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

[HenrySalayne]

5 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Starships heritage was the Soviet N1. 

Please name a single part or system carried over from the N1?

"it has also a lot of engines" is not a heritage.

[manikyath]

9 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

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.

you know.. ignoring the fact that the only thing starship and N1 share is "many engines on the first stage" - because of your shallow views i've been reading up on N1 since about page 2-ish of this thread.. and it's interesting to see my googling finally pays off on page 8.. because we're apparently still stuck on this.

 

the problem with N1 was a combination of unreliable engines, very little engine control, a very "early day" computer system to manage it, and constant in-figting between different branches of management that fundamentally disagreed, so funding constantly went to other avenues instead of focusing on the main project.

 

it is also believed that *if* management didnt have constant infighting, and if funding wouldnt have been cut (due to the soviet union kind of being.. y'know.. not very well economically at that point.) there is a possible outcome where the engine issues got figured out to the point where they could reliably do their burn, N1 could have flown.

 

now.. as for how starship would be a spiritual "N2 equivalent"...

- many engines, because the idea behind many small engines is that mass producing engines makes them cheaper, easier to replace, and because A LOT are made, the production process should be very streamlined, resulting in a much lower defect rate than "single unit quantity" engines.

- the amount of computerization that is onboard starship is something the soviets couldnt even have dreamt up. during the bellyflop landing of the starship module they've demonstrated their system can light all engines, select the best performing ones, and perform the flip landing with those engines. if they can do this mid-flight, it should be trivial to handle bad engines on takeoff (or abort before actual liftoff).

- the nutcase at the top ousts everyone who disagrees.. not a very likeable mentality indeed, but it does fix the infighting issue.

 

as for the differences between starship and N1:

- N1 had 5 stages, starship has 2. besides the fact this number is different, it is essentially as different of a "how this works" mentality as it is possible to be. if we ignore the number of engines starship is essentially as similar to SLS as it is to N1.

- N1 was a 17 meter diameter at the base, tapering down across the first two stages. starship is (+/- some external attachments) 9 meters diameter top to bottom.

- N1 started out with essentially an analog engine control system, only switching to a propper "actual computer" on flight 4. meanwhile, the quite disasterous flight 1 of starship has shown that even with a bunch of engines blown apart with concrete, starship was able to lift off mostly straight.

- N1 had plumbing issues from the start, whereas so far there hasnt even been a hint of plumbing issues on starship *during the ascent portion*. flipping over the booster is a different pair of boots, but flipping the booster to do RTLS is something SpaceX wants to do, but it's technically not required for starship flights.

- N1 was dreamt up by a government entity in a state that had a reputation for not producing the most reliable technology. starship is being developed on private money.. and it is ABSOLUTELY a dick measuring contest for the lunatic at the top (it's the tallest rocket by a few meters.. we all know where that requirement came from..)

- N1's design goal was to get *a man* on the moon. starship's design goal is to make essentially a space ocean liner, using both physical scale and reusability as an "economy of scale" measure to drive down costs per kg delivered to space.

 

54 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. 

except.. this is exactly how development is done in the majority of sectors, because "it's cheaper."

i work mostly with e-bike batteries. when we test a new product we dont simulate if the battery will blow up.. we test it to destruction. one of my colleagues is currently working on a logging system that'll survive getting chucked out the window of a moving car, just so we can log what the battery does when fedex does a number on it. the cost of doing it this way is a week's worth of work, and the cost of however many units we wish to test. and at the end of it we're left with a bunch of samples that we can peel apart to see what the weak points are in the real world, where manufacturing defects may have happened that no one realised could happen.

 

in fact.. until spacex started treating spacecraft engineering as "any other engineering" spacetravel was quite unique in this regard that very little "testing potentially to destruction" got done on what could be considered production samples. parts - yes. but never the completed product.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Oh and I think people here will enjoy seeing this.  

lovely video indeed - but... are you assuming that people excited to see starship happen cant also be excited about artemis happening? sometimes choosing a side is losing.. being excited about all rockets means there's more launches to enjoy. and like i've mentioned plenty of times before.. SLS is several years ahead of starship in development, and many billions of dollars ahead. again - the only one here choosing party is you, no one here is saying artemis bad. we're saying your viewpoint of starship is flawed, because you're basing yourself off assumptions that just dont hold any validity in the real world.

