SpaceX Starship 36 Anomaly
twitter.com
twitter.com
SpaceX may also have lost Musk as the referee who makes quick decisions and keeps things moving forward. I think people like Thorvalds, Gates, Jobs and Musk are a superpower for organizations. Their decisions may not always be perfect but at least a decision is made so people can proceed. Otherwise you end up with the usual committee decisions that take forever and are mostly driven by internal politics and not about the product.
So I’ve heard working for him can present challenges.
No, I'll show myself out.
If you're loud, that collapses into a more realistic appraisal.
-- Most likely not Abraham Lincoln.
Turns out skillset usually trumps justice, as long as you're willing to make the right post-hoc mea culpas.
As it happened, the only people willing to pay von Braun to build rockets were Nazis, so (shrug) Nazis it was. If the Americans had recruited him in the 1930s, he would have become a loyal American and a credit to his adopted country, just as he ended up doing after the war. If Stalin had been willing to sponsor him, well, he'd have raised the red banner and become a loyal Communist.
There was never any point in prosecuting von Braun as a Nazi, or even thinking of him as one. Treating him as a war criminal, even though he technically was one, would have been a pointless, performative waste of badly-needed talent, like destroying captured V2s instead of studying them.
Elon Musk? He has no such excuse. Musk can be anything, do anything, say anything. He came to America early and made his fortune doing things that a lot of us respected and even envied him for. Then he chose to attach his name to far-right causes, throw Nazi salutes, and do the Kraft durch Freude dance at Trump rallies. Turned out Musk didn't care about building rockets or going to Mars quite so much as he cared about being an immature asshole. In that sense he took a path diametrically opposite that of Wernher von Braun.
So, yeah, if I worked for SpaceX, I wouldn't exactly bust my ass to make the leader's vision happen after losing trust in the integrity of said leader. I'd simply leave and find employment elsewhere, leaving behind people with fewer options.
however..
when he started spamming political misinformation on twitter i had to block him. very concerned he was burnt out and brainwashed into into politics. the nazi salute, then making nazi jokes about it, was just insane.
doge is a joke, he lost the plot.
now i barely check updates on whats happening at starbase, cheer on when the rockets explode, couldn't care less about tesla.. it's a real shame. all that great work by thousands of talented people in his companies..
he needs to resign from everything and go hide under a rock for a few years until he finally gets into orbit and burns up on rentry.
You must have missed the part where he got divorced and then predictably shifted hard right.
(Being credibly accused of being a sex pest is the only thing more powerful than divorce when it comes to putting men on the right-wing-shift pipeline).
I still have to respect Starlink, accelerating adoption of EVs and the work SpaceX does. His businesses have reshaped several industries big time. It takes a lot of courage and insight to pull this off.
When he baselessly accused a hero rescue driver of a terrible crime and then refused to back down (if it’s not true sue me for defamation) then hid behind a technicality… yeah that’s the end.
That’s the behavior of a childish bully shithead not a leader. I can’t believe people still think he’s the man to lead the companies he runs.
And Musk was personally responsible - not just for that atrocity, but for poisoning the world's leading progressive social media site, for being complicit in the neutering of countless world-leading science projects, for defunding basic research at NASA and firing hundreds of employees with solid achievements and genuine passion for space science, for gutting the FAA, and so on.
I cannot say enough unkind things about the man. The fact that he has any kind of following at all after the last year is both shocking and disappointing.
No, he did not. I still can't believe people bought his BS so easily - "it must be true, because he said it!" No, it isn't, never was, never will be. And I don't even care about that salute - Musk lost all his credibility around 2015 when he promised self-driving cars (coming next year! for the past 10 years, and counting), then by lying about the Solarcity roof tiles (and basically committed fraud for which he didn't go to prison - go figure).
It is also quite dehonestating to those _real_ engineers working for Tesla or Spacex, who actually know their stuff. It was them who made Musk possible, not the other way around.
> all that great work by thousands of talented people in his companies..
Exactly.
Engineering great organizations is still engineering (a fact that I personally wish I'd appreciated at a much younger age.)
And yes, speaking of engineering: FEM.
As a developer I'll manually change those numbers if and when they appear.
Or perhaps they are losing people with the passion for the mission.
"How happy are people at this company?" is a non-negligible performance differentiator.
Yet somehow CEOs seem blindsided when everyone at a company hates it and is mailing it in. (Probably because they're only listening to the management chain, which is concealing the problem)
Amazon was pretty notorious for poor culture and high employee turnover yet the company performance has been stellar. Covid-era twitter clearly cared a ton about employee morale but the product stagnated.
I find it's often the opposite causality, IE the success/trajectory of the company is the primary component that determines morale. An increasing stock price makes employees happy.
Generally, morale is a variable but the coefficient to apply to it is also different from company to company.
And then d-day comes and it's over. The impetus is gone. And every single time, I try to hang on to it. I give myself new projects and fake deadlines. I force myself to get up early and stay up late, but the moment that magic is gone, those things become... work. And like I said, there are things I would rather do than work.
I think a lot of Elon's success stems from his mastery of this "lock in" phenomenon. He is (or at least was) able to induce it in himself to drive himself harder than normal people do. He is able to induce the same state in his workforce as by setting bold and inspiring goals and setting absurd deadlines.
This is not a secret, btw. Nobody goes to SpaceX without understanding that they're signing up to work double the hours for way less than double the pay. For many, this sounds like a nightmare. If you're a young single guy looking to lock the fuck in, to take on huge responsibilities and grow in the company of some of the smartest, hardest working people on earth, it sounds positively amazing.
tl;dr: It's a feature, not a bug.
Because there's a lot of things that are given up when doing that.
And ultimately, no leader is responsible for ensuring someone's compensation matches their effort. That's on everyone's own shoulders to demand.
Interestingly (or maybe not?), the things that rise to this level have a much higher activation threshold the older I get.
I think that product quality and money printing ability do eventually converge, but it can take decades to get there. The slow trickle of talent leaving the company causes the product decay over time, but there's a ton of inertia in the meantime.
There is a very bizarre and persistent belief that you can't be successful without grinding, being miserable, and abusing both employees and customers.
What if that's not true?
To me, the belief that Amazon would stand a chance at being as big as they are without taking advantage of people/culture/society is bizarre.
To be frank : if it were true we'd see more competition from groups that don't grind their assets to dust.. and we don't. Amazon is at the top of the game, and they grind things into dust while lobbying for further ability to do so in the future.
In other words : how many more precedents need to be set before we can tell beyond a reasonable doubt that full-bore-capitalism leads to disempowerment of the individual at the behest of corporations, and that it's rigged to do exactly that?
Hard things fail from time to time. When you aim for something really at the edge of human enginuity, it might work or it might not, and if it works, it will probably still be a close call.
But somehow years ago already SpaceX and it's followers convinced everyone that Starship will definitely happen. And it still might, but if it does, I still think it will be a rocky road.
I would say SpaceX has been extraordinarily lucky for years (not in the sense that they fluked it, but rather that they achieved so much and made it look easy), and this is just reversion to the mean.
Note that Booster appears to be coming along pretty well. But Ship, which has a much, much more difficult mission profile than Falcon 9, is really struggling, because going to orbit and back is far more difficult than going most of the way to orbit and back. (Please forgive the abstraction - I don't have the relative numbers at hand.)
All the failures have happened with Starship v2, where the ambition is to put 100 tons to Low Earth Orbit. The previous design, Starship v1, was only (theoretically) capable of lifting 80 tons.
20 tons is a huge difference, basically what Falcon 9 can lift when launched in expendable mode.
We also have that Falcon 9 that blew in space due to a leak.
I think they're skimping on quality control.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/1lfayba/em_update_o...
So yeah, a QC problem, it seems.
It's not the most likely cause, but in a world where people have been torching Tesla dealerships, I'm sure there's a lot of people now who really want to see Starship fail.
No, it's rocketry. Sometimes things go boom when they're that volatile to begin with.
Long bow bro.
This approach had worked with the R7 rocket (the Sputnik and Gagarin's booster, predecessor of Soyuz). But at this larger scale, it seems things break apart much easier if not properly tested in parts.
I suspect that Musks desire to have everything reusable has severely eaten into those margins though. I personally think he'd have been better off making only the first stage ('booster') reusable for the first few years, which then lets you develop more things in parallel later (the first landers can be on mars whilst you're still figuring out second stage reusability)
Going fully reusable may change that equation, but first stage reuse probably isn’t enough to make the program even close to worthwhile.
