NASA & World Space Exploration...News, Views, Photos & videos
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Exploding two fully constructed rockets to prove that 1 the launch pad works and 2 hot seperation works is very expensive and inefficient way of doing things. With so many materialistic destructions (which equates to manhours) I fail to see what this "quick iteration" method saves.
It doesn't save anything. It is a waste of resources. The Soviets used to use this testing method in the start of their rocket program. It was based on artillery testing. The initial versions of the R-7 rocket were highly unreliable and it took many tens of launches until the rocket became reliable. But as rockets became more complicated and expensive, this testing method showed its limitations. This led to the failure that was the N-1 rocket program.
Rather amazingly SpaceX did a lot more ground testing with the Falcon than they are doing with this rocket. You would expect that with a more complex and expensive rocket they would increase testing to save waste but it's the opposite.
Rather amazingly SpaceX did a lot more ground testing with the Falcon than they are doing with this rocket. You would expect that with a more complex and expensive rocket they would increase testing to save waste but it's the opposite.
The launch pad thing is indeed an idiotic waste of time but for the hot separation I would argue isn't that bad. With so many engines and all that new stuff I don't think its that bad of an idea to "quickly" iterate on it rather than spent year(s) on the drawing board instead
I don't think SpaceX's development method is wrong but there is always a balance to be made. Too quick of an iteration and at some point you are basically doing "rookie" mistakes and wasting your time.
In any case, SpaceX's results speak for them. Their program is making progress and as long as they hit their goal from their hey can use whatever development method they want
I think what this method saves, is time.
Manhours ultimately is something which is a reflection of money and resources and will -- but days, months and years is something that cannot be clawed back. If the money, and resources and will is there to enable them to waste enough rockets to reach a mature VTVL superheavy reusable first stage years earlier than the next competitor, then that's a huge amount of a head start that can be achieved.
Of course that is also entirely dependent on whether the organization can survive until they reach that point, which is not something every organization can do.
I don’t know if Starship will ultimately be a success or failure, but certainly getting something that large with 33 engines into the air is very impressive. The speed of the program is also very impressive. A lot of people threw shade after the first launch attempt and the problems with the launch pad, but they seemed to resolve those faster then people anticipated.
I don’t like Elon Musk, but I think people need to stop doubting SpaceX. This program might end up a failure, but I am not going to bet against them at this stage. I don’t know what to call it, but they basically have lighting in a bottle right now. They are taking huge risks and yet still pulling off wins.
I don’t like Elon Musk, but I think people need to stop doubting SpaceX. This program might end up a failure, but I am not going to bet against them at this stage. I don’t know what to call it, but they basically have lighting in a bottle right now. They are taking huge risks and yet still pulling off wins.
No engine failures on the first stage.
Successful(*) hot staging.
Proper separation.
Turn around for the booster.
Duration flight for the 'Starship.' Telemetry was lost just prior to or just at most of the engine shutdown of the starship.
*. may have contributed to the booster failure after staging.
What matters is results. People can argue and argue, but in the end of the day, SpaceX is the one which is almost reaching into orbit with its Spaceship program.
Do more, talk less. Talkers are billions among us, actual doers are a very tiny percentage