[Uttamattamakin]

25 minutes ago, manikyath said:

lovely video indeed - but... are you assuming that people excited to see starship happen cant also be excited about artemis happening? sometimes choosing a side is losing.. being excited about all rockets means there's more launches to enjoy. and like i've mentioned plenty of times before.. SLS is several years ahead of starship in development, and many billions of dollars ahead. again - the only one here choosing party is you, no one here is saying artemis bad. we're saying your viewpoint of starship is flawed, because you're basing yourself off assumptions that just dont hold any validity in the real world.

No because I am not a fangirl or anti any company.  I just call it like I see it.  Sometimes people don't like that. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour 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. 

Can we stop with this absolute garbage of biased opinion with only your thought, but stating things as absolute fact.  "This scale of destruction" is a terrible argument...was the pad destruction bad?  Sure, BUT that doesn't matter the dangerous debris was contained within the zone which was cleared and marked for the event something went wrong (As a note as well, your whole flame trench whining would cause a lot more ecological damage).  As for it exploding, you can easily find companies that are still alive that had public failures during test launches.

 

Statements like the above are why people are saying you aren't knowledgeable despite your claim of working in the industry.

 

Firefly Aeronautics

Firefly Alpha, the Reaver engine failed and FTS was called when the rocket lost control (~150 seconds into flight)

Firefly Alpha, second flight hit the wrong orbit (not the end of the world though as it was an unstable orbit)

Finally had a success on the third flight.

Firefly Aeronautics is still in business

 

Astra

Engine failure...it actually had negative velocity after "clearing" the test stand.  The thing literally went sideways before it burned through enough propellant to actually get lift....they intentionally let it run for over 10 seconds where if something else went wrong it would crash and blow up on the ground...instead the other engine failed later on which triggered the FTS

They are still launching rockets

 

 

While not an explosion, Electron rocket has had 3 failures that led to the loss of payload (and uncontrolled reentry/uncontrolled orbit).  4 failures if you include it's maiden flight...that puts it at about 1 in 10 launches fails.  Just as a note, that is a lot worse than anything that SpaceX has done...a failure rate that high when you are at orbital/height velocity while launching it commercially.

 

 

 

 

The simple matter of fact, aside from the FTS being under-powered on the first flight (which the FAA had seen the tests and thought it was enough as well); everything was within the tolerance that was allowed in regards to public and wildlife safety.

 

  

8 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

No because I am not a fangirl or anti any company.  I just call it like I see it.  Sometimes people don't like that. 

You are making comparisons that have no relation to each other, you are getting basic level facts wrong and talking about SpaceX getting preferencial treatment without any basic research into what you are referring to.  Yes, you are anti-Elon; it's quite clear from the way you choose to ignore basic level of thinking when it comes to that and choose to ignore the fact that you have multitudes of people telling you that you got it wrong but are hiding behind the half truth of saying you are only stating what happen with an "explosion".  The simple fact is, if you mentioned the explosion it would be one thing but you compared starship to SLS because of the explosion and acted like it's somehow worse because of that.

 

[manikyath]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

No because I am not a fangirl or anti any company.  I just call it like I see it.  Sometimes people don't like that. 

that's funny.. because that's exactly how i see it too. i guess one of us must be wrong...

[manikyath]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yes, you are anti-Elon;

i do want to add - being anti-elon is fine just fine. i'm personally not quite fond of the guy either, but the man being a deranged sociopath is unrelated to the rockets that are built "by his company" - but just the same by hundreds upon hundreds of actual engineers of which at least the great majority have plenty of background to make the decisions they make to build the rocket the way they do.

 

similarly.. i could have opinions about the way roscosmos is being lead, but fact of the matter is that (besides some recent issues...) the soyuz is -factually- the most reliable human-rated rocket system ever built.

[wanderingfool2]

15 minutes ago, manikyath said:

i do want to add - being anti-elon is fine just fine. i'm personally not quite fond of the guy either, but the man being a deranged sociopath is unrelated to the rockets that are built "by his company" - but just the same by hundreds upon hundreds of actual engineers of which at least the great majority have plenty of background to make the decisions they make to build the rocket the way they do.

 

similarly.. i could have opinions about the way roscosmos is being lead, but fact of the matter is that (besides some recent issues...) the soyuz is -factually- the most reliable human-rated rocket system ever built.

The issue is what you described isn't really being like Anti-Elon or anti-roscosmos.  You can hate someone, but still be neutral about the work they are doing.

