16 ms·
Starship / Super Heavy
- DarthGhandi 6y agoSpaceX's assembly and testing cadence is quite amazing. They're already putting together pieces of SN17!
- Cactus2018 6y agoSerious cadence. Here is the popular graphic of the current (2020-12-27) production line by https://twitter.com/brendan2908 https://twitter.com/brendan2908 https://twitter.com/brendan2908/status/1342967357006729216/photo/1 https://twitter.com/brendan2908/status/1342967357006729216/p... Edit: and the 'decommissioned' product line: https://twitter.com/brendan2908/status/1338689061817487360/photo/1 https://twitter.com/brendan2908/status/1338689061817487360/p...
- jonplackett 6y agoIn another article about Tesla VW CEO described them as having ‘essentially unlimited resources’. I guess spaceX probably falls under a similar category. Unlimited resources + not wasting ANYTHING is a killer combo.
- electriclove 6y agoI think many others also have 'essentially unlimited resources' but it is the execution and quick iteration that is unique to both Tesla and SpaceX.
- jonplackett 6y agoLots of places seem like they should have unlimited resources. I would have thought VW would be pretty high on that list - but they have their resources tied up. SpaceX / Tesla seem to be more free to use their resources in daring ways.
- AYBABTME 6y agoTesla can seemingly issue new shares and the public market just buy them all up at a huge valuation; I think that's what is meant by "unlimited resources".
- ALittleLight 6y agoThat may be mixing up causality. One reason people love to invest is because they see what amazing things are possible. I personally would love to invest with SpaceX.
- zbrozek 6y agoThere's tons of places with effectively unlimited money. But very few places that have nearly unlimited resources. Some key resources are usually inversely correlated with money: decision-making latency and throughput, clear focus, and iteration speed. That's because money buys headcount, not good leadership.
- ashtonkem 6y agoUnlimited resources often slows things down, paradoxically.
- sfblah 6y agoI don’t think you’re right about many others having unlimited resources. This situation is a novelty in the post-cold-war era. Admittedly in the Cold War military projects probably did have unlimited resources.
- aaronblohowiak 6y agoDo you think sls development is less than what spacex is spending on starship?
- reasonabl_human 6y agoThis made me chuckle. SLS is a bloated joke, survives due to political favoritism for job generation. SpaceX does everything at a radical discount by comparison.
- codeulike 6y agoWillingness to take ambitious business risks is what sets Tesla and SpaceX apart. Innovation is gambling, it is risky.
- jcheng 6y agoAre you sure he wasn’t talking about Apple?
- jonplackett 6y agoHe said ‘other competitors’ or something like that and I assumed he meant Tesla despite it being at the time of Apple launch - building gigafactories takes a lot more resources than anything Apple has done so far. Word is Apple won’t even manufacture the whole car anyway like Tesla does.
- woah 6y agoI wouldn’t be surprised if Apple has produced many times more iPhones by weight than Tesla has produced cars
- basementcat 6y agoYou inspired me to do some Googling and arithmetic. From the Apple website, an iPhone is about 0.5 lbs. There have been approximately 1.3 billion iPhones sold. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276306/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-fiscal-year-2007/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276306/global-apple-ipho... A Tesla Model 3 weighs about 4,000 lbs. In the last 6 quarters, about 600,000 vehicles were delivered. https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-vehicle-deliveries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-v... 2.4e9 > 6.5e8 TL;DR: Cars are heavy. The total mass of the vehicles Tesla has delivered in the past six quarters exceeds the total mass of all the iPhones that Apple has ever sold.
- SECProto 6y agoI don't think you need 6 quarters. Using your numbers, 1.3 billion iPhones is 650 million pounds. At 4000lb each, it only takes 163000 model 3s to outweigh the iPhones - about 5 months of production, or two quarters.
- jonplackett 6y ago
- redis_mlc 6y ago> essentially unlimited resources Both Tesla and SpaceX are welfare queens. So yes, they have infinite government resources to spend.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 6y agoThe FAA recently updated this page as part of the new Environmental Assessment at Boca Chica which is required before SpaceX can be approved for orbital flights. Their current approval is good for testing (vertical) flights of Starship and Superheavy, but does not currently permit orbital flight from Boca Chica as I understand it. They are currently in a public comment period thru Jan 22.
- sneak 6y agoWhat's the environmental impact delta between a 12km launch and landing and an orbital launch and landing? I can't imagine the difference to the ground environment is that significant.
