5 ms·
It is still not done, in fact there is a good chance that this launch will go boom, which is actually expected by SpaceX as part of the iterative development pr
by GuB-42 4y ago
It is still not done, in fact there is a good chance that this launch will go boom, which is actually expected by SpaceX as part of the iterative development process and not as bad as, say, a failure of the SLS, but it still means we are not ready yet. Remember that the Soviet N1 launched 4 times, all failures, and it was the end of the program, I don't think Starship will suffer the same fate, for many reasons, but just because we get to launches don't mean the program will succeed.
That it can be done never really was the question. The tech is actually pretty well proven, a lot of it coming from soviet design. The issue is more about economics: do we need a super heavy reusable rocket, will reusability keep its promises. It is not like everyone and his dog has to put something into orbit, and in fact, we don't want too much stuff into orbit mostly because of the risk of space debris. Interestingly, the biggest customer may be SpaceX itself, with Starlink, and I think it is not a coincidence. We already had the Space Shuttle which was supposed to revolutionize space operation, and while the shuttle did work as a launcher, but it was ultimately a failure, hence the skepticism over Starship, it addition to the well known tendency of Elon Musk to overpromise and underdeliver.
Personally, I think SpaceX did better than I expected, and I think Starship will become at least a working launcher. SpaceX is essentially the only hope of the US government when it comes to rocketry, they won't let them go, especially now that the relationship with Russia is a bit tense. But as for how game changing it will be, I have absolutely no idea.
- greedo 4y agoWhat tech would you describe as coming from Soviet designs?
- GuB-42 4y agoIt is something Elon Musk himself said and I don't really know the details. But the Soviet were at the forefront of staged combustion engines, of which the Raptor engine famously is. And the "Super Heavy" booster is reminiscent of the N1 rocket, using a large number of small, efficient engines.
- philistine 4y agoGiving the N1 as the source of these so-called soviet designs is such a cop-out. The N1 was overtly complicated, poorly planned, didn't even use the same fuel as Starship and had an extra stage. It's comparing two rockets that are kind-of similar in height when you squint and arguing we have to somehow give the soviet the credit. Elon was probably talking about the engines, which the soviets toyed with as a concept, but SpaceX delivered as an existing product.
- GuB-42 4y agoThe N1 certainly was a failure, but still, a lot of research went into it. Research that was hidden from the west. What I think Elon Musk and engineers at SpaceX though was: hey, we are not in the cold war anymore, we have access to what the soviet did, so let's pick that up, take the good parts implement them with modern technology. The way I understand it, the USSR was better in some fields, like metallurgy, and made designs that took advantage of it. So now that the US can do even better metallurgy, then maybe take these soviet designs instead of the US designs that were made with material limitations. And also take advantage of, say, better electronics to succeed where the soviet failed. Maybe I am wrong, but that's my interpretation. It is not full credit to the soviet, but more like giving them credit because they couldn't have done it on western technology alone.
- philistine 4y agoYou are wrong. The Soviets were better than the US at only one thing: engines, and nothing else really. SpaceX wanted to use Russian rockets initially. They were unable to buy them, and started their own development instead. They were greatly inspired by Russian engine designs, which were very well made, but they have honestly improved and surpassed the Russians at this point. The N1 has no connection with Starship. The only similar thing is the amount of engines, but Starship uses a different fuel which means a completely different plumbing technology. They have nothing in common. I mean, have you heard about that whole coming back part?
- svachalek 4y agoI don't think the point has ever been putting tons of heavy stuff into orbit. This is a system for taking us to the moon and Mars.
- GuB-42 4y agoIt indeed started as the "Interplanetary Transport System", but there isn't a Mars mission yet, so it is a solution looking for a problem. The challenges of getting to Mars are huge, and that essentially ended the "pissing contest" era of space travel that gave us Apollo, and pretty much all of what we know about space travel today. Political figures understood that the next step after the Moon was Mars and that neither the US nor USSR were ready to take it despite the ridiculous amount of effort they could spare. Landing people on Mars is hard, very hard, and having a launcher capable of that is only part of the equation. There are radiation, travel time, etc... There is no way SpaceX can do it by itself, and the US government is not ready. So it might be the big goal, but certainly not the product SpaceX will sell. There is a Moon mission though, and I think SpaceX quickly switched the focus on that as soon as Artemis was starting to become a reality. But while it is part of the plan, the real "moon rocket" is SLS and the spaceship is Orion, Starship is "just" a lander. A weird situation if you ask me, but hey, politics. So yeah, the think SpaceX is selling is a rocket to put tons of heavy stuff into orbit, with Mars and the Moon being the extra plan, if the government decides to take it. I am not convinced about Mars, unless maybe China starts a pissing contest, which may be the best thing that can happen to space travel, but it looks like the Moon is getting at least something (of which China is probably no stranger to), still wait an see of a settlement.