 

The way I view it, when you are anti-person, you are against it to the point of not considering things neutrally.  Just like you can be a pro-person/fanboy where you also don't consider arguments rationally.  Now there is a sliding scale as well, because things aren't always black and white, but generally I'm talking about the extremes.  The general issue is that it's taken to an extreme where countering the points just makes you a "SpaceX fanboy" etc.  

 

The way I discuss Elon is that I feel he has a propensity to realize the talent he needs and finds a way to attract that talent...and that's usually through having a very shallow chain of command.  While people like calling me an Elon fanboy, it's often because there are the extremes which I would like to give the differing thought into it.  Overall I think he's good some of what is done, but I differ greatly on his ideological beliefs...but at the same time I wonder how much of the conceded nature of what he does on lets say media posts is also due to being constantly targeted by the media (and used as a scapegoat).  It's hard not to become jaded and "extreme".

[CarlBar]

On 12/12/2023 at 1:00 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

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. 

 

I'll take your word on the 1 year timeframe, but it's also very much the exception to what happens with NASA projects, they routinely overrun by many years. No one expects NASA to get hardware built on time because they so very rarely actually do so. The reasons for it are many and complex and few are entirely NASA's fault, some aren't their fault at all. 

 

Also if proven heritage is such an advantage in building somthing, why did it take over 6 years to build the first SLS? The answer of course is the same reasons everything overruns at NASA. And the same reasons behind the ESA recently managing to accidently scrap a pair of propellent tanks for the upper stage of the last Vega mission, which probably won't fly as a result. When you've got a large number of contractors, interested parties, and political factors to constantly juggle the administrative overhead often becomes a source of slowdowns as the ability to efficiently manage all the interconnected entities breaks down.

 

I just don't trust the hardware side of the gateway to not fall afoul of the same issues.

 

Also SLS really sucks in payload lift capacity, did some digging on the landers and realised just how much throw weight the space shuttle actually had, those orbiters where really heavy.

 

 

On the N1 issue. Arianne 6 and Vulcan Centaur are both going to be reusing some actual hardware from their predecessors, modified upper stage elements in some configurations and for Vulcan, the SR's as well from the Atlas series. The only all new components are the liquid core lower stages.

 

In terms of all new designs from the ground up with significant carry capacity you have to look back to the Falcon 9 development for the closes, then the shuttle, and then the Saturn V. Everything else has reused hardware AFAIK, usually upper stages initially, then they later develop a new upper stage to pair with the now proven lower stage, repeat endlessly.

 

Starship might share the lots of engines approach with the N1, but they're not even remotely close to reusing anything else, hardware, software, or construction techniques wise.

[Uttamattamakin]

Just thought those who posted to this thread may like to see this.   

We'll see if its 3...2...1... LiFt BOOM for Vulcan Centuar.    Hopefully they can demonstrate mastery of launching and not have to give us the copium of learning from a minor disaster. ULA can't afford that. 

FULL 100% success on the first shot.   Granted it's not a revolutionary design based on tons of little engines that has never worked before.  It is also not trying to be totally reusable.  However, it did manage to get used.  

Next stop is launching the SNC Dream Chaser space plane to the ISS. 

 

There is nothing like watching a space plane return from orbit.  It was both routine and sci fi cool when every once in a while it would be visible briefly over Chicago or LA on the way in.   Though I'd bet the southwest got to see that most. 

While Vulcan Centuar did its job and got the main payload the Astrobotics Peregrine lunar lander on trajectory for the moon, the lander itself has experienced an anomaly that has caused a critical loss of propellant.  Soft landing on the Moon may not be possible for the lunar lander.  They have a lot of time since they are not on the same type of direct trans Lunar injection that the Apollo mission used. 

 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

Peregrine thrusters appears to be an issue.  They almost lost it as well, an emergency unplan maneuver had to be made to orient the solar panels before the batteries depleted which managed to orient the solar panels to charge up the depleting battery.

 

As of less than an hour ago Peregrine released a statement that they were effectively burning through/leaking their propellent and that they are looking to maximize scientific data...i.e. they are most likely going to lose the lander

 

ULA's mission seemed nominal, which is good...there will finally be a competitor to SpaceX (although really if Falcon 9 had a larger fairing size it would thrash the Vulcan Centaur).

