SpaceX Starship Hits Key Milestones Before Stunning Splashdown (cnn.com) 166
SpaceX's Starship megarocket successfully completed its 11th test flight, achieving major milestones like engine relight, satellite deployment, and a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean. From a report: This mission marks the second clean test run for Version 2, following a successful showing during its last test mission in August. Earlier this year, however, Starship Version 2 suffered three in-flight failures and an explosive accident during ground testing. Today's test mission is expected to be the last for the current iteration of Starship prototypes. The company has said it will debut a scaled up Version 3 for the next flight. You can watch a recording of the launch on YouTube.
I'm rooting for it!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not.
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2, Informative)
This isn't government funded.
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't government funded.
And that's is exactly WHY Startship represents economy, not waste.
When the government attacked the problem of getting crews and cargo into orbit, it developed Space Shuttle, which required a standing army of 35,000 people just to keep it running. It never achieved its reusability and reliability goals. SpaceX came into the picture with Falcon-9, whose reusable first stage cut the cost of getting to orbit by 90%, and achieved 100% reliability. Starship is on the way to reusability of both stages and fast turnaround at much greater payloads. And no, these efforts are not being "subsidized by NASA." SpaceX gets the job done so much cheaper that NASA contracts the company for most of its flights, as does an increasing base of purely commercial business operators.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget the Senate Launch System, which is possibly the most expensive launcher ever built in terms of cost per pound to orbit.
If Musk gets Starship working and figures out in-orbit refuelling then SLS becomes pretty much obsolete overnight.
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
Apollo could manage to get astronauts to the moon for a few days of lunar daylight.
SLS is less capable than Apollo.
SLS cannot put astronauts on the moon in anything that keeps them alive there for a month in one launch.
Proposed lunar habitats that allow astronauts to stay over a month seem to have a mass of 150,000 kg at minimum.
How many SLS launches to put that mass on the moon, let alone assemble it?
The back of my envelope says 8 SLS launches.
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apollo could manage to get astronauts to the moon for a few days of lunar daylight.
Apollo was a mission, not a rocket.
SLS is less capable than Apollo.
SLS is a rocket, not a mission.
SLS cannot put astronauts on the moon in anything that keeps them alive there for a month in one launch.
No, I imagine not.
Proposed lunar habitats that allow astronauts to stay over a month seem to have a mass of 150,000 kg at minimum.
You pulled that number out of your ass.
How many SLS launches to put that mass on the moon, let alone assemble it?
Good question. Depends which numbers we select.
The back of my envelope says 8 SLS launches.
If you're going by Block 1 numbers, like 7.
If you're going by Block 2 numbers, like 4.
If you're going by Starship V3 numbers, you're looking at 12-16 launches.
Yes, I'll be cheaper, because Starship will be subsidized by Starlink launches.
And this is just in the case where you're really trying to put 150t on the surface.
If you're tryin
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
Apologies if you could not understand my use of 'Apollo' in the context of a discussion of moon rockets to mean the rocket vehicle built by the Apollo moon rocket mission to send a rocket to the moon. Hope this has cleared things up.
I am glad you are no longer imagining that SLS could deliver a lander capable of sustaining life for a month and have moved on from your statement that "Astronauts that got there via SLS will be kicked by drinking Mai tais, and will have been for a month or so when the StarShip
Re: (Score:2)
I am glad you are no longer imagining that SLS could deliver a lander capable of sustaining life for a month
Nor did I ever. That's a strawman you invented in your brain.
I said:
Starship is an interesting re-imagining of what spaceflight is, but to call it a replacement for something like an SLS or Saturn V is fucking stupid.
I'm glad you are no longer imagining that these 2 are the same thing, just as I said
Christ you fucking fanbois really are dense.
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
I quoted you directly. Here it is again.
"Astronauts that got there via SLS will be kicked by drinking Mai tais, and will have been for a month or so when the StarShip makes it to the surface."
Are you an Elbonian LLM?
Re: (Score:2)
You could use the Starship to build a hab there.
Using Starship to get people there is another story.
The context was important:
Starship is an interesting re-imagining of what spaceflight is, but to call it a replacement for something like an SLS or Saturn V is fucking stupid.
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
Indeed there was no implication, it was an outright statement made by you. Here it is again.
"Astronauts that got there via SLS will be kicked by drinking Mai tais, and will have been for a month or so when the StarShip makes it to the surface."
Are you now going to say that you meant the 'SLS bus company inc' delivering astronauts to a hotel/bar called "the surface"?
Re: (Score:2)
That statement says one thing, and one thing only: That it can get them there in a day.
And it will take a month to get people there via Starship.
