Starship 36 RUD during the testing - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 07:08:13 am
content: 1:56:00

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 07:18:37 am
content: Much better that it blows up on the ground than in the air causing more FAA incident reports and air travel disruptions.Hopefully not too much damage to ground infrastructure.I wonder if this one was using the thinner stainless steel. I do recall they were going to transition to using thinner metal to save some weight.This sort of thing is expected when you push things to find the limits.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 09:43:06 am
content: Quote from: Psi on June 19, 2025, 07:18:37 amYup, you don't know where the limits are unless you sometimes push past them. That's why it's called "testing".Once you've found a limit you can either back off by whatever margin makes you comfortable (given item to item variations etc), or lese figure out how to move the limit.Unknowingly overbuilding is a disaster to anything in aerospace. Use engineering principles to figure out how much margin you should have, and then test to see whether you actually have it.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 10:59:06 am
content: Nine flight tests in, and it still can't be trusted not to explode on the pad.At what point in the future might we expect all this "learning" and "failing fast" to converge upon a series of stable flight tests?I think this should be a reminder that SpaceX is and has been really just prototyping Starship. They aren't close to producing a final design, and further still from having it certified for crewed operations.They're not going to the moon in 2027, let alone Mars.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 11:09:14 am
content: Quote from: NE666 on June 19, 2025, 10:59:06 amDoesnt really matter, as long as SpaceX keep trying until it happens.Success is still success not matter how many failures it takes to get there.I don't think we can really say much about this failure from a progress standpoint.It's a different failure to the previous V2 failures in engine area.If it had kept failing in the same way we could draw some conclusions about a lack of progress, but different failures are just new things that need fixing.The issue could be so many things, some of them pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.There are more ships in the production line to use, the annoying thing is damage to the infrastructure that needs fixing.Whatever the reason for the failure, it needs to be addressed so it's best it happened sooner rather than later.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 12:03:18 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on June 19, 2025, 11:09:14 amAll well and fine to a point, and I do expect that they will get 'somewhere' with it in the end. I'm less convinced that will be to Mars, and even less so with crew.However, my view remains that incidents like this show that they are far further away from producing a viable launch vehicle than their own expectations and hype have suggested up to now.NASA designed, built and flew the Saturn V within a decade. Not one was lost. They did it with primitive technology by today's standards, including hand-drawn blueprints and slide rule calculations. If SpaceX can't do better in half that time, given the immense leaps in technology in the intervening 50 years, then I personally think it demonstrates that this 'iterative' design approach has no real merit over what went before, other than to reduce confidence in the outcome along the way.TL;DR - Smells like "Agile Rocket Development" to me, and we know what actual engineers have come to think of Agile(tm).

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 12:38:36 pm
content: That Starship is absolutely not suitable for something like the Moon or Mars landing.The idea that 52 meters tall contraption will land in the wild on the Moon/Mars, lift down/up astronauts with all the equipment from a 45+ meters height, and then it takes off and lands nicely in Boca Chica is a fairy tale for today's <40yo children, imho..

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 12:49:55 pm
content: No one hurt, Elon just burns some more cash - no big deal at the end of the day. Though Mars by anything other than the tail end of this decade seems crazy optimistic.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 01:03:25 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 19, 2025, 12:49:55 pmAnd utterly pointless. Does anyone know of agoodreason to take people to Mars? There will never be enough rocket ships to handle the overflow from an overpopulated Earth. People will never be able to survive on the surface of Mars without a space suit. Even the wildest science fiction dreams of planet-forming would seem impossible because Mars has no magnetic field, and hence cannot hold on to more than a wispy atmosphere.I've never been a change-resistant stick-in-the-mud, and if someone could offer a compelling argument for sending people to Mars I would happily change my mind in an instant. Is there any such argument?

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 01:14:11 pm
content: I have heard it argued that exploring Mars is an obvious and necessary first step to humans exploring the universe. You know, after the moon it is the next baby step of many.However, with the state of physics as we know it, we will never be able to explore the universe because we can never travel at, or faster than, the speed of light. The distances are just so vast. It really is a complete show-stopper.If I were King of the World, I would stop all research into interplanetary travel until we had a viable - or even just promising - faster-than-light technology. Until that happens it is very hard indeed to see what the return on investment is for inhabiting Mars or the moon.Of course, there is likely to be spin-offs from inter-planetary exploration, but imagine how much more benefit would arise from investing that money here on earth, tackling present day problems

