9 ms·
Starship's Tenth Flight Test
- le-mark 1y agoHopefully now that Musk is no longer dabbling in politics (and alienating his electric car buyers, who are mostly Democrats), his rockets will stop exploding. Edit so being distracted was a net benefit for Tesla and Spacex? Down voters have not addressed this assertion, must be true.
- actionfromafar 1y agoSure, but if there’s any correlation it’s probably better that he’s absent. SpaceX has competent leadership in Shotwell.
- platevoltage 1y agoHe has never stopped dabbling in politics. He just finally realized that doing it behind the scenes like his peers do is the best way to do it. It's insane that he thought doing it the other way would be good for him.
- HarHarVeryFunny 1y agoSurely anyone who has bought a Tesla since he did start meddling in politics is a Republican. Before that, I'd assume it was mixed - I think people were buying because EVs were seen as futuristic, and there was non-partisan support for Musk when his main association was visionary rather than political/nutjob.
- kcb 1y agoThe vast majority don't require the CEO of a companies politics to match theirs when buying a vehicle.
- sephamorr 1y agoThe vast majority of CEOs keep quiet about their politics so it doesn't become a problem.
- mikeyouse 1y agoAlso, the CEO of Ford or BMW or whoever makes $10M or $20M or whatever and that’s basically the end of the story. Musk owns such an enormous portion of Tesla still that boycotts materially impact his net worth and his future ability to buy as much political clout.
- LanceJones 1y ago~17% I believe?
- whycome 1y agoLook how far VW has come
- r3trohack3r 1y agoI suspect this is net good for the EV space at this point in history. Tesla was a virtue signal brand from day one[1]. Their core insight came from Palo Alto et. al. You’d drive through the suburbs and many driveways had two vehicles: a [insert gas guzzling luxury vehicle] and a Prius. One vehicle to signal wealth/status - the other to signal environmental consciousness. But the eco vehicle was a compromise; compared to the jaguar it sat next to, it was a clunker. Tesla’s GTM strategy was that you could buy a vehicle, without compromise, from them to signal to your social circles how much you cared about the environment. And it worked. They broke the oil cartels with a direct to consumer sales strategy and kicked off the EV market. But now that market’s needs are well met. The eco virtue signal crowd has multiple vendors selling decent products to meet their buying preferences. There is a fairly large untapped market though that won’t convert off of oil. That demographic overlaps well with the 2025 MAGA coalition. And, with Elon’s involvement in that coalition, Tesla EVs are now a new virtue signal for a new demographic. You have people buying EVs that were rolling coal as recently as 2 years ago. [1] The brand being built around eco virtue signaling is well documented in early interviews with original founders - a quick search will turn up many direct quotes talking about them driving through California suburbs doing market research and discovering exactly that.
- HarHarVeryFunny 1y agoIt seems to me it was the Roadster that kick-started Tesla by making electric sexy and desirable - high performance and expensive rather than something low performance bought for ideological/eco reasons. The Tesla model S which followed wasn't cheap either, and also emphasized high performance with the dual motor and plaid options. These seem more like wealth signalling than virtue signalling.
- r3trohack3r 1y agoYes - the originals were luxury cars built for wealthy people to virtue signal environmental consciousness. They were meant to fit in next to the other luxury cars in those driveways - where the Prius did not.
- AngryData 1y agoI would think the best way to keep SpaceX rockets from exploding is to get Musk as far away as possible from any engineering decisions. I firmly believe that SpaceX has only done as well as it has because the engineering is so far above Musk's knowledge that actual aeronautical engineers can do what they do and throw some technobabble at him to shut him up when he suggests dumb thing.
- simonh 1y agoMultiple current, and more significantly former SpaceX engineers have confirmed Musk was the driving force behind the engineering decisions that lead to reusability for Falcon 9. He’s also been very much in the driving seat on engineering for Starship, and we’ve yet to see how well that works out, but the success of F9 is there to see.
