3 ms·

> 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

> 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > so far behind schedule it’s worrying Would note that to date, Artemis has been solely delayed by Orion not being able to get its shit together.
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        Orion was supposed to be operational in 2016, it's readiness for 2026 looks questionable due to heat shield issues. SLS is similarly late. Everything on Artemis is late; Starship is less late than pretty much everything else.

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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > so far behind schedule it’s worrying Would note that to date, Artemis has been solely delayed by Orion not being able to get its shit together.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      Orion was supposed to be operational in 2016, it's readiness for 2026 looks questionable due to heat shield issues. SLS is similarly late. Everything on Artemis is late; Starship is less late than pretty much everything else.