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 02:03:16 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on June 19, 2025, 10:59:06 amThat's an utterly bullshit take.They are, once again, finding where the limits are, which you can only do by going past them.If someone said "the next one MUST be successful" they could do that, no problems, by overbuilding it.They went through the same process with Falcon 9, which is currently up to 500 fully successful flights, 200 in a row, and 463 successful landings out of 476 attempts.QuoteBy over engineering it, sacrificing performance and payload and requiring a 3 million kg vehicle (on the pad) to launch 140 thousand kg (4.7%) to LEO.SpaceX is aiming for better than that -- PLUS full reusability.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 03:59:39 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 19, 2025, 02:03:16 pmNo, they didn't. The Falcon 9 was successful pretty much from the get-go.Quote from: brucehoult on June 19, 2025, 02:03:16 pmNot LEO, they got it high enough to give it a Lunar Orbit Insertion velocity, which ismuchharder.SpaceX on the other hand, can't even get a fuckingbananainto LEO

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 04:01:41 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on June 19, 2025, 11:09:14 amEasy to say when it's notyourtax money that's paying for it. I imagine US citizens might have a different opinion, if they bother to check the facts at any rate. That doesn't seem a popular pastime these days.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 05:01:52 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on June 19, 2025, 04:01:41 pmIt's no one's tax money, it's entirely privately funded.The EDS is strong in this one...

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 05:14:03 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on June 19, 2025, 01:14:11 pmYou are not going to get FTL if you don't invest into space.*And spending more money on Earth is pretty useless. The amount of money spent isn't the problem, how it is spent is the problem. We have enough resources to solve all our problems, but people decided to do useless stuff, like being part of UK local council's naysayers, instead of doing something useful with their life.FTL is not even really a requirement for interplanetary travel. Even in sci-fi, entire franchises like Alien shows a multi star system humans without FTL, with realistic technology levels.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 06:37:15 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on November 22, 2024, 01:27:47 pmEven I am a big fan of those technologies and programs I am getting more and more skeptical. Provided Elon's other businesses will not deteriorate too much with time and he will still be willing to fund his Starship vision with such utmost enthusiasm, today (not because the today's RUD - the space is hard as we know) I would easily add +10 years to all my predictions I made here 8 months back.. But the landings will be done with a differently shaped ship, my bet..

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 06:40:14 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 19, 2025, 05:01:52 pmYup. I think Elon's a bit of an arse, and may not agree with him politically... but he's perfectly entitled to burn his money trying to get Starship off the ground if he wants.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 07:08:48 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 19, 2025, 05:14:03 pmI don't think FTL travel is anything to do with space investment in the current sense. It's pure physics that probably isn't possible without an infinite amount of energy available.Without significant FTL travel capability, you're committing generations of people to birth and death in the confines of a tin can, with no realistic prospect of finding a home or reporting back on their destiny. The tin can also needs to be capable of sustaining such a multi generational population with food, water, heat and light in the dark depths of space, as SF concepts of putting people into status or hibernation for hundreds of years is almost certainly impossible too.The concept of the Moon and Mars as baby steps to exploring the universe is cloud cuckoo land. Unless there is something there that justifies building small (mining?) colonies, there is really no point beyond scientific curiosity and bragging rights.Earth is all we've realistically got, [Edit: which is a problem].

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 07:09:05 pm
content: QuoteAt this point, it would nice to have anunqualified successto optimize by pushing. Right now it feels like whack-a-mole.Maybe they're good enough, and get enough data, to address N problems at once, but it's not a scenario that I would be comfortable with...

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 07:16:16 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on June 19, 2025, 03:59:39 pmAfter three failures of the Falcon 1. The really difficult tests on the Falcon 9 were landing - and they had quite a lot of failures in the early days.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 07:49:23 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on June 19, 2025, 10:59:06 amWell, if 9 such flight tests cost less than 1 test every 10 years, even if many end up in explosions, that's not necessarily a bad thing. What SpaceX does is privately funded (even if they get subsidies that might be cut off, btw), NASA has spent way more public money for fewer results.Quote from: NE666 on June 19, 2025, 10:59:06 amI'm pretty sure they're not, but the big hurdle is not the flight. Safely landing on the Moon is still not a given, let alone building a base and living there for weeks or months.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 09:12:01 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 19, 2025, 05:01:52 pmGo check your facts, and don't make ad hominem attacks; all that does is prove you have no argument

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 09:36:39 pm
content: Still amusing when its a 'disassembly' that can be seen by weather satellites from orbitMethane is sure to be fun to track down. Lighter then air fuels float up , accumulate and blow up. Saturn used keroseneThat is a huge draw back of using methane or hydrogen fuel... floating up into the sparking electronics parts.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 09:38:23 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 19, 2025, 05:14:03 pmAny suggestion that FTL will somehow fall out of investing in interplanetary travel is not credible. Interplanetary space travel is done and dusted as far as the science is concerned. The challenges are all technological. The obstacles to interstellar travel are scientific, and apart from some amusing concepts that would require more energy than is present in the entire universe, we are literally nowhere with FTL. I mean literally: we don't have even the slightest idea how it might work in any practical sense.Right now, using chemical rocketry or ion propulsion (the only two technologies currently viable), a trip to Alpha Centauri - only 4 lightyears away - would take tens of thousands of years. Accelerating to (say) 0.1c to make the journey briefer would require truly vast amounts of energy - way more than we have any idea how to deliver from a self-contained craft. And then we need to decelerate at the far end.No amount of investment in interplanetary travel is going to overcome the fundamental problem of FTL, because it's a scientific problem, not a technological one.Interplanetary travel is definitely achievable given lots of investment, but as I said earlier, I don't think there is a sufficiently good answer to the question "Why bother?".Quote from: tszaboo on June 19, 2025, 05:14:03 pmI'm not quite sure what you are saying here. We agree that interplanetary travel can be done without FTL. Travel amongst a multi-star system would require FTL - the idea of putting humans into suspended animation has no grounding in science or technology.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 09:41:44 pm
content: Carl segan solved this problem in like the 1960's just its internationally illegal and also politically incorrect