It makes no claim about existing resources on the surface.
Are you now going to say that you meant the 'SLS bus company inc' delivering astronauts to a hotel/bar called "the surface"?
Sure, I mean that's literally the argued use for Starship.
Being able to build a hab on the moon.
Otherwise, there's literally no need for that kind of payload to the surface.
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
Well, as you take the Humpty Dumpty approach to what you claim to be English, I wish you well and hope you stay happily atop your wall.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, Starship can do things SLS simply cannot do. This is the magic of orbital refueling.
For everything under that, SLS does it better, because it's simply a better rocket, as opposed to a "spaceship".
But it's also a fact, that Starship will do them all cheaper (at least as long as you continue to measure the cost in flatly incompatible ways- granting there's no possible way to do
Re: (Score:2)
The Orion spacecraft (the original nuclear spaceship, not the hopped-up Apollo capsule of the Shrub years) could have put a minimum of 1000 tons into orbit per launch. After examining the capabilities of the fusion-powered version Werner Von Braun wrote a white paper endorsing Orion over his own chemical rockets (because he noted the output of several US nuclear devices the Pentagram classified it [even though the figures were already publicly available] and now claim that it's "lost").
Von Braun's original
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking, SLS is 47 metric tons to lunar transfer orbit, starship is 100 to the surface.
But you are right, it is 10-20 expended starships for 1 SLS launch. Closer to 100 for recovered reusable starships.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're extremely confused. SLS cannot land on the moon in the way that the (lunar variant) Starship can. It can only launch Orion to the moon. Orion is 8 meters tall and 5 meters in diameter. Starship is 52 meters tall and 9 meters in diameter. These are not the same thing.
SLS/Orion missions are expected to cost approximately $4,2B each. If you fully disposed of every Starship, the cost for 8-16 launches would be $720M-$1,44B. But of course the entire point is to not dispose of them; the goal is to get it down to where, like airplanes, most of the cost is propellant. The propellant for a single launch is $900k. Even if they don't get anywhere near propellant costs, you're still looking at orders of magnitude cheaper than a single SLS/Orion mission.
Re: (Score:2)
You're extremely confused.
And you're a deliberate idiot.
SLS cannot land on the moon in the way that the (lunar variant) Starship can.
Nobody said it could. Yet another reason why they are not equivalent platforms.
These are not the same thing.
Wait- really?
If only I had said:
Starship is an interesting re-imagining of what spaceflight is, but to call it a replacement for something like an SLS or Saturn V is fucking stupid.
You are, per usual, extremely confused.
Refuel in orbit [Re: I'm rooting for it!!] (Score:2)
To get an SLS-equivalent payload to the lunar surface, it will take 8-16 Starship launches.
How do you figure?
The plan for Starship to get to the moon is that it launches to orbit, and is then refueled by 8-16 additional launches of Starship bringing up fuel.
Yes, that's the plan. One Starship launch doesn't get to the moon.
Re: (Score:3)
I've looked into that.
1 SLS launch to the moon, ~46 metric tons to lunar transfer orbit, $4B for the launch.
Starship: 100 metric tons to the surface of the moon, around $100M for the single use lunar craft, around $10M a launch for the reusable refuelers. It is expected to take about 8 refuelings for the moon trip, not 16.
So, still around an order of magnitude cheaper for around 3 times the payload to the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
The discussion was the month of basically 100% launch service capacity it takes to get a mission to the moon.
Further, you have not accounted for V3's reduced payload.
So no, you haven't looked into that.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody did make a price comparison, I did.
And yes, I looked into it. Looking into something doesn't have to be a deep dive, I don't need to be 100% up on the topic.
Besides, v3 is only v3. There's more development room. Besides, you must not have looked into it by your own standard, because v3 is bigger than V2, increasing capacity, bot decreasing it.
For all the savings of launch capacity if it takes 3 launches of starship to equal 1 launch of SLS, Starship costs so much less that we can just build more
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody did make a price comparison, I did.
Exactly. In response to nobody making such a comparison.
You moved the goalposts. Good job.
The discussion was about equivalency, not price efficiency.
The problem is not price.
The problem is that it takes a fucking month of launches, assuming a launch every couple days- a cadence they can't keep up with right now, even in their F9 launch services- to do what the SLS does in one shot.
These platforms do not make each other obsolete. Only morons think that. You have just demonstrated that by trying to mak
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, you must not have looked into it by your own standard, because v3 is bigger than V2, increasing capacity, bot decreasing it.
V3 is bigger than V2.
The reduced payload I speak of is V3's reduced payload.
It started out at 200t, and is now at 100t. It has been reduced by 50%.
V3 will have 1600t of fuel.
