-ops in front of mock-ups. no one here is gonna say thay blue origin's lander is dead in the water because they're not actively carpet-bombing the moon in landers... they're just simply not yet at a stage where they are putting real-world units out in the wild.

(PS; the blue origin lander is also shockingly big.. not as insane as starship, but someone at NASA wants big rocket just the same, it seems...)

[HenrySalayne]

2 hours ago, manikyath said:

what i meant by "there must be better" is something that doesnt require an elevator to get in and out of... but i assume the engineers that figure out these plans have determined this is the best option.

This is actually not so simple. You don't want the crew compartment below the tanks in between the engines. It will also lead to an unfavourable load distribution.
Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, you could go with something much wider but not as tall. This would solve many problems like allowing for descent tanks dropped before ascent and it would sit much more stable on the surface. But good luck finding a fairing with enough room for such a contraption.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Exactly.  NASA has met its milestones so far.  As much as funding would allow they have done what they needed to do.  Now building a second SLS could take longer or could be easier.  We'll see.  Seeing as it is based on things NASA and its partners have been doing for decades it should not be super hard to do it again. 

The entire moon program and SLS is a big steaming pile, just like Starliner. The latter compared to Crew Dragon really shows how much more competitive SpaceX has been so far. If I recall correctly, any NASA contract has been successfully fulfilled by Space X - no borked orbits or losses of equipment and personnel - also with rather short delays. SLS has been extremely late to the party. The first launch was planned for 2016.

 

What NASA had to pay to get the already built and still functional RS-25 engines "reworked for flying" is a piece of impudence with no comparison. Not to mention the sticker price for the single use variant.

You can buy three Falcon 9 launches for the price of a single RS-25.

 

Not to mention that SLS is actually underpowered, which leads to some really weird and complex mission profiles.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, HenrySalayne said:

This is actually not so simple. You don't want the crew compartment below the tanks in between the engines. It will also lead to an unfavourable load distribution.
Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, you could go with something much wider but not as tall. This would solve many problems like allowing for descent tanks dropped before ascent and it would sit much more stable on the surface. But good luck finding a fairing with enough room for such a contraption.

yes, but starship is 50 meters tall, where the lowest possible place for crew ingress is about 2/3rd of the way up.

 

like i said - a 30 meter tall elevator seems overengineered, but i presume that the engineers that are desinging such an idea have determined it's simpler than designing a "lander stage" into starship's cargo space... or at least the PR of landing a block of flats on the moon is worth the R&D.

[HenrySalayne]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

like i said - a 30 meter tall elevator seems overengineered,

With 1/6th gravity, you can probably use piano wire for the cables.

It might turn out an elevator is the more comfortable and lighter solution compared to a "stairway to heaven" ladder with less moving parts than a folding ladder.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

This is actually not so simple. You don't want the crew compartment below the tanks in between the engines. It will also lead to an unfavourable load distribution.
Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, you could go with something much wider but not as tall. This would solve many problems like allowing for descent tanks dropped before ascent and it would sit much more stable on the surface. But good luck finding a fairing with enough room for such a contraption.

 

Simple answer.  Make the manned portion of Starship a large capsule that will maybe ride with the second stage (like the service module from Apollo).  IT can undock, land, then take back off for Earth.  Leaving the large hull of Starships second stage here could either make it "junk".  Or an item with with a lot of work could become the hull of a very large station in Lunar orbit at some point. 

There are so many things we could do better and safer for humans than what is proposed. 

[manikyath]

3 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

There are so many things we could do better and safer for humans than what is proposed. 

you should work at nasa then, and tell the people who decided that this is the best option, that they are fundamentally wrong. i'm sure they'd appreciate your insights and give you an instant promotion.

 

again - your opinions here directly go against the decisions made by hundreds of people with credentials probably much more relevant than your own. the fact they're going this way means that they felt like this is their best option.

 

also;

4 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Make the manned portion of Starship a large capsule that will maybe ride with the second stage (like the service module from Apollo).  IT can undock, land, then take back off for Earth. 

they will be returning on the orion module that stays in orbit around the moon. the only part where there will be humans on a 'starship class vehicle' (i'm not sure if they'll call HLS a starship) is when they are going from lunar orbit to the surface, during the surface mission, and the way back up.

 

i'm gonna wildly assume this is so the fuel required for lading and takeoff is separate from the fuel required to return from lunar orbit. if i'm not mistaken this is what apollo missions did too (?)