- AngryData 1y agoThere are also stories from engineers at both SpaceX and Tesla that they do everything possible to keep him away from any engineering decisions because he doesn't know what he was talking about. His brainchild of the cybertruck was suppose to be a monolithic bent stainless steel shell that he spent years trying to accomplish and fired many engineers over who said it wouldn't work, and we see how that turned out with strips of low quality stainless glued onto aluminum parts that are suppose to be load bearing with a regular steel undercarriage that will still rust away.
- ACCount37 1y agoThe whole notion that "Musk doesn't know anything about technology or engineering" is incorrect. Probably stems from all the people trying to reconcile their hatred for Elon Musk with SpaceX's outstanding successes. Quite a few major engineering decisions at SpaceX go all the way to Elon Musk himself. One of the best known is probably the decision to make Starship land onto the "chopsticks" of the launch tower, removing the need for dedicated landing legs. Elon Musk made this suggestion back in 2020. Most of the engineers tried to talk him out of this crazy idea. So he took the few engineers who thought it was plausible and assigned it to them. We even know for certain that this wasn't a success that got attributed to Musk after the fact - because this story was first printed in a biography in year 2023, when it wasn't clear whether this ambitious landing method would work in practice. The first "return to launch tower" attempt was only made in year 2024, and succeeded on the first try.
- Dinux 1y agoThis is a big one for SpaceX. They have had a couple of faillures on Starship on their previous launches.
- moffkalast 1y agoThey're still planning on landing both in the ocean, doesn't seem like they've gotten any more confident given that.
- ACCount37 1y agoIt'll be a while before they're comfortable landing Starship itself onto the launch tower, so an ocean splashdown is the best outcome possible. And the booster is going to be testing another one of those extra aggressive reentry trajectories. They broke the previous booster by overdoing it, so it remains to be seen whether they'll find the balance between "fuel efficient" and "doesn't cause catastrophic internal booster damage" this time around.
- dzhiurgis 1y agoThey are new designs, not just some patches. Given they've demonstrated all core steps (near successful re-entry, near-orbit insertion, booster catch) I'd say they are like 95% there.
- jjcm 1y agoFWIW, it appears they're purposefully introducing multiple simulated failures into this test. It doesn't appear that they're trying to make this succeed at all costs. From the site: > The primary test objectives for the booster will be focused on its landing burn and will use unique engine configurations. One of the three center engines used for the final phase of landing will be intentionally disabled to gather data on the ability for a backup engine from the middle ring to complete a landing burn. The booster will then transition to only two center engines for the end of the landing burn, entering a full hover while still above the ocean surface, followed by shutdown and drop into the Gulf of America. ... > The flight test includes several experiments focused on enabling Starship’s upper stage to return to the launch site. A significant number of tiles have been removed from Starship to stress-test vulnerable areas across the vehicle during reentry. Multiple metallic tile options, including one with active cooling, will test alternative materials for protecting Starship during reentry. On the sides of the vehicle, functional catch fittings are installed and will test the fittings’ thermal and structural performance, along with a section of the tile line receiving a smoothed and tapered edge to address hot spots observed during reentry on Starship’s sixth flight test. Starship’s reentry profile is designed to intentionally stress the structural limits of the upper stage’s rear flaps while at the point of maximum entry dynamic pressure.
- paxys 1y ago[flagged]
- d_silin 1y agoFor all the humanity's challenges and flaws, Starship is its most inspiring expression, in steel and fire.
- bigyabai 1y agoI'll always be more impressed by the Space Shuttle, to each their own I suppose.
- vFunct 1y agoSeriously. NASA had a reusable orbital rocket 40 years ago. Space-X still only has reusable boosters. I was mostly impressed by the materials science of the space shuttle tiles, even though they’re expensive.
- jiggawatts 1y agoSure, but it was burning congressional pork as fuel and cost only the occasional human sacrifice.