That's 16 flights.
Re: Refuel in orbit [Re: I'm rooting for it!!] (Score:2)
Just to stick my nose in here, given DamnOregonian's figure of 100 ton to LEO by Starthing V3, this 100 ton payload in LEO should easily incorporate a kick stage sending over 50 tons to TLI, thus outperforming SLS with only a single, reusable Starship launch and making SLS look like an obsolete bag of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
That would indeed be quite magical.
I see your math is as bad as your English.
Re: Refuel in orbit [Re: I'm rooting for it!!] (Score:2)
How far off is my 'math' and, incidentally what did you mean by "will be kicked by drinking Mai tais" , oh wonderful master of the English language?
Re: (Score:2)
If we use the upper stage from an SLS in your Starbarge, you're only off by 10% or so.
If we use a pure SpaceX upper stage, then you're off by closer to 60%.
This is all pretending that we can get your upper stage up there and out of the bay for free (we can't- not even fucking close).
Supposed to be "will be kicked back drinking Mai tais". Good job catching the typo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
I suppose the question to ask is, would SpaceX have been as successful if not for all the preceding work and existing infrastructure/knowledge that was created by the government?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cart, meet Horse. (Score:2)
I think most people in America should be asking our Billionaires if they would be successful if not for all the preceding work and existing infrastructure/knowledge that was created by our Government.
Those billionaires wouldn’t be billionaires if not for first lobbying said government to get corrupt loopholes passed.
The kinds of loopholes that create billionaires.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would we have public libraries were it not for a billionaire? Well, I'm sure our university system and the knowledge that came from it was due to the government, right? Oh, wait, no, the first of those in America were privately founded (by 150 years!).
Hmm, maybe it isn't as straight-forward as you thought.
Re: (Score:2)
between 1850 and 1871, through which new railway companies in the west were given millions of acres they could sell to prospective farmers or pledge to bondholders. A total of 129 million acres (520,000 km2) were granted to the railroads before the program ended, supplemented by a further 51 million acres (210,000 km2) granted by the states, and by various government subsidies
BRB govt gave them MILLIONS of acres to resell, which they used the profit to build the rails. Must be nice being launched into success.
Re: (Score:2)
Had the government done nothing, the railroads would still have been built, but at a higher cost and slower pace.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be nice to be able to murder and rob your way to success.
FTFY
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:2)
SpaceX received plenty of funding from NASA as well as access to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the beginning of WWII there were four moderately advanced rocketry programs, in order of capability they were:
1) England
2) USSR
3) Germany
4) US
The first three got some government support, while Goddard by his own account spent more time some years soliciting money from rich industrialists than he spent actually working on his rockets. All of the first three groups were excited by Goddard's work, and had started developing on it, while in the US he languished. The generals in Whitehall and the Kremlin di
NASA funded Space X [Re: I'm rooting for it!!] (Score:2)
I suppose the question to ask is, would SpaceX have been as successful if not for all the preceding work and existing infrastructure/knowledge that was created by the government?
Absolutely not. NASA funded SpaceX from the beginning, by funding them to build Falcon-9 for Space Station Resupply and crew launch at a time when their rate of success with rocket launches was one success and three failures.
The existence of SpaceX is entirely due to that NASA funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you until I realized you had drank the kool-aid.
and achieved 100% reliability
That kool-aid is some strong stuff. If you had said 99% reliable, I would have nodded and continued even though that number itself is not accurate... but 100%? In rockets? Oh my.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Space Shuttle and the Space Launch System are what you get when you allow politicians and generals to run what should be an engineering program. That's why China can land on the far side of the moon and India can send a probe to Mars for less than the cost of an industrialist's daughter's wedding, and the US can't even successfully land something with less capability than a Surveyor from 1966.
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:4, Informative)
> The private organizations that launch satellites do so on the back of the government funded launches.
I can't even figure out what that's supposed to mean.
Most SpaceX launches are now Starlink launches funded by Starlink revenue.
Starship is primarily funded by Musk and third-party investment, with only a billion or two from the government to develop a Starship-based lunar lander because it was the cheapest option offered when NASA put the contract out for bids. You could argue that's not really something government should be doing, but I wouldn't be surprised if Musk feels his life would be easier without that contract hanging over Starship's development schedule at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
That was probably the realist post I've ever read from RSilvergun. If it doesn't make sense, that's on you. He's 100% right on this. Maybe re read it?
Re: I'm rooting for it!! (Score:5, Informative)
By far, most of SpaceX's launches are for Starlink, which is self-funded.
Nextmost is commercial launches. SpaceX does the lion's share of global commercial launches.