 

18 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

We'll see if its 3...2...1... LiFt BOOM for Vulcan Centuar.    Hopefully they can demonstrate mastery of launching and not have to give us the copium of learning from a minor disaster. ULA can't afford that. 

FULL 100% success on the first shot.   Granted it's not a revolutionary design based on tons of little engines that has never worked before.  It is also not trying to be totally reusable.  However, it did manage to get used.  

The VC was SUPPOSED to have launched in 2020...guess what, "minor disasters" is what lead to the thing being delayed by 3+ years (actually the BE-4 engines were supposed to be ready well before then but they had to ship dummy placeholders because of issues)

 

The BE-4's only produce about 10% more thrust than the Raptor-2's do, when the Raptor-3's are in place, they will actually produce more thrust than a BE-4 while being greatly smaller.

 

What Starship is is completely different from what VC is...the VC is effectively a competitor to Falcon 9.  The biggest thing VC and Starship share though is that they moved to the MethaLox fuel...which don't get me wrong is good that ULA accomplished it.

 

Keep in mind, a Starship launch is going to effectively cost less than it costs to fly a single VC.  Actually a Falcon 9 is also cheaper, with similar payload (except smaller fairing size)

 

[HenrySalayne]

Congratulations to ULA for their first (and successful) launch of Vulcan!

This is also a big step forward for New Glenn. 2024 might be an interesting year for rocket enthusiasts.

 

[manikyath]

19 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Hopefully they can demonstrate mastery of launching and not have to give us the copium of learning from a minor disaster. ULA can't afford that. 

there's a major difference between successfully launching a mission with payload after *some delays*, and blowing up prototypes to gather real world data on your own dime.

 

SpaceX could be actively mashing the "FTS" button just because big boom is funny, and you have no reason to be upset at this stage because it's SpaceX rockets with no payload, made on their own budget.

 

the way starship is being designed is also much more friendly towards real world prototypes because of how relatively cheap it is to build them - which is why SpaceX can afford to blow up a few of them "for science".

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, manikyath said:

the way starship is being designed is also much more friendly towards real world prototypes because of how relatively cheap it is to build them - which is why SpaceX can afford to blow up a few of them "for science".

I have no doubt Elon will be zooming around the planet in his hyperlooping pod soon enough. 

 

I KID but yeah there is a place for destructively testing prototypes in this kind of business.   However, there are better less wasteful ways to do this now.  No need to reinvent the wheel. (By the by if someone see this and wonders where that's from it is a TV show called Spitting image which was on BBC a year or two back. It was really funny.) 

[manikyath]

10 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

there is a place for destructively testing prototypes in this kind of business.   However, there are better less wasteful ways to do this now.  No need to reinvent the wheel.

please tell me more about how much better you can do the job of the hundreds of engineers at the starship project that are qualified to do the things they do, and presumably have good reason to do what they do.

 

also - reinventing the wheel gave us falcon 9. they're not reinventing the wheel anymore, they're just sticking to the process that produced their first success.

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

However, there are better less wasteful ways to do this now.  No need to reinvent the wheel.

Literally the Vulcan Centaur was using MethaLox...you know a fuel which up until 2023 had never had a rocket hit orbit using that fuel type before.

 

Also, yes you need to reinvent the wheel when the way of doing things burns through money and time during development.

 

Falcon 9 also is a good example, when it first flew and SpaceX demonstrated it, it literally destroyed a division of NASA which was tasked to look into the physics and behaviors/feasibility of something to do with shockwave interactions...when SpaceX did their attempted landing it effectively showed them what they were working on existed...which is why sometimes destructive testing can accelerate knowledge quicker than trying to work it all out.

 

 

Also, what ways do you suggest...since you seem to deem yourself so "educated" and smarter than SpaceX engineers.  You can't properly test/simulate what SpaceX is trying to do.  Even during their static fires they are learning things (like what best starting sequence etc is best).

 

Talking about wasteful, to carry 27 metric tonnes to orbit VC would have to dump 6 SRB's into the ocean.  Plus all of the stages as well...that is wasteful. 

 

If you assume 95% of the mass is made up by propellant...although this is a guess, based on 90% of the centaur upper stage being propellant, you end up with 27 metric tonnes of junk you are dropping into the ocean.  That's nearly an one to one ratio between weight to space to stuff dropped into the ocean...when Starship is perfected you don't get any of that.