Questions like rate of successful launches, amount of payload sacrificed, etc really change the economics of the whole process. If the total payload is worth 1 billion a moderately more expense launch with higher success rate can be cheaper.
It's pretty clear there is barely enough commercial launch demand for falcon 9 (it already has ~100% of the non-foreign launch market, and there isn't a huge amount of price elasticity), so no reason at all to develop starship, apart from humans in space.
Mars is at best a long term goal for Starship, and far more likely to be just a nice story that Musk uses to motivate his engineers and investors.
It’s a terrible design for anything else, because it can barely get beyond LEO without in-orbit refuelling.
None of the competing rockets (e.g. New Glenn) resemble Starship in the slightest, because none of them are intended to fly to Mars.
Given SpaceX's business, it seems safe to assume that Starlink was a design goal with at least a similar priority to the Mars goal.
Another use case it'd work fabulous for would be a LEO space hotel business.
Finally, it's also a great rocket for any use case that involves returning large masses, even if the return is from higher than LEO. Yes, it'll be a thirsty beast requiring many refuelling trips, but the tyranny of the rocket equation makes it hard to do any better. If you want to return dozens of tons from the moon or elsewhere you'd be hard pressed to do better than Starship.
Then again, Musk is also big on reusing components as much as possible, so he might have opposed multiple fuels on principle.
You need much larger tanks, so the mass advantage is pretty much completely eliminated. Hydrogen engines generally have much lower thrust for a given size too. Falcon9 or Starship style staging is infeasible with a hydrogen second stage. Rockets that use hydrogen for their second stage separate a lot higher and faster than Falcon9/Starship to make up for this reduced thrust. This makes Falcon/Starship style 1st stage recovery impossible.
Hydrogen would be great for a 3rd stage. If you want it to be recoverable, design a third stage that fits within the Starship enclosure. This would be a fabulous way to do small BEO missions without requiring a whole bunch of refueling.
Blue Glenn stages much higher and further than Falcon; it's caught much further off shore. More significantly, it doesn't have a return to launch site option like Falcon does and Starship always uses.
For most purposes the customer does not care one iota about the booster, they are interested in the cost per kg to get where they are going. For low orbit hydrolox imposes more handling nightmare costs than it saves in amount of rocket, it is not the fuel of choice unless you're trying to impress.
(Now, things change considerably when you looking at deep space. But methalox or even kerolox fueled in orbit still beats hydrolox fueled on the ground. And hydrolox is much less storable--your rocket costs weight, necessary to reach orbit but once you're up there a smaller engine means less wasted mass. The only advantage to a bigger engine is Oberth and that is only truly relevant if you either care about time (Apollo took an inefficient path for this reason), or because you are going to carry velocity into deep space. Look at the flight path of the Webb. The booster flew higher than the maximum efficiency path because the deep space stage was puny. It wasn't powerful enough to circularize normally, the telescope fell back quite a bit before the engine had built up enough velocity to stay up. But it was worth wasting some energy on that in order to not lift as much engine away from the Earth.)
Settlement on Mars is out of one gravity well into another, so it's not clear if it's the best first location of a extraterrestrial human territory - Moon might be easier and more reasonable.
So the camp is split between Moon and Mars, and Musk has to be on Mars.
There is zero chance of building a self-sustaining base on either within the next fifty years, and probably within the next century.
It's not a freight problem, it's an ecology problem. Designing a life support system that is stable and self-correcting and isn't in danger of running out of some essential raw material or element isn't just an unsolved problem, it's a barely considered problem.
Ironically - or perhaps not - it would be much easier to create a self-sustaining population of machines on Mars and/or the Moon than any project that relies on incredibly complex and messy human biochemistry.
Earth science closed loop ecologists since the 60s would like a word with you...
The entire point of Biosphere 2 was to run a closed system for long enough to discover unexpected causes of failure.
Aka science.
Its not like its just some small details that need some fine tuning or funding to achieve and just around the corner. The scale of building just an empty multi-acre structure off earth to start would by itself dwarf all our previous space projects combined.
So unravel the major dynamics on Earth, and as on another body with gravity and sunlight (to a first approximation).
I don't think that's even ironic. It's the only viable path.
It should be like: robots keep 3D printing and launching giant capsule parts into L1/L2, which are to be robotically welded with captured asteroid inside so that the inside can be filled with all sorts of minimum viable tools until it's good enough to host life, and then interested life on Earth can choose to inhabit them.
We are not going to be welding space sailboats in an Apollo suits on Lunar surface and taking breaks on space prefab shacks. That just is not going to work.
Falcon Heavy put a car in a trans-Martian orbit, and Musk has been about Starship-like things going to Mars before SpaceX managed to launch the Falcon 1, let alone them getting a chance to bid for the return-to-Moon mission.
But the Artemis mission isn't really about doing things sensibly, it's about pork barrels. You can tell by looking at the wild disparity between the vehicles, where there's this complex process to put a handful of astronauts on a space station and transfer them to a landing vehicle… but the Lunar Gateway is smaller than Starship, and I think small enough you could fit all the parts of the Lunar Gateway inside the payload volume of one Starship.
If the USA wants to go to the moon for its own sake, they could do it cheapest by just paying SpaceX for a ride, not all the other contractors.
What sort of technologies become enabled when putting things in space gets cheaper?
The current wave of problems is likely caused by optimizations in the v2 of the rocket. Starship v1 was very conservatively built and mostly worked. They are trying to squeeze extra 25 per cent of payload capacity from v2 (from 80 to 100 tons on LEO), and they are running into the edges of multiple envelopes.
Raptor v2 BTW seems fine, the main issues are around the plumbing that feeds propellant into the engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vectron_(locomotive)
Now that would be high-speed rail.
For example 2 of the legendary JGR Class 8620 (nicknamed hachiroku) Japanese steam locomotives could be comfortably launched to orbit in 90 tons. :)
An Abrahams tank would be one designed to carry the Holy Hand Grenade.
:)
Why can't they be? NASA seems to test them on Earth. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960007443/downloads/19...
Also compared to Super Heavy & Starship, they had more stages (4 vs 2) and most importantly, were not able to test the stages separately - which was possible for the Saturn V & IIRC all its stages exploded on the test stand at least once.
Both Super Heavy and Starship can be tested separately & Starship exploded during such testing, without taking the rest of the rocket with it, like N1 regularly did - including demolishing the super expensive launch pad during at least one occasion.
My fav Apollo-era fuckup is when they tested the launch abort system. The test went bad, but was 100% successful in demonstrating it worked. Heh. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DpdKxv9WINY
Getting to Apollo involved a lot of big booms, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8
But we learned and improved fast.
Now that we have decades of rocket knowledge, we shouldn't be wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on giant explosions
I'm inclined to see Constellation/SLS/Orion/etc. as at least as wasteful as the explosions, at least so far. Which one wins out will depend on the end results.
I'd also note Apollo 13 was definitely a failure.
I might be a little bitter that NASA doesn't get that money instead.
NASA also got much cheaper launches out of it. They’re just fine.
It’s a very reasonable argument for little tchotchkes you sell to tourists but much less so when talking about critical technologies.
I mean, I would note that the first stage of this has 33 engines (N1 had 30, Saturn V had 5).
I don't think the comparisons are very apt.
The parts are not what are failing. It's the overall system.
Government-run vs private-run (partially govt-bankrolled). Single use vs fully reusable. Moon vs Mars. Traditional development vs iterative ("hardware heavy") development. There's just no parallels whatsoever.
Will the result be the same? We'll see. But the history says don't bet against Elon.
Btw N1 was a failure arguably due to Korolev's death, not his ineptness.
The shuttle was a deathtrap. It had inadequate abort modes and a launch process that practically guaranteed minor (until it wasn't) damage to the heat shield during launch.
Classic example of https://danluu.com/wat/ --- the normalization of deviance.
STS crews were lucky that only two of the things got violenly disassembled.
I think the only reasonable comparison would be after cost equivalency. The Starship has a long way to go, to catch up.
Of course commercial rockets are always going to be as shoddy as they can get away with rather than as good as possible, but if it still takes SpaceX or Boeing as much money to build a rocket as it did back in the Saturn V days, they're doing something wrong.
