4 ms·

So, on that recent presentation Musk talked about around 250,000 tons to Mars in one launch window - every 2 years - which's gonna take ~1000 Starship flights t

by avmich 2y ago

So, on that recent presentation Musk talked about around 250,000 tons to Mars in one launch window - every 2 years - which's gonna take ~1000 Starship flights to Mars. So if every flight to Mars needs 10, nah, 15 refueling flights, that means 15,000 Starship flights in 2 years, which is 20 flights a day. Which is way, way less than the commercial aviation is doing today. And btw Starship is way simpler, at least in many places, than Boeing 747. So what's the problem? Re-certify for flight? I can envision an automated procedure which would analyze the data obtained from the rocket in flight and after flight which makes a decision in a split second, just like some systems in cars routinely do. Hoping nothing will go bad? You can get much more risks on unmanned missions. You'll also get numbers on your side, when if something goes wrong you fix it, systematically, for future attempts. That's not exactly just hoping, right?

withinboredom 2y ago
> on that recent presentation Musk talked about around 250,000 tons to Mars in one launch window Except there isn't any data to back that up. It took off empty this last time, and didn't have enough fuel to complete it's mission.
- mlindner 2y ago
  There is no evidence to backup your statement that it didn't have enough fuel to complete it's mission. It intentionally did not go to orbit because they didn't want to risk stranding such a huge vehicle that can withstand re-entry in orbit if its engines were unable to relight. And indeed they did have issues with relighting the engines so that was a very good decision in retrospect. It was an intentional decision not to go into orbit.
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    Um. They showed how much fuel was remaining and it was empty. Just some back of the napkin math shows they used far less delta-v to get to their test flight, with no payload, and ran out of fuel. That doesn’t bode well.
- avmich 2y ago
  > Except there isn't any data to back that up. There's seemingly no physical - or economical, for that matter - reason for this to be impossible, so why not? Starship definitely didn't complete testing at this point, many things are still ahead of us, but to talk about impossibilities - why? Yes, of course we didn't do that yet, but we're talking about possibilities in the future.
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    You’d expect at least some evidence that it can lift that much weight by this point with a dummy load in the hold. Especially considering that they should be long past that point according to their last updated roadmap.
    - avmich 2y ago
      > You’d expect at least some evidence that it can lift that much weight by this point "By this point". Well, we have testing program here (which to me looks pretty successful so far), the capabilities of the system - demonstrated, that is - are increased with each flight. Load test - that is, bringing to orbit the full payload the Starship is designed for - has not happened yet, and, as far as I remember, Falcon also didn't have such a test for some record mass. I'm sure we'll see some reasonable payload flights at some point "soon". What's the problem here? > Especially considering that they should be long past that point according to their last updated roadmap. Ah :) maybe you're talking about the thing which SpaceX refers jokingly as "we transform impossible things to late". Yes, "Musk's time" is always very aggressive, and I even suspect to know why he's, as an engineer and a visioner, does that. And why Shotwell's estimates are more accurate - she excels at operations, after all. But I don't see a principal problem here either. Yes, the - rather aggressive, by aerospace standards - schedule slips to the right, while still producing results, years in a row. Big deal.
      - withinboredom 2y ago
        It’s so far behind schedule it’s worrying. The tests are laughable and should have been done years ago. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-publishes-artemis-plan-to-land-first-woman-next-man-on-moon-in-2024/ https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-publishes-artemis-pla... I suspect this isn’t happening this year and this article is only a few years old. On traditional launches in the past, at least a 25% load is put in the hold, even on the first launch. You generally want to show off that you can at least lift off the ground, unless you can’t.

by avmich 2y ago

withinboredom 2y ago

> on that recent presentation Musk talked about around 250,000 tons to Mars in one launch window Except there isn't any data to back that up. It took off empty this last time, and didn't have enough fuel to complete it's mission.

mlindner 2y ago
There is no evidence to backup your statement that it didn't have enough fuel to complete it's mission. It intentionally did not go to orbit because they didn't want to risk stranding such a huge vehicle that can withstand re-entry in orbit if its engines were unable to relight. And indeed they did have issues with relighting the engines so that was a very good decision in retrospect. It was an intentional decision not to go into orbit.
- withinboredom 2y ago
  Um. They showed how much fuel was remaining and it was empty. Just some back of the napkin math shows they used far less delta-v to get to their test flight, with no payload, and ran out of fuel. That doesn’t bode well.
avmich 2y ago
> Except there isn't any data to back that up. There's seemingly no physical - or economical, for that matter - reason for this to be impossible, so why not? Starship definitely didn't complete testing at this point, many things are still ahead of us, but to talk about impossibilities - why? Yes, of course we didn't do that yet, but we're talking about possibilities in the future.
- withinboredom 2y ago
  You’d expect at least some evidence that it can lift that much weight by this point with a dummy load in the hold. Especially considering that they should be long past that point according to their last updated roadmap.
  - avmich 2y ago
    > You’d expect at least some evidence that it can lift that much weight by this point "By this point". Well, we have testing program here (which to me looks pretty successful so far), the capabilities of the system - demonstrated, that is - are increased with each flight. Load test - that is, bringing to orbit the full payload the Starship is designed for - has not happened yet, and, as far as I remember, Falcon also didn't have such a test for some record mass. I'm sure we'll see some reasonable payload flights at some point "soon". What's the problem here? > Especially considering that they should be long past that point according to their last updated roadmap. Ah :) maybe you're talking about the thing which SpaceX refers jokingly as "we transform impossible things to late". Yes, "Musk's time" is always very aggressive, and I even suspect to know why he's, as an engineer and a visioner, does that. And why Shotwell's estimates are more accurate - she excels at operations, after all. But I don't see a principal problem here either. Yes, the - rather aggressive, by aerospace standards - schedule slips to the right, while still producing results, years in a row. Big deal.
    - withinboredom 2y ago
      It’s so far behind schedule it’s worrying. The tests are laughable and should have been done years ago. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-publishes-artemis-plan-to-land-first-woman-next-man-on-moon-in-2024/ https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-publishes-artemis-pla... I suspect this isn’t happening this year and this article is only a few years old. On traditional launches in the past, at least a 25% load is put in the hold, even on the first launch. You generally want to show off that you can at least lift off the ground, unless you can’t.