- wongarsu 6y agoThe Super Heavy Booster has an order of magnitude more engines than the Starship prototype that did the 12km hop. I don't think Starship can reach orbit without the booster (it can reach space, but not orbital velocity)
- zaroth 6y agoSounds levels in particular will be extreme at launch (as in, deadly even outside the blast radius). And there's a lot more fuel that could potentially explode over populated areas on the way into orbit. For this reason, I think the intent is for Superheavy launches to be mainly done far out at sea. But Boca is needed in the interim for testing purposes.
- rlt 6y ago> And there's a lot more fuel that could potentially explode over populated areas on the way into orbit. Isn’t that why launch complexes are usually on coasts? They immediately point out over the ocean, and if it’s off course the flight is “terminated” (i.e. exploded) before it reaches populated areas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety
- londons_explore 6y agoWhy the desalination plant? Is there not piped water? Is it just another eco friendly sounding thing to put in the plan? Is it to hedge against newspaper headlines saying how much water spacex is wasting? Desalination has to be more expensive than piped water (both financially and environmentally).
- kristofferR 6y agoBoca Chica doesn't have piped water. "There are no shops or restaurants or amenities of any kind around, including municipal water pipes; Cameron County regularly trucks in gallons of water, which is stored in outdoor tanks." https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/space-x-texas-village-boca-chica/606382/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/space-x-... The whole piece is worth a read btw, great article.
- rkagerer 6y agoYep, a good read!
- ipnon 6y agoBoca Chica is a relatively isolated location wedged between the Gulf of Mexico and Mexico itself. Texas is a big place, and if you want fresh water you might just have to make it yourself.
- throwaway316943 6y agoTake a gander at Google earth, Boca Chica is far enough away from Brownsville that I doubt it has municipal water or would ever be serviced. Salt water and steel don’t mix well so I’d assume they want to stop trucking it in.
- hinkley 6y agoThey have plans for building launch sites offshore. They're presumably exercising their muscles on as many of the end-game problems as they can. The bubble wall tech will probably be a big enough problem to sort out once they try to build them.
- mabbo 6y ago> The fully integrated Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle will be approximately 400 feet tall and 30 feet in diameter. For reference, the Saturn V rocket from the Apollo program was 363 feet tall. It was 33 ft wide at the first stage, while Starship is 30 ft wide all the way to the top. It's just massive. And it's fully reusable. What a game changer.
- gibolt 6y agoIt is approximately a 30 storey building. The majority of it is filled with extremely dense liquid fuel. The ability to lift that into orbit (minus most fuel and booster) with both halves still able to land is an insane feat.
- avmich 6y agoYou mean, extremely cold. Not particularly dense, methane is about half of water density, oxygen is about 10% more.
- wolfram74 6y agoGiven most buildings are upwards of 90% air by volume, that's still quite dense.
- heavenlyblue 6y agoWanted to argue with you but apparently concrete is only 2.5g/cm3 so not that much different from water.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- stjohnswarts 6y agoThere have been ships made of concrete which I always found interesting. Ferrocement (I believe) is a form of boatcraft that can be done in your backyard without any special tools.
- someperson 6y agoAn interesting thing here is SpaceX are building TWO launchpads. Which will definitely help prevent delays if an when there is an AMOS-6 [1] or Orb-3 [2] type explosion that destroys the launchpad. It may also help for rapidly testing orbital refueling in 2022, though the plan is to do orbital refueling with 1 launch pad, 1 Super Heavy and 2 Starships (1 standard, 1 refueler) with 1 hour turnaround times between launches (and 5-6 launches) before Starship is ready to depart for the journey to Mars. [1] https://youtu.be/_BgJEXQkjNQ?t=71 https://youtu.be/_BgJEXQkjNQ?t=71 [2] https://youtu.be/aL5eddt-iAo?t=52 https://youtu.be/aL5eddt-iAo?t=52
- thelittleone 6y agoThey could also do two launches within a single launch window.
- karmicthreat 6y agoThey also want to be able to refuel super heavy in orbit off another super heavy.
- patagurbon 6y agoStarship. Super Heavy won't go to orbit.
- SteveNuts 6y agoDidn't they do this in that movie armageddon? Hopefully space-x doesn't know something we don't.
- loceng 6y agoPretty sure The Boring Company machines will fit in these rockets..
- tailspin2019 6y agoHa. That's an interesting thought!
- grishka 6y ago> The LLCC consists of a two-story building (referred to as Stargate) Indeed.
- skolos 6y agoWhere do one finds out when SpaceX performs test launches? I would love to take my kids to see them.
- tnorthcutt 6y agoThe app Pocket Rocket on iOS is pretty good for this: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pocket-rocket/id1493916909 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pocket-rocket/id1493916909
- umeshunni 6y agoI'm not sure if there's an official source, but I use the Reddit link below: https://reddit.com/r/SpaceX/w/launches/manifest?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app https://reddit.com/r/SpaceX/w/launches/manifest?utm_source=s...
