4 ms·

The question is what's faster - finishing an adequate launch platform or repairing/rebuilding a destroyed one? I'm convinced that a 2 month delay followed by a

by qayxc 3y ago

The question is what's faster - finishing an adequate launch platform or repairing/rebuilding a destroyed one? I'm convinced that a 2 month delay followed by a less destructive test flight and a quicker turnaround time for the next attempt would've been quicker. But we'll see how long it'll take SpaceX to fix the damage. If it takes less than 8 weeks until the next launch attempt, I was wrong about my assessment.

hackeraccount 3y ago
Isn't that a question with multiple variables? If you wait longer to fly Starship then it's longer to get data about how it flies. What if it has an unknown flaw that blows it up on the pad? Now you're at rebuild plus 2 mos. How much was a lack of the data gained from this test holding up changes? What if the test had been more successful? I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't think the answer is as simple as the amount of time it would have taken to put a flame diverter on the stage 0. I've heard from 2 sources about time to repair+improve stage zero (Musk saying 2-3 mos. and a E. Burger quoting someone saying 4 - 6 mos.) That says to me that 8 weeks will be a miracle.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Von Braun claimed that they learned more from failed tests than they did from successful ones. Now they have an extra two months to analyze data from flight. So even if it takes three months until the next flight instead of 2 under your plan, I think launching this week instead of two months from now likely shaved most of two months off their schedule.
cromwellian 3y ago
Even if they could get all of the approvals, which they won't, there is no way they are rebuilding that in 2 months. And even if government permits were forthcoming, which -- at this point they're likely grounded for a long time -- they'd likely face residents nearby suing them in court to stop launches. They F-ed up bigtime. Look, SLS which has 1/2 the power of Starship, launched with a flame diverter, flame trench, AND massive water deluge system and yet it still damaged the mobile launcher. SpaceX tested the fondag with 50% power, it still destroyed it, and yet they thought a full power launch was going to be ok? This was reckless and likely sabotaged their prospects for launch until 2024, assuming legal and regulatory challenges don't hamstring them further. The FAA probably feels they lied about the risks and won't be so quick to accept their claims next time.

by qayxc 3y ago

hackeraccount 3y ago

Isn't that a question with multiple variables? If you wait longer to fly Starship then it's longer to get data about how it flies. What if it has an unknown flaw that blows it up on the pad? Now you're at rebuild plus 2 mos. How much was a lack of the data gained from this test holding up changes? What if the test had been more successful? I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't think the answer is as simple as the amount of time it would have taken to put a flame diverter on the stage 0. I've heard from 2 sources about time to repair+improve stage zero (Musk saying 2-3 mos. and a E. Burger quoting someone saying 4 - 6 mos.) That says to me that 8 weeks will be a miracle.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Von Braun claimed that they learned more from failed tests than they did from successful ones. Now they have an extra two months to analyze data from flight. So even if it takes three months until the next flight instead of 2 under your plan, I think launching this week instead of two months from now likely shaved most of two months off their schedule.

cromwellian 3y ago

Even if they could get all of the approvals, which they won't, there is no way they are rebuilding that in 2 months. And even if government permits were forthcoming, which -- at this point they're likely grounded for a long time -- they'd likely face residents nearby suing them in court to stop launches. They F-ed up bigtime. Look, SLS which has 1/2 the power of Starship, launched with a flame diverter, flame trench, AND massive water deluge system and yet it still damaged the mobile launcher. SpaceX tested the fondag with 50% power, it still destroyed it, and yet they thought a full power launch was going to be ok? This was reckless and likely sabotaged their prospects for launch until 2024, assuming legal and regulatory challenges don't hamstring them further. The FAA probably feels they lied about the risks and won't be so quick to accept their claims next time.