Your arguments are strange, a mirage concocted to fit a narrative of denigration and darkness. You mock with zeal, yet have no point to the mocking.
Always with the mocking, you cause an ache which cannot be balmed. Cease, I pray you. Stop these machinations, this mad canter.
Falcon was built the same way. It blew up many times too, explosions aplenty. Now it is the most successful lift on the planet.
No one has ever built a plane, or even a car without breakage during testing. The very idea is absurd. There's a whole profession called "test pilot".
I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise.
I'm sure there are links aplenty, but the absurd suggestion here would be building a rocket and having zero incidents of failure. That beyond weird. That's what needs a "do you have a link" question.
You're recalling wrong, or you were reading nonsense. Lots of engines were destroyed in testing (particularly before computer modelling, this was basically how rocket engines were _developed_), but no, no Saturn V ever exploded on the pad. Prior to this incident, the most-impressive on-pad boom was one of the N1s.
No fully assembled Saturn V ever failed, though a few of them had near-misses.
It's a weird debarc point to discuss non testing craft vs testing. And "fully assembled", when spacex is flying non-final builds on purpose, using a different test methodology.
Yes! I am sure! That did not happen!
Early development of Saturn V rocket engines involved destructive testing, but a whole rocket would not have been involved at that point.
Here's some later ground testing of final engines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-II
"First all-up S-II stage, assembled between 1963 and 1965. Completed several engine tests at the Mississippi Test Facility (now the Stennis Space Center). Destroyed by accidental LH2 tank overpressurization during pressure testing May 28, 1966[7][6]"
and
"Destroyed in test stand September 29, 1965"
Also described here: http://heroicrelics.org/ussrc/s-ii/index.html
"The S-II program was beset with problems and delays. NASA had planned on North American making an S-II stage, S-II-D, for dynamic testing but the order for that stage was cancelled in early 1965 in favor of using the structural static test stage, S-II-S, as a combined static/dynamic test stage; that stage was renamed to S-II-S/D. Unfortunately, the S-II-S/D stage was destroyed during testing, leaving S-II-F to take on the added role of dynamic testing and being redesignated as S-II-F/D."
I though all of the Saturn V stages were destroyed during testing at least once but it looks like I remembered it wrong. :)
And Saturn V never had a military mission, neither had Shuttle.
That sounds military enough for me.
Does Starship have launch abort boosters? Seems infeasible with the amount of fuel and mass on it since it also serves as a second stage, but maybe they solved that somehow?
I want to do Apollo again.[0]
Disagree. The overall Starship system's problems are obviously in Starship, not in the Super Heavy booster. The latter is far heavier. But it only has to do 2 things well - sub-orbital launch, and sub-orbital precision return. And the launch tower's chopsticks give it a lot of help with the latter.
Vs. the Starship has to do far more things - all of them mission-critical - while being ruthlessly optimized for weight.
Operations cost. They are sublinear on payload/size. At least this is what Space X/Musk seem to go for.
There's also many advantages to being able to lift something large/heavy in one go, rather than smaller payloads that need to be unfolded (like JWST) or assembled in space, which can drastically increase the development costs.
for up to 0.8% US GDP per year. Today that would be $200B/year, pure spent. Where is Space X today is making, ie. it has a revenue, $15B/year.
>Perhaps web development is not the only thing that is susceptible to bloat.
similarly - web dev today can be done on $300 laptop by any schmuck. Even simple programming back then required a computer which cost a lot, and it was an almost academic activity.
The value added is interesting. For example, both the Merlin and the Raptor family of engines. These are some fine engines, and they are remarkably cheap and reusable.
The likes of SpaceX are reporting costs in the range of $15B/year because NASA front loaded the cost of trailblazing launch technology half a century ago, with the technology available half a century ago.
Let's not fool ourselves into believing the likes of SpaceX are reinventing the wheel.
Also, those $15B are buying a fraction of the capabilities of SaturnV, and while SaturnV was proven effective and reliable 50 years ago, here we are discussing yet another "anomaly". Perhaps half these "anomalies" wouldn't exist if they weren't lean'ed into existence?
Not even just NASA. SpaceX are building on technologies that originated from both sides of the iron curtain (and beyond)
How far back is the "start" of history in this telling, and (more importantly) why?
The grandparent comment was pointing out that it cost NASA 200bn, and spaceX 15bn.
The parent comment pointed out that spaceX are actually saving money because they already got what nasa spent 200bn on.
My comment pointed out that they aren't just saving money by using NASAs tech, but tech from the Soviet Union as well - suggesting that their savings are far beyond just 200bn R&D
How many billions was that?
This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant.
What SpaceX has accomplished is astonishing, and no belittling of their accomplishments should be tolerated.
Not really. You're not talking about technology. You're debating the economics behind it. You're seeing naive fanboys praising SpaceX's costs for the likes of Starship by comparing them to the cost of the SaturnV project, arriving at the simplistic conclusion that Starship is cheaper. This is like comparing your cheap Android phone as being far cheaper than a 1950s UNIVAC. And when the silliness of this specious reasoning is called out, your reaction is to downplay it as "not really relevant"?
That said, you're upset that I said comparing costs isn't relevant? Isn't that the case you're making right now, that the costs cannot be compared, therefore aren't relevant in this discussion?
My tact on non-relevance, is that saying "it was built on another program's tech!" is not relevant, because everything meets that criterion. For example, as I said, the Saturn was built on decades of German research, including war time research during WWII, into rockets. Saturn's US development costs were a fraction of overall rocket research done by the Germans!
So if upthread is going to argue "but it's all built on the Saturn, and free knowledge!", then the same argument can be carried further back, thus negating this argument. Why?
Because it makes the Saturn cost trillions.
Thats the whole point for this entire thread. Pointing out that you CANT compare the costs of spaceX with NASA because spaceX is building on NASAs (and others) achievements.
Maybe you need to go back and reread this entire thread rather than suggesting others do so.
Simultaneously, I am also using my same logic to argue that you cannot compare costs due to my reasoning.
I agreeing with the point (you can't compare costs) while disagreeing as to why.
Instead, I said it is an impossible thing to compare, for everything is built upon another. In fact, everything is built upon a myriad of other things.
Really, both the Heavy and the Saturn cost about the same. That's because they both depend upon the entire sum of human knowledge and research, to be built.
A billion trillion trillion trillion in today's dollars of knowledge gained and experience honed, over millions of years. So what if one cost a billion trillion trillion trillion, and another cost a billion trillion trillion trillion + a few billion more. The difference is meaningless, and not even worth considering.
And then there's the whole "how much is new" argument, and there's new knowledge aplenty thanks to SpaceX.
I really don't get these arguments. People seem to really love to denigrate the effort, the excellent results. It's beyond bizarre. And worse, mock because test flights, expected to possibly go sideways, do?
So weird.
"Hi, I'm going to see if this will work. It'll probably explode. But if it does, I'll learn something"
<boom>
hahaha it exploded you suck
I don't get it.
Its unfair to say spaceX did what NASA did on a smaller budget (which is what the comment that kicked off this thread implied) because they DIDNT do what NASA did, and instead got "the stuff that came before" + "the stuff that NASA spent 200b on" + "the stuff from other sources that also cost billions" + the 15b that they actually spent to get where they are.
How can you disagree with that? You may think this discussion is silly - but its DIRECTLY as a response to someone implying that spaceX are achieving what NASA did with less money: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44316227
I wonder what "tons of payload to orbit" vs "dollars budget" would look like for Saturn era NASA vs Current SpaceX.
No doubt they're standing on the shoulders of giants, but let's not forget that they've helped transform the "go to space"-business.
That's like comparing how many containers Maersk moves today with how much sea cargo was moved back in the age of discovery.
Also, Saturn V worked and fulfilled it's mission, whereas Starship blows up.
I'd expect SpaceX to do much more now than NASA in the 60s if granted USD 200B/year, considering they are already standing on the shoulders of giants.
Then you will agree that comparing an unproven launcher which seems to be far far away from being able to fulfill a similar role is a very silly endeavour, let alone talk about it as a vast improvement which just so happens to blow up.
Its impressive how ignorant HN is about how many failures the S5 had during testing, falling for cold war propoganda at full speed
But we're comparing to SpaceX launches. Plenty of Raptor engines have blown up on the ground too.