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 09:48:01 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on June 19, 2025, 03:59:39 pmFalcon 9 is a much more traditional design. And they had a few explosions when they stepped into unexplored supercooled propellant territory when iterating its design to improve performance (current F9 is an entirely different rocket compared to the initial one). Also they had quite a few of explosions before they got the booster landing right.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 09:55:47 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 19, 2025, 05:01:52 pmTechnically SpaceX gets paid for Starship's lunar version. However it's a fixed sum of money, so their development expenses are irrelevant to the taxpayer as long as it's delivered. It's only a small fraction of total development costs. Also it's half the price of Blue Origin's deal for insanely less capable lunar lander.

author: u666sa
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 10:27:00 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on June 19, 2025, 11:09:14 am

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:19:38 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on June 19, 2025, 09:38:23 pmSuspended animation is not the only option for human space travel between star systems. Generational ships come to mind.That said, you are quite correct that interstellar space travel to be accomplished within the average human lifetime of 70 earth years, will require breakthroughs in physics, rather than engineering.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:25:00 am
content: The only financial aspect is that SpaceX used their money on something and it blew up. So SpaceX did not get the benefit for the money they spent.One could argue that finding out about a bug earlier rather than later has some benefit, but no where near as much as they wanted for the money.Also one can argue that some of the money SpaceX uses is tax payer money, but lets consider that for a sec.SpaceX gets money from the government for providing things. Falcon 9 ISS launches of crew/cargo, satellites for NASA etc. These were all completed successfully, so once that is true the money belongs to SpaceX and no one can argue about what it's used for. The taxpayers got the goods/service.It would be silly for anyone to dictate what tax payer money must be used for in perpetuity as that cash moves through society. Once the governments contract for goods/service is complete the cash belongs to SpaceX to do whatever they want and no one can argue about its use on grounds it was money from taxes.It's also true that SpaceX got a large sum of money to develop Starships and provide a working Starship for HLS /moon.The part of that money supplied for development is a fraction of what NASA would have spent to achieve what SpaceX has achieved successfully already. eg A working booster that is reusable and a booster catch system. So that development money has already been well spent.Then there's the money provided to SpaceX for the HLS system. This is obviously still debatable as it's still in progress. But until SpaceX deliver successfully or renege on the agreement we really can't say anything about the wastefulness of this tax money.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:50:56 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on June 20, 2025, 12:19:38 amNo, an Orion drive type of ship has the necessary specific impulse and payload to get to the nearest stars within a human lifetime.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 01:01:02 am
content: they have like 4 more ideas now after orion but orion is the one that is pretty much practical and worked out with little left but some structural engineering details IMOIts like the equivalent of a two stroke lawn mower engine for interstellar travel. The most likely thing to break is a nuclear bomb conveyor belt. EVA with a sledge hammer to bang on stuck rollers. I always imagined it like a mine cart contraption.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 01:09:36 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on June 20, 2025, 12:19:38 amConsigning you, your children, your children's children, your children's children's children, your children's children's children's children's children.... to living on board a ship for their entirity of their lives, under strictly controlled conditions, born into a life from which the only way of escape is death... fun.Generational ships are a sci-fi utopic fantasy, in the real world, they would be tortuous hell that probably wouldn't last 50 years before everybody on them was dead.Watch Aniara.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 01:16:17 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on June 20, 2025, 01:09:36 amIf we're talking about the real world, then we also have to kill off any aspiration of interstellar human space travel.But maybe that's a discussion better consolidated in a separate thread.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 01:24:58 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on June 20, 2025, 12:50:56 amBy it's narrowest definition, yes, travelling between nearest stars still constitutes interstellar travel.However, I feel that the discussion has been using the more common pop culture definition of the term interstellar travel, that is the ability to travel to stars well beyond our immediate neighborhood.Sure, this is an engineering forum so one might assume discussion revolves around real world practical implementations, rather than science fiction.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 01:45:34 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on June 20, 2025, 01:09:36 amDepends on the scale, I'd think.After all, you just described the Earth.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 01:53:14 am
content: Nothing wrong with the concept of a generational ship.It just requires such a large scale to pull off while keeping a good quality of life for everyone on board.Obviously never going to be doable in anywhere near our lifetimes. Maybe in 800 years.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 02:06:31 am
