4 ms·

> STS programs The shuttle was a deathtrap. It had inadequate abort modes and a launch process that practically guaranteed minor (until it wasn't) damage to th

> STS programs The shuttle was a deathtrap. It had inadequate abort modes and a launch process that practically guaranteed minor (until it wasn't) damage to the heat shield during launch. Classic example of https://danluu.com/wat/ https://danluu.com/wat/ --- the normalization of deviance. STS crews were lucky that only two of the things got violenly disassembled.

fsh 1y ago
Sure, the Saturn V and STS were much less safe than smaller rockets. Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship.
- nomel 1y ago
  > Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship. I think the only reasonable comparison would be after cost equivalency. The Starship has a long way to go, to catch up.
  - jeroenhd 1y ago
    Cost equivalency ignores the R&D and decades of scientific progress and advancements in tooling capability. The prices of materials have shifted, but designing and manufacturing a precise propulsion system with modern CAD and simulation tools is a lot cheaper than the hand work hundreds of people used to be doing to verify much simpler engine designs. Precision machining and tools to inspect metal fatigue and imperfections have also come a long way. Of course commercial rockets are always going to be as shoddy as they can get away with rather than as good as possible, but if it still takes SpaceX or Boeing as much money to build a rocket as it did back in the Saturn V days, they're doing something wrong.
    - Aeolun 1y ago
      If you use that as an argument any comparison becomes meaningless by default.
- b112 1y ago
  Many Saturns blew up during testing. Starship is still in testing. Your arguments are strange, a mirage concocted to fit a narrative of denigration and darkness. You mock with zeal, yet have no point to the mocking. Always with the mocking, you cause an ache which cannot be balmed. Cease, I pray you. Stop these machinations, this mad canter. Falcon was built the same way. It blew up many times too, explosions aplenty. Now it is the most successful lift on the planet.
  - ubercore 1y ago
    Would love to read about Saturn V explosions during testing. Have a link?
    - b112 1y ago
      I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it? No one has ever built a plane, or even a car without breakage during testing. The very idea is absurd. There's a whole profession called "test pilot". I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise. I'm sure there are links aplenty, but the absurd suggestion here would be building a rocket and having zero incidents of failure. That beyond weird. That's what needs a "do you have a link" question.
      - rsynnott 1y ago
        > I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it? You're recalling wrong, or you were reading nonsense. Lots of engines were destroyed in testing (particularly before computer modelling, this was basically how rocket engines were _developed_), but no, no Saturn V ever exploded on the pad. Prior to this incident, the most-impressive on-pad boom was one of the N1s. No fully assembled Saturn V ever failed, though a few of them had near-misses.
        b112 1y ago
        Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a pad? It's a weird debarc point to discuss non testing craft vs testing. And "fully assembled", when spacex is flying non-final builds on purpose, using a different test methodology.
aredox 1y ago
Also, both Saturn V and the Space Shuttle were dual-purpose programs - they had military goals on top of the scientific ones.
- blkhawk 1y ago
  Well the military purpose was why the Shuttle was so crappy. The original design was smaller and meant to sit on top of its rocket. This would have probably prevented loss of crew in both of the instances where shuttle failed.
- panick21_ 1y ago
  Eventually Starship will also be bid for military programs. And Saturn V never had a military mission, neither had Shuttle.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Department_of_Defense_Space_Shuttle_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Department_of_Defense...
  - m4rtink 1y ago
    Shuttle regularly launched spy sats and was designed to grab an enemy one in a single orbit mission. Also Soviets believed it would nuke Moscow by sudden plane change via its wings & build their own version as a result. That sounds military enough for me.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      The bombing of the Soviet Union was to happen via polar launch. The wings were there not for plane change, rather for cross range landing after the single orbit polar mission.
      - m4rtink 1y ago
        Interesting - I was never sure about the exact mechanism m, just that the orbital speed & lift provided by wings were part of it. :)
cma 1y ago
> It had inadequate abort modes Does Starship have launch abort boosters? Seems infeasible with the amount of fuel and mass on it since it also serves as a second stage, but maybe they solved that somehow?
- MPSimmons 1y ago
  Starship doesn't currently have launch abort modes
  - mjevans 1y ago
    Nor does it have any crew / passenger cargo.
    - cma 1y ago
      DearMoon was supposed to launch 2022, passenger space service between LA and Ridhya by 2028 (announced in 2018 and they said it was on track for 2028 still several years later). They said it would be around the price of business class air travel and be in full commercial operation by then. That might have been after they started adding "aspirationally" to most Musk company statements following some lawsuits.