Government launches are a tiny piece of the pie. They don't "subsidize" anything, they're just yet another minor revenue stream.
The best you can say is that they charge more for government launches, but everyone charges more for government launches than commercial launches. You can argue over whether that's justified or not (launch providers have to do a lot of extra work for government launches - the DoD usually has a lot of special requirements, NASA usually demands extra safety precautions, government launches in general are more likely to want special trajectories, fully expended boosters, etc), but overall, the government is a bit player in terms of launch purchases.
Re: (Score:3)
It's true that governments have been big launch customers. Many (not all) launch companies have designed rockets to serve government customers and then also launched private payloads on them. "On the back of" kind of suggests the GP thinks all the private satellites are ride shares on government launches, which just isn't true.
Governments aren't even the majority of the market anymore:
https://www.grandviewresearch.... [grandviewresearch.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
StarLink revenue dwarfs their Government revenue, as well as completely dominates their launch cadence.
You can argue that their low-cost-to-orbit is almost entirely on the back of their StarLink business, but you can't say their launches are "Government funded".
Really, they're StarLink funded.
You really have no shame.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While I don't know all the details, my lived experience is almost the exact opposite of your claim. It's fair to say that a great majority of our launches are privately funded. Often, multiple parties will have payloads aboard the same rocket as part of our rideshare program. But I haven't heard of a case of US government payloads sharing a ride with privately funded payloads. If I had to guess, I would say that this has to do with many (all?) government launch parameters having additional requirements that
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure now, since there are so many Starlink and Kupier launches, but several years ago the majority of the Cubesats used to launch using any spare payload capability on government launches. IIRC there was a set-aside specifically to enable free/cheap Cubesat launches together with any non-classified government payload. This may have changed in the current mercantilist environment where if no one is making a million dollars it's not allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Spacex's contracts are almost entirely government. The private organizations that launch satellites do so on the back of the government funded launches. So yeah it's government funded. Like all of Elon musk's businesses it wouldn't exist without heavy government subsidies.
No.
It would, however, have been accurate if you had said that SpaceX's rise to dominance of the space launch industry had been entirely government funded. The breakthrough that turned SpaceX from a company with a history of failures to a successful launch provider was the Falcon-9, and development of Falcon-9 was entirely funded by NASA.
But currently, no, they have many contracts outside of government.
Re: (Score:2)
It goes back further than that. During the 19th Century, it was found by Congress that the US was funding a ton of primary research through various grants. (I have no idea how they didn't know about this, considering Congress has the power of the purse in the US.) This lead to the short-sighted cancellation of a lot of research funding the in the US in the 1880s. People with most foresight managed to secretly keep funding basic research, mostly through the military. That's why the US Naval Observatory and t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm rooting for it!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, doing it after you've reached a significant fraction of orbital velocity? Much trickier.
But then again, Starship doesn't do that either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX is actually doing something useful with their money, unlike those other shit bag companies wasting billions (trillions by now?) on "AI" and the energy sucking data centers used to house all of our stolen data.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations spending money on things which don't pan out at least are creating jobs which employ people. As long as we live under this broken window fallacy economic system that's necessary even if they don't accomplish anything meaningful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I will never understand the desire to drive an ornamental dumpster.
Re: (Score:2)
One of our friends' kid has a roofing business in the Puget Sound area and he said the thing's a beast. After using his first one for a while he sold one of his F-150s and replaced it with a second Cybertruck. When the other F-150 dies in the next year or so he's going to replace it with another. Higher payload than the F-150, larger towing capacity, cheaper to run, less maintenance, similar cost, and he's actually used the integrated air compressor and 110/220 volt outlets multiple times. It certainly
Color me skeptical, (Score:5, Insightful)
Three years of launches, and they have yet to complete an orbit.
Somehow all in the next calendar year, they expect to regularly orbit, AND orbit a propellant target AND complete propellant transfer AND orbit a stable propellant depot AND perform a dozen or more propellant transfers AND land an unmanned Starship HLS on the moon AND launch 5 Starships to the Mars surface AND land a Starship with a working rover on the moon surface.
His delivery of car functions and price targets have slipped by years.
Is there some reasonableness of the space flight schedule that is inherently more reliable?
I get it, yeah, it is rocket science, but it seems like wishful thinking at best.
Re:Color me skeptical, (Score:5, Insightful)
They haven’t completed an orbit because they want to be definitely certain they can deorbit it reliably as it is not demisable. They have absolutely demonstrated that it has the ability to reach orbit and survive reentry consistently.
All those goals are reasonable when you consider the assembly lines they are building and their success with recovering the first and second stages. Consider the launch rate of Falcon 9 and then consider the fact that they are building twice as many launchpads while designing the boosters to be immediately reflown.