[Uttamattamakin]

6 hours ago, manikyath said:

you should work at nasa then, and tell the people who decided that this is the best option, that they are fundamentally wrong. i'm sure they'd appreciate your insights and give you an instant promotion.

 

again - your opinions here directly go against the decisions made by hundreds of people with credentials probably much more relevant than your own. the fact they're going this way means that they felt like this is their best option.

Not really.  A lot of what the government does, even NASA is not about what is most technically best, or least expensive.  It really is about politics. You know the reason there are parts of SLS made in as many states as possible.  In order to make sure that SLS has as many votes in congress as possible. 

Then the government partners with Elon and Space X on many things (both public and confidential, that's a known unknown) and this is a favor to him of sorts.   

He's to the current year US govt. what Howard Hughes was in the past.  

6 hours ago, manikyath said:

 

also;

they will be returning on the orion module that stays in orbit around the moon. the only part where there will be humans on a 'starship class vehicle' (i'm not sure if they'll call HLS a starship) is when they are going from lunar orbit to the surface, during the surface mission, and the way back up.

 

i'm gonna wildly assume this is so the fuel required for lading and takeoff is separate from the fuel required to return from lunar orbit. if i'm not mistaken this is what apollo missions did too (?)

IT is that HLS that should not be, as you said, an apartment block sized thing taking off and landing and needing some elevator to get up and down.   The less complicated we make this the better. 

This is also just a cool little video that a Falcon 9 captured.  

 

[CarlBar]

@Uttamattamakin Done some more digging, it seems i was slightly wrong on NASA's plans, their stated goal atm is to have the first HLS occur without the lunar gateway propper, (they'll still have the core, just nothing else), then do the lunar gateway modules on later missions. That saves them at least 2 launches. But they still need to build and launch 2 more SLS missions in the next 2 years. The first component of the Gateway will be launching on Falcon Heavy with the rest to follow on Artemis 4 and later. That said the way NASA have this scheduled any kind of slip is going to be a problem as it appears they need 2 years to get each SLS flight ready, so any slippage is going to push them out of 2026. And we allready know Artemis 2 has slipped a bit, much more and they won't be able to get artemis 3 ready in time.

 

And of course the budgetary people are hovering and making unhappy noises about the costs of SLS. I don't think it's likely but artemis 3 could just flat out get cancelled on cost grounds.

 

I also can't seem to find anything on actual hardware for the gateway station core, (which IS needed before HLS), having begun construction. It's supposedly Launching about a year before the planned landing attempt. That puts it a couple of years away. Which is awfully close for somthing that hasn't even finished being designed. From your prior comments your working in a tea on a satellite atm, how long did it take for that to go from the finalized design to launch ready?

 

14 hours ago, manikyath said:

as far as i've seen, HLS is essentially 'just' a purpose-made starship.

 

what i meant by "there must be better" is something that doesnt require an elevator to get in and out of... but i assume the engineers that figure out these plans have determined this is the best option.

 

It's going to have some design differences like the lack of fins, some engine arrangement and type differences, (it's going to need smaller thrusters to handle the landing and ascent from the moon), and even things like the elevator are going to require major modifications from the standard.

 

It's also important to understand why SpaceX went with this proposal over launching somthing inside a starship payload bay. Cost. Anything else would require a lot more design work and all new jigs to manufacture the outer skin of the craft, (the internals and some hatches cut into the skin are where the major differences will be AFAIK). This way though they can use the same manufacturing jigs and designs for it as they would for starship, and it can share many aspects of the qualification with starship.

 

You also have to realises NASA's expectations are huge for these landers. The original Apollo landers where a bit over 4 meters across, 7 meters high, and massed on the final flights around 16 tons. Blue Orins lander they're developing will be 7 meters wide, 16 meters tall, and mass around 45 tons, (note even adding the command and service modules of the apollo spacecraft to the landers mass only comes out a bit over 40 tons). And will still need a special tug to carry it from LEO to the gateway, (and also possibly from the gateway orbit to low lunar, i'm not clear on that part). Starship is doing all of that including the tug part in a single craft. It's no suprise it's as large and heavy as it is, anything else just wouldn't be upto the task.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Then the government partners with Elon and Space X on many things (both public and confidential, that's a known unknown) and this is a favor to him of sorts.   

And this is why you can't be objective, you literally are falling back to the notion that Starship was picked as a favor.