- dint 6y agoOften, tests aren't announced until just before they happen. Musk's twitter seems to be the primary source for this kind of information from SpaceX. Otherwise, some unofficial/fan sources[0] have pretty good information. [0] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/
- penagwin 6y agoUsually we can tell when they're preparing to by NOTAM and similar just before unless they announce it
- rst 6y agoEven for orbital launches on the production Falcon 9, schedules are subject to change due to technical glitches or just bad weather. Test launches are subject to both, with technical glitches being nearly part of the plan. For starship launches, there's a nearby town where residents usually get something like 24 hours' notice of an attempt, in case they want to be elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen.
- suyash 6y agoNext level space age begins, sooner we will be on Mars.
- flenserboy 6y agoWhile it will be fun to see humans on Mars, the really interesting stuff is further out. Where large lifters like this will really shine is in allowing automated mining factories to be sent to various space rocks in order to allow further, larger projects to be built in place. Musk has been piggybacking technologies to fund future projects — I don't see Mars as an endpoint for his vision, and Mars will be a cash sink instead of a cash generator for some time to come. Look for the next moneymaking (and project-fostering) step.
- Gustomaximus 6y ago> Mars will be a cash sink instead of a cash generator for some time to come The wildcard for profit here is government. No doubt China and possibly Russia, EU and India will want to race for position when the see America claiming stake here. I could see huge government funds from US and even allied countries coming through to support the development and get the fast claims.
- hobofan 6y agoI don't see why any earthly government would want to pour a lot of money into Mars. From what history has shown us the Mars colony will likely declare independence from any earthly government once they are self-sustaining which would void any "claims".
- TeMPOraL 6y ago> While it will be fun to see humans on Mars, the really interesting stuff is further out. Where large lifters like this will really shine is in allowing automated mining factories to be sent to various space rocks in order to allow further, larger projects to be built in place. The way I see it, a lot of interesting things are closer than Mars. There's plenty of space rocks near Earth, that could be nudged into Earth orbit and mined, ultimately enabling orbital construction. I'm hoping a whole economy in cislunar space will eventually take off. That would go a long way towards making servicing Mars cheaper, too.
- dangoldin 6y agoGot lost in a rabbit hole after reading this news. Most incredible thing to me was that due to the reusability the per launch costs may end up being $2M (vs $185 million in 1969–1971 dollars - $1.23 billion in 2019 value for the Saturn V).
- lemonspat 6y agoWhere did you get that $2M number from?
- dsp 6y agohttps://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-elon-musk.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-...
- valuearb 6y agoFuel costs per launch will be about $500K, the remaining costs are dependent upon how many times both stages can be reused, maintenance costs, and launch/pad costs.
- maccam94 6y agoNote that the $2M is to launch a fully loaded (100 tons of payload) Starship into low earth orbit (LEO). Launching it further, such as to the Moon or Mars, requires refueling while in-orbit. I've seen estimates from Musk that it would take 6-7 launches of a tanker variant of Starship to deliver enough fuel to fill an empty Starship (it could be stockpiled in an orbital depot ahead of the main payload launch). So the total launch cost might be more like $15M for a fully-loaded ship. Which is still crazy cheap compared to SLS ($2B/launch), and Falcon 9 costs $15M just to get 13 tons into LEO.
- baq 6y agoask any astronomer what they could do with extra $150M per launch and watch them salivate. also, this thing could lift JWST pretty much without that complex unfolding mechanism. genuinely exciting.
- graderjs 6y agoI find it a little weird that FAA handles space stuff. I think they should coordinate, but basically they are for aircraft. There should be a FSA that handles space traffic.
- elihu 6y agoRockets into space have to transit through the airspace used by regular aircraft, so it kind of makes sense that it would be handled by one agency rather than having two agencies that have to coordinate with each other.
- graderjs 6y agoI disagree. Space is a whole other domain. I don't know FAA mandate but they probably have an altitude cap. All their systems and procedures will not work above a certain zone. We should not put more pressure on them. They have full hands as it is. They should focus on the things they do well. There should be a FSA that FAA coordinates with for the low altitude region of launch, and above that the FSA handles all sorts of space traffic, satellites, etc. I don't know anything about this, but probably each launch has to mix between doing their own space window and launch path monitoring, and leaning on some group like NASA. This seems non-ideal. FSA could become the source of this. I don't think the coordination would pose a blocking challenge. And I think the scope of the space domain warrants its own agency.
- ncallaway 6y agoThere's really just not enough commercial space traffic yet to warrant its own agency. I think that's becoming less true with LEO megaconstellations of satellites, but it's still probably too low volume for now to warrant an entirely separate federal agency.