content: Well, nobody asked me, but for my money I'd just as soon see all manned (or womanned for that matter) space flights halted. Total shutdown on that. To me, that's just one of the worst aspects of human hubris and a sci-fi/Jetsons fanboi mentality.Yes, I realize I'm in a tiny minority here so go ahead, hammer on me if it makes you feel better or whatever.Does that mean I'm against spaceexplorationaltogether? No, not at all; I'm all in favor of unmanned, remote-sensing exploration. Just look at what Hubble and Galileo have shown us, not to mention myriad other instruments sent out or in the works. That's the way to do it, instead of the fever dream of spreading the cancer of human "civilization" all over the galaxy.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 08:30:25 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 20, 2025, 02:06:31 amMaybe. But I'll buy what you're selling for a dollar.You only need to look at Starliner, and more recently the "USS Perry" debacle to see that human crew are utterly unnecessary. Human pilots were nearly done with during the time of the shuttle, but in 2025 they're nothing but an expensive incumbrance / PR exercise. "Spaceflight" is being subverted by private companies, steered in the direction of the ultimate power wank for the super rich, and consuming shameful quantities of resource in the process.Many other threads on this forum house foster debate on AI and 'what's it good for?'. Well, here's one job that it's more than welcome to and possibly fit for. Interplanetary exploration, Mars and even the moon can be better explored by long running, expendable, remote sensing vehicles. We're already quite good at it, and I would rather see the money and effort invested there.Man won't leave earth for the 'stars'. After thousands of years we still can't properly manage the environment and distribution of resources on our planet of origin, let alone where they are inconceivably scarce.If anything is leaving Earth for a future elsewhere it will be the machines.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 10:27:10 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on June 20, 2025, 12:50:56 amNo it doesn't, because it doesn't exist! It's an idea, that's all. Another idea that might achieve the same end is the laser-sail, but again it doesn't actually exist yet.However, I agree that they don't require any new physics, but I don't think "within a human lifetime" is a good enough criterion. That's why I said that new physics is required for interstellar travel; I accept that I should have saidpracticalinterstellar travel.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 10:35:45 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 20, 2025, 02:06:31 amIt's totally fine for us to disagree. (I have unpopular views on full contact sports making our species look like barbarians.)But I see staying on earth and only exploring space/other-planets with robotic missions like staying at home 24/7 and only going on holidays to other towns/cities using VR goggles.There needs to be something to get you out of bed in the morning and the thrill of exploring new places is that thing for so many people.I think if we ended all manned space flight and all plans to do it in the future a very large number of people would die inside.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 10:54:16 am
content: Quote from: NE666 on June 20, 2025, 08:30:25 amThe only thing humans were needed for on the shuttle, as the design stood, was to press the button to lower the landing gear. They did let them do some hand flying on the reentry, mostly for job satisfaction and retention.But that is entirely missing the point. The entire reason to build long term space stations and colonise other planets -- possibly around other stars - is to try to ensure the long term continuation of humanity if (when) something happens to Earth.Whether that is a worthwhile goal, or will achieve that goal, is up for debate, but that IS the goal.QuoteIn that case it may as well be only machines here too.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:01:53 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 20, 2025, 10:54:16 amWeren't they also there to take control in case, hypothetically, all five flight computers had gone down (four primary and one backup using different software)? I'm not sure that the fly-by-wire controls would still be working in that case, though.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:05:27 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on June 19, 2025, 09:38:23 pmWe don't know what's out there.If you are not curious anymore, fine, get a box of wine and enjoy the evenings. Or spend it with your children. Best wishes, really.Just don't tell us to give up all aspirations to explore.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:23:24 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 20, 2025, 12:01:53 pmFrom what I've read (some of the early mission reports, autobiographies, etc.), their presence was considered crucial during the first flights. The feeling was that humans were needed on hand for the contingencies which hadn't been anticipated. Although, as you said, it's not exactly clearly what they would be able to do if they'd been faced with significant systems failure. Thereafter, and with the the "glass cockpit" upgrade, they started to become more relegated to housekeeping tasks. I think I recall reading that NASA had been keen initially to have full auto-land capabilities for the shuttle, but this didn't make it into service due to both budget/time constraints and pressure from the astronaut pilots. I guess if you take a bunch of highly experienced naval test pilots, and train them for years more, they rather want something constructive to do.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:53:39 pm
content: To add to the above, the STS-1 mission is one of the reasons that I am jaded by Starship's 'flight testing'.I followed the launch (on TV) as a child but it wasn't until years later that I came to appreciate what had been achieved on that day, and what had been asked of Young and Crippen.Young said after his time at NASA, that whilst he had been pleased with how the shuttle had performed in the landing and static tests, and had confidence in those who had worked on it, his (unvoiced) view was on that he had no better than a 50-50 chance of coming home alive. Before and throughout the launch, flight telemetry recorded that his heartrate never exceeded 90 BPM.Listening to a bunch of interns scream like toddlers at a birthday party when the RSO activates the Flight Termination System yet again, doesn't hit in me in quite the same way.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 01:20:50 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on June 20, 2025, 12:53:39 pmFWIW Space Shuttle technically was an extremely expensive, utterly incapable (could not go above 400 miles orbit, could not stay more than 16 days in space), barely refurbishable piece of shit that killed 14 people.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 01:25:20 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 20, 2025, 01:20:50 pmI would argue that politics killed 14 people using it. There is no arguing it was a perfect vehicle, of course, the engineering compromises were many.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 01:53:13 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 20, 2025, 01:20:50 pmWe've yet to see how expensive Starship will actually be, given that it hasn't been delivered yet.Quote from: wraper on June 20, 2025, 01:20:50 pmStarship hasn't yet come close to doing any of that.Quote from: wraper on June 20, 2025, 01:20:50 pmUntil Starship has a decent number of actual flights under its belt, 'how' reusable it is - the real cost and time for turnaround, won't be known. On paper, the Shuttle was far cheaper than it proved to be in practice. Any claims will need to be supported by hard data, and we're nowhere near that yet.Quote from: wraper on June 20, 2025, 01:20:50 pmDo youseriouslythink that private space ventures won't kill passengers/crew? We can't even run airlines without killing passengers from time to time."Space is hard" - and incredibly dangerous.