 

The simple fact is Starship was picked because all the other companies failed hard on their ideas and the cost of those ideas.

 

A quick rundown:

5 companies submitted the paperwork to compete by the deadline; Boeing, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Dynetics, and Vivance

Of those proposals 3 of those were chosen to compete (SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Dynetics).

Not sure why Vivance failed, but you have to imagine the Boeing Starliner issue greatly hurt their chances (since the Starliner was meant to fly years ago and was the best bet with SpaceX Dragon being the backup).  So I think that would likely have something to do with it....along with the fact that it required an SLS launch (which probably pushed the initial pricetag to a staggering amount)

 

Anyways, of those 3; BO got $579 mill to do R&D and design research, Dynetics got $253 mill, and SpaceX got $135 mill (So far not really looking like SpaceX was the favored).  At this stage SpaceX actually was actually at the rear where they thought it was the least feasible.

 

The final bids with the project came to Dynetics @ 9 billion, BO @ 6 billion and SpaceX @ 3 billion...but of the proposals SpaceX was the only one who made the correct proposal. (and within the ability to be funded)

 

First, it needs to be noted that NASA didn't have a lot of funding for this at the time ($23 billion for the program, not just the Art 2 but the entire Art program)

 

SpaceX was awarded mainly because it stuck within the budget of NASA

 

BO had advance payment, which was against the Option. (And the conclusion was negotiations to lower the price would likely not be possible, which says something about NASA's budget in that they couldn't pick BO as a second even though their bid was $6 bill...but that brings me to Dynetics)

 

Dynetics, aside from their proposal having too many risks involved, their bid at $9 billion was so high that NASA simply couldn't afford it.

 

 

The simple fact is, Starship HLS won the bid not because it posed the least risk, or because it could do things the others couldn't (although I think that was a note that was made that it would allow for doing more than what was ever dreamed possible even a few short years ago).  Instead Starship HLS won the bid mostly because they were the only ones able to bid for the mission at a price that fit NASA's budget.  Again, remember, NASA couldn't do BO as a backup because they concluded they couldn't get BO to reduce their price.

[Uttamattamakin]

17 hours ago, CarlBar said:

I also can't seem to find anything on actual hardware for the gateway station core, (which IS needed before HLS), having begun construction. It's supposedly Launching about a year before the planned landing attempt. That puts it a couple of years away. Which is awfully close for somthing that hasn't even finished being designed. From your prior comments your working in a tea on a satellite atm, how long did it take for that to go from the finalized design to launch ready?

Let me say up front I don't work on the hardware myself. I am on the team that is working on the fundamental physics we will test with the instrument.    However I do know what the various hardware teams are doing. 

The  difference between this and the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna is going to be doing something that has never been done before.  No one has ever tried to build an interferometer in space out of three satellites beaming lasers between them.    Actually making the hardware isn't the hardest part.  Given 1 billion dollars it could be done in a year or two instead of ten.  Some of the hardware already exist.  Such as the charge management system and the optical bench I do believe.  

 

Artemis is building on trusted, proven, tested, well used, well understood, NASA technology from the Space Shuttle program.  Just configured in such a way that it is far safer than the STS turned out to be.   This is why they can build 3 SLS's in the time it will take for us to build one LISA and launch it from French Guyana. 

 

 

16 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And this is why you can't be objective, you literally are falling back to the notion that Starship was picked as a favor.

Your post is very informative.  

 

I objectively stated that the object exploded.   Which it obviously did.   Which was all I set out to do with this thread is post about the outcome of that one test.  It has evolved since then. 

 

16 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The simple fact is Starship was picked because all the other companies failed hard on their ideas and the cost of those ideas.

.....

SpaceX was awarded mainly because it stuck within the budget of NASA

I have no doubt that this was a large part of it.  At the same time as a US American I get to believe in one free conspiracy theory.  Space X has become so indispensable to the national security state that they get favors now.   Just like Boeing did for a long time. 

 

16 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

BO had advance payment, which was against the Option. (And the conclusion was negotiations to lower the price would likely not be possible, which says something about NASA's budget in that they couldn't pick BO as a second even though their bid was $6 bill...but that brings me to Dynetics)

True.  For a long time Boeing and others got favors because, like Space X now they are indispensable to the national security state.  Think of where so many of our warplanes and airliners come from.  They also certainly know how to line the right pockets in congress.   IDK maybe I'm a cynic being from the ... state the Simpsons are likely from ... I've seen too many real life Joe Quimby's. 