There were 13 Saturn V's launched and all of them basically performed their mission (Apollo 6 being a bit of an exception) with 0 rapid unplanned disassemblies...
Total lunar effort from 1960-1973, adjusted for 2024 USD: $326 billion
Launch vehicle costs (Saturn V): $113 billion
I think this is what should be compared against the total Starship program cost starting from 2020 until such time it completes 6 lunar landings (not counting SLS or other costs).
Or, for the year that Starship actually lands on the moon, compare against the Saturn V launch vehicle costs for 1969, inflation adjusted: $5.9 billion. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTKMekJW9F8Z...
Source: https://youtu.be/Dar8P3r7GYA?si=RHZ8lWFYKrd7qQhy&t=321
0.8% US GDP in 1969 would be about 8B/yr today. Very different answer
Do you know the McMurdo permanent Antarctica base is costing us far more than the dogs, sleds, and tents of Admundsen and Shackleton? Incredible, isn't it?
Starship is “the program to build a permanent base in the moon”. It’s not even the only vehicle involved in the moon program. It’s a rocket designed to take astronauts from moon orbit to the moon’s surface. The astronauts will actually fly to the moon in SLS.
So far it’s proved incapable of being launched, attaining orbit, and returning to earth as designed. That’s without a payload.
It has no life support system built and is literally years behind schedule.
Rather than making progress it is being redesigned on the fly to mitigate fundamental problems with its capability which Musk laughs off as “moving fast and breaking things”.
The problem is we aren’t moving fast at all.
The rocket is a disaster. Saturn V was better by an order of magnitude and likely cheaper if you consider how much fundamental work went into creating it which is now easy to buy off the shelf.
Comparing the programs while ignoring the fact that hobbiest regularly reach the Karman line is deceitful.
Starship is doing this on easy mode and it’s failing.
But this 'easy mode' is still so incredibly hard that nobody else will even attempt it.
I'd love to see some serious competition emerge in the reusable rocket space, but SpaceX is far, far ahead with Falcon 9 being an incredible success, even if the Starship project may be headed for failure. Nobody reports on 100+ successful Falcon 9 launches/landings in a year, those are now mundane. But a small number of Starship failures - test flights of an experimental vehicle - become big news, mostly because they involve spectacular explosions.
It seems that Starship may be too big to 'fail fast', mostly because of the visual spectacle of those failures.
But yeah, I tend to agree that whether it ultimately succeeds or not, blowing Starship up is a "fail fast" strategy because they have the money (and the reputational capital from successful Falcon 9 launches) to learn from their mistakes that way, and not many others do. Much as the waterfall approach of big space projects gets derided, there's a reason entities that can't take the reputational hit of visibly blowing stuff up on a regular basis do it that way...
The program that was paused pending new NASA director, and has burned more money than SpaceX without a single (usable) launch?
I’m making things up out of memory here, but suffice to say SLS does not have my confidence.
How are the astronauts supposed to get on lunar soil on SLS?
One year of Saturn V development cost the same as the entire Starship program so far. One launch cost 20-30x more than the projected cost of a Starship launch.
It is also said that it’s simply impossible to rebuild a Saturn rocket. Not only you can’t “buy components off the shelf” because they simply don’t exist anymore, even if you had all the component blueprints (which we don’t, they were lost to time), the manufacturing know-how is long gone.
Starship was developed from scratch. SpaceX developed their own engines, their flight control surfaces are novel, the rocket structure and materials are novel, the entire approach is different. Yes, our modern electronics industry makes it “easier” but this is like saying Porsche is playing in easy mode because of the Ford Model T.
I propose my own imaginary rocket. It costs $0 but it doesn't exist. Totally beats the Saturn V on cost!
I have much respect to this guys that works in here that really pushing the innovation beyond the limit
reusable rocket is the future if you want permanent present in space, there is no way you throw rocket for only 1 launch
No, OP is comparing a launcher that worked reliably (it's in the history books) with a launcher which never performed a mission and is reporting "anomalies".
Was it required to launch more?
How many moon missions did Starship fulfilled? It seems 50 years ago SaturnV launched 12 times more than Starship.
That's complete nonsense. 10-15 Starship launches would land a lander that can carry like 100tons of payload orbit.
Saturn V landed 15000kg on the moon, but most of that isn't payload.
But of course with Saturn V you are throwing away a rocket that cost 1 billion $ or more per launch.
You are comparing 'thing lands on moon' to 'things lands on moon' without any nuance.
But you are right Apollo was insane in how fast it was done.
So yes, I suppose that is more inefficient, in a way.
Second, SpaceX has consistently shown lower development cost then anybody else. Starship is expensive its likely cheaper then New Glenn.
Remember, Ariane 6, a marginal upgrade over Ariane 5 with only a new upper stage engine cost 6 billion $.
And SpaceX is already at much higher launch rates and manufacturing rates for thing like engines. SpaceX is investing into mass production already.
Which as the person you're replying to is point out isn't really a fair comparison because Starship and Saturn V deliver vastly different amounts of mass to and from the moon despite the mission being only to ferry some people there for a few days.
If Starship ends up flying to the moon it effectively enables the landing of a lunar base that could be occupied for years at a time with sufficient resupply of food and the right equipment for extraction of water/oxygen from the moon.
The Saturn V as amazing as it was could never have brought that much equipment to the moon in a cost effective manner.
also military (space force)
The burning question that I have now is whether a Starship explosion during lunar testing will be visible from Earth. I sure hope they would do it during a new moon too for maximum effect.
The Apollo Program cost a total of $183 billion, inflation adjusted, over 12 years. That's about $15 billion a year. NASA's budget has been for the past 40 years has been $20-$30 billion a year. Even the 'burst funding' wasn't particularly extreme relative to what they now regularly receive. The highest their budget ever was was in 1966 in $57 billion (inflation adjusted) dollars.
To visualize the absurdity of this argument imagine somebody claiming that Uganda funding a space program for $5 billion is receiving some serious financial capital, because that happens to be 10% of their GDP. $5 billion is $5 billion, regardless of your GDP. Ok technically there's PPP calculations, but that doesn't apply to the discussion here.
Obviously percentage of GDP isn't an ideal multiplier for reasons you've mentioned, but then inflation indexed mainly to mass produced common consumer goods tends to significantly underestimate the increase in cost over time of running complex operations involving the world's smartest and most on-demand minds and an almost unfathomably large number of subcontractors. Either way, NASA's overall budget is half that of the 1960s in regular inflation adjusted dollars, and whilst its current research and satellite/ISS maintenance maybe aren't as exciting as the first lunar landing, they're not obviously dramatically lower cost (the %GDP argument gets brought up nearly as often to suggest the Apollo programme wasn't worth it...)
Sat in a lecture theatre with NASA's last chief economist using both metrics earlier this week. Although those slides were looking at cumulative funds spent on Robert Goddard's programme, which was about the size of a largish Series A using the inflation metric or Series B using the GDP adjustment. Whether that's value for money or not depends on whether you're considering being the father of modern rocketry more impressive than sending a handful of moderately complex 16U Cubesats or rideshares or note that the actual rockets were no more sophisticated than some student projects, I guess...
Yet NASA continues to cheerlead for these things. I briefly thought NASA might right their heading under Bridenstine but then at some point he suddenly just did a hard 180. It seems every man has his price. He eventually just turned into another Boeing cheerleader (and his new found rubber stampage is a big part of why that Boeing monstrosity left astronauts stranded on the ISS) and went straight from out of office to a high level advisory gig for some MIC company which is almost certainly just a laundered paycheck.
Also I can assure you no-one at Cariad had to write an MP3 decoder. And speaking of sensor control, my car (on its 4th year now) still fails to unfold the mirrors once in a while.
We also have huge, orders of magnitude advances in tooling and process since mid-1960s. For starters you don't have to weave your program into magnetic core fabric by hand.
(edits:) It's clearly not ideal for a short lunar landing, considered in isolation. But: what else would you do? Whatever you build, it would land on the moon perhaps once, and never again. Would you, being in charge, design a one-off vehicle for one or two moon landings—spend that R&D budget, in that way? That's not cheaper than 15 Starship launches; it's considerably costlier. (But the Apollo engineers didn't need to worry about this; it's was their express remit to spend $200 billion on one-off designs that would never be used again).