- sdenton4 1y agoThe only reason starship hasn't involved human sacrifice thus far is that they haven't put humans in it. It remains to be seen whether the engineers will manage to make something usable from musk's 'Cybertruck - space edition' fever dream.
- jiggawatts 1y agoTrue, but they're doing it on a far lower budget than the Space Shuttle. A single RS-9 engine -- one of five used in the SLS -- costs more than an entire Falcon 9 launch with payload, taxes, and profit! Starship is similarly frugal. Its construction is simpler, it is made of cheaper materials, it uses a cheaper fuel, etc, etc... “Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”
- tahoeskibum 1y agoGodspeed (or naturespeed for atheists)! Starship is my only hope for ever being able to go to space (assuming that they can bring the costs down).
- modeless 1y agoEdit: The launch was scrubbed for today. "Standing down from today's tenth flight of Starship to allow time to troubleshoot an issue with ground systems" https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1959755893324865963 https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1959755893324865963 Everyday Astronaut's live stream has started already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv97hecvwfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv97hecvwfI NASASpaceflight also, with guest Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7WmlTp7ue0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7WmlTp7ue0 The only official SpaceX stream will be here closer to launch: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1yoKMPRjeYYxQ https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1yoKMPRjeYYxQ but the YouTube channels will be rebroadcasting it after their own cameras lose sight of the rocket. There may or may not be an official SpaceX technical update presentation before or after the launch. There was supposed to be one last time too but it was silently canceled, so TBD.
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Kye 1y agoA credible YouTube link for the launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7WmlTp7ue0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7WmlTp7ue0
- ivape 1y agoWhen these rockets crash, is it because their digital simulations are inaccurate? Why do they need data from the actual test is the question instead of just relying on a bullet proof simulation?
- Kye 1y agoComputer models are built on assumptions and experience. You need experience to refine those assumptions. Sometimes that experience is an explosion.
- ivape 1y agoBut physics is physics. We’re not learning new physics are we? To reiterate, why wouldn’t these launches be perfect (seriously)?
- rockemsockem 1y agoI believe it's because the space of physics interacting with specific designs of specific components in the context of a large system with other specific components is very, very big and thus it is not feasible to just "simulate everything" ahead of time. Also combustion itself is not properly understood all the way down, so there is literally a big physics gap involved here.
- DarmokJalad1701 1y ago> We’re not learning new physics are we We are - at least in terms of model fidelity. There's limitations to how much CFD/simulations you can do. That kind of data (+other sensors) is used to refine models - thermal, aerodynamics, structures. Especially with starship, they are able to stream out live-video and data so that they get it even if the vehicle breaks up. Controlled hypersonic flight of such structures has been done very few times. There's stuff that can be learned from previous vehicles like the Space Shuttle but there are a lot of things that are very different - different control surfaces, flight profiles, thermal management etc.
- colonCapitalDee 1y ago
- geerlingguy 1y agoI was able to see the (under construction) launch stand for Starship at KSC last week; it sounds like they built it and are rebuilding it constantly in response to pad learnings in Texas. It'd be amazing to get at least the first stage to a reliable state so the launch site could be complete in Florida without major concerns about the Falcon 9 launch tower situated close nearby! The main thing I took away from visiting KSC the first time (alas missed out on any launches) was how incredibly huge all things orbital-launch-related are, even for smaller rockets. Also didn't realize how large the Blue Origin facilities are there. It's one thing to see glimpses in a spaceflight YouTube channel video, it's another to drive alongside them.
- mathgeek 1y agoOne of my favorite parts of living in Central Florida is watching the rockets take off every few days. Sadly a lot of the launches lately have been daytime or in the middle of the night, but seeing Falcon Heavy split off during the holidays one year remains a highlight.
- ethbr1 1y agoCrumbs for anyone interested that parking at Chain of Lakes Park (in Titusville), then hiking out along E Jay Jay Rd, crossing the train tracks and walking south (hide from any train company trucks driving down), and watching across the lagoon is super chill. Avoids all the tourists, insane parking, and/or Playalinda capacity uncertainty. Also skips the viewing platforms in the park that semi-professional photographers are huge dicks about.
