4 ms·

SmarterEveryDay's proposal is both more expensive and less capable than using 14 Starship refueling flights. 14 flights seems insane, but since the system is f

SmarterEveryDay's proposal is both more expensive and less capable than using 14 Starship refueling flights. 14 flights seems insane, but since the system is fully reusable, the only consumables are <$2M of fuel each flight. Compared against the $4.3B cost of each SLS flight... Criticize the parts of the system that are both expensive and prevent us from taking advantage of Starship's ability to land 100 tons on the moon. SLS.

me_me_me 3y ago
> but since the system is fully reusable, the only consumables are <$2M of fuel each flight. > prevent us from taking advantage of Starship's ability to land 100 tons on the moon. the system is unable to get to the orbit, its not tested. Its all high-hopes and conjectures as it is now. All of those plans are opinions, that's the problem. Its like planning your infrastructure around hyperloop, but it doesnt exists. So all of the plans are founded on vaporware. That is highly problematic thinking.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  I would hope nobody bases their existing infra on vaporware, but planning a future endeavor around future tech is risky but not stupid. These are not actually critical missions - they are essentially technology demonstrations with some science whitewashing. And tech demos always adopt or assume new tech.
- chasd00 3y ago
  I don’t think it’s problematic. You don’t build a system then figure out how to use it. You make a goal and that figure out what it takes to meet it and build accordingly.
- fabian2k 3y ago
  Starship does seem to make very reasonable progress, the last test flight was pretty successful. And NASA has much more visibility into the actual progress of SpaceX here than we outsiders have. I don't think you can compare Hyperloop and Starship, Hyperloop is just a wild bullshit idea, Starship is a far more realistic project and there are some real resources behind its development. I would view the claims about the cost of reuse with a huge question mark though. SpaceX has been much better than previous efforts in making reuse feasible, but I think only looking at the fuel is likely to be hugely misleading in terms of actual costs.
  - me_me_me 3y ago
    > Hyperloop is just a wild bullshit idea hindsight 2020, there have been bilion of $ thrown at it. Musk was promoting it as easy thing to do. And yet its "wild bullshit idea" how come reusable rockets is not a "wild bullshit idea"? I dont understand how people can eat anything up Musk wildly claims and forget all BS the moment it turns out it was BS. According to his claims, he will have people on the way to mars last year, for sure. How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. And now loosing 3 rockets and still not orbiting is an amazing achievement?
    - dudinax 3y ago
      Hindsight not needed for anyone who's studied transportation, but people ate it up anyway.
    - frickinLasers 3y ago
      > how come reusable rockets is not a "wild bullshit idea"? I don't understand the question. Could it be the fact that a Falcon 9 just landed after its 20th trip to space? Seems pretty reusable to me. > How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. Apollo 1 wasn't the whole rocket, but I'd say the three astronauts who died were worth more than that. How many astronauts has SpaceX lost? ETA: Not one of those first stages returned to earth intact, so in that sense, all the rockets that launched were lost. ETAA: Apollo 1 wasn't on a Saturn V, so my initial response doesn't really follow.
    - avmich 3y ago
      > I dont understand how people can eat anything up Musk wildly claims and forget all BS the moment it turns out it was BS. All Musk weirdness aside - SpaceX revolutionized the launch business for the planet, and for quite some time already, so it makes sense to watch what they're doing. Results tend to follow, even though many are delayed - but delayed only in comparison to announcements, not to how it's done elsewhere.
    - avmich 3y ago
- ta1243 3y ago
  Last starship launch was orbit equivelent in terms of delta-v expended at each stage of the flight, it just went for a higher apogee and thus lower perigee to avoid the risk of not being able to relight. That's more than SLS has managed. The flight also did a fuel transfer test. The larger question is whether it will be able to reenter. However 14 fully expendible starships are still cheaper than a single SLS launch.
  - oersted 3y ago
    I was under the impression that Artemis I was already a full unmanned mission to moon orbit two years ago, using SLS + Orion. SLS did get to earth orbit with the Orion payload. While the latest Starship (IFT-3) barely reached "orbital speeds" and failed on re-entry. How is that "more than SLS has managed"? You could argue that since SLS is not reusable, it kind of also failed on re-entry by design. But the Starship failure was an accident and it has never actually reached orbit, nor has it delivered a meaningful payload successfully. And Starship has ambitions do a lot more than SLS, acting as a full lunar lander and being reusable. All in all, Starship is in a much earlier stage of development. SLS already fulfilled the purpose it was designed for back in 2022.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > I was under the impression that Artemis I was already a full unmanned mission to moon orbit, using SLS + Orion You correct. Artemis 1 put the Orion capsule in a distant retrograde lunar orbit [1] before successfully splashing down, all unmanned. I believe this is the same orbit astronauts are going to fly in Artemis 2 in 2025. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_retrograde_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_retrograde_orbit