[Uttamattamakin]

When I say @wanderingfool2 that there are better ways to test a rocket system in the modern era that don't involve the destruction of multiple test articles I merely state a fact.  While computer simulations cannot capture every tiny aspect of every interaction, simulations used in aerospace are very advanced now.  We know how to test things in computers to the point where windtunnel's aren't used as much as before.   

The whole thing is designed in a computer then only once it has been tested to the hilt is it tested in real life with practical models.  That is how everyone else does this these days.  

 

https://www.nas.nasa.gov/SC19/demos/demo1.html

 

Quote

Why HPC Matters

The partnership with NASA allowed the SNC team access to vast computing resources and resulted in CFD simulations of thousands of unique cases along the Dream Chaser entry, descent, and landing (EDL) trajectory. Using the Pleiades and Endeavour supercomputers at the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) facility, the SNC aerodynamic team performed approximately 20,000 high-fidelity CFD simulations to calculate the aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the Dream Chaser vehicle, control surface interactions, and aerodynamic increments by firing RCS thrusters throughout EDL. These simulations have required tens of millions of core-hours, and store multiple terabytes of data on NAS systems. None of this would have been possible without the help and resources of the NAS Division.

 

Things that Space X does work best when they are driven by hard engineering interest and not be a unrealistic timeline.  Space X would LOVE for these test to have been total successes.  Trying to make some leondae out of the lemons is good. Space X is doing what it is doing as it is doing it in order to meet deadlines that were overoptimistic.  This year Space X will need to successfully launch something like 12 Starships.  One to be a fuel depot, and 11 to bring fuel to it for the Artemis mission.  If they fail to do that then Starship will have, in many eyes failed as a system. 

 

https://spacenews.com/starship-lunar-lander-missions-to-require-nearly-20-launches-nasa-says/#:~:text=As SpaceX prepares for its next Starship test%2C,Artemis lunar landings will require nearly 20 launches.

 

Quote

“It’s in the high teens in the number of launches,” Hawkins said. That’s driven, she suggested, about concerns about boiloff, or loss of cryogenic liquid propellants, at the depot.

 

“In order to be able to meet the schedule that is required, as well as managing boiloff and so forth of the fuel, there’s going to need to be a rapid succession of launches of fuel,” she said.

 

That schedule will require launches from both the existing Starship pad at Boca Chica, Texas, as well as the one SpaceX is building at KSC’s Launch Complex 39A, adjacent to the current pad used for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. “We should be able to launch from both of those sites,” she said, on a “six-day rotation.”

 

Isn't this all just a cool fun technical thing to discuss on a forum dedicated to computer technology and related issues?  

 

As to various personal attacks on me for knowing things which given the nature of this forum are kinda baffling. 

Spoiler

Why do some here need to take me writing as if I know things and have confidence personally?   Am I not allowed? 

 

10 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Also, what ways do you suggest...since you seem to deem yourself so "educated" and smarter than SpaceX engineers.  You can't properly test/simulate what SpaceX is trying to do.  Even during their static fires they are learning things (like what best starting sequence etc is best).

I don't deem myself smarter than anyone just as smart and I know a thing or two about basic physics.  I learned early in life to not let the fact I know things, and that some people are bothered by that, bother me.   In fact I have come to be proud of that.  

 

I have always had this problem.   If this test was a valid intelligence test my score is more than two standard deviations above the average for science and technology.  My career as an adult well requires knowing some stuff people think is important.   Anyone who thinks that me or anyone else knowing things somehow degrades them needs to get their head right, AND GROW UP.  I am surrounded by PhD's with more prestigious positions all the time.  Insecurity is not a good look  and no one should have to just absorb that.    

Sorry not sorry.

 

[Uttamattamakin]

According to Reuters: NASA is set to announce the delay of the Artemis moon landing due to delays with Starship. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-push-back-moon-mission-timelines-amid-spacecraft-delays-sources-2024-01-09/

 

Quote

WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - NASA is set to delay its next few missions to the moon under a key program as technical hurdles mount with the various spacecraft it intends to use to get there, according to four people familiar with NASA's plans.

The U.S. space agency is expected to announce the plans on Tuesday after spending months tracking progress with contractors and considering changes to the Artemis program, a multi-billion dollar effort that includes returning the first astronauts to the moon since the last Apollo mission in 1972.