- nocoiner 1y agoIf you want to pretend like you don’t care, don’t look up.
- BoredPositron 1y agoOdds on betting sites are all over the place for this one.
- OsrsNeedsf2P 1y agoGot any good links?
- breadwinner 1y agoSpaceX is a private company, but a significant part of the funding for the development of its Starship spacecraft, especially for lunar missions, comes from U.S. taxpayer money via NASA contracts. The Starship rocket is the most powerful launch vehicle ever constructed. If controlled by a maniacal megalomaniac it could be turned into a powerful weapon. Hopefully that won't ever happen. But it raises the question: should a private citizen ever be in control of such powerful technology whose development was funded by taxpayers?
- orochimaaru 1y agoWhich maniacal megalomaniac are you talking about?
- ivape 1y agoUh, the richest one (ever), forgot his name. Almost bought a whole department in the government, nice calm guy.
- orochimaaru 1y agoIn case you’ve noticed said rich person is out of favor with the chief megalomaniac.
- simonh 1y agoSince it’s US tax payers money footing the bill, maybe whoever is in charge of spending US tax payers money at the moment? Or maybe whoever is building the vehicle? I’m not sure which is worse.
- monkaiju 1y agoNo it should not, this is one of the primary moral hazards we get from neoliberalism.
- shortrounddev2 1y agoNeoliberalism is anything I don't like!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- antithesizer 1y ago[flagged]
- devmor 1y agoWe could have both, easily. It’s a shame.
- chr1 1y agoIf you look closer you'll see that this rockets are key to billions of people living on other planets, to cheaper internet, to better telescopes, to satellites controlling weather. Ultimately this is an important step towards a future with healthcare providing thousands of years of life, and unlimited housing space.
- itishappy 1y agoThere are billions alive on this planet today. I think it's important to keep both the present and future in mind.
- chr1 1y agoWell, US spends 1.5 trillion on social security and only 20 billion on NASA, so "present" is kind of overrepresented. Redirecting that little bit so that a few more people can live without working, or can get expensive treatment to live a few more years is stupid, not inspiring.
- itishappy 1y agoWe live in the present, so I'd expect it to be overrepresented. I expect most people don't give their kids more money than they spend on themselves, for instance. Your second sentence showcases some wildly negative biases. I suspect we could probably save money by improving the efficiency of our social programs and end up with even more to spend on scientific advancement.
- 1y ago
- jmyeet 1y agoI'm still going to be interested to see if Starship is ever an economic success. These test launches are expensive and it's going to take a long time to recoup that R&D, in large part because of... the Falcon 9. You have to look at what problem Starship is solving. Typoical answers are: 1. Greater payload capacity. This is true but is there demand for that? This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem but we can point to the Falcon Heavy as a useful data point. There have only been ~13 launches thus far. Some might say "you can launch multiple payloads in one launch" but you really can't unless they're on pretty much the exact same orbit. Starlink works fine for this because they are on basically the same orbit. 2. Maybe it's "reusable second stage". This is only a fraction of the total cost, like an order of magnitude less than the impact of the reusable first stage and Falcon 9 already has taht. And it's proven; or 3. Which brings us to "landing humans on the Moon or Mars" but it's not really a suitable vehicle for that. Think about it. How are you going to land? They're reduced launch weight with the chopstick catching mechanism for the first stage such that it can't land on its own (unlike Falcon 9) so we'd need the second stage to be able to land on its own and take off again. We're nowwhere near even testing that. And it's going to take a lot of testing for human-rating flight. But OK, let's look past all that and say it lands on the Moon. Well, how do the astronauts get out and back in? They're 30-40 meters off the ground. I just don't know how this program succeeds.