And: I hope no one suggests the "just make a unique lunar Starship variant that's simply a bit smaller". There's no "simply" resizing things in engineering. Recall that the last time Starship's length was altered by 2 meters, new mechanical resonances appeared, and it blew up three times in a row. Any "one-off" change for lunar landings is a less-tested, less-understood machine you'd be putting human lives on.
But it would also never land on Mars, so it would be a waste to build it for that. Build it for what it will actually spend its life doing.
Not saying SpaceX won't go to Mars, but if/when they do it will likely be several rocket generations later and possibly with specialized rockets, with a significant portion of it being one-time-use as you ain't returning.
Winching stuff out of said open door seems like a much, much easier task.
The outside door needn't be part of the airlock. It's certainly big enough to have an internal airlock leading to depressurized internal space.
The things that make a door that tests fine on Earth break in orbit are likely to be things that need fixing for a similar door on Mars. They won't be all the same challenges, but some will absolutely be shared.
A hatch with a winch (or two!) seems likely to be one of the smaller ones.
Wouldn't that make the mission unfeasible because it requires ISRU of return fuel?
https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2022/05/27/how-will-spacex-make-r...
That's what happens with most domains. At first people don't know the dangers and can go fast and loose: surgery, radioactive material, planes, cars, trains, rockets. Then people start losing their lives or part of their bodies to "easily preventable accidents". So some rules are enacted. Decade after decade, accident after accident, more rules, more red tape: things cost more, take more time. But you get a lot less victims.
So yeah, with a good budget and in a less strict country you could get something to the moon in no time. And potentially many people' parts all over your launchpads too.
Gas pipework: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR486zloao0
So far in history, we didn't have enough to launch. If the volume we launch increases then a larger rocket flying often is helpful.
We are at the peak of what a rocket the size of Falcon 9 can do. If you want full re-usability, the size helps you out quite a bit.
And hauling the 'orbiter' into 'orbit' is only wasteful if you can't reuse it. I would argue what's actually wasteful is throwing the second stage in the ocean, even when it costs minimum 10million $, and likely more.
The wet (loaded with propellant) to dry (empty of propellant) mass ratio is determined via the rocket equation to be the exponential of delta V divided by exhaust velocity.
Certain parts of the rocket, such as the external tank structure, scale sub-cubically with the rocket's dimension, as do aerodynamic forces; whereas payload and propellant mass scale cubically.
Hence if the rocket is smaller than a critical threshold size, the requisite vehicle structures are too large relative to its propellant capacity to permit the required wet:dry mass ratio to achieve the delta V for orbit.
At exactly this size, the rocket can reach orbit with zero payload.
As the rocket increases in size beyond this threshold, it is able to carry a payload which is increasingly large relative to the rocket's total mass.
(There's a large difference between staged combustion generally and gas-generator engines, which throw away performance by dumping fuel out of the turbine exhaust).
We might imagine a conservative FFSC design which accepts very low temperatures in exchange for making it easy (low R&D cost) to reach high longevity. Raptor is not a conservative design, so it requires more R&D to achieve that longevity.
I understand vaguely that those operate and scale based on the area (a square function of their length) of their lifting surfaces, and are pulled down by their mass (a cube function of their length).
A little Estes toy rocket lifts off the pad much more aggressively (in the blink of an eye!) than a full size rocket...
However, even if you're taking off of a planet with no atmosphere, you still have a huge force to deal with - you need to maintain an acceleration to exit the gravity well of the planet, and you need to burn fuel for that. But you also have to carry the fuel you'll burn with you, so the more fuel you have, the more fuel you'll need - this is what the rocket equation codifies.
Isn't this the entire point of using methane as fuel so that they can build a gas station once they get there so that return fuel is not required to be considered in this equation?
If you really want to, you can reach Mach 10 (~3300 m/s) with a 8 meter long 3500 kg missile in 5 seconds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)
All of that in the lower atmosphere with the missile heat shield glowing white hot. :)
An orbital class rocket--taking that kind of g load is going to break it (just look at the payload specs for the Falcon Heavy--its maximum permitted payload is well below it's performance to low orbit. You load it up to what the engines can do, it breaks. The only use case is when it's going farther than low orbit.) And an orbital class rocket has active steering rather than fins, it doesn't need to be booking it to be stable.
> Our satellite launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California (USA) on Jan 14, 2025. The rocket mission is a Transporter, and SAT GUS was dropped off in low-Earth orbit at about 375 miles above the surface of our pale blue dot.
So there's some sort of curve, zero at both ends, between overall rocket size and the payload to orbit. The question is where Starship sits on that curve, and to your point it seems likely that it's looking good on that metric alone.
But then you have another curve that I think starts small and increases near-monotonically, which is the complexity/likelihood-to-fail factor to the size of the rocket. It's (relatively) easy to launch a toy rocket, (fairly) simple to build a missile-sized sub-orbital rocket, difficult to build a small-to-medium orbital rocket, and apparently very difficult to build a Saturn/N-1/Starship-sized rocket. More props to the crazy '60s team that pulled it off.
This doesn't follow. Engineering complexity is not a limit on payload to orbit, it is a fundamentally different parameter. Yeah building a mile tall rocket would be hard, but it would get a shit ton of payload to orbit. There is no maximum beyond which making a bigger rocket starts to reduce your payload to orbit.
> But then you have another curve that I think starts small and increases near-monotonically, which is the complexity/likelihood-to-fail factor to the size of the rocket. It's (relatively) easy to launch a toy rocket, (fairly) simple to build a missile-sized sub-orbital rocket, difficult to build a small-to-medium orbital rocket, and apparently very difficult to build a Saturn/N-1/Starship-sized rocket.
Complexity does not increase with size, people just become more risk averse with size. Toy rockets fail all the time, just nobody really cares. No one would bet the lives of multiple people and hundreds of millions of dollars on a successful toy rocket launch. If complexity increases, it is with capability. If you want to land on the moon, you need something a bit more advanced than a hobby rocket. There is no reason to believe a floatilla of physically smaller rockets capable of achieving any given mission will be less complex in aggregate than a single physically larger rocket.
> This doesn't follow. Engineering complexity is not a limit on payload to orbit
At this point I'm merely talking about size (which I think is clear from the words I use. I don't think "building a mile tall rocket would be hard" adequately describes the difficulty when we haven't even built a mile tall building.
Sea Dragon[1] was only envisioned as 490 feet tall, and as near as I can tell even the Super Orion[2] would only have been 400-600 meters tall. And of course, neither of those was even close to implementation. Therefore I stand by my statement that a mile tall rocket is, for all practical purposes, impossible, and thus has a payload to orbit of zero. If you disagree then add a zero -- surely you agree we can't build a ten-mile-tall rocket?
As far as complexity, I'm not sure what to say. Toy rockets might fail all the time, but the point was complexity, and a toy rocket can be constructed from under a dozen parts. Even larger model rockets have at most a few dozen to a few hundred parts. The part count of the Falcon 9 has to number in the thousands, if not tens of thousands (9 merlin engines with at least several hundred parts each?).
To be clear, I agree with you that complexity increases with capability.
But also, to push back a bit, I don't think complexity aggregates the way you're saying it does. A box of hammers is not more complex than a nailgun, even if it has more parts in total.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)I was assuming you were using a comical example to illustrate a "nightmare to engineer." The comparison to a building doesn't actually work at all. The practical limitation on how high we can build buildings is how fast we can make elevators. Just making something tall is not a problem.
> Sea Dragon[1] was only envisioned as 490 feet tall, and as near as I can tell even the Super Orion[2] would only have been 400-600 meters tall. And of course, neither of those was even close to implementation. Therefore I stand by my statement that a mile tall rocket is, for all practical purposes, impossible
First, the optimal design for a rocket is not to just keep making it taller, and second, size was not the obstacle to either of these projects not being built. That does not at all prove that it is impossible. What kind of world would we be living in we presumed anything that hadn't already been actively pursued was impossible?
> and thus has a payload to orbit of zero.
My point was that this does not equate to a payload of zero. Surely you wouldn't argue that the weight of this mile high rocket is zero, and therefore that there is some curve for the weight of rockets where making the rockets larger starts to make them lighter. Just as we can calculate the weight for something without actually building it, so too can we calculate the payload, and it can increase far beyond anything we can actually implement.
> If you disagree then add a zero -- surely you agree we can't build a ten-mile-tall rocket?