fsh 1y ago

Sure, the Saturn V and STS were much less safe than smaller rockets. Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship.

nomel 1y ago
> Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship. I think the only reasonable comparison would be after cost equivalency. The Starship has a long way to go, to catch up.
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  Cost equivalency ignores the R&D and decades of scientific progress and advancements in tooling capability. The prices of materials have shifted, but designing and manufacturing a precise propulsion system with modern CAD and simulation tools is a lot cheaper than the hand work hundreds of people used to be doing to verify much simpler engine designs. Precision machining and tools to inspect metal fatigue and imperfections have also come a long way. Of course commercial rockets are always going to be as shoddy as they can get away with rather than as good as possible, but if it still takes SpaceX or Boeing as much money to build a rocket as it did back in the Saturn V days, they're doing something wrong.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    If you use that as an argument any comparison becomes meaningless by default.
b112 1y ago
Many Saturns blew up during testing. Starship is still in testing. Your arguments are strange, a mirage concocted to fit a narrative of denigration and darkness. You mock with zeal, yet have no point to the mocking. Always with the mocking, you cause an ache which cannot be balmed. Cease, I pray you. Stop these machinations, this mad canter. Falcon was built the same way. It blew up many times too, explosions aplenty. Now it is the most successful lift on the planet.
- ubercore 1y ago
  Would love to read about Saturn V explosions during testing. Have a link?
  - b112 1y ago
    I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it? No one has ever built a plane, or even a car without breakage during testing. The very idea is absurd. There's a whole profession called "test pilot". I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise. I'm sure there are links aplenty, but the absurd suggestion here would be building a rocket and having zero incidents of failure. That beyond weird. That's what needs a "do you have a link" question.
    - rsynnott 1y ago
      > I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it? You're recalling wrong, or you were reading nonsense. Lots of engines were destroyed in testing (particularly before computer modelling, this was basically how rocket engines were _developed_), but no, no Saturn V ever exploded on the pad. Prior to this incident, the most-impressive on-pad boom was one of the N1s. No fully assembled Saturn V ever failed, though a few of them had near-misses.
      - b112 1y ago
        Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a pad? It's a weird debarc point to discuss non testing craft vs testing. And "fully assembled", when spacex is flying non-final builds on purpose, using a different test methodology.

aredox 1y ago

Also, both Saturn V and the Space Shuttle were dual-purpose programs - they had military goals on top of the scientific ones.

blkhawk 1y ago
Well the military purpose was why the Shuttle was so crappy. The original design was smaller and meant to sit on top of its rocket. This would have probably prevented loss of crew in both of the instances where shuttle failed.
panick21_ 1y ago
Eventually Starship will also be bid for military programs. And Saturn V never had a military mission, neither had Shuttle.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Department_of_Defense_Space_Shuttle_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Department_of_Defense...
- m4rtink 1y ago
  Shuttle regularly launched spy sats and was designed to grab an enemy one in a single orbit mission. Also Soviets believed it would nuke Moscow by sudden plane change via its wings & build their own version as a result. That sounds military enough for me.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    The bombing of the Soviet Union was to happen via polar launch. The wings were there not for plane change, rather for cross range landing after the single orbit polar mission.
    - m4rtink 1y ago
      Interesting - I was never sure about the exact mechanism m, just that the orbital speed & lift provided by wings were part of it. :)

cma 1y ago

> It had inadequate abort modes Does Starship have launch abort boosters? Seems infeasible with the amount of fuel and mass on it since it also serves as a second stage, but maybe they solved that somehow?

MPSimmons 1y ago
Starship doesn't currently have launch abort modes
- mjevans 1y ago
  Nor does it have any crew / passenger cargo.
  - cma 1y ago
    DearMoon was supposed to launch 2022, passenger space service between LA and Ridhya by 2028 (announced in 2018 and they said it was on track for 2028 still several years later). They said it would be around the price of business class air travel and be in full commercial operation by then. That might have been after they started adding "aspirationally" to most Musk company statements following some lawsuits.