7 ms·

It's been interesting to see SpaceX shift from hardware-rich to a more traditional process the last year. I suspect a lot of it is due to the sheer cost of what

It's been interesting to see SpaceX shift from hardware-rich to a more traditional process the last year. I suspect a lot of it is due to the sheer cost of what they are doing, but a lot of it is PR management as well... Plus it's obvious that the US government is doing everything in their power to have Musk on as short of a leash as possible.

mhandley 4y ago
SpaceX moved beyond what they could test without the launch (and catch) tower. They've spent a lot of time and money developing the ground systems - in comparison the early crude Starship prototypes were comparatively cheap and easily replaced - and I would imagine they really would prefer not to accidentally demolish the tower again.
- ralfd 3y ago
  If I recall correctly after this Methan explosion 9 month ago they got more cautious and slower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjbjXTomxqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjbjXTomxqI
  - mhandley 3y ago
    And they also have previous painful experience of destroying a Falcon 9 pad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ Really can't afford to repeat that if they are to make the timeline for using Starship as NASA's next lunar lander.
    - antoniuschan99 3y ago
      How much does Mechazilla cost? I read it's 1 billion. Also news is Elon said destroying nearby infrastructure would be a 9 month setback at the least.
      - brookst 3y ago
        Wow that’s like 2.5% of a Twitter.
        throwaway60134 3y ago
        [dead]
- usrusr 3y ago
  Almost sounds like a bit chicken/egg, you can't try landing without a certain amount of confidence, you can't build confidence without trying. Considering the hover capability of the booster (can be throttled to <1G) we might see an unprecedented amount of touch and go testing before the first real attempt?
  - Laremere 3y ago
    From the booster's point of view, the catch is a target location and speed. Plus a set of tolerances: however much the arm can swing to catch it, and horizontal speed has to be really low because it needs to drop down vertically into the arms. I would expect that the target on the ocean, even for the first test, is very specific. Once the booster can hit a phantom target, they can change the target to the tower and go for a catch attempt.
    - usrusr 3y ago
      I imagine that lack of stable reference points would be an issue on the ocean. Both for the algorithms under test and for validation. (I liberally use "algorithm" here as the superset of both algorithm and the hardware it runs on, I think in reality these tests are mostly for correcting parameters that are hard to determine with sufficient accuracy on paper) If you want to write off an entire booster, adding a dummy tower somewhere in the desert would not add much to the bill and could well be worth it. Or maybe even a not-quite-so-dummy tower, but off-site, where the booster would be scrapped on location (instead of reflown) even in the best case, no matter how hypothetical?
      - Laremere 3y ago
        Good GPS in ideal conditions (no trees or buildings blocking/bouncing signal) has accuracy on the centimeter scale: https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/
        usrusr 3y ago
bumby 3y ago
>Plus it's obvious that the US government is doing everything in their power to have Musk on as short of a leash as possible. What do you mean by this?
- mlindner 3y ago
  Some people are confused and think the government is against Musk in some way like the public is. The government quite likes SpaceX.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    And the parts that might be annoyed at him for Twitter are entirely unrelated to those dealing with space.
  - chinabot 3y ago
    Sadly "The government" is hundreds of separate organizations, agendas and politicians all with separate cover their ass agendas, NASA probably want this to succeed, I doubt the others are as enthusiastic.
    - somedude895 3y ago
      NASA, the military and security services
    - bumby 3y ago
      “Sadly”? Would the alternative of a monolith be preferable in a pluralistic society? What reason would the other parts of the govt have to want Musk to fail?
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    The public isn't though. Most people outside of twitter don't have any opinion on him.
trogdor 3y ago
>Plus it's obvious that the US government is doing everything in their power to have Musk on as short of a leash as possible. What are you referring to?
elif 3y ago
The slowdown of testing is not a change in their methodology. It was because they succeeded in all suborbital testing. The orbital testing has been held up by bureaucracy, heat tile iterations, and launch tower refinement. The costs of test articles are pennies on the dollar compared to the launch value of these vehicles once operational. By now they have 2.5 stacks ready, and surely have enough raptor engines saved up to rapidly launch 5+ starships this year, assuming they have the heat tile stuff figured out to a degree that the tests would be meaningful.
- chasd00 3y ago
  Also, I think the starship crashes and their frequency were really freaking out the authorities and potential customers. I remember Elon saying “we need to stop making craters”.
- 7e 3y ago
  That’s a very charitable interpretation. Testing slowed because of flaws in the Raptor which required a complete redesign. We’ll see if their chaotic development process produces something safe and reliable.
  - twicetwice 3y ago
    I hadn't heard that Raptor 2 was a complete redesign as a results of flaws discovered (I hadn't heard anything at all about why they made Raptor 2). Do you have a link where I can read more about this?
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      Not a complete redesign, but substantial. Even the head of the propulsion department was changed.
    - martyvis 3y ago
      From what I observed (reading the normal Reddit fluff, listening to NSF banter, and Tim Dodd the EA's interview with Musk) the issue with Raptor was being able to produce it reliably and rapidly. In the EA interview with Elon you can see how much less plumbing and paraphernalia there is on V2. I think both versions "worked" (they have been running lots of full duration tests at McGregor) for quite a while. One of Elon's many insightful sayings is something like "The best designed part is no part"
s1artibartfast 3y ago
It is still a hardware rich process from a Aerospace standpoint. They have three more built at the moment and another three in production. Musk said that they are Manufacturing engines at the rate of 1.8 per day which is absolutely insane

mhandley 4y ago

SpaceX moved beyond what they could test without the launch (and catch) tower. They've spent a lot of time and money developing the ground systems - in comparison the early crude Starship prototypes were comparatively cheap and easily replaced - and I would imagine they really would prefer not to accidentally demolish the tower again.

