14 ms·

I'm a SpaceX fan and I've been excited to watch Starship's progress over the years, but this comment is a little premature. It might one day be the most capable

by Me1000 3y ago

I'm a SpaceX fan and I've been excited to watch Starship's progress over the years, but this comment is a little premature. It might one day be the most capable rocket ever built, but it's not there yet. Starship has yet to reach orbit, the Raptor engines have a long ways to go before they become as reliable as the Merlin, and the recovery of the booster or ship are still a ways out too. There are still a lot of technical and regulatory hurdles Starship needs to cross.

hersko 3y ago
> Starship has yet to reach orbit Yeah, well they're trying but the FAA isn't letting them launch. It's possible the one they want to launch will make orbit, or maybe it will be the next one etc.. The point is it will never achieve anything if it keeps getting delayed by the FAA.
- deprecative 3y ago
  > The point is it will never achieve anything if it keeps getting delayed by the FAA. If Elon didn't want things to be delayed so bad by the FAA maybe he shouldn't have launched on 4/20 for the lulz without adequate launch site infrastructure for such a launch. The FAA shouldn't let them launch until SpaceX has proven they've done the work and have done their best to mitigate these issues going forward - both the actual consequences and the decision processes that led to them. From what I remember the FAA basically rubber stamped SpaceX's incident report (or whatever it was called) that the Internet reported as being from the FAA itself.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    > If Elon didn't want things to be delayed so bad by the FAA maybe he shouldn't have launched on 4/20 for the lulz [..] It's incredible that we live in a world where a statement like this has at least some veracity.
    - machdiamonds 3y ago
      This isn't true, the original launch was set for 4/17 but was delayed due to an issue: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elon-musks-spacex-postpones-debut-flight-starship-rocket-system-2023-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elon-musk...
      - tigershark 3y ago
        Pretty much everyone following the first orbital attempt closely for months could tell that the 3 days delay was just bullshit to appease Musk. I was following starship from the time when was still called ITS or BFR.
  - cchance 3y ago
    Yes exactly, sure... if we ignore the fact that the launch on 4/17 was scrubbed and the 4/20 date just happened to be the next window and he made a joke about it. As for the not adequate launch site infrastructure that had 0 to do with the date, they built the pad long before launch, expecting the fondag to handle the heat/pressure and it didn't work, they didn't suddenly build a pad throw it together and say we're launching cause 4/20 because LOL.
  - brandonagr2 3y ago
    > until SpaceX has proven they've done the work and have done their best to mitigate these issues going forward I have great news for you, they have already done that! https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cltnwVMcYgw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cltnwVMcYgw
    - deprecative 3y ago
      > both the actual consequences and the decision processes that led to them. Forgive me if I'm not going to click on a Twitter link, but the YouTube video only covers site infrastructure. I see no evidence that Elon won't Elon again. 4/20 blaze it.
trollerator23 3y ago
Ayep. Well said. It could be but it isn't yet. However SpaceX does have a good track record in that regard.
- Me1000 3y ago
  SpaceX is an impressive accomplishment by any measure, no one should try to take that away. The Falcon 9 brought some much needed innovation to the industry and I'd argue established an accessible commercial industry in space. And while I'm quite optimistic that Starship will eventually be a success, I think it's healthy for people to take a step back and remember that Dragon was delayed for years (yes, so was Starliner but it's not relevant here), Falcon Heavy was delayed for years, and Starship is also delayed by years (and despite the other person's comment to my original, it's not the fault of the FAA). Falcon Heavy never actually achieved reuse/landing for the core stage, and has since abandoned even attempting it. I believe it was Shotwell herself who said Falcon Heavy was a mistake.
  - foobarian 3y ago
    At least with Starship we have seen the booster land so there is the existence proof. It just needs to not catch fire afterwards :-)
    - trollerator23 3y ago
      No! We haven't! I'm nitpicking but we saw the upper stage prototype. Besides, I believe their landing method is to catch the booster with the mechazilla which should be quite a show.
      - foobarian 3y ago
        Fair enough, my rocket nomenclature is not very good. "The one Starship piece that flew, bellyflopped, and landed followed by catching fire." :-). SN-15 in May 2021. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9eoubnO-pE&ab_channel=SpaceX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9eoubnO-pE&ab_channel=Space...
cchance 3y ago
Pretty sure to do any of those things or improve on any of them they need to be allowed to actually launch the frigging rocket
rtkwe 3y ago
There's also that the whole plan of Starship colonizing Mars is wildly impractical and all the numbers Musk throws out don't work; the second you try to start fitting the supposed 100 passengers in to Starship for example there's just not room even if you halve the NASA recommended space per person. Once you account for keeping them alive once they get there it makes the slave trade ships look luxurious. SpaceX is doing really neat stuff just dragged down by Elon's overhyping sales pitches.
- generalizations 3y ago
  Far as weight goes, wouldn't 1-2.5 tons of payload capacity per person be enough? And as far as volume is concerned, I'm pretty sure there's lots of ways to increase that dramatically while you're in space (e.g. inflatable habs). All you really have to do is figure out how to keep them comfortable until the starship is outside the atmosphere and whatever larger spaces have been constructed/inflated.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lmm 3y ago
    > Far as weight goes, wouldn't 1-2.5 tons of payload capacity per person be enough? IIRC you need 6 tonnes of food and oxygen just to keep them alive for the transit.
    - namibj 3y ago
      Solar-powered electrochemical synthesis of small energy source molecules like glucose or acetate might reduce that substantially. If you supply 80% of the energy demand that way, you'd easily half the "proper food" mass that you need to ship.
      - lmm 3y ago
        > Solar-powered electrochemical synthesis of small energy source molecules like glucose or acetate might reduce that substantially. Has that ever been done for human consumption before? Relying on a novel technology in a setup where, if it breaks, everyone on board dies, seems rather dubious.