 

The real one that didn't play that game right was, in my opinion, ALPACA. 

 

16 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Dynetics, aside from their proposal having too many risks involved, their bid at $9 billion was so high that NASA simply couldn't afford it.

Which is odd when one looks at ALPACA vs Lunar starship.   


I get that Space X is basically trying to do this as a afterthought from StarShips main role of putting second generation starlink into orbit.  VS ALPACA being built just for this mission and nothing else.  

 

16 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

The simple fact is, Starship HLS won the bid not because it posed the least risk, or because it could do things the others couldn't (although I think that was a note that was made that it would allow for doing more than what was ever dreamed possible even a few short years ago).  Instead Starship HLS won the bid mostly because they were the only ones able to bid for the mission at a price that fit NASA's budget.  Again, remember, NASA couldn't do BO as a backup because they concluded they couldn't get BO to reduce their price.

You are 100% right about that.  I still wish it was ALPACA.  But of course Alpaca is a fitting name for something expensive. 
 

(I can't think of the word Alpaca without thinking of the movie American Gangster). 

[HenrySalayne]

5 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I still wish it was ALPACA.

*cough* Ah, yes, the much less complex and non-over-engineered solution. *cough*

Still-to-be-developed methalox engines, a rocket never successfully launched to this day and refueling in space? I'm pretty sure I heard this before.

Dynetics HLS might look more traditional and simpler to the uninformed observer, but in reality it is as unproven and complex as Starship with the added disadvantage of being at least 5 years behind in it's development.

[Mark Kaine]

18 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Still-to-be-developed methalox engines, a rocket never successfully launched

the thing is... this is musk typical (yeah, i fully blame him, cuz he's the dude behind all these  "cost cutting" scam schemes) nasa is already working on proper next gen engines,  as we all know,  fusion/ fision is the way to go for energy production afterall, so all this space x mambo jumbo is just a big waste of material, resources,  and manpower...

 "oh look i made little,  inefficient engines" no one outside of twitter fanboys really cares tbh...

 

 

 

 

(concept from the 50s btw... )

[Uttamattamakin]

23 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Still-to-be-developed methalox engines, a rocket never successfully launched to this day and refueling in space? I'm pretty sure I heard this before.

Dynetics HLS might look more traditional and simpler to the uninformed observer, but in reality it is as unproven and complex as Starship with the added disadvantage of being at least 5 years behind in it's development.

Vulcan Centuar is going to launch with a nearly human rated payload Sierra Space's new space plane, very soon.  IF it BLOWS UP I wonder if anyone will talk about how much was learned from it blowing up. 

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

the thing is... this is musk typical (yeah, i fully blame him, cuz he's the dude behind all these  "cost cutting" scam schemes) nasa is already working on proper next gen engines,  as we all know,  fusion/ fision is the way to go for energy production afterall, so all this space x mambo jumbo is just a big waste of material, resources,  and manpower...

 "oh look i made little,  inefficient engines" no one outside of twitter fanboys really cares tbh...

You are aware though the thing you quoted is regarding ALPACA...a Dynetics bid...not SpaceX bid.  (Which was using a Methalox engine, similar concept as Raptor engines, and on a yet to be flown rocket).  The alternative was using multiple SLS launches, but at $1 billion + per launch and a limit of how many launches you could do a year made it unfeasible to realistically use.

 

Anyways, fusion/fision is for deep space travel and would also require different stage seperations.  It makes sense for disposable rockets that need to get a large velocity over time. 

 

You say "cost cutting" scam schemes, but SpaceX is currently producing a rocket that per launch is cheaper per kg than really any competitor, doing it at a higher frequency than anyone else, and has been extremely reliable.

 

Each Starship launch, even as it currently stands is estimated at roughly $100 - $200 million for the test flight...that is still 10x cheaper per launch than SLS...and it has a record now for bringing the most mass to space (while it's flight was terminated, they will undoubtedly figure out the issue and fix it)

 

If you are talking about Tesla, Tesla is the only car manufacturer that is currently able to sell EV's at margins equivalent to ICE vehicles.  Take that as a note because currently GM and Ford have negative margins for EV's.  While one can talk about the "quality" the fact is they have cut costs by their innovations in design (while lacking fit and finish like panel gaps, but that's not to do with the cost cutting measures)

[wanderingfool2]

7 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Vulcan Centuar is going to launch with a nearly human rated payload Sierra Space's new space plane, very soon.  IF it BLOWS UP I wonder if anyone will talk about how much was learned from it blowing up. 

