In the early days of Starship I was a little bit optimistic. The "move fast and break things" strategy had quickly succeeded when SpaceX was trying to land boosters, so I was hopeful that each exploding Starship was one step closer to a working spacecraft.
But at this point it's just sad. I don't see anything resembling progress.
I think the boosters were a "fake it till we make it" thing that luckily worked out. I don't think Starship will ever make it into space.
That's a bonkers take. It's the largest and most powerful rocket in history and it's already made orbit. The raptor engines are the first full flow staged combustion engines to ever be put into a production rocket (This is a holy grail of rocketry). All estimates suggest that it's also probably much cheaper to build than any of the other heavy lift rockets. And that was accomplished while also building full reusability into the design...
The work they've done is nothing short of astounding. Which makes your take come off as either insane, blind, or biased.
It has not made orbit.
It has done a suborbital flight.
The difference between getting to space and getting to orbit is well, an orbit.
Starship did not achieve the speed needed to maintain an orbit around the earth, if it can do so has not been proven.
Getting something that big off the ground is impressive, but we did it 50 years ago with slide rules and pencils. Getting something off the ground should not be a success for a company that already has an orbital rocket in frequent use. Having 3 vehicles fail to achieve orbit, fail to demonstrate critical features like fuel transfer and engine relight, and fail to re enter the atmosphere while under control, is not a success. I do not buy the SpaceX corporate spin that “everything after clearing the pad is icing on the cake” that’s not good enough for a critical piece of hardware that is supposed to take humans to the moon and land them there.
If ULA can develop a rocket that completes its mission on the first launch, and NASA can do the same, because they take the time to check everything, then why are we giving SpaceX the pass to move fast and break things when it’s clearly not working. They do not have a heavy lift orbital rocket. They have a rocket that can, from all evidence, achieve a suborbital flight while completely empty.
And remember, this is not private money they are burning every time one of these explodes or burns up in the atmosphere. They were given 3 billion American Tax dollars to develop this thing. And now the Government Accountability Office has not even been shown that the Raptor engine is even capable of achieving the mission goals for Artemis. And their test articles are behind schedule and routinely failing in catastrophic ways.
I want to see humans back on the moon in my lifetime. I think we need to go and set up a colony so that we can explore our solar system better and develop technologies for sustaining humanity both off of earth and in the harsh conditions we will face as our climate changes. Anything that threatens the mission of establishing a human presence off of earth needs to be looked at closely and realistically.
Back in the 60’s we knew that the only way to get humans to the moon was to keep the equipment reliable and redundant, anything else was asking for people to die. We seem to have lost that simple insight in recent years, and Starship is the epitome of that hubris. A ridiculously complicated vehicle with a complicated flight plan that has not been shown to work in any capacity. That needs to be pointed out and investigated if for no other reason then it is delaying a major mission.
"Starship did not achieve the speed needed to maintain an orbit around the earth, if it can do so has not been proven. "
Arguing this point makes you seem either uneducated on the launch or just someone shitting on SpaceX because musk. If you were actually familiar with the launch profile you would know starship nearly reached orbital velocities but did not on purpose, so it could reenter the atmosphere and test the heat shield.
So you'd be technically right in your statement, however knowing the full details of the situation makes your take stupid.
And it was a safety measure in case they lost control that would ensure it would burn itself up and not become space junk. This guy is a nut job lmao. SpaceX is badass!
setting all politics and social issues from the CEO aside.
Right but I think that was their point though no? That, for safety reasons, they didn't make it to orbit. Seems like a pretty cut and dry "no" they didn't make it to orbit just like that person said. And the reason was that they didn't know if it would make it. Which kind of supports their point.
I'm not going to claim to know enough either way (besides Elon Musk being an idiot), but they don't seem wrong there.
It seems like you guys are mad that it didn't make orbit and get defensive when people point it out.
Because the longer a launch goes the easier it is. Basically there are critical phases of flight and there's the actual continuous operation of the rocket all the time. Things like clearing the tower, max q, stage separation, engine re-lighting are all insanely complex operations, but once all that's done and all you need to do is burn the engines for longer it's pretty easy to just burn more rocket fuel on a flight that has been working the whole time. its something that is much less risky to the mission going on. Things can go wrong, but the chance is much higher during one of those complex things.
