5 ms·
Anonymous sources: Starship needs a major rebuild after 2 consecutive failures
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- johntitorjr 2y ago[dead]
- exabrial 2y agoThis is hilarious. 15 years ago, every company blew up their rockets after one launch. Apparently reusability is so common now, we expect the opposite. But also, I don't think this is unexpected. It hasn't flown any real missions or delivered any commercial payloads. It look them quite awhile to reuse a Falcon9.
- kristianp 2y agoThis isn't a problem with reuse. Each starship tested is a new build at this stage.
- wmf 2y agoA failed launch isn't the same thing as a successful expendable launch.
- exabrial 2y agoI have no idea what I have -3 votes, but this is also fascinating. It's pretty common knowledge that Saturn 5 never was reused for instance... really just the Space Shuttle was the first "resuable" (term used loosely) spacecraft.
- cwillu 2y agoYeah, I'm not an Elon fan, the guy is incapable of comprehending that he's overextended his abilities, but that has little if anything to do with starship. The thing will blow up, until one day we notice that it hasn't in a while, and then there will be a useful heavy launch platform.
- itishappy 2y agoNo surprises here. Consecutive apparently identical failures should obviously be throwing up red flags, but moving fast and breaking things was always about iterating. Admittedly, the line between moving fast and breaking things and throwing money into a flame trench is rather thin, but it's only a problem if they ignore their data. Data sure seems to indicate a new design is needed.
- motorest 2y ago> Admittedly, the line between moving fast and breaking things and throwing money into a flame trench is rather thin, but it's only a problem if they ignore their data. Not really. "Moving fast and breaking things" is relevant in software development circles, where a crash just means a restart and iterating means someone already on payroll has to spend some time fixing bugs. This is not the case in real engineering fields. A crash has a far more profound implication on project viability, and a greater impact on cost and project deadline. Worst case scenario, it can cost people's lives. These tradeoffs are far different in real engineering projects, to the point where in some domains an engineer can lose its ability to practice and even be thrown in jail.
- lazide 2y agoUh, clearly you don’t know the history of the space race? Or any wartime project ever?
- motorest 2y ago> Uh, clearly you don’t know the history of the space race? Or any wartime project ever? Comparing the tradeoffs if war with the tradeoffs of running a business is absurd. I can't put to words how silly this comparison is.
- lazide 2y agoHow many have died due to SpaceX’s actions again? And the space race was never a declared (or undeclared, really) war.
- throwaway4220 2y ago“ The one saving grace is that FAA red tape is clearly no longer an additional obstacle. ” This is wrong - remember starship tests in 2022 were not FAA limited. This is just hard problem
- Teever 2y agoI've been wondering for a while now if the previous FAA constraints actually helped Starship development because it served as a balance against the worst impulses of SpaceX management. It will be interesting to see if the lack of governmental oversight ends up hindering the development of Starship.
- sschueller 2y agoStarship will cause even more damage to the ozone layer[1] and environmental damage to the surroundings of the launch site. [1] https://universemagazine.com/en/starships-constant-accidents-pollute-the-earth-and-destroy-the-ozone-layer/ https://universemagazine.com/en/starships-constant-accidents...
- metalman 2y agothey did a stretch of the mk1 and added a whole bunch of systems, and moved the flaps and the most likely culprit is resonance cracking fuel lines and fittings, or tanks. Resonance or "shake" testing is a mandatory part of certifying high end satelites, and NASA and others have huge test rigs that simulate the vibrations that will be experienced durring launch. This is slow, and the easiest cures are to add mass dampaning, but that is bulky and heavy. lauching and iterating is just as viable. The sci fi look of exploded rocket parts on re entry is almost worth all the trouble. Third times a charm, or it's realy time to grind hard.
- lazide 2y agoThe green flames and so-fast-and-high-it-looks-slomo explosions are truly amazing.
- artemonster 2y agoI really wonder how similar project "starship" is to project "FSD" in terms of a typical Elmos dreaming big while pumping hype. Which is, btw, also very similar to what Theranos did. Sooner or later it comes down crashing when it becomes apparent that you have overpromised and delivering really turned out to be impossible. Reality catches up, peoples belief in you fizzles and money dry out. Or, alternatively, anonymous sources start popping up with revealing uncomfortable truths. Anyway, thunderf00t will have a blast with this article.
- ls612 2y agoProbably a lot less dream than true FSD. SpaceX has operational reusable boosters. People have flown operational 'reusable' spaceplanes with tile based heat shields. Heck Starship itself successfully re-entered and soft-landed in the ocean multiple times. SpaceX has demonstrated the belly flop can work. What they need to do now is put all of these capabilities together and there are clearly some major teething pains with this. But it is certainly no Theranos.
- artemonster 2y agoimagine someone intends to make a machine that flies but instead actually makes a machine that jumps and the public goes: "well, they already clearly demonstrated that their machine is airborne, they only need to sort out couple of issues to stay airborne longer"