ralfd 3y ago
If I recall correctly after this Methan explosion 9 month ago they got more cautious and slower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjbjXTomxqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjbjXTomxqI
- mhandley 3y ago
  And they also have previous painful experience of destroying a Falcon 9 pad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ Really can't afford to repeat that if they are to make the timeline for using Starship as NASA's next lunar lander.
  - antoniuschan99 3y ago
    How much does Mechazilla cost? I read it's 1 billion. Also news is Elon said destroying nearby infrastructure would be a 9 month setback at the least.
    - brookst 3y ago
      Wow that’s like 2.5% of a Twitter.
      - throwaway60134 3y ago
        [dead]
usrusr 3y ago
Almost sounds like a bit chicken/egg, you can't try landing without a certain amount of confidence, you can't build confidence without trying. Considering the hover capability of the booster (can be throttled to <1G) we might see an unprecedented amount of touch and go testing before the first real attempt?
- Laremere 3y ago
  From the booster's point of view, the catch is a target location and speed. Plus a set of tolerances: however much the arm can swing to catch it, and horizontal speed has to be really low because it needs to drop down vertically into the arms. I would expect that the target on the ocean, even for the first test, is very specific. Once the booster can hit a phantom target, they can change the target to the tower and go for a catch attempt.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    I imagine that lack of stable reference points would be an issue on the ocean. Both for the algorithms under test and for validation. (I liberally use "algorithm" here as the superset of both algorithm and the hardware it runs on, I think in reality these tests are mostly for correcting parameters that are hard to determine with sufficient accuracy on paper) If you want to write off an entire booster, adding a dummy tower somewhere in the desert would not add much to the bill and could well be worth it. Or maybe even a not-quite-so-dummy tower, but off-site, where the booster would be scrapped on location (instead of reflown) even in the best case, no matter how hypothetical?
    - Laremere 3y ago
      Good GPS in ideal conditions (no trees or buildings blocking/bouncing signal) has accuracy on the centimeter scale: https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/
      - usrusr 3y ago

bumby 3y ago

>Plus it's obvious that the US government is doing everything in their power to have Musk on as short of a leash as possible. What do you mean by this?

mlindner 3y ago
Some people are confused and think the government is against Musk in some way like the public is. The government quite likes SpaceX.
- bombcar 3y ago
  And the parts that might be annoyed at him for Twitter are entirely unrelated to those dealing with space.
- chinabot 3y ago
  Sadly "The government" is hundreds of separate organizations, agendas and politicians all with separate cover their ass agendas, NASA probably want this to succeed, I doubt the others are as enthusiastic.
  - somedude895 3y ago
    NASA, the military and security services
  - bumby 3y ago
    “Sadly”? Would the alternative of a monolith be preferable in a pluralistic society? What reason would the other parts of the govt have to want Musk to fail?
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  The public isn't though. Most people outside of twitter don't have any opinion on him.

trogdor 3y ago

>Plus it's obvious that the US government is doing everything in their power to have Musk on as short of a leash as possible. What are you referring to?

elif 3y ago

The slowdown of testing is not a change in their methodology. It was because they succeeded in all suborbital testing. The orbital testing has been held up by bureaucracy, heat tile iterations, and launch tower refinement. The costs of test articles are pennies on the dollar compared to the launch value of these vehicles once operational. By now they have 2.5 stacks ready, and surely have enough raptor engines saved up to rapidly launch 5+ starships this year, assuming they have the heat tile stuff figured out to a degree that the tests would be meaningful.

chasd00 3y ago
Also, I think the starship crashes and their frequency were really freaking out the authorities and potential customers. I remember Elon saying “we need to stop making craters”.
7e 3y ago
That’s a very charitable interpretation. Testing slowed because of flaws in the Raptor which required a complete redesign. We’ll see if their chaotic development process produces something safe and reliable.
- twicetwice 3y ago
  I hadn't heard that Raptor 2 was a complete redesign as a results of flaws discovered (I hadn't heard anything at all about why they made Raptor 2). Do you have a link where I can read more about this?
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    Not a complete redesign, but substantial. Even the head of the propulsion department was changed.
  - martyvis 3y ago
    From what I observed (reading the normal Reddit fluff, listening to NSF banter, and Tim Dodd the EA's interview with Musk) the issue with Raptor was being able to produce it reliably and rapidly. In the EA interview with Elon you can see how much less plumbing and paraphernalia there is on V2. I think both versions "worked" (they have been running lots of full duration tests at McGregor) for quite a while. One of Elon's many insightful sayings is something like "The best designed part is no part"

s1artibartfast 3y ago

It is still a hardware rich process from a Aerospace standpoint. They have three more built at the moment and another three in production. Musk said that they are Manufacturing engines at the rate of 1.8 per day which is absolutely insane