I agree it would be impractical, but not that it would be so non-physical that we couldn't calculate what its payload capacity would be were it to be built.
> Toy rockets might fail all the time, but the point was complexity, and a toy rocket can be constructed from under a dozen parts. Even larger model rockets have at most a few dozen to a few hundred parts. The part count of the Falcon 9 has to number in the thousands, if not tens of thousands (9 merlin engines with at least several hundred parts each?).
Falcon 9 is a liquid rocket designed to take people into space. That is the source of its part count. You could scale up a solid rocket motor to an arbitrarily large size while keeping the parts count exactly the same. It's probably not the optimal way to make a solid rocket of that size, and you'd be missing out on a lot of capabilities that are important for a real rocket, but if you just wanted a toy no more capable than what you buy in a hobby store it would be no more complicated. Conversely, try to make a fully functional falcon 9 complete with 9 working liquid rocket engines small enough to hoverslam on your desk and you have an immense engineering challenge on your hands.
> But also, to push back a bit, I don't think complexity aggregates the way you're saying it does. A box of hammers is not more complex than a nailgun, even if it has more parts in total.
I concur that part count is not the same as complexity, but that point is in my favor. Making something bigger is like adding hammers to a box of hammers. The quantity goes up, and at some point you're going to need to make some improvements to the box if you want to keep adding more hammers, but conceptually it is simple. Making something more capable, like a nail-gun, is much harder.
We knew from the Soviet that it was going to be really hard but after the successful flights I thought they had it in the bag.
We might be touching on the limits of SpaceX constant tweaking fail fast approach.
It doesn't mean the approach SpaceX is taking isn't valuable in some contexts, but it's certainly not the only method.
The first one [1] actually landed but failed to send back any data (kinda like the soviet example) due to deployment failure.
But the second one will at least have an impact on future generations, with people being confused why there are two Shiaparelli[2] craters on Mars. ;-)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_2 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiaparelli_EDM
But SpaceX's brand of rocket development is certainly exciting
So might as well use up the remaining Starship 2 & Raptor 2 inventory in destructive testing (both intentional and emergent).
I like the idea of hardware-rich development, but it seems they might have fiddled too much here or maybe just tried to go too fast.
If an engine blows up, because its pulling in bubbles, its not the engines fault.
I think Raptor 2 has a few issues still but as we can see on the booster, the can perform fine for what most rocket engines have to do.
I think about the countless engineering success stories I’ve read where you can tell the people involved were just living and breathing the problem.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/spacex/culture/seattle
https://www.comparably.com/companies/spacex/enps
U.S. tech companies are notorious for high turnover and SpaceX doesn't seem particularly bad.
Then again, they are launching tons of rockets, and any cult leader has his followers, so what do I know...
Especially with how hot the field is these days. I suspect "key" SpaceX engineers do not lack for lucrative offers.
The problems all started with v2.
Still in hindsight, a couple more flights to test the improved heat shield could help move that are forward & reduce some of the unknowns.
Sadly, this would make a rocket too heavy to reach orbit. So they end up being 1.1x stronger than anticipated loads. And it's hard to exactly anticipate loads. Vibration can add to a peak load, and it's notoriously hard to model how much vibration might happen. SpaceX rockets are filled with cryogenic methane at -160C, which causes everything it touches to shrink which creates forces between the parts that get cold and the parts that don't. A rocket-sized tank contracts by inches, but has to be supported by the structure around it. A single support member that doesn't move the right way can cause a fracture. So it's actually a hard problem.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls...
This could be a "simple" production error (think "cracked pipe") which can be fixed with more effective monitoring of the construction, and not a major design flaw.
It might be someone forgot a wrench somewhere for what we know.
There's a simple fault, and then there's the question of why did it happen anyway?
I mean, look, this isn't a good sign for spacex. Whatever problem there is, clearly it's hard to find and fix. Could be some alloy, could be some pressure sensor, could be the whole management chain. Who knows yet.
But we very much do know this isn't a good sign.
Why?
Second scenario, Starship is not run as competently as Falcon 9. That is also a huge problem, because it's very hard to fix people and procesa problems in general.
Obviously it's not trivial, since they already flew a few spaceships and rockets, but it could be an edge case not considered until now which can still be fixed, rather than a "well, it turned out to be impossible to fly a rocket with this design".
The real problem is the damaged infrastructure. They don't have several launch towers in the pipeline like they have Starships. This is a "pause and rebuild" scenario, with the wait time much harder to parallelize with something else. Whatever time they spend until they have the second launch tower functional, I'd bet about half of it will be an overall addition to the whole project.
They didn't lose a launch tower. It happened at a site only used for static fire tests.
(And they kinda do have several launch towers in the pipeline...)
So what, 6 to 9 months while they repair/build new test site(s)?
Might as well cut the losses and scrap Block 2 altogether, and move on to Block 3.
Good luck trying to get launch insurance for that without a full root cause and proof in double triplicate that this has been fixed.
Are you going to put you payload on one of those, a payload that will take 3 years to rebuild, and might end the company?
As a result we got booster landings delayed by 20 years - and SpaceX would also not get there with Falcon 9 if they would call it quit after spcetacular failures (see Falcon 9R test bed).
Choosing a hydrogen engine (which only really makes sense for upper stages) also means you need a hydrogen tank... a cryogenic hydrogen tank. They chose to make such a tank with a weird shape that fit the unnecessarily weird shape of their prototype. I think the major cost of getting their craft repaired (or more realistically, having a new one built) was to build a new custom hydrogen tank.
Crazy, when they didn't need anything optimized/complicated for testing launch and landing.
Also wild that they went with an F/A-18 accelerometer/gyro package. The first commercial mass market MEMS accelerometer was introduced in 1991 and was in volume production in 1993. I mean, they had to pick something and the ADXL50 wasn't ready yet (and they would still have had to design a 3-axis solution around it if it were), so I don't blame them for that (expensive) decision.
https://qringtech.com/TryMe/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Histo... https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/obso...
I do very much blame them for the choice of the RL-10, though. And for going immediately to such a large size -- that's the same thing as saying "we plan on not making any mistakes".
The only engines that were not hypergolic & used kerolox were those used on the Atlas rockets or on the Deltas. Not sure if they had the necessary throttling range and other characteristics. I guess now I need to find some sort of a biography from someone working on the DC-X project. :D
As for Armadillo Aerospace - their efforts were admirably and I really enjoyed watching their progress. And they did manage to get a working engine. :)
AMOS-6 was a pretty similar situation where a rocket exploded prior to a static-fire, and in fact is the reason that static fires are done without payloads, though Starship would not yet have a payload. The difficult to explain nature of the explosion, alongside some quite compelling circumstantial evidence, caused a theory of sabotage (sniping an exact segment of the rocket) to become widespread. Of course the cause here could be more straight forward to pin down - we'll know a lot more in a few days!
And also (IIRC) the reason Starship abandoned helium COPV tanks and switched to autogenous pressurization.
https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1lf8huf/preli... ("Preliminary data suggests that a nitrogen COPV in the payload bay failed below its proof pressure...")
There’s no way it’s COPV
It was COPV
(Adapted from https://www.cyberciti.biz/humour/a-haiku-about-dns/)
No wonder there's a v2 and v3 with much, much larger fuel tanks and less payload.
Make rocket launches as frequent and routine as commercial plane flights. Whether they use it for Mars or Moon on Earth-to-Earth or anything in between is irrelevant, this will revolutionize entire industries.
Just look at the share of Falcon 9 comparing to all other launch providers, and that one is only half-reuseable. If they manage to get the StarShip right this will be a game changer.
A three stage rocket is something you’d use for one-way missions with smaller payloads, or for putting something in GEO. Starship just isn’t optimised for those missions.
The only succesfull human spacecraft that landed on another body and taken off again used a three stage rocket to deliver a three stage lander,
The Command and Service Module(CSM) which brought the two stages into low lunar orbit The Lunar Lander (LM) contained a descent stage and an ascent stage, the descent stage was used as a platform for the ascent stage.
To say that three stage rockets are just for one way missions is silly, especially considering that more stages enable larger payloads. We've yet to see whether SpaceX's two stage solution will actually be any good. I also do not expect a single stage to the surface of the moon and back to Low Lunar Orbit to be very usefull. Any mars mission will likely follow the exact apollo staging plan.