The only real question is whether they will have the same initial teething problems with their third generation of the rocket that they did with the first two, but I doubt they will.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit concerned you're going to drown in that koolaid.
Re: (Score:2)
Christ, are you so fucking stupid that you can't conceive of positions as separable from their ideological champions?
Trump can get fucked. Musk can also get fucked, but I do, at least, support Musk's SpaceX work, even if I won't try to fellate Starship like some of the other dumbfucks here.
Re: Color me skeptical, (Score:2)
Getting both stages back to the surface in good enough shape to be flown again is the challenge. Reaching orbit is something they already do every other day.
Re: Color me skeptical, (Score:3)
All valid points, but if not Spacex, then who?
If you want a lunar habitat that can be occupied throughout the lunar night, most historical designs seem to be 150 - 250 tonnes.
Landing 150 tonnes on the moon from one launch requires a booster about the size of five Saturn 5 duct-taped together. Who is building this monster booster? Who is building the even more monstrous launch complex?
Assembling 150 tons on the surface of the moon would take at least 8 SLS launches. Are that many SLS available?
New Glenn coul
Re: Color me skeptical, (Score:2)
This assumes you want a lunar habitat. The original flights to the moon were in an era of exploration, they actually did provide some valid scientific results, and we beat the Russians. Growing up in that era, I cheered space flight like no one else. What was accomplished was nothing short of amazing. We no longer need to beat the Russians, so why? The real value of LEO is earth resource monitoring, possibly some manufacturing. Unmanned space flight is far safer and more reliable than manned. The same go
Re: (Score:2)
For the 150 to 250 ton lunar habit, can you give any sort of breakdown of what is included in that design, how many astronauts it supports, what equipment it has, etc.?
Re: Color me skeptical, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Three years of launches, and they have yet to complete an orbit. Somehow all in the next calendar year, they expect to regularly orbit, AND orbit a propellant target AND complete propellant transfer AND orbit a stable propellant depot AND perform a dozen or more propellant transfers AND land an unmanned Starship HLS on the moon AND launch 5 Starships to the Mars surface AND land a Starship with a working rover on the moon surface. His delivery of car functions and price targets have slipped by years. Is there some reasonableness of the space flight schedule that is inherently more reliable? I get it, yeah, it is rocket science, but it seems like wishful thinking at best.
I have doubts on the planned schedule too, but SpaceX has continued to move forward at a pace that far exceeds reasonable expectations. Note: Musk's publicly stated goals are never reasonable. He's a dreamer/idealist fueled by ketamine and other drugs. But his stated goals for SpaceX have continue do to come to pass, just not on his timelines. I think the only real impediment to Starship continuing to move forward would be if Musk inserts himself more fully into the process instead of babbling like an idiot
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, SN15 was 4 years ago, and it was pretty fucking far from a "tiny wrinkly tin can with a single engine on it".
Video feed of plasma during reentry is also a firs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Video feed of plasma during reentry is also a (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They could run the engine another 10 seconds if they wanted to get in orbit, but that wasn't a goal of the flight.
Re: (Score:2)
They could run the engine another 10 seconds
Well ya, but it would have increased the chance of the entire Starship exploding by like 80%, so....
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely, they fixed the issues that caused that as they've shown twice now. There is a chance the engine might not relight in which case it would be stuck in orbit for a while and the starlink dummies would have been deployed in orbit instead of burning up in a few minutes
Re: (Score:2)
You fuckers are a funny lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, after the explosion problem they fixed the issue. It's not like it's been the same design flying 5 times and it just has a 60% chance of exploding
Re: (Score:2)
Every flight finds new ways for things to break.
In your mind, every successful flight represents some kind of checkpoint of Starship that doesn't have a high probability of explosion.
That is patently absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how things work either. It's possible to reduce the probability of a failure which they have been doing. It's not that a successful test flight is a checkpoint, it's a demonstration that the correction from the previous version works. Now they've done it twice in a row it shows with even higher probability that the initial issue (which was introduced in block 2) has been corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
It is only because of the Starlink constellation that we can observe reentry plasma.
Oh really? Here's some from 1965: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We've seen it for decades. Remember Columbia? There was video from inside the cabin showing plasma flashes.
Keep lowering that bar (Score:2)
When the only thing that's newsworthy is that it didn't explode this time, we have to take a step back and reflect.
Re: (Score:3)
This was the first starship test flight that bored me the entire time. A spectacular achievement. It's not a lowering of the bar, just the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
They are initially streamed on twitter, but they will still post them to YouTube afterward.
Re: (Score:2)