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      It's a different style of development. SLS burned an absurd amount of money and spent over a decade making sure that the first launch went relatively well, because they can't afford to have visible failures, in part because people are stupid when it comes to testing, and in part because they can only build them fast enough to launch once every other year (unless they're given another ridiculous sum of money and another decade to build more infrastructure). Starship is testing iteratively, so they spend less money up front to figure out everything before flying, and instead put in a reasonable effort ahead of time and then just fly to figure out what needs improvement. They can afford to do this, because they are designing for mass prduction and because as a private company, they don't have to answer to the ignorant public. Building a new Starship stack is a matter of months, and they're more limited by the rate at which they can test and get through paperwork to launch the things than the rate at which they can build them. For reference, SLS launched in 2022 and next might launch in 2025, Starship had a close to orbital velocity launch in March (it effectively proved they can get to orbit, it was not actually orbital so as to avoid leaving debris stuck in orbit until they can prove the ability to deorbit) and is expected to launch again in late May/early June.
- avmich 3y ago
  At this point I'd be afraid more about skepticism. What's the problem here which is going to stop the progress on the Starship program?
- marcusverus 3y ago
  Elon derangement syndrome. Many such cases. > the system is unable to get to the orbit, its not tested. Yes. Just like every other rocket that is under development. > Its all high-hopes and conjectures as it is now. Engineering plans from the company that built the most reliable rocket in human history while pioneering first-stage reusability are "hopes" and "conjectures". They're just spitballing, you guys. > All of those plans are opinions, that's the problem. Totally agree. Engineering is more of an feeling than a science.
cma 3y ago
Aren't ground operations a lot per flight?
- avmich 3y ago
  What kind of ground operations are expected for Starships? The rocket is reusable, the fueling is automated, the in-between flight checks are, what, how do they do that in practice? What are intermediate actions which need to happen in a sequence of launches?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > What kind of ground operations are expected for Starships? The rocket is reusable, the fueling is automated, the in-between flight checks are, what, how do they do that in practice? Fuelling, systems checks, clearing the launch area, launching, fuel transfer, re-entry, recovery, diagnostics, repairs, recertification, snacks for the repair crew, lawyers, drinks for the lawyers, et cetera. The goal is automating everything. But even the Falcon family is currently around 3 weeks' sustainable turnaround.
    - avmich 3y ago
      > Fuelling, They pump tons of fuel per second, obviously automated. Connecting/disconnecting pipes are with that movable platform. Granted, today it's different, and some more operations might be needed, like, say, more careful stage positioning on the launch system after it landed previously, but they don't seem problematic to include, right? > systems checks, SpaceX vastly increased number of channels collecting data on rocket performance. They have much better understanding of the rocket state after landing because of that. Some checks could be done on earth, but we surely don't do system checks every time we sit in a car, and this comparison is only somewhat stretched, agree? > clearing the launch area, For Super Heavy the landing happens some minutes after launch; don't think there's going to be many people near the pod. The zone below the trajectory will probably be permanently closed, at least for period of intensive pad use, just like it's done for construction projects now. > launching, Of course. > fuel transfer, re-entry, recovery, All in-flight operations are automated, even today, because there's no crew around. Problems and misses today, but we're just testing. > diagnostics, What's the (crucial) difference with system checks? Seems like we're talking about the same goals. > repairs, No repairs for the nominally working system. If checks show repairs are needed, the system - rocket stage - goes to the factory for fixes, that's much longer than the time between flights, but we have spares to use while the repairs happen. > recertification, What do we need here to do that is costly or takes a long time? How long does recertification take for a commercial airliner between flights? > snacks for the repair crew, Well, repairs are supposed to be a relatively exceptional thing, so done in the factory, with full lunches if not dinners. > lawyers, drinks for the lawyers, et cetera. All that for customer's money and time, not on a launch pads. > The goal is automating everything. But even the Falcon family is currently around 3 weeks' sustainable turnaround. Don't you have a suspicion that Falcons aren't being improved that much now because it doesn't make sense for the current mass flow to orbit and given that Starship is planned to become available soon?
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Starship hasn't even gotten to orbit yet.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Starship has gotten to orbital velocity, which is the hard part about getting to orbit.