by Me1000 3y ago

hersko 3y ago

> Starship has yet to reach orbit Yeah, well they're trying but the FAA isn't letting them launch. It's possible the one they want to launch will make orbit, or maybe it will be the next one etc.. The point is it will never achieve anything if it keeps getting delayed by the FAA.

deprecative 3y ago
> The point is it will never achieve anything if it keeps getting delayed by the FAA. If Elon didn't want things to be delayed so bad by the FAA maybe he shouldn't have launched on 4/20 for the lulz without adequate launch site infrastructure for such a launch. The FAA shouldn't let them launch until SpaceX has proven they've done the work and have done their best to mitigate these issues going forward - both the actual consequences and the decision processes that led to them. From what I remember the FAA basically rubber stamped SpaceX's incident report (or whatever it was called) that the Internet reported as being from the FAA itself.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  > If Elon didn't want things to be delayed so bad by the FAA maybe he shouldn't have launched on 4/20 for the lulz [..] It's incredible that we live in a world where a statement like this has at least some veracity.
  - machdiamonds 3y ago
    This isn't true, the original launch was set for 4/17 but was delayed due to an issue: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elon-musks-spacex-postpones-debut-flight-starship-rocket-system-2023-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elon-musk...
    - tigershark 3y ago
      Pretty much everyone following the first orbital attempt closely for months could tell that the 3 days delay was just bullshit to appease Musk. I was following starship from the time when was still called ITS or BFR.
- cchance 3y ago
  Yes exactly, sure... if we ignore the fact that the launch on 4/17 was scrubbed and the 4/20 date just happened to be the next window and he made a joke about it. As for the not adequate launch site infrastructure that had 0 to do with the date, they built the pad long before launch, expecting the fondag to handle the heat/pressure and it didn't work, they didn't suddenly build a pad throw it together and say we're launching cause 4/20 because LOL.
- brandonagr2 3y ago
  > until SpaceX has proven they've done the work and have done their best to mitigate these issues going forward I have great news for you, they have already done that! https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cltnwVMcYgw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cltnwVMcYgw
  - deprecative 3y ago
    > both the actual consequences and the decision processes that led to them. Forgive me if I'm not going to click on a Twitter link, but the YouTube video only covers site infrastructure. I see no evidence that Elon won't Elon again. 4/20 blaze it.

trollerator23 3y ago

Ayep. Well said. It could be but it isn't yet. However SpaceX does have a good track record in that regard.

Me1000 3y ago
SpaceX is an impressive accomplishment by any measure, no one should try to take that away. The Falcon 9 brought some much needed innovation to the industry and I'd argue established an accessible commercial industry in space. And while I'm quite optimistic that Starship will eventually be a success, I think it's healthy for people to take a step back and remember that Dragon was delayed for years (yes, so was Starliner but it's not relevant here), Falcon Heavy was delayed for years, and Starship is also delayed by years (and despite the other person's comment to my original, it's not the fault of the FAA). Falcon Heavy never actually achieved reuse/landing for the core stage, and has since abandoned even attempting it. I believe it was Shotwell herself who said Falcon Heavy was a mistake.
- foobarian 3y ago
  At least with Starship we have seen the booster land so there is the existence proof. It just needs to not catch fire afterwards :-)
  - trollerator23 3y ago
    No! We haven't! I'm nitpicking but we saw the upper stage prototype. Besides, I believe their landing method is to catch the booster with the mechazilla which should be quite a show.
    - foobarian 3y ago
      Fair enough, my rocket nomenclature is not very good. "The one Starship piece that flew, bellyflopped, and landed followed by catching fire." :-). SN-15 in May 2021. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9eoubnO-pE&ab_channel=SpaceX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9eoubnO-pE&ab_channel=Space...

cchance 3y ago

Pretty sure to do any of those things or improve on any of them they need to be allowed to actually launch the frigging rocket

rtkwe 3y ago

There's also that the whole plan of Starship colonizing Mars is wildly impractical and all the numbers Musk throws out don't work; the second you try to start fitting the supposed 100 passengers in to Starship for example there's just not room even if you halve the NASA recommended space per person. Once you account for keeping them alive once they get there it makes the slave trade ships look luxurious. SpaceX is doing really neat stuff just dragged down by Elon's overhyping sales pitches.

generalizations 3y ago
Far as weight goes, wouldn't 1-2.5 tons of payload capacity per person be enough? And as far as volume is concerned, I'm pretty sure there's lots of ways to increase that dramatically while you're in space (e.g. inflatable habs). All you really have to do is figure out how to keep them comfortable until the starship is outside the atmosphere and whatever larger spaces have been constructed/inflated.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lmm 3y ago
  > Far as weight goes, wouldn't 1-2.5 tons of payload capacity per person be enough? IIRC you need 6 tonnes of food and oxygen just to keep them alive for the transit.
  - namibj 3y ago
    Solar-powered electrochemical synthesis of small energy source molecules like glucose or acetate might reduce that substantially. If you supply 80% of the energy demand that way, you'd easily half the "proper food" mass that you need to ship.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > Solar-powered electrochemical synthesis of small energy source molecules like glucose or acetate might reduce that substantially. Has that ever been done for human consumption before? Relying on a novel technology in a setup where, if it breaks, everyone on board dies, seems rather dubious.