5 ms·
Whether or not they hit April specifically (some of which isn't under their control, freak weather or the like can happen) they've clearly been checking through
by xoa 4y ago
Whether or not they hit April specifically (some of which isn't under their control, freak weather or the like can happen) they've clearly been checking through prep at an impressive, disciplined pace and it'll be soon. And importantly once they start they've set things up to keep the iteration going and do more and more ironing things out, and then going into full production. All technical merits aside, that, mass production and cadence, will itself be amazing vs previous efforts. The first launch will simultaneously be incredibly exciting and meaningful, and yet also meaningful in that it won't be that meaningful if that makes any sense. If it operates perfectly beyond expectations great, if it blows up at Max-Q that'd still give them a fair amount and they can quickly try again. Not a multi-billion white elephant that we might only ever see a handful of launch in history, but something aimed to ultimately be as unremarkable and reliable as a commericial airline.
I'm a bit too young for Apollo, so it feels incredibly fortunate to be able to watch the next great step forward for humanity. Starship is both the first true economics focused rocket to production and after F9 the end of the beginning of a shift in mindset for space. The ripple effects of the disruption will be fascinating and exciting as well. And we'll get to watch if live, in beautiful detail.
- kitsunesoba 4y agoYeah regardless of the outcome the real significance here is the SpaceX getting into an orbital launch test cadence, which with some luck should speed up after the first few once the various kinks in preparation and the bureaucratic half of the equation get smoothed out and it all becomes routine.
- elif 4y agoTrue. When the Artemis test launches were being scrubbed it really felt like an all-or-nothing moment. Even thought it was a rocket designed to be a disposable test article, it felt like failure would have necessitated a review of the whole program. With the upcoming starship test, it feels like even if it ends up being a 100 meter firework, the engine is still purring.
- mlsu 4y agoGwynne Shotwell has said that SpaceX is a rocket factory company, not a rocket company. I agree entirely, the possibilities here make me so excited.
- nonethewiser 4y agoI understand the distinction but I wonder if it’s only useful because of the weird nature of previous rocket engineering efforts. Notably, NASA contracting out different components due to the quirks of being a government entity. SpaceX is much different than that but aren’t they rather similar to, say, car companies? I mean if SpaceX is a rocket factory company, isn’t Ford a car factory company? We just don’t include factory because it’s redundant.
- apendleton 4y agoThere probably _is_ a similar, relevant distinction between mass-manufactured cars like Ford's and hand-built high-end cars like, I dunno, a McLaren F1, though. We don't use this exact terminology, but I think SpaceX is trying to be Ford in contrast to the legacy players, which are McLaren.
- mlsu 4y agoMost definitely! I mean, Ford was revolutionary because it was the first car factory company, right? Before that, you had to have a weird german guy hand build your buggy.
- geerlingguy 4y agoBefore Ford, there were thousands of bespoke car manufacturers all around the world, producing units in the hundreds per year.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mikewarot 4y ago
- FL410 4y agoWell articulated and completely agree. Starting to feel a bit like how things must have felt in the 60s...exciting.