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 03:23:35 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on June 20, 2025, 01:53:14 amI would describe it as a 1950s science fiction fantasy. Obviously it is a theoretical possibility, but the challenges are vast, not least the social and psychological challenges. We should also remember that the ship might well have to travel for far longer than initially expected if it finds only uninhabitable planets. I'm of the view that it is so much more difficult and complicated than those old science fiction writers thought, that it iseffectivelyimpossible, even though it is theoretically possible.I remain of the view that the only practicable form of interstellar travel must involve FTL, and until we have some real idea of how to achieve that we shouldn't waste any more effort sending humans to other planets. Robots, yes, but not humans.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 03:40:39 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on June 20, 2025, 01:53:13 pmIt killed people due to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach. Unlike SpaceX that is constantly testing new things, rapidly iterating, flaws that killed both crews of 7 were known for years but nobody bothered to fix them because it seemed to work well enough anyway.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 04:13:35 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 20, 2025, 01:20:50 pmThe orbiter itself was a marvel of engineering (for its time) and the two fatal accidents were related to other parts of the stack that either directly caused, or contributed to the accidents.The Challenger explosion was caused by the solid rocket booster, and that happened because the launch occurred outside the temperature range the O-rings could safely handle. This was a known issue, and not an engineering issue, but a management issue that happened when management ignored the engineers. If the shuttle had been launched only when temperatures at the pad were above safe limits (the vast majority of the time in subtropical Florida), the shuttle probably could have completed every launch in its entire service life without an incident involving the solid rocket boosters even without a redesign of the segment joints.The Columbia accident also wasn't caused by an inherent flaw in the orbiter design, but rather by an issue with insulating foam detaching from the external tank. Even lightweight foam can do extensive damage at hypersonic speeds, and NASA knew this, but seemed to discount the seriousness of the issue. This again was a disaster caused by management incompetence and neglect.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 04:36:05 pm
content: Did anyone design Orion yet in a modern cad program as an open source space travel project?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 04:52:13 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 20, 2025, 04:13:35 pmThe 'safe temperature range' was a workaround. SRB o-ring burn through happened during every launch IIRC but only through the first out of two, with no redundancy left. Safe temperature range was a workaround to ensure that o-ring rubber is soft enough for the second o-ring burn through to not happen. But they were relying on atrack recordpot luck of second o-ring withstanding anyway.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 05:09:20 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 20, 2025, 04:52:13 pmIt's still likely the original design would not have led to a catastrophic incident if the shuttle had only been launched at a safe temperature range. The ideal solution would have been one-piece boosters without joints. I forget why this wasn't done--perhaps due to shipping considerations or some such.Given the operating conditions of the orbiter's main engines, I'm amazed there were over 100 successful flights without a major incident.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 06:16:24 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 20, 2025, 01:20:50 pmThe space shuttle was a military experiment to develop a platform to be able to bomb the russkis from space.The purpose of space race was to bankrupt them.Both of this succeeded.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 06:34:22 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 20, 2025, 03:40:39 pmWell, you do you. You're clearly no fan of Grand Pappy's space rockets.But note two things;- The Shuttle program was of its time (70's), ran for forty years and performed 133 crewed missions successfully. Starship has a very long way to go before it has achieved anything worthy of comparison. It isn't even certain, right now, that it will ever deliver. It's in no way inconceivable that funding could be pulled by the current US administration, or SpaceX itself might yet simply stop pouring money in and focus instead on the commercially successful Falcon.- Countless engineers and scientists (including many members of this forum, no doubt) are so today in no small part because of the inspiration that NASA's space programs presented to the world. SpaceX and others will have to go some to equal, let alone better, that legacy.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 07:32:13 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 20, 2025, 10:54:16 amYes, you're right: that is, so far as I can tell, the actual goal.It's a goal which ought to be fiercely rejected and fought against; the idea that the planet Earth is somehow only temporary, a disposable home which can be abandoned after we make it uninhabitable at the time when it's technologically possible to do so, allowing us to spread the human virus to some other sector of space.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 11:53:27 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 20, 2025, 05:09:20 pmThe SRBs had to be segmented to allow shipping from Morton Thiokol in Utah by train, home state of Senator Orrin Hatch.QuoteThe main engines regularly damaged themselves which is why they require complete rebuilding after every mission. They did fail as originally defined, but NASA changed the definition to make it a maintenance problem instead of operation or engineering problem.Under the current rules applied to SpaceX Falcon, the Shuttle could not be flown without further engineering.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 08:58:48 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 20, 2025, 07:32:13 pmThe much cheaper and simpler solution in that regard would be to send millions of small capsules with our DNA (or something like that, accompanied by small autonomous robotic by AI supported mini labs) in every directions in a very hope it will land sometimes somewhere on a planet where it can start to "reproduce" itself..PS: perhaps we may find such things on our Earth sometime somewhere..