While completely empty.
An empty vehicle does not have the same performance as one with cargo.
Ignoring this point make you seem either uneducated on space flight or just someone blinded by the tech bro philosophy of “trust me bro it’ll work next time”
¯_(ツ)_/¯ while starship performance is ass compared to what they want they could still have easily put cargo onboard, you are talking about the most successful and likely profitable spaceflight company in history here you know?
SpaceX gets a lot of credit from space fans because they have proved the haters wrong time and time again, people just like you were saying the exact same garbage about falcon 9 and reusing the booster, now that SpaceX succeeded at that they practically own earth's entire launch industry and will revolutionize it again with starship.
I'm sure we will get lots of "failures" (expected test vehicle losses) along the way for you to doom on, but at the end of the day SpaceX will be the winners like they always are at the end of the day.
You've written a whole lot for someone who doesn't seem to know what they're talking about.
It has not made orbit.
It has done a suborbital flight.
The difference between getting to space and getting to orbit is well, an orbit.
These statements are intentionally misleading. The starship was less than 100 dv short of orbit when they decided to cut the engines in order to test another flight regime. It takes at least 8500 dv to make orbit, which means they were already 98.8% of the way there and they still had plenty of propellent to spare. All systems were nominal, they could have continued, but they had already proved their capability to make orbit and were now aiming to accomplish more. The fact is, they did achieve the kind of speed you need to reach orbit, but rockets have been able to reach orbit for a long time, that's not impressive, but rockets have only just begun to start returning to earth.
And remember, this is not private money they are burning every time one of these explodes or burns up in the atmosphere. They were given 3 billion American Tax dollars to develop this thing.
So far, the SLS has spent 23 billion tax payer dollars. They have built 1 rocket. But saying they "built" the rocket isn't even fair, as they salvaged the engines from previous space shuttles, expending engines that had previously been reused. What will they do when they run out of pre-built engines? Prices will go up for sure...
Again, the SLS is attempting to use antique engines and essentially develop nothing new, and it has cost the public $23B. The starship is attempting to develop many ground breaking technologies, is so far achieving more of their goals with every launch. And they've spent 3 billion doing all of that.
At this point it may also be worth noting that the SLS has been in development for 14 years, the starship has been in real development for 5-7 years.
I remain in the position I started, to deny that SpaceX is doing something truly astonishing is plain bonkers.
If you don't see progress, it's because you're not paying attention. Each test flight of starship has performed better than the last.
It already has made it to space...
Making it to space and making it to orbit are 2 different things.
True but disingenuous. This statement is often used to mock blue origin for just going 100km straight up into space and then back down, which is very far from reaching orbit. But the flight profile of IFT-3 was so close to orbital velocity, it's not a significant difference.
It is a significant difference. When it comes to orbit, there is no close enough, either you’re going fast enough or you’re not. They have not shown this thing can do what they say it can.
IFT-3 was completely empty and the tanks were full. Where is the weight of the crew decks, the solar panels and batteries, life support equipment, docking mechanism, food, water, and cargo? These are not trivial things, and they weigh a lot. Proving an empty shell can achieve a suborbital flight and be just barely not be in orbit is not proof of anything useful.
If they had shown there was a significant amount of delta-v left with this empty test article, then that’s one thing. But those tanks had a whisper of fuel left in them. I don’t believe for a second that it would have gotten that close when it was full of over a hundred tons of additional equipment.
I can't say I know enough about the subject to agree or disagree in general, it seems pretty clear to me that these people are sore about the fact that the billion (trillion?) dollar corporation they pathetically stan for didn't make it to orbit.
Like I think it really gets to them.
DeltaV is the amount you can change your velocity in space.
To put it another way, if a semi truck company says it’s new truck can haul 20 tons of cargo 500 miles on one tank/charge, and then during the press release with an empty trailer, it has to pull to side of the road at 400 miles driven because it’s out of gas, do you think it can get to 500 miles when it has 20 tons in the back? And the previous 2 press releases had the vehicle spontaneously detonate just after leaving the driveway.