 

[manikyath]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

there are better ways to test a rocket system in the modern era that don't involve the destruction of multiple test articles I merely state a fact.  While computer simulations cannot capture every tiny aspect of every interaction, simulations used in aerospace are very advanced now.  We know how to test things in computers to the point where windtunnel's aren't used as much as before.   

The whole thing is designed in a computer then only once it has been tested to the hilt is it tested in real life with practical models.  That is how everyone else does this these days.  

20 hours ago, manikyath said:

please tell me more about how much better you can do the job of the hundreds of engineers at the starship project that are qualified to do the things they do, and presumably have good reason to do what they do.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

As to various personal attacks on me for knowing things which given the nature of this forum are kinda baffling. 

that's not what's happening.. you're talking as if you know better than the hundreds of engineers beind this project. i prefer to choose those hundreds of engineers over one person who works in a somewhat related field.

 

the point trough all of this has been that, given how things are happening, real world tests clearly are what people actually on this project have deemed to be the best way forward. SpaceX is not any other organization, starship is not any other rocket, pointing at NASA saying "why dont they blow up stuff then" is simply ingoring the majority of variables at play, and while -again- i would gladly believe that you are in the position you are trough hard work and intense studies... but at this point the conclusion has to be that you're one of the following:

- actively favouring the institution you happen to work with/for, and their methodology, disregarding any other viewpoint with whatever first argument you can grab a hold of, no matter how many holes we keep poking into that.

- the same as above, but subconciously.. because the human mind is potentially even more complicated than rockets.

- actually dum as a rock, which i'll give you the benefit of the doubt assuming is not the case here.

 

i'm gonna go back to page 1 here, and state "i'm not a rocket engineer" - but when my very earthbound arse firmly planted in a very worn out chair can poke holes in every argument you make here using simply a wikipedia and a google, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone with at least the minimum of social skills that you're on the wrong side of facts.

 

as for the supposed launch schedule and what launch cadence should be required to meet the deadlines.. are we then assuming that NASA is ever anywhere near on time? the crux of the government instance is that there is too much red tape for them to work efficiently.. which is WHY spaceX works in vastly different ways, and WHY spaceX can blow up prototypes. it's not more efficient, not more cost effective to simulate in the lab.. but it's easier to get public funding if nothing makes big boom, because people dont (want to) understand the difference between a test of a prototype, and a catastrophic loss of a mission.

 

if there were some news source with a camera and an agenda on that hillside that regularly gets turned to glass when NASA tests their solid rocket boosters, i'd guarantee you there is an action group demanding to stop funding this *immediately*.

 

and to bring this back to the factoids of why SpaceX clearly is using the more efficient method of development:

 

funding gone into SLS: approx. 24 billion

funding gone into starship: approx. 5 billion (presuming 6 more years at quoted spendings, this will end up at 17 billion, adding this to offset the difference of how far in the development stage we are)

cost per SLS flight: approx. 2 billion

cost per starship flight: claimed to be 1 million (i'm once again gonna benefit of the doubt this, and 100x that cost.. i'm somewhat pulling that number out my ass, and somewhat doing the number of flights falcon 9's have been doing, times "a handful times more cost than expected")

 

so... based on these crude figures, development of starship will have been cheaper, for a (hopefully eventually) fully reusable superheavy lifter, by at least a decent margin.. and flights will, even at the worst projections, be at least one order of magnitude cheaper.

 

so - if you're correct in your baseless assumption that simulations are the cheaper way to go about it.. starship could be EVEN MORE cheaper than SLS?

 

as for the cost of real-world testing.. this is your reminder that the prototypes being built are by themselves essentially "a byproduct" of their research into how to best build a rocket of this size. wether they fly them or not, they are being built... so essentially the cost of a flight is just FAA paperwork and fuel.

 

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-push-back-moon-mission-timelines-amid-spacecraft-delays-sources-2024-01-09/

 

 

Quote

NASA's second Artemis mission is expected to be pushed beyond its planned late-2024 target after issues were uncovered with the Lockheed Martin-built (LMT.N) Orion crew capsule's batteries during vibration tests, two of the people said. The batteries will need to be replaced.

right below your quote...

 

while it's clear that SpaceX wont be making planned goals, neither is the pod that's gonna get people off the ground in the first place.. as you should know since you're in the biz.. delays are the norm. this 'problem' is not unique to SpaceX.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

As to various personal attacks on me for knowing things which given the nature of this forum are kinda baffling. 