- cameronh90 6y agoGiven the nature of space, what we probably need is an international space agency to handle regulation. Might be hard getting USA, China, Russia and the EU on the same page though.
- fasteddie31003 6y agoUhh if Elon just complied and shut his Tesla plant down like Alameda County demanded I would be a bigger fan. Good thing he is going through the proper government channels this time. Just kidding FUCK THE FEDS LET THE CAPITALISTS RULE!
- blackrock 6y agoWhat are the odds of Starship working? It seems really complex. And that last phase where the ship flips vertical from the bellyflop, looks insane for human passengers inside. How many G’s is that maneuver pulling? SN8 appears 90% successful, but I’m wondering if that remaining 10% is the killer. As they say: You spend 10% of your time, solving 90% of your problem. And then you spend 90% of your time, solving the last 10% of your problem. Between high speed re-entry, and thermal protections, I wonder how well the Starship design was modeled, to handle hypersonic re-entry speeds. It appears to be a very large spacecraft that’s re-entering the atmosphere at very high speeds. If it succeeds, then maybe it’ll open up space travel and make it cheaper. If not, then well, nice try. Back to the drawing board. But maybe, we’ll see results soon enough, with SN9.
- andrewflnr 6y agoGs come from acceleration, either straight line or centripetal. I don't think there is enough control authority in starship's fins to create much centripetal acceleration the way a fighter jet's wings can. If the rocket is capable of it, it would do the same whether it was belly-flopping or dropping straight down the whole way. Any passengers will certainly get an inner-ear workout, but I can't imagine how the flip, more or less around the rocket's own axis, could contribute significantly to G-loading.
- christophilus 6y agoYou’re still spinning violently and then snapping to a stop. I wonder if the payload could be designed to counter that in some way? If it was suspended in a liquid, that might work, but that’s unrealistic.
- juanbyrge 6y agoI don’t mean to trivialize what SpaceX is accomplishing, but maybe we are overestimating the degree of difficulty of building rockets in the 21st century, given the advances in technology over the past few decades? With the immense improvement in compute power, materials, accelerometers, welding techniques, etc.. since the 60s, maybe SpaceX was the first to recognize that building rockets is not as hard as it used to be?
- peter303 6y agoSpaceX should locate next to Blue Origin in Texas.
- Denvercoder9 6y agoWhy? Their Texas facility is hundreds of miles inland, not exactly a location you'd want to launch enormous, experimental rockets that tend to explode from. Also, Blue Origin is just an expensive hobby compared to SpaceX. They're older, but have never flown anything to orbit, compared to the 100+ missions SpaceX has performed.
- itsoktocry 6y ago>Also, Blue Origin is just an expensive hobby compared to SpaceX. Who cares? They are building interesting stuff too. We are in an amazing time for Space tech. Why do Musk fans talk of "supporting the mission" out of one side of their mouth, and denigrate the competition every chance they get out of the other? It happens with Tesla and EVs too. Toxic communities.
- awestroke 6y agoBecause Blue Origin is a toxic company. They tried to patent landing on a barge at sea even though SpaceX had already done it. They have also never flown anything to orbit, yet try to bid on orbital missions
- Denvercoder9 6y agoNothing wrong with Blue Origin per se, redundancy is great (and pretty essential to become a spacefaring civilization -- as demonstrated by the back-to-back Antares and Falcon failures a couple of years ago). However, saying SpaceX, the established company, should relocate to be next to Blue Origin, the new start-up that hasn't shown much yet, for unspecified reasons just doesn't make any logical sense. Also, I think part of the reason space enthusiasts don't like Blue Origin is that it has had a terrible return-on-investment so far. There's a limited amount of money that will put into space, and it's great that Jeff Bezos wants to spend a billion a year on it. It would just be great if there was more to show in return for that money. For example, Elon Musk claims SpaceX has spend about a billion on reusability for the Falcon 9. Just imagine such a leap forward every year. Another reason Blue Origin gets a bad rep is that they don't exactly try to play fair. As mentioned by a sibling comment, they tried to patent something (landing on a ship) that's at best just common sense. When NASA wanted to lease LC-39A to commercial providers, Blue Origin tried to block NASA from leasing it exclusively to SpaceX on the basis that it'd be unfair to them, even though they hadn't flown anything that could use the pad yet (and still haven't). They landed their New Shepherd after a suborbital flight to 100.5 km just weeks before SpaceX landed their first Falcon 9 booster -- claiming to be the first to land a rocket propusively. That would be fine, except Bezos then tweeted "Welcome to the club" to Musk, ignoring the fact that orbital rockets are much, much harder (as evidenced by the fact that they still haven't launched, let alone landed one, 5 years later).