That’s what starship did, it ran out of gas at almost the finish line while completely empty. There’s no way it can get itself + 100 tons to orbit if it can’t even get itself to orbit.
The point is a more accurate analogy would be the truck pulling over after 494 miles, with plenty of charge left in the batteries, because they decided not to continue the test during rush hour.
Sure, technically they didn’t make 500 miles, but they were pretty damn close, encountered nothing preventing it, and chose not to for other reasons. Continuing those few extra miles serves no purpose at this time,and is arguably contrary to successful testing
Seriously... Are you drunk? There's been incredible progress. It's super exciting.
Also this is just an engine test at McGregor. They used to blow them up much more often as they were finding the limits. Nowadays it's much less common, hence why it's news when they broke one.
“move fast and break things”
Sounds like a slogan for one of Stalin's "Five Year Plans."
Too bad that Mark Zuckerberg coined it as a motto for Facebook then, huh?
Garbage minds must think alike, then.
Lol what kind of comeback is that? We know he said that, dumbass, that was the entire point of their reference. Do you like... Not know who Stalin is?
Will every reader know that? Will every reader also know the finer nuances of the 3 downward arrows, one of them referring to Stalin's authoritarianism? I'm not here to score sick comebacks? 🤷♀️
Huh that's interesting...
Maybe we can hear directly from them about their views on Stalin:
The Three Arrows were adopted as an official social democrat symbol by the SPD leadership and the Iron Front by June 1932. Iron Front members would carry the symbol on their arm bands. The slogan "neither Stalin's slaves nor Hitler's henchmen" was also used by the SPD in connection with the symbol.
So lol at you falling for some kind of bullshit agitprop just so you can attempt a clever comeback on Lemmy.
I'm using it as a general anti-fascist symbol, and I like the idea of vandalizing swastikas with it.
Im authentically perplexed as to where we disagree and why you're in "sick dunk" mode. Do you think I'm simping for Stalin? The 3 arrows appeal to me for the same reasons they do you, seems.
Will every reader also know the finer nuances of the 3 downward arrows, one of them referring to Stalin’s authoritarianism?
Yeah it seemed like you were implying (or actually just saying) that one of the arrows refers to Stalin's authoritarianism. Which is a bad thing, right? Do we agree on that? And I have it as my profile pic... So I dunno how else I was supposed to take your comment?
And to be clear, again, it is not true that one of the arrows refers to Stalin in any way.
"Down with all forms of authoritarianism" is how i associate with the symbol. We do inded agree fash in any manifestation are a bad thing.
Meanwhile here in the Elon thread, I'd like for folks not to associate Communism with dead bigoted tyrants who usurped the unions-of-unions that were Soviets, while misattributing a quote from a capitalist whose competing to have as much blood on his hands as Stalin did.
Bruh, you brought Stalin up?
I'm so confused by what you're trying to say.
I didnt bring stalin up. The comment i was replying to misattributed (or "sounds like"'d, if you prefer) a quote from Zuckerberg to Stalin. That read to me as right-wing rhetoric, pushing red scare, equating Communism, the society which is classes, moneyless, stateless, and flattening that concept into "been-tried-already-Stalin's-Tyranny"
Which is pretty gross considering the big picture; the extensive harm which not only Zuck/ FB has done, not only by technocratic bro billionaires and corpo-owner social media as a trend, but the overall economic system and specifically imperial-colonial project which it is an extension of (colonizing of minds and thought, of our attention, to advertise to, for quarterly profit and power coupons) -- all the while doing their best to promote apathy.