You are positioning yourself as someone who is qualified yet time and again you make statements which if you were working on the actual rockets would be concerning given your lack of ability to assess data.  But hey, "I'm merely stating facts".  If you are offended by it stop saying things that show you lack practical understanding.

 

Your whole "flame trench" from ITF-1 was flawed, because guess what, aside from the years of extra time and new environmental assessment; it still would have failed on ITF-1 because ITF-1 compacted the ground itself to levels they were not expecting (the simulations and tests didn't show that).

 

You keep harping on the whole "don't reinvent the wheel" when you appear clueless that what they are trying to achieve you can't do it with classical methods and be successful in a realistic timeline.

 

Don't believe me in your utter lack of integrity.  You literally changed the name implying that the Starship is the only issue.

 

You ignore that Peregrine 1 has now failed, which causes an issue.

You ignore the article you posted literally says that Lockheed Martin has issues as well which is delaying Artemis 2.

 

 

You still ignore that SLS was supposed to have launched back in 2018.  You whine about Starship and how it's so terrible, yet you fail to see that everything else is also the cause.

 

Do you know why Starship is also behind?  It took a year to get the clearance to launch...it was literally stuck in a year of bureaucracy.

 

Here's a hint, since you can't comprehend the article you posted.   Even if Starship was ready at this exact moment in time Artemis 3 would STILL be delayed because they have to delay Artemis 2 because of the capsule problem...you know that wonderful "no need to reinvent the wheel" company Lock-heed Martin.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The whole thing is designed in a computer then only once it has been tested to the hilt is it tested in real life with practical models.  That is how everyone else does this these days.  

And guess what, SpaceX does it as well.  They just use practical tests as well to more rapidly develop.

 

 

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

According to Reuters: NASA is set to announce the delay of the Artemis moon landing due to delays with Starship.

Quote

WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - NASA is set to delay its next few missions to the moon under a key program as technical hurdles mount with the various spacecraft it intends to use to get there, according to four people familiar with NASA's plans.

The U.S. space agency is expected to announce the plans on Tuesday after spending months tracking progress with contractors and considering changes to the Artemis program, a multi-billion dollar effort that includes returning the first astronauts to the moon since the last Apollo mission in 1972.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-push-back-moon-mission-timelines-amid-spacecraft-delays-sources-2024-01-09/

I'm sorry, but what kind of misleading BS is this?

The very next paragraph reads as:

Quote

NASA's second Artemis mission is expected to be pushed beyond its planned late-2024 target after issues were uncovered with the Lockheed Martin-built (LMT.N) Orion crew capsule's batteries during vibration tests, two of the people said. The batteries will need to be replaced.

Maybe you could not use any opportunity to bash SpaceX by twisting facts...

[Uttamattamakin]

REuters may have edited the article to not single out starship.  Which is a thing they do. 

https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/09/nasa-delays-artemis-moon-missions-to-give-spacex-others-more-time-to-develop-tech/

Quote

Artemis III is substantially more complex. While two astronauts will launch on SLS and travel in Orion as in the prior mission, the capsule must then dock with an orbiting SpaceX Starship to bring them to the surface. In 2021, the agency selected SpaceX under a $2.9 billion contract to develop that, called the Human Landing System, but it isn’t as simple as it might sound. That’s because SpaceX must also develop in-orbit refueling capabilities, as the architecture involves Starship refueling in space before picking up the astronauts.

After delivering astronauts to the moon, the Starship HLS must then launch from the surface before docking with Orion. It will take an incredible number of Starships, each with propellant transfer capabilities — around 10 tankers, SpaceX senior engineer Jessica Jensen said during the press conference.

 

6 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

I'm sorry, but what kind of misleading BS is this?

The very next paragraph reads as:

Maybe you could not use any opportunity to bash SpaceX by twisting facts...

Maybe you could not take this personally. 

[Uttamattamakin]

7 hours ago, manikyath said:

 

that's not what's happening.. you're talking as if you know better than the hundreds of engineers beind this project. i prefer to choose those hundreds of engineers over one person who works in a somewhat related field.

 

No.  I am just looking at what the thousands of other engineers building rockets around the world for everyone but Space X are doing... then noticing that their rockets don't blow up as often. 

 

Is everyone who builds rockets that don't blow up a fool? 

 

Let me assure you I read your post, the thing is I look at the numbers Space X Falcon and Falcon Heavy are doing great.  Kudos for that.   Starship not so much it is up to it to prove itself.  So far it hasn't.  For the sake of Artemis III I really hope it will. 