- gpm 1y ago1. I think starlink alone means there is demand for that. Starlink is an appreciable fraction of satellites in orbit... Apart from starlink, satellites spend a lot of money on being as light as possible, at the very least there's a tradeoff here where you get to make the same satellite cheaper by being less mass efficient. 2. I wouldn't dismiss the cost savings from a reusable second stage. 3. They already have experience with legs from Falcon 9, and they're already landing this rocket very precisely with their tower. I would expect the development timeline for legs to be short. Much shorter than the development timeline for human rating the rest of this, for instance... 3.5. Winches and ropes are light and cheap, lowering things to and raising things from the surface doesn't strike me as a particularly difficult problem... apart from maybe the human-rating aspects of the system. I think Starship has a good theoretical basis for being an economic success. On the other hand I don't have much faith they will successfully execute at this point. They're massively behind schedule and presumably above anticipated cost. They aren't showing signs of having successfully designed a safe, reliable, and cheaply built vehicle. They've been making what externally seem like stupid mistakes like having their rocket fail in basically the same way twice in a row. They are making political enemies left right and center whether it's by having a fascist CEO committing election related crimes, or littering the same down-range islands with rocket parts from failed launches. They are almost certainly driving away talent by virtue of the same CEOs political roles and crimes, and by virtue of doing things like taking SpaceX engineers and having them work on twitter.
- excalibur 1y ago[flagged]
- gonzopancho 1y agoScrubbed
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- firesteelrain 1y agoScrubbed! ;(
- jgbuddy 1y agoLooks like it's cancelled
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Nevermark 1y agoAnd ... it's gone!
- riffic 1y agotypo on the diagram - it's "Gulf of Mexico".
- muzika 1y agoYou don’t have to like the name or the current administration but to call it a typo is a bad faith effort on your part.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoI took it as humorous.
- bandrami 1y agoHere's where I curmudgeonly insist that manned space exploration is a terrible idea, and the insistence on it has held back unmanned space exploration by decades. We would have livestreaming Jobian dirigible drones right now if we didn't insist on trying to get humans into the least permissive environment there is.
- fred_is_fred 1y agoThat and the Vietnam war both set us back. Why send humans to Mars with the advances we see daily in robotics?
- echelon 1y agoWe're not adapted to space, and our bodies are frail and die in 78 years. We should focus on building digital bodies to house our children. Our species in its current form dies with this gravity well. We're evolved to and fit it like a glove. It's our minds that will see the universe.
- msgodel 1y agoWe're not adapted to intercontinental sailing either but we overcame that. Being realistic is one thing but completely giving up on pushing out the frontier of our capabilities is shameful IMO. Literally mailing it in isn't a substitute for space travel.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoThe nice thing is that the continent at the end of the voyage, we were adapted to. This time, not so much.
- ekianjo 1y agoIf you have a closed off base where you end up it does not matter. Nobody expects astronauts to breathe air on Mars anytime soon.
- _aobj 1y agoRaptor engine fuel lines. The most obvious candidate is diamond nano threads. If they plan on using for cabling for a Space elevator. Then they should be suitable as a flexible fuel line outer layer. Having looked into the future(pressurised fuel lines at present stainless steel), I am sure that Space Ex Starship should have a successful launch. As the previous launch should have been successful, checking every component, like a Halo Elite Spacecraft 'load master', checking individuals equipment before deploying into space on a space flight. Is the right way to go. So getting it right takes time, regardless of the media circus!
- stephc_int13 1y agoIf it works, it works. But for now...
- nativeit 1y ago[flagged]
- ericcumbee 1y agoThe Detail shots of the different parts of the starlink sats during the starlink feature was really interesting.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- OhMeadhbh 1y agoWas this the stream from August 25th or August 24th? It's not clear from watching the video. As much as I would like to make snarky comments about not launching, space is hard and I'm happy to give them a break. Wait until Starship is ready to launch and has a decent chance of not breaking up over the Caribbean is my take.
- allears 1y agoScrubbed due to weather -- "anvil cloud."