To prefigure a betted society, we must be able to dream. The only thing doomerism does is give the owning class that apathy while they bulldoze over Sudan, Palestine, Rojava
Or at least thats how I see. All of the power and pleasure to all of the people. Hope that clears things up.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? Because my comment you replied to said nothing about Stalin or Zuckerberg or any of that shit. I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
My initial comment in this thread was in response to someone (maskenox?) conflating the two. (Neither of which i am fond of, to be abundantly clear)
Edit: also, yes? When i went and folded all the comments...ig your initial reply was also to the same comment? Even though the voyager app shows them as diff colors...yellow and orange...doesnt make it as obvious and it isnt clear when it indents and when not... 💀
In the early days of Starship I was a little bit optimistic. The "move fast and break things" strategy had quickly succeeded when SpaceX was trying to land boosters, so I was hopeful that each exploding Starship was one step closer to a working spacecraft.
But at this point it's just sad. I don't see anything resembling progress.
I think the boosters were a "fake it till we make it" thing that luckily worked out. I don't think Starship will ever make it into space.
That's a bonkers take. It's the largest and most powerful rocket in history and it's already made orbit. The raptor engines are the first full flow staged combustion engines to ever be put into a production rocket (This is a holy grail of rocketry). All estimates suggest that it's also probably much cheaper to build than any of the other heavy lift rockets. And that was accomplished while also building full reusability into the design...
The work they've done is nothing short of astounding. Which makes your take come off as either insane, blind, or biased.
It has not made orbit.
It has done a suborbital flight.
The difference between getting to space and getting to orbit is well, an orbit.
Starship did not achieve the speed needed to maintain an orbit around the earth, if it can do so has not been proven.
Getting something that big off the ground is impressive, but we did it 50 years ago with slide rules and pencils. Getting something off the ground should not be a success for a company that already has an orbital rocket in frequent use. Having 3 vehicles fail to achieve orbit, fail to demonstrate critical features like fuel transfer and engine relight, and fail to re enter the atmosphere while under control, is not a success. I do not buy the SpaceX corporate spin that “everything after clearing the pad is icing on the cake” that’s not good enough for a critical piece of hardware that is supposed to take humans to the moon and land them there.
If ULA can develop a rocket that completes its mission on the first launch, and NASA can do the same, because they take the time to check everything, then why are we giving SpaceX the pass to move fast and break things when it’s clearly not working. They do not have a heavy lift orbital rocket. They have a rocket that can, from all evidence, achieve a suborbital flight while completely empty.
And remember, this is not private money they are burning every time one of these explodes or burns up in the atmosphere. They were given 3 billion American Tax dollars to develop this thing. And now the Government Accountability Office has not even been shown that the Raptor engine is even capable of achieving the mission goals for Artemis. And their test articles are behind schedule and routinely failing in catastrophic ways.
I want to see humans back on the moon in my lifetime. I think we need to go and set up a colony so that we can explore our solar system better and develop technologies for sustaining humanity both off of earth and in the harsh conditions we will face as our climate changes. Anything that threatens the mission of establishing a human presence off of earth needs to be looked at closely and realistically.
Back in the 60’s we knew that the only way to get humans to the moon was to keep the equipment reliable and redundant, anything else was asking for people to die. We seem to have lost that simple insight in recent years, and Starship is the epitome of that hubris. A ridiculously complicated vehicle with a complicated flight plan that has not been shown to work in any capacity. That needs to be pointed out and investigated if for no other reason then it is delaying a major mission.
"Starship did not achieve the speed needed to maintain an orbit around the earth, if it can do so has not been proven. "
Arguing this point makes you seem either uneducated on the launch or just someone shitting on SpaceX because musk. If you were actually familiar with the launch profile you would know starship nearly reached orbital velocities but did not on purpose, so it could reenter the atmosphere and test the heat shield.
So you'd be technically right in your statement, however knowing the full details of the situation makes your take stupid.
And it was a safety measure in case they lost control that would ensure it would burn itself up and not become space junk. This guy is a nut job lmao. SpaceX is badass!
setting all politics and social issues from the CEO aside.
Right but I think that was their point though no? That, for safety reasons, they didn't make it to orbit. Seems like a pretty cut and dry "no" they didn't make it to orbit just like that person said. And the reason was that they didn't know if it would make it. Which kind of supports their point.
I'm not going to claim to know enough either way (besides Elon Musk being an idiot), but they don't seem wrong there.
