3 ms·

I just want to get my vote in early so I can say I told you so later. This does not sound likely to me. Also, If they try to catch the booster on the next launc

by tocs3 2y ago

I just want to get my vote in early so I can say I told you so later. This does not sound likely to me. Also, If they try to catch the booster on the next launch (November?) it will make such a mess that they will be delayed for a long long time (compared to the time between the first few launches). It might even mean the end of the program. It would be nice to see it work so we will see.

timschmidt 2y ago
> Also, If they try to catch the booster on the next launch (November?) it will make such a mess that they will be delayed for a long long time (compared to the time between the first few launches). It might even mean the end of the program. They've already built a second tower in Texas, with at least another two more planned for Florida. Seems they're making quite a few revisions / improvements to the launch stand and flame diverter for tower 2 as well. Seems like SpaceX understands, organizationally, that there's always another revision in the works, and failure is a necessary opportunity for learning and applying what you've learned to the next revision. Falcon 9's record seems to show this as has Starship's evolution.
- sam_goody 2y ago
  A bunch of years ago someone took a prize for longest indoor human powered flight, with terms that seemed unlikely to ever be reached. He commented something along the lines of "Everyone else have been optimizing for the wrong problem. They were optimizing for the problem 'how to control indoor flight'. I optimized for 'how do I make tweaks and modifications to the craft and try again'. Then I kept modifying and trying till it worked. SpaceX figured out the same thing, but on a grander scale.
skissane 2y ago
I agree that “in two years” is probably not going to happen. But in four or six? I think that’s a more decent chance. Musk/SpaceX tend to give overly optimistic timelines - but they get there eventually. But I think your claim that there will be a big mess if they try to catch is dubious. My understanding is that SuperHeavy returns on a trajectory to crash into the Gulf of Mexico, and only diverts to the launch site at the last possible moment if its computers conclude it is safe to do so. By the time of the catch, it will (intentionally) be almost out of fuel, so that will limit the scale of any explosion in the worst case scenario. And now they’ve got the new launch tower, so even if they damage the current one, they should be able to use the new one while they repair the current one - I doubt any explosion will be big enough to cause serious damage to both launch towers.
- ahazred8ta 2y ago
  Falcon Heavy has already launched a payload past mars orbit into the inner asteroid belt. A starship mars flyby is not that big a leap, after they nail refueling on LEO.

by tocs3 2y ago

timschmidt 2y ago

> Also, If they try to catch the booster on the next launch (November?) it will make such a mess that they will be delayed for a long long time (compared to the time between the first few launches). It might even mean the end of the program. They've already built a second tower in Texas, with at least another two more planned for Florida. Seems they're making quite a few revisions / improvements to the launch stand and flame diverter for tower 2 as well. Seems like SpaceX understands, organizationally, that there's always another revision in the works, and failure is a necessary opportunity for learning and applying what you've learned to the next revision. Falcon 9's record seems to show this as has Starship's evolution.

sam_goody 2y ago
A bunch of years ago someone took a prize for longest indoor human powered flight, with terms that seemed unlikely to ever be reached. He commented something along the lines of "Everyone else have been optimizing for the wrong problem. They were optimizing for the problem 'how to control indoor flight'. I optimized for 'how do I make tweaks and modifications to the craft and try again'. Then I kept modifying and trying till it worked. SpaceX figured out the same thing, but on a grander scale.

skissane 2y ago

I agree that “in two years” is probably not going to happen. But in four or six? I think that’s a more decent chance. Musk/SpaceX tend to give overly optimistic timelines - but they get there eventually. But I think your claim that there will be a big mess if they try to catch is dubious. My understanding is that SuperHeavy returns on a trajectory to crash into the Gulf of Mexico, and only diverts to the launch site at the last possible moment if its computers conclude it is safe to do so. By the time of the catch, it will (intentionally) be almost out of fuel, so that will limit the scale of any explosion in the worst case scenario. And now they’ve got the new launch tower, so even if they damage the current one, they should be able to use the new one while they repair the current one - I doubt any explosion will be big enough to cause serious damage to both launch towers.

ahazred8ta 2y ago
Falcon Heavy has already launched a payload past mars orbit into the inner asteroid belt. A starship mars flyby is not that big a leap, after they nail refueling on LEO.