The soviet plan (if they actually managed to get the N1 to work) was to take the upper stage of that rocket all they way to the Moon (fueled by kerolox BTW) and use it for the final braking burn of the LK lander[1], before eecting the stage to crash on the surface while the lander used its engine for soft landing.
And then the lander would launch directly to lunar orbit using the same (or backup) engine, not dropping any stages, just the landing legs. This was forced by the much lower carrying capacity of the N1. There was just one cosmonaut landing as a result, with another one in the "lunar Souyuz" staying in lunar orbit. So just 2 people versus 3 in Apollo. And there was not even a hatch between the two modules & the cosmonaut was supposed to spacewalk (!) between the two before landing and after meeting back with the Soyuz spacecraft.
So if you can realistically do a single stage to landing & orbit on a body, I'm sure it will be the preferred option going forward, it has a significant benefits.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-LOK
Starship is just not a good design for pushing a third stage into a transfer orbit by itself. It’s totally dependent on the idea of in-orbit refuelling and refuelling on Mars. Once you refuel it, the game changes completely.
It’s also not a workable solution for landing on the Moon without refuelling for the same reasons. In some ways the Moon is more problematic because you can’t manufacture methalox on the Moon.
SpaceX does bad: "He's spiraling out of control on drugs!"
The linked tweet literally says "it blew up", though. "Anomaly" is just a word used in rocket science lingo that makes for a funnier headline.
Well…
This is a _very_ off-nominal outcome and the investigation will absolutely involve outside organizations and halting the program during the investigation until the investigation completes with a sufficient determination of faults and accompanying remediation plans.
Delta 2 rocket exploded during launch, raining flaming debris everywhere and the announcer says we had an anomaly
Chinese static fire accidentally becomes not-static.
Unfortunately just on Twitter, haven't seen much elsewhere yet. But the link seems to work.
The frame of the video has a burnt in clock in the top left corner though, so if you get that to be about 11:01:50 PM CDT you'll be at the point of the explosion.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1lf3g...
The crack propagation indicates that the line was a weak point on the structure. However, I'm surprised that it was already there. It's too early to make a reliable guess. But if I were to hazard one, I would say that the tank had too much pressure, well ahead of the explosion.
I don't know if they use manual welding or robotic welding. But robotic welding is well established and is justified for the volumes of work that SpaceX carries out. What is more difficult is to avoid vertical weld seams on its cylindrical segments. I'm yet to encounter a roll forged cylinder that big, especially with stainless steel. (Disclaimer: I have no direct experience with industrial metalworking)
> If any failed weld can lead to a catastrophe like this, how would you guarantee the quality of each weld without going into nuclear power plant construction level of costs?
That is done using Non-destructive testing (NDTs). The usual methods are high-energy X-ray imaging, ultrasound testing (UT) and dye penetration testing (DP). These methods are usually reliable in catching such faults - even for machinery that's in use. For example, turbine blades in a jet engine.
Updated: As the other commenter pointed out, robotic welding doesn't ensure elimination of defects. The robotic process is more consistent and therefore reduces the defects. But uncontrollable random variations can still cause defects that could fail later. The only way to eliminate them (almost) entirely is to identify them with NDT and rectify them as long as the defects are within a certain tolerance limit.
With this being metal, small defects tend to grow over time- called metal fatigue. This all depends on the stress in the material which depends on a lot of things: fluid flows and pressures, temperatures (and temperature differences and rates of change), vibrations (structural or induced by fluid flow), etc etc.
Mechanical engineering at this level is very complex! So many of these things boil down to probability distributions of each process involved. I don't know how "close to the edge" the design is, but this is the kind of thing you have to do when optimizing for weight.
Very much so! I have seen hardware being accepted and rejected on the basis of those limits. There were also cases where medium sized defects were reworked and rectified after careful assessments and reviews.
> With this being metal, small defects tend to grow over time- called metal fatigue
The tank and feedline welds don't cycle too often. But that also makes it very critical in reusable rockets. It may fly fine ten times and then show up unexpectedly.
> I don't know how "close to the edge" the design is
That's the fun part! As you suspect, they have ridiculously low structural margins in order to optimize for mass. What it means is that many physical phenomena that you don't usually worry too much about (when margins are splendid), suddenly turn into critical issues. Then you're off to doing doing materials research and other scientific studies, instead of doing just design and engineering (rocket engineering suddenly becomes rocket science. literally!). I've seen cases where the engineers were forced to study the algorithms used by finite element analysis software used for structural simulations. It can get that 'close to the edge'!
https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1lf3g...
I guess how much of a setback this is will be determined by how much damage is there on the facilities and the nature of the cause of the explosion(do they need to re-work the next 6 already being assembled so it doesn't happen again?).
Even if Starship turns out to be a dumb idea the super heavy booster already seems like it might outperform SLS as a reusable heavy-lift stage.
If we compare to the propulsive landing campaign for the Falcon 9 1st stage it's a bit more favorable. The first 8 attempts had 4 failures, 3 controlled splashdowns (no landing planned) and 1 success. I think in general it felt like they were making progress on all of these though. Similarly for the Falcon 1 launches they had 3 consecutive failures before their first success, but launch 2 did much better than launch 1. Launch 3 was a bit of a setback, but had a novel failure mode (residual first stage thrust resulted in collision after stage separation).
Starship Block 2 has had 4 consecutive failures that seem to be on some level about keeping the propellant where it's supposed to be with the first 2 failures happening roughly in the same part of the flight and this 4th one happening during pre-launch testing.
(It'll still be fucked, I just wouldn't expect a crater?)
Still, there was probably more energy stored in the Starship propelants than in the Falcon 9 case.
I really don't get people who be like "Lets undermine all humanity's progress because I don't like Elon Musk". Don't know if you are so stupid or so cynical, but I'm sorry for you anyway.
I can't really comprehend this statement, since it appears, in a spectacular fashion, that there's some useful information to be learned involving the top half of the ship, especially the flammable bits that you can see burst out before igniting. A rocket ship isn't just its engines, it's a system, with all the bits of it being not only useful, but entirely necessary.
What they were hoping to test never got started.
We're not talking about cold hard cash. The discussion is useful information.
I'm sorry, but fittings don't just leak. It's not something that "just happens". A leaking fitting means a design or process flaw exists, and must be fixed, or the whole thing blows up again. It may not be interesting to you, but it's now very very interesting to every other team working at SpaceX, who just had all their shit blown to pieces. It's a (I hope this is obvious to you) critical component of the system, just as critical as, say, the control system and fuel pumps. Serious innovation may be required (yes, things like gaskets still involve PhD's), and was probably already required.
It's really interesting seeing software perspectives of a hardware world. A mech-e would have a stroke reading your comments.
However, that is absolutely not what they were testing for. Whatever the test's purpose, this failed to actually test it.
Importantly this was a test pad a few miles away, not the main launch pad.
To start with, Falcon 9 and Starship may share some technologies. But they use different engines, engine cycles, propellants, structural materials and dynamics and even manufacturing processes. SS and Falcon are more dissimilar than any other two launchers I've seen from a single company. There are a lot of design data and procedures that you simply can't carry over from one to the other. The only thing you can realistically carry over is the zealousness with which the design and production quality is enforced. But problems like the repeated failure of the Starship fuel lines raise questions about that zealousness. (In my experience, a traditional space industry facing such issues during the development phase would simply throw out the propellant circuit design and start from scratch, paying more attention to its structural integrity. Frankly, I've seen worse. But that approach is present in the Raptor design. Look how different v1, v2 an v3 are.)
I think everyone here knows that the 'move fast and break things' culture has its roots in the agile development methodology from the silicon valley. Meanwhile, the traditional space development methodology has its roots at NASA. It's even more rigorous than the waterfall methodology used in the software industry, with numerous levels of elaborate reviews for designs, test plans, tests results, integration, schedules, status and even the documentation. From what I understood, the agile methodology is optimized to maximize revenue in a project where the underlying tech stack is reasonably well understood and proven. But it's a poor match for a project where the costs, stakes, complexity, subsystem interdependence, uncertainty in subsystem reliability and lack of engineering margins are all very high. Space launcher is the poster child of such projects. Agile is not even suitable for software projects where you're developing something novel and complex.