It seems like you guys are mad that it didn't make orbit and get defensive when people point it out.
Because the longer a launch goes the easier it is. Basically there are critical phases of flight and there's the actual continuous operation of the rocket all the time. Things like clearing the tower, max q, stage separation, engine re-lighting are all insanely complex operations, but once all that's done and all you need to do is burn the engines for longer it's pretty easy to just burn more rocket fuel on a flight that has been working the whole time. its something that is much less risky to the mission going on. Things can go wrong, but the chance is much higher during one of those complex things.
While completely empty.
An empty vehicle does not have the same performance as one with cargo.
Ignoring this point make you seem either uneducated on space flight or just someone blinded by the tech bro philosophy of “trust me bro it’ll work next time”
¯_(ツ)_/¯ while starship performance is ass compared to what they want they could still have easily put cargo onboard, you are talking about the most successful and likely profitable spaceflight company in history here you know?
SpaceX gets a lot of credit from space fans because they have proved the haters wrong time and time again, people just like you were saying the exact same garbage about falcon 9 and reusing the booster, now that SpaceX succeeded at that they practically own earth's entire launch industry and will revolutionize it again with starship.
I'm sure we will get lots of "failures" (expected test vehicle losses) along the way for you to doom on, but at the end of the day SpaceX will be the winners like they always are at the end of the day.
You've written a whole lot for someone who doesn't seem to know what they're talking about.
These statements are intentionally misleading. The starship was less than 100 dv short of orbit when they decided to cut the engines in order to test another flight regime. It takes at least 8500 dv to make orbit, which means they were already 98.8% of the way there and they still had plenty of propellent to spare. All systems were nominal, they could have continued, but they had already proved their capability to make orbit and were now aiming to accomplish more. The fact is, they did achieve the kind of speed you need to reach orbit, but rockets have been able to reach orbit for a long time, that's not impressive, but rockets have only just begun to start returning to earth.
So far, the SLS has spent 23 billion tax payer dollars. They have built 1 rocket. But saying they "built" the rocket isn't even fair, as they salvaged the engines from previous space shuttles, expending engines that had previously been reused. What will they do when they run out of pre-built engines? Prices will go up for sure...
Again, the SLS is attempting to use antique engines and essentially develop nothing new, and it has cost the public $23B. The starship is attempting to develop many ground breaking technologies, is so far achieving more of their goals with every launch. And they've spent 3 billion doing all of that.
At this point it may also be worth noting that the SLS has been in development for 14 years, the starship has been in real development for 5-7 years.
I remain in the position I started, to deny that SpaceX is doing something truly astonishing is plain bonkers.
If you don't see progress, it's because you're not paying attention. Each test flight of starship has performed better than the last.
It already has made it to space...
Making it to space and making it to orbit are 2 different things.
True but disingenuous. This statement is often used to mock blue origin for just going 100km straight up into space and then back down, which is very far from reaching orbit. But the flight profile of IFT-3 was so close to orbital velocity, it's not a significant difference.
It is a significant difference. When it comes to orbit, there is no close enough, either you’re going fast enough or you’re not. They have not shown this thing can do what they say it can.
IFT-3 was completely empty and the tanks were full. Where is the weight of the crew decks, the solar panels and batteries, life support equipment, docking mechanism, food, water, and cargo? These are not trivial things, and they weigh a lot. Proving an empty shell can achieve a suborbital flight and be just barely not be in orbit is not proof of anything useful.
If they had shown there was a significant amount of delta-v left with this empty test article, then that’s one thing. But those tanks had a whisper of fuel left in them. I don’t believe for a second that it would have gotten that close when it was full of over a hundred tons of additional equipment.
I can't say I know enough about the subject to agree or disagree in general, it seems pretty clear to me that these people are sore about the fact that the billion (trillion?) dollar corporation they pathetically stan for didn't make it to orbit.
Like I think it really gets to them.
DeltaV is the amount you can change your velocity in space.