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 09:10:45 am
content: Quote from: iMo on June 21, 2025, 08:58:48 amOr we could not do that, and instead just live our lives here on this planet, accept that life is finite and make the most of it.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 09:39:15 am
content: Quote from: iMo on June 21, 2025, 08:58:48 amBut DNA won't work like that. You can't turn a strand of DNA into a living thing without the help of another living thing, and even then the challenges are just beginning. "Help" in this case means another organism of the same species. You can't just chuck some DNA on the ground - rich and fertile though it may be - or even into a vat of chemicals, and grow a human.Think about it: if it were possible, you could grow yourself another mum and dad just by taking DNA samples from their hairbrush. In fact, we leave our DNA all over the place. Think how much we must leave behind when we do the gardening; and yet nobody has found a human embryo growing amongst their rose bushes. "Dolly" the sheep required denucleated sheep eggs and a sheep host. All techniques require the DNA to be inserted into egg cells of the same, or almost the same, species.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 10:19:16 am
content: Yep, we know well how it works.. Therefore I mentioned "..autonomous AI supported mini labs" there.No need to send living species in a >500.000 years long trip (as a minimum with "today's technology")..Quote from: SteveThackery on June 21, 2025, 09:39:15 amPS: AI has corrected my pessimistic guess:Quote

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 10:22:40 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on June 21, 2025, 09:39:15 amA multi generational non-FTL expedition would probably have to take a fair amount of additional DNA along, unless it had a huge crew, to ensure genetic diversity. Otherwise the eventual settlers would probably end up with 15 toes, three thumbs and zero IQ.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 11:10:28 am
content: Quote from: Gyro on June 21, 2025, 10:22:40 amSo Alabama.Quote from: Analog Kid on June 21, 2025, 09:10:45 amWe've been making the most of life by refusing to accept limitations for a few millennia now. We have houses, medicine, cars, planes, computers.. nah. Let's make the most of sticks and stones instead.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 12:25:03 pm
content: Some aerial pics of the aftermath and infrastructure damage in this video.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 07:03:23 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on June 21, 2025, 11:10:28 amGood advice for post-WWIII there ...

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 07:13:57 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on June 20, 2025, 11:53:27 pmI was referring to a catastrophic failure of one of the RS-25 engines that would have destroyed the orbiter.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 09:10:26 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 21, 2025, 07:13:57 pmSince they were regularly cracking turbine blades, I do not think they were far from that.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 09:38:20 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 21, 2025, 07:13:57 pmColumbia could blow up in 1999 already. Only due extreme luck of several faults aligning its launch did not turn into struggle for survival. If it was just one RS-25 engine failure by itself, with no in other engine's main digital control unit fault and backup unit pressure sensor reading incorrectly high pressure, it would not reach the orbit and would need to do emergency deorbit/landing with a heavy payload still in the payload bay, which was far from guaranteed to not end up in big boom.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 11:00:56 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 19, 2025, 02:03:16 pmYou can start with a design that works and then optimize it or you can start with a design that blows up and keep patching them and blowing them up until they stop blowing up for a while. The first practice is called engineering, the second is called experimenting. So if they blow up 92 starships in a row and then the 93rd happens to work, would you ride on the 94th?