It's a certification flight, with an actual payload, so if it blows up they will have learned thing BUT it's not the same as Starship blowing up.  The ULA blowing up would create a large amount of issues because it was a cert flight.  Please learn the basic difference between a test flight to learn, vs a test flight for certification with payload.

 

If SpaceX had lets say loaded it up with actual NASA payloads and they said it was in a state where they wanted it counted as a certification flight then yea, it would be an issue with it exploding...but it didn't.  Or if it had been a certification flight by Starship then yea it would be a problem blowing up.

 

As a note as well Vulcan Centuar to an extent did explode during it's early test.  They were doing a test of the upper stage tank under similar loads that it would experience...they blew up the test rig.  There is video on it, but if Tory Bruno hadn't tweeted out the video no one in the public would have seen it (there was word that the explosion happened though).  The tl;dr; hydrogen leak + spark = boom

 

It actually was scheduled to fly in May??? [iirc] With the explosion happening in March, that's why it was pushed to "late 2023", now Jan 2024.

[Uttamattamakin]

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

As a note as well Vulcan Centuar to an extent did explode during it's early test.  They were doing a test of the upper stage tank under similar loads that it would experience...they blew up the test rig.  There is video on it, but if Tory Bruno hadn't tweeted out the video no one in the public would have seen it (there was word that the explosion happened though).  The tl;dr; hydrogen leak + spark = boom

 

It actually was scheduled to fly in May??? [iirc] With the explosion happening in March, that's why it was pushed to "late 2023", now Jan 2024.

Not the same as a spectacular KABOOM.  A bit of destruction during testing on the ground is fine.  The thing is anyone but Space X having this scale of destruction in this day and age would be out of business. 

Oh and I think people here will enjoy seeing this.  

Artemis 1 reentry from the inside. 

[HenrySalayne]

21 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Vulcan Centuar is going to launch with a nearly human rated payload Sierra Space's new space plane, very soon.  IF it BLOWS UP I wonder if anyone will talk about how much was learned from it blowing up. 

Vulcan is not an entirely new design. It evolved from Delta IV and Atlas V, which evolved from other models with quite a few RUDs in their life.

Ariane V carried some things over from the Ariane IV which actually led to a complete failure on the first flight. But Ariane V turned out to be a reliable, capable and successful vehicle. I wish the same for Vulcan.

Still, Vulcan and Starship / Super Heavy are two completely different systems, one relying heavily on its heritage and which was plagued with a considerable amount of setbacks. Vulcan was supposed to launch back in 2019. The other is something novel with all the wrinkles still needing to be ironed out.

[Uttamattamakin]

1 minute ago, HenrySalayne said:

Vulcan is not an entirely new design. It evolved from Delta IV and Atlas V, which evolved from other models with quite a few RUDs in their life.

Ariane V carried some things over from the Ariane IV which actually led to a complete failure on the first flight. But Ariane V turned out to be a reliable, capable and successful vehicle. I wish the same for Vulcan.

Still, Vulcan and Starship / Super Heavy are two completely different systems, one relying heavily on its heritage and which was plagued with a considerable amount of setbacks. Vulcan was supposed to launch back in 2019. The other is something novel with all the wrinkles still needing to be ironed out.

Starships heritage was the Soviet N1.  In design concept and philosophy it is a N2.  Space X using the best things the the Russians got right has been a strength. However, this is something the Russians got wrong.  NASA figured out how to build a Moon rocket in the 60's then forgot how in the 70's and 80's.  

IF we are going to take every similar rocket and attribute the failures of 40 or 50 years ago to their modern counterparts then we must consider the N1 when thinking about the problems Starship has.  If Space X is not doing so that can explain why they keep failing to learn from it. 

[HenrySalayne]

17 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The thing is anyone but Space X having this scale of destruction in this day and age would be out of business. 

Absolutely not. We haven't seen any novel rocket designs in a long time. Almost any modern launch vehicles are iterative designs. Only a few selected small launch vehicles are actually novel designs - and they had a fair share of launch failures as well. Check out Rocketlab and Astra or even Blue Origin, with their penis-shaped tourist rocket, which had an actual RUD with tourists on board not too long ago.

Correction: no tourists on board and the launch escape system functioned as intended.