me_me_me 3y ago

> but since the system is fully reusable, the only consumables are <$2M of fuel each flight. > prevent us from taking advantage of Starship's ability to land 100 tons on the moon. the system is unable to get to the orbit, its not tested. Its all high-hopes and conjectures as it is now. All of those plans are opinions, that's the problem. Its like planning your infrastructure around hyperloop, but it doesnt exists. So all of the plans are founded on vaporware. That is highly problematic thinking.

jvanderbot 3y ago
I would hope nobody bases their existing infra on vaporware, but planning a future endeavor around future tech is risky but not stupid. These are not actually critical missions - they are essentially technology demonstrations with some science whitewashing. And tech demos always adopt or assume new tech.
chasd00 3y ago
I don’t think it’s problematic. You don’t build a system then figure out how to use it. You make a goal and that figure out what it takes to meet it and build accordingly.
fabian2k 3y ago
Starship does seem to make very reasonable progress, the last test flight was pretty successful. And NASA has much more visibility into the actual progress of SpaceX here than we outsiders have. I don't think you can compare Hyperloop and Starship, Hyperloop is just a wild bullshit idea, Starship is a far more realistic project and there are some real resources behind its development. I would view the claims about the cost of reuse with a huge question mark though. SpaceX has been much better than previous efforts in making reuse feasible, but I think only looking at the fuel is likely to be hugely misleading in terms of actual costs.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  > Hyperloop is just a wild bullshit idea hindsight 2020, there have been bilion of $ thrown at it. Musk was promoting it as easy thing to do. And yet its "wild bullshit idea" how come reusable rockets is not a "wild bullshit idea"? I dont understand how people can eat anything up Musk wildly claims and forget all BS the moment it turns out it was BS. According to his claims, he will have people on the way to mars last year, for sure. How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. And now loosing 3 rockets and still not orbiting is an amazing achievement?
  - dudinax 3y ago
    Hindsight not needed for anyone who's studied transportation, but people ate it up anyway.
  - frickinLasers 3y ago
    > how come reusable rockets is not a "wild bullshit idea"? I don't understand the question. Could it be the fact that a Falcon 9 just landed after its 20th trip to space? Seems pretty reusable to me. > How come people who hired bunch of grannies to knit a nav computer memory got to moon without loosing a single rocket. Apollo 1 wasn't the whole rocket, but I'd say the three astronauts who died were worth more than that. How many astronauts has SpaceX lost? ETA: Not one of those first stages returned to earth intact, so in that sense, all the rockets that launched were lost. ETAA: Apollo 1 wasn't on a Saturn V, so my initial response doesn't really follow.
  - avmich 3y ago
    > I dont understand how people can eat anything up Musk wildly claims and forget all BS the moment it turns out it was BS. All Musk weirdness aside - SpaceX revolutionized the launch business for the planet, and for quite some time already, so it makes sense to watch what they're doing. Results tend to follow, even though many are delayed - but delayed only in comparison to announcements, not to how it's done elsewhere.
  - avmich 3y ago
ta1243 3y ago
Last starship launch was orbit equivelent in terms of delta-v expended at each stage of the flight, it just went for a higher apogee and thus lower perigee to avoid the risk of not being able to relight. That's more than SLS has managed. The flight also did a fuel transfer test. The larger question is whether it will be able to reenter. However 14 fully expendible starships are still cheaper than a single SLS launch.
- oersted 3y ago
  I was under the impression that Artemis I was already a full unmanned mission to moon orbit two years ago, using SLS + Orion. SLS did get to earth orbit with the Orion payload. While the latest Starship (IFT-3) barely reached "orbital speeds" and failed on re-entry. How is that "more than SLS has managed"? You could argue that since SLS is not reusable, it kind of also failed on re-entry by design. But the Starship failure was an accident and it has never actually reached orbit, nor has it delivered a meaningful payload successfully. And Starship has ambitions do a lot more than SLS, acting as a full lunar lander and being reusable. All in all, Starship is in a much earlier stage of development. SLS already fulfilled the purpose it was designed for back in 2022.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > I was under the impression that Artemis I was already a full unmanned mission to moon orbit, using SLS + Orion You correct. Artemis 1 put the Orion capsule in a distant retrograde lunar orbit [1] before successfully splashing down, all unmanned. I believe this is the same orbit astronauts are going to fly in Artemis 2 in 2025. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_retrograde_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_retrograde_orbit
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    It's a different style of development. SLS burned an absurd amount of money and spent over a decade making sure that the first launch went relatively well, because they can't afford to have visible failures, in part because people are stupid when it comes to testing, and in part because they can only build them fast enough to launch once every other year (unless they're given another ridiculous sum of money and another decade to build more infrastructure). Starship is testing iteratively, so they spend less money up front to figure out everything before flying, and instead put in a reasonable effort ahead of time and then just fly to figure out what needs improvement. They can afford to do this, because they are designing for mass prduction and because as a private company, they don't have to answer to the ignorant public. Building a new Starship stack is a matter of months, and they're more limited by the rate at which they can test and get through paperwork to launch the things than the rate at which they can build them. For reference, SLS launched in 2022 and next might launch in 2025, Starship had a close to orbital velocity launch in March (it effectively proved they can get to orbit, it was not actually orbital so as to avoid leaving debris stuck in orbit until they can prove the ability to deorbit) and is expected to launch again in late May/early June.
avmich 3y ago
At this point I'd be afraid more about skepticism. What's the problem here which is going to stop the progress on the Starship program?
marcusverus 3y ago
Elon derangement syndrome. Many such cases. > the system is unable to get to the orbit, its not tested. Yes. Just like every other rocket that is under development. > Its all high-hopes and conjectures as it is now. Engineering plans from the company that built the most reliable rocket in human history while pioneering first-stage reusability are "hopes" and "conjectures". They're just spitballing, you guys. > All of those plans are opinions, that's the problem. Totally agree. Engineering is more of an feeling than a science.