To put it another way, if a semi truck company says it’s new truck can haul 20 tons of cargo 500 miles on one tank/charge, and then during the press release with an empty trailer, it has to pull to side of the road at 400 miles driven because it’s out of gas, do you think it can get to 500 miles when it has 20 tons in the back? And the previous 2 press releases had the vehicle spontaneously detonate just after leaving the driveway.
That’s what starship did, it ran out of gas at almost the finish line while completely empty. There’s no way it can get itself + 100 tons to orbit if it can’t even get itself to orbit.
The point is a more accurate analogy would be the truck pulling over after 494 miles, with plenty of charge left in the batteries, because they decided not to continue the test during rush hour.
Sure, technically they didn’t make 500 miles, but they were pretty damn close, encountered nothing preventing it, and chose not to for other reasons. Continuing those few extra miles serves no purpose at this time,and is arguably contrary to successful testing
Seriously... Are you drunk? There's been incredible progress. It's super exciting.
Also this is just an engine test at McGregor. They used to blow them up much more often as they were finding the limits. Nowadays it's much less common, hence why it's news when they broke one.
Sounds like a slogan for one of Stalin's "Five Year Plans."
Too bad that Mark Zuckerberg coined it as a motto for Facebook then, huh?
Garbage minds must think alike, then.
Lol what kind of comeback is that? We know he said that, dumbass, that was the entire point of their reference. Do you like... Not know who Stalin is?
Will every reader know that? Will every reader also know the finer nuances of the 3 downward arrows, one of them referring to Stalin's authoritarianism? I'm not here to score sick comebacks? 🤷♀️
Huh that's interesting...
Maybe we can hear directly from them about their views on Stalin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Arrows#Weimar_Republic
So lol at you falling for some kind of bullshit agitprop just so you can attempt a clever comeback on Lemmy.
I'm using it as a general anti-fascist symbol, and I like the idea of vandalizing swastikas with it.
Im authentically perplexed as to where we disagree and why you're in "sick dunk" mode. Do you think I'm simping for Stalin? The 3 arrows appeal to me for the same reasons they do you, seems.
Yeah it seemed like you were implying (or actually just saying) that one of the arrows refers to Stalin's authoritarianism. Which is a bad thing, right? Do we agree on that? And I have it as my profile pic... So I dunno how else I was supposed to take your comment?
And to be clear, again, it is not true that one of the arrows refers to Stalin in any way.
"Down with all forms of authoritarianism" is how i associate with the symbol. We do inded agree fash in any manifestation are a bad thing.
Meanwhile here in the Elon thread, I'd like for folks not to associate Communism with dead bigoted tyrants who usurped the unions-of-unions that were Soviets, while misattributing a quote from a capitalist whose competing to have as much blood on his hands as Stalin did.
Bruh, you brought Stalin up?
I'm so confused by what you're trying to say.
I didnt bring stalin up. The comment i was replying to misattributed (or "sounds like"'d, if you prefer) a quote from Zuckerberg to Stalin. That read to me as right-wing rhetoric, pushing red scare, equating Communism, the society which is classes, moneyless, stateless, and flattening that concept into "been-tried-already-Stalin's-Tyranny"
Which is pretty gross considering the big picture; the extensive harm which not only Zuck/ FB has done, not only by technocratic bro billionaires and corpo-owner social media as a trend, but the overall economic system and specifically imperial-colonial project which it is an extension of (colonizing of minds and thought, of our attention, to advertise to, for quarterly profit and power coupons) -- all the while doing their best to promote apathy.
To prefigure a betted society, we must be able to dream. The only thing doomerism does is give the owning class that apathy while they bulldoze over Sudan, Palestine, Rojava
Or at least thats how I see. All of the power and pleasure to all of the people. Hope that clears things up.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? Because my comment you replied to said nothing about Stalin or Zuckerberg or any of that shit. I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
My initial comment in this thread was in response to someone (maskenox?) conflating the two. (Neither of which i am fond of, to be abundantly clear)
Edit: also, yes? When i went and folded all the comments...ig your initial reply was also to the same comment? Even though the voyager app shows them as diff colors...yellow and orange...doesnt make it as obvious and it isnt clear when it indents and when not... 💀
Maybe you should check your history there as well