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 11:09:40 pm
content: Manned Mars exploration is a waste of resources and taxpayer money. Sending robotic probes powered by AI is cheaper and safer. You don’t need to ferry water, food or oxygen. You don’t need to transport a return vehicle and fuel for it. You don’t need a pressurized cabin with plenty of space for astronauts to stretch their legs. It’s easier to harden electronics against radiation and make them operate over a wide range of temperatures than to do the same for the human body.If Elon’s companies can make Robotaxis, they should be able to make fully automated probes. Roaming the Martian desert should be easier than navigating city traffic. And if Elon’s FSD system makes a wrong turn on Mars, no one will die, unlike in a Robotaxi or Tesla here on Earth.By the time Starship is safe for humans to fly, we’ll likely have AGI. And what better application for AGI than planetary exploration?I wonder why Doge hasn’t cut financing for SpaceX’s wasteful program yet?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 11:35:55 pm
content: Quote from: vad on June 21, 2025, 11:09:40 pmFirst of all, taxpayer money has nothing to do with how much these launches cost. Aren't people tired yet of repeating this stupid nonsense/lie? Government can cut all the money they want, the whole amount SpaceX was awarded for HLS (fixed price) is about 20% of SpaceX's projected revenue this year. And it's about providing specific service, these tests have nothing to do with it money wise. Secondly, DOGE did not touch anywhere where Elon is involved to avoid conflict of interest. Thirdly, SpaceX is the cheapest government contractor in the field by a large margin. Before SpaceX, fixed cost government contracts basically did not exist, it was all cost plus (more waste + more delay = more profit to the contractor).QuoteIt's about colonization, not exploration

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 11:50:31 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on June 21, 2025, 11:35:55 pmAnd let's don't forget the militarization of space, just what we need at this point ...

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 12:02:59 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 21, 2025, 11:35:55 pmExactly.Also building a big space industry is critical, and not for tourism/exploration. Those things are cool but mostly fun/nice-to-have things, at least in the short term.There needs to be big scale projects with international cooperation, like the ISS, James Webb etc, to tie countries together and foster more cooperation.Without big things for society to collaborate on and build together countries turns inwards and wars become more likely.Humans need things to strive for, or we get into trouble.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 01:12:24 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on June 21, 2025, 11:00:56 pmWhat a stupid comment showing complete ignorance of how SpaceX works.They'll fly dozens if not hundreds of successful launches in a row before they put people on them.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 01:29:06 am
content: Quote from: wraper on June 21, 2025, 11:35:55 pmLol. Colonization? Today? We haven’t even colonized Antarctica yet, a place far more hospitable to life.Theoretical colonization of Mars might become feasible on a timescale of at least hundreds of thousands of years (and likely many millions of years), after long and costly terraforming. This would involve creating an artificial magnetosphere around the planet, dropping numerous icy comets to form ocean, and genetically engineering cyanobacteria capable of surviving Martian conditions, including presence of perchlorates and heavy metals, the pH levels and mineral concentrations of a newly formed ocean. After that, a long period would likely pass before the atmosphere and water became hospitable to eukaryotic life, such as plants. The speed of atmospheric and oceanic transformation would be limited by the amount of solar energy available to the cyanobacteria. On Earth, this process took 2 billion years, and Earth receives a higher solar energy flux than Mars. Given that human civilization itself has existed for only a few thousand years, I’m not confident it will exist long enough to see such a project completed.PS. Yes, I’m referring to the cancellation of the HLS contracts - an easy way to cut a few billion in wasteful spending. Elon is a rich kid and should be able to fund his toys himself, as long as his company meets EPA, FAA and other federal and state regulations. And there is no longer a conflict of interest. On the contrary, there are likely several powerful members of the administration who would love to have a chance to give Elon another black eye.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 04:34:48 am
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 22, 2025, 01:12:24 amOK, get back to me when that happens.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 05:38:05 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on June 22, 2025, 04:34:48 amGet back to yourself with your naysaying FUD that applies equally to everything the human race has ever achieved, before someone does it.Musk's established track record of achieving what people like you proclaim to be impossible is second to none.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 05:54:24 am
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 22, 2025, 05:38:05 amHmm; self-driving cars, eh?

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 06:40:34 am
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 22, 2025, 05:38:05 amAbout the only thing SpaceX has done that’s somewhat unique is reusability, and even that was done first with the shuttle orbiter and solid rocket boosters. They weren’t the first at anything else that was important.Tesla wasn’t first with electric vehicles, and Musk has been promising full self-driving for years and years now and it’s still vaporware. I drive a Tesla and the autopilot is crap. I had to intervene twice to prevent a crash, and I stopped using it because I can’t trust it.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 07:03:28 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 22, 2025, 05:54:24 amWho else has done self-driving better? It's an incredibly difficult task. Tesla's first release of adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping was in October 2015, less than ten years ago. The current release is averaging, across the fleet, about one disengagement per 600 km of driving, much of it in complex city situations. The current rate of fatal crashes for FSD seems to be about four times better than human drivers, or twice as good as Tesla's earlier basic "Autopilot" system.I'm not a fan of Tesla cars in any way, and have no intention of replacing my perfectly good 2008 petrol car in the next ten years, but you really should think a bit more critically and less reflexively about what Tesla has achieved and is achieving.As for SpaceX, the quality, reliability, and pricing of their services has already seen them launching 90% of the world-wide mass to orbit and if/when Superheavy/Starship is operational they could well hit 99% (largely by expanding the market).