cma 3y ago

Aren't ground operations a lot per flight?

avmich 3y ago
What kind of ground operations are expected for Starships? The rocket is reusable, the fueling is automated, the in-between flight checks are, what, how do they do that in practice? What are intermediate actions which need to happen in a sequence of launches?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > What kind of ground operations are expected for Starships? The rocket is reusable, the fueling is automated, the in-between flight checks are, what, how do they do that in practice? Fuelling, systems checks, clearing the launch area, launching, fuel transfer, re-entry, recovery, diagnostics, repairs, recertification, snacks for the repair crew, lawyers, drinks for the lawyers, et cetera. The goal is automating everything. But even the Falcon family is currently around 3 weeks' sustainable turnaround.
  - avmich 3y ago
    > Fuelling, They pump tons of fuel per second, obviously automated. Connecting/disconnecting pipes are with that movable platform. Granted, today it's different, and some more operations might be needed, like, say, more careful stage positioning on the launch system after it landed previously, but they don't seem problematic to include, right? > systems checks, SpaceX vastly increased number of channels collecting data on rocket performance. They have much better understanding of the rocket state after landing because of that. Some checks could be done on earth, but we surely don't do system checks every time we sit in a car, and this comparison is only somewhat stretched, agree? > clearing the launch area, For Super Heavy the landing happens some minutes after launch; don't think there's going to be many people near the pod. The zone below the trajectory will probably be permanently closed, at least for period of intensive pad use, just like it's done for construction projects now. > launching, Of course. > fuel transfer, re-entry, recovery, All in-flight operations are automated, even today, because there's no crew around. Problems and misses today, but we're just testing. > diagnostics, What's the (crucial) difference with system checks? Seems like we're talking about the same goals. > repairs, No repairs for the nominally working system. If checks show repairs are needed, the system - rocket stage - goes to the factory for fixes, that's much longer than the time between flights, but we have spares to use while the repairs happen. > recertification, What do we need here to do that is costly or takes a long time? How long does recertification take for a commercial airliner between flights? > snacks for the repair crew, Well, repairs are supposed to be a relatively exceptional thing, so done in the factory, with full lunches if not dinners. > lawyers, drinks for the lawyers, et cetera. All that for customer's money and time, not on a launch pads. > The goal is automating everything. But even the Falcon family is currently around 3 weeks' sustainable turnaround. Don't you have a suspicion that Falcons aren't being improved that much now because it doesn't make sense for the current mass flow to orbit and given that Starship is planned to become available soon?

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

Starship hasn't even gotten to orbit yet.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Starship has gotten to orbital velocity, which is the hard part about getting to orbit.