[HenrySalayne]

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Maybe you could not take this personally. 

Every time OPs mark their own posts as the solution, to control the narrative with misleading statements and push their own agenda, the world becomes a little worse.

But hey, we are living in a post-factual world anyway, reigned by demagogues and populism, you should expect that, right?

 

[manikyath]

6 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

REuters may have edited the article to not single out starship.  Which is a thing they do. 

in the mere minutes between you using it as a reference and me clicking on it?

 

as for entertaining the possibility they edited the article.. from the facts stated in the article, they would have edited it for completeness, not "to not make starship feel singled out". fact of the matter is that everything is running late on this project, as it does with space things.

 

and nothing of what you said in this thread would have made things go faster. between those facts, and you marking your poorly picked references as "best answer".. i can honestly suggest you should stop taking this personally.

 

we're at a disagreement, some of us choose to side with the rocket engineers working hard to make this happen, you decide not to.. this argument wont end, and if you have to resort to quotes like these:

7 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Is everyone who builds rockets that don't blow up a fool? 

to drive your point further, it is to me obvious you either dont want to see facts, or are unable to see facts.

 

you've just made what is quite possibly the most obvious strawman argument i've seen all year.

 

viewpoint 1: "rocket blew up"

viewpoint 2" "well actually it's a prototype, and the segments of the mission they were most keen on testing have gone successfully"

viewpoitn 1: "should all rockets blow up then?"

 

you know very well that that is not the point, and making it seem like that is the point is just a balatent attempt at ignoring all the facts that *are* on the table, so that you can make your own point seem as the only sensible thing.

 

OFCOURSE rockets shouldnt explode, but that's why SpaceX does A LOT of testing before they stick an actually valuable payload on a new platform, and i'm gonna wildly assume they're gonna do a few rounds of starlink satalites before actually shipping third party cargo, because proving that it works on your own dime is just a good way od advertisign a brand new platform, that is new front to back in just about every way.

 

there hasnt been a rocket platform this unique since shuttle, which comes with plenty of growing pains and big booms.. because no matter what strawmen you put in the exhaust plume, blowing shit up is cheaper than supercomputer time.

 

i *could* make more charged statements, but i'm here for facts, not to win some imagined debate in the off topic section, as you so kindly alluded to earlier.

[Uttamattamakin]

5 hours ago, manikyath said:

in the mere minutes between you using it as a reference and me clicking on it?

 

Absolutely.  News reports that are online get edited all the time especially in the first minutes or hours after they are posted.  It's cleaner to do that instead of sending out multiple notices about minor edits to articles like changing the title. 

Other parts of Artemis are also having problems but the HLS system not being ready is a HUGE problem.  Is it no? 

 

Again, I don't see why so many here take personally what Space X or anyone else does.  They built a rocket that blew up.  ULA, and so far everyone else in recent history INCLUDING SPACE X has managed to not have their rockets detonate in a similar manner.   Even during testing. 

This latest launch by ULA was also a test.  It didn't blow up. 

 

Therefore, a simple Occam's razor conclusion is that it is not "inevitable" that a new rocket system will experience 2 or 3 catastrophic failures before becoming operational.   Therefore, the argument that Starships failures to reach orbit and not detonate are just an inevitable part of doing this is disproven. 

As for the Shuttle being this unique... Starship is much more like the Soviet N1.  That is the correct comparison.  The Shuttle has more "DNA" in common with Saturn V than with N1.  The most comparable Soviet design to the shuttle being Buran-Energiya.  

Further being unique would not mean it is ok for it to blow up this much in this day and age with the techniques and technologies available for designing rockets.  If this was  the 1960's or maybe just maybe 70's a test program that involves losing 10 test articles to de bug everything would be fine.  This isn't.  We know better now.   That's not my opinion supercomputers exist for a reason.   

Buran-Energia managed to launch successfully first try live and on TV, confirmed by US intel.    If the USSR could do it back then why can't space X?  It's even more "unique" than the shuttle.  

I really want Artemis to succeed.  Right now the last person to walk on the Moon is from my crappy little suburb of Chicago.  That should not be the case.  We should have cities on the Moon by now ... producing goods that they export to Earth.   That's what I'm about.  Not being a fan or anti-fan of anyone.   I am however anti relying on systems that are unproven or worse to accomplish these things.