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 07:24:37 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 22, 2025, 06:40:34 amThere is doing something first, one-off, expensively and unsustainably.And then there is doing something so reliably and cheaply and frequently that no one even notices you're launching more frequently than one every three days (in 2024 ... it's more often this year) and there has even been three launches in 24 hours. Falcon 9 launched 132 times in 2024, the greatest number of Shuttle launches was 9 in 1985, before Challenger. and also in 1992 using five shuttles.QuoteOf course not. The first electric cars were in the 1830s and in 1900 were around 1/3 of all cars on the road.Tesla's achievement was making electric cars high performance and a desirable thing to be seen in for status-conscious people with a lot of money -- something Clive Sinclair could not dream of -- and forcing every other major car manufacturer to copy them.QuoteIt's still less than ten years since the first basic "autopilot" with dynamic cruise control and lane following. Only people for whom that is most of their adult life (or not yet adults) would think that is a long time.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 10:56:59 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 22, 2025, 06:40:34 amTesla was first to do it successfully and change public's opinion of them to not consider them subpar green garbage.QuoteFYI Robotaxi launches in Austin, TXtodaywith cars that have regular HW as any other Tesla. Also they are supposed to start self delivering to the costumers in less than a month.QuoteCollecting an empty mangled SRB shells to then completely take apart, refurbish and manually fill with propellant (that was the most costly part) for the cost of more than just using new shells is hardly an achievement. It was like taking a PCB from a dumpster to desodler components to then assemble to a new board. Orbiter wasn't that much better either.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 01:35:25 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 22, 2025, 05:38:05 amPeople like me? I haven't proclaimed anything to be impossible nor have I discounted the actual achievements of SpaceX or Tesla. The Falcon line of rockets is certainly huge step forward in reliable and economical launch technology and the original Model S certainly played a big part in popularizing electric cars. But, IMO, the Starship and the Cybertruck are the result of a slightly crazy and childish billionaire getting to the point where nobody can say no to him. But hey, have another glass of Kool-Aid.As far as your criticisms of the Saturn rocket and the Space Shuttle, the space age started in 1957 with Sputnik. Ten years later Saturn V--which took people to the moon and launched SkyLab into orbit--was first successfully tested. 24 years later the first Space Shuttle launched. If the Space Shuttle had been properly managed and incrementally improved over it's life than both systems could have had zero failures, but unfortunately that didn't happen. 53 years later the first Falcon 9 is launched.All of the supporting technology--metallurgy, electronics, you name it--has vastly improved in that 53 years and what SpaceX did was to quickly adapt all of the modern methods along with cost control (aka simply refusing to pay stupid aerospace prices for stuff that wasn't that special). If you want to compare and contrast Space-X with all of its contemporary competitors they look pretty good, but comparing them with the Saturn or Space Shuttle programs is just silly, sort of like that Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul match. It took SpaceX about 10 years from its founding to being able to launch cargo to the ISS, that's about the same amount of time it took to develop the entire Saturn project from absolutely nothing. One thing that SpaceX does very well is to keep on improving after they achieve operational capability. That is easier with low volume and modern manufacturing methods--3D printing, CNC instead of jigs, etc. Kudos to them for that. Unfortunately for Tesla, that doesn't work as well for high-volume manufacturing like cars and they're going to be stuck with that Cybertruck for a while.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 02:07:30 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on June 22, 2025, 07:24:37 amTo be fair, we should note that those cars back in the 1830s were one-offs. Batch production of electric cars started in the 1890s. Interestingly, the London Electric Cab Company started in 1897 and had a fleet of 75 vehicles. Rubbish lead acid batteries led to their withdrawal from service after only three or four years. The first hybrid car was invented by Porsche in 1900. It was a series hybrid and had a motor in each front wheel.I love this sort of stuff and used to enjoy teaching it to my students, who seemed to think that every consequential invention was made not long before they were born. 😅

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2025, 06:26:28 pm
content: Let us face it..

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 27, 2025, 05:42:11 am
content: NASA made an almost RUD during the testing too..

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 27, 2025, 12:00:50 pm
content: SRBs are really unsettling because the motor can nearly completely destroy itself and it still produces thrust. No way to turn it off once that candle is lit.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 27, 2025, 12:07:29 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 27, 2025, 12:00:50 pmAnd in 50 years of development no one has been able to stop them from doing nasty things about one time in 100. Totally unacceptable for regular manned flight on safety grounds as well as economic ones.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 27, 2025, 02:01:27 pm
content: SRBs are terrible pollution machines toohttps://www.space.com/rocket-launches-environmental-impact