The main problem with Agile is the 'let's push to production and see what fails' approach. I'm aware that there are elaborate QA procedures to augment the methodology. But the project is much more tolerant to QA failures. Unlike that, you can't simply leave a flaw in a launcher or its subsystem design and hope to resolve it later. Such flaws are technical debts that will stay hidden for a while and then fail spectacularly on a random day, like the holes in a Swiss cheese. Remember that subsystem interdependence is very high. Failures cascade in ways you couldn't have dreamt of. And the required corrections are elaborate, costly, time consuming and often spanning multiple subsystems. The only reasonable way to manage so much uncertainty is to design meticulously for all foreseeable failures from the start, validating those assumptions at every step of the way (This is why they sometimes throw away faulty designs entirely). And that takes a lot of time and focus. The current approach of 'we will launch in one month to make up for this failure' makes me a bit uncomfortable.
I'm not trying to dismiss SpaceX's approach outright. The biggest aspect of any launcher development is the management of complexity and uncertainty. Perhaps they will find a good way to do that without slowing down. They sure have a lot of smart and hardworking employees. But if I were asked to manage one again, I will choose the NASA style again over the agile style. I'm not smart enough to manage with any other method, the level of uncertainties and complexities I expect from a mid-heavy launcher design, much less something like the Starship. Remember that the management culture was one of the hottest topics in the investigation of the Challenger disaster. Perhaps it's a good idea to revisit the findings of that investigation, as well as the venerable and effective Apollo design philosophy.
> Remember that the management culture was one of the hottest topics in the investigation of the Challenger disaster. Perhaps it's a good idea to revisit the findings of that investigation, as well as the venerable and effective Apollo design philosophy.
IIUC, the goal of SpaceX's "Agile" approach to lower the costs of putting payloads into orbit via launch vehicle reuse by amortizing the R&D and equipment cost over multiple profitable launches. They are searching for the cheapest route to achieve large payload space launches.
NASA's goal in the Apollo program was to spend whatever was necessary in order to match and surpass the Soviets' accomplishments. While I don't doubt they were scrappy when necessary, I suspect that the reputational cost of repeated failures (to the country and individuals) was such that it was worth investing time into "getting it right". When fatal failures happened, it was treated as a national disaster and the dead are today considered heroes: https://www.nasa.gov/mission/apollo-1/
Today nobody would even consider risking their lives (nor be asked to) in the way that the Apollo astronauts did, perhaps because the goals (for profit or the mars-fantasy) are considered to be less virtuous.
Perhaps the quality control doesn't need to be as high when you perceive there is less at stake and you can just do it again and again (until the money runs out). That's not to say that this approach won't eventually work, but the motivations and guiding narrative seem to be really different than in the past.
> IIUC, the goal of SpaceX's "Agile" approach to lower the costs of putting payloads into orbit via launch vehicle reuse by amortizing the R&D and equipment cost over multiple profitable launches.
An issue that's deeply intertwined with reusability is reliability. We put absolute emphasis on reliability with expendable launchers. But if you think about it, this is even more paramount in the case of reusable launchers. Hardware tends to degrade overtime, increasing the chance of triggering any design or manufacturing flaws. Expendable launchers need to contend with this only once and for a short time. Reusable launchers have to deal with it over several flights, several structural and thermal cycles (causing fatigue cracks) and a large accumulated operating time. Periodic maintenance can eliminate some flaws - but not design flaws. Launchers also tend to be very sensitive to design flaws, due to the very low engineering margins available. So, there is a bigger incentive here to get it right in the first try itself. (For example, consider the fact there are fewer entities with the capability to build the common turbofan engine than to build a rocket engine.)
Another point is that the agile methodology banks on one particular behavior of software. They rarely degrade over time (unless you manage to leak resources wildly). This makes it amenable to rapid trials, failures and corrections. The cost of experimentation is also minimal, since you don't lose hardware in the process. But in hardware projects, many flaws show up only after an extended period of testing. The trials and corrections are also costly and strenuous.
> They are searching for the cheapest route to achieve their goals.
You may have realized by now what I'm trying to convey. I'm not sure if the agile method is the cheapest route in space tech.
Presumably this was all well understood from history/experience before they applied Agile approaches to space launch. What changed that made this a plausible way to proceed? Some fundamental breakthrough or just Musk's deep pockets?
I don't think anything changed fundamentally. Honestly, the design methodology for any engineering project would evolve organically to be similar to NASA's methodology as its complexity grows. Despite how it looks, Falcon 9 is actually a very conservative design that doesn't depart much from this philosophy. They did everything possible to keep the complexity low and reliability high. Merlin is a simple open cycle engine utilizing pintle injectors. The propellant combination was well known. The vehicle materials and structures were similar to traditional designs. Pneumatic systems were favored in place of pyro systems to improve reusability. Even the vertical landing technology (VTOL) was demonstrated in the 1990s (although Falcon is the first one to land vertically after reentry). The designers were industry veterans utilizing NASA's help. And they took a long time to perfect the basic technologies and had already nailed the basic platform design by the time they started experimenting rapidly with high production rates and landing. Switching to agile mode wasn't a big problem at that stage.
Starship on the other hand, was very unconventional from the word go. Stainless steel structures, methane as fuel, full-flow staged combustion cycle engines with near-limit chamber pressures, cartwheel separation maneuver (which they ultimately abandoned in favor of hot staging, with a lot of ongoing issues), use of sea-level engines in space (on the second stage), the belly-down reentry and the final belly-flop maneuver by the starship, etc. There are more than a dozen things in there that nobody has tried before. It just seems like they have too many things on their plate. Musk's deep pockets did play a big role here. But I'm going to avoid speculating on it.
I have to ask if the world needs 365 $100mm fireworks each year.
Fortunately, the rules in well-functioning societies do not allow anyone other than the owner of something to decide how it should be used.
This very same individual was until recently trying to highlight frivolous government spending, surprisingly coming up short, obviously it'd be very cynical of me to suggest even a hint of hypocrisy let alone a conflict of interest so I'll leave it.
Sorry to burst your bubble on that, even if it is just carrying Starlink satellites it's still at public expense, not limited to the rocket itself but the infrastructure, and oversight from third parties.
The thing detonated from the top down... that was spectacular. Anomaly doesn't really describe that very well.
> the entire program regresses in on itself in terms of milestones.
The alternative would be looking at the competing programs from Boeing, Blue Origin, etc. It's not like they are hitting their milestones particularly well with their more traditional waterfall approach. The point of rapid iteration is that it is an inherently open ended process that has no milestones other than to launch the next iteration within weeks/months of the previous one. Which they have been doing fairly consistently.
If SpaceX gets starship in a launcheable and recoverable state, they'll still have many years of competing against competitors that have to rely on single launch vehicles exclusively. They would be very early to market. And there's a decent chance they might start nailing things with a few more launches.
Now they have regressed to blowing up on the pad during static testing.
Seems very different to me than the Falcon story, 100%. Granted, they had luck too.
I'm surprised that people are losing their minds over a few explosions as if the US government didn't blow up hundreds of rockets in order to get a working product.
The risk angle is that this isn't about national security or a government enterprise. This is commercial - you can't spend your money if you're dead.
How can you be confident that, given the circumstance, their lower-cost competitor, the one pushing iterative startup style move fast approach, has the same extensive safety checks AND had zero hardware bugs in 10 or so years?
Which one do you think the astronauts want to ride on?
I don't want to listen to the maddening tic tic tic tic tic sound[1] on Dragon doing best it can to deorbit by mashing H key, or experience human excrement contamination problem[2] caused by toilet system becoming autonomously unassembled. Soyuz with intact main engines don't seem to have those kinds of problems[3], only spinal injury risks in ballistic modes.
Dragon V2 is a Tesla rocket, after all. In hindsight, why would have it not been one, and how could have it ever been a good thing? Sure, Starliner practically died and rebooted during docking with the ISS, which is surely extremely dangerous, but when it comes to Dragon V2, they had proper kaboom during ground testing.
Tell me, which human spacecraft in past 20 years had a full on explosion, and why should I want to be on it?
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADFlgu-3GgU
2: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/01/tech/spacex-crew-dragon-t...
Starship = regressing every flight.
This isn't hard to parse man.
Is Blue Origin following waterfall? Why would the founder of Amazon follow the polar opposite strategy of the rest of his businesses?
But there seems to be a lot of progress in reusable launcher development outside the US, mainly in China and apparently also among Japanese car manufacturers!