• D_C@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Shouldn’t it be called an explodyship? Or a boomship?

    For it to be called a starship it’d need to actually be able to get to the stars, and this one couldn’t even leave the ground.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Have they considered poisoning a few Texas towns like Tesla does? I mean, it’s free and the Texas state government encourages it, so why not? Maybe it’d help.

  • asg101@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Damn, I keep hoping they drill one into Mar-a-Lago when it is full of MAGAts. Maybe next time?

  • Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    SpaceX, ginormous fireworks for the wealthy anti-science bros.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      More like “science for me but not for thee.” Privately they’ll use any experimental medical tech to stay alive. They want technological innovation to allow them to survive climate change or a world war. They’ll yell about measles vaccines causing autism while privately vaccinating their kids. The spectacle is for those keeping them in power so they can take advantage of their power to stay ahead.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 minutes ago

      Probably because that one went up a bit and looks more glamorous than a big pile of wreckage on the ground.

  • cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Independent from views you can have on Elon, but “progress” of the Starship program doesn’t exactly instill confidence. I can’t help but think of “They’re evolving, just backwards”.

    • burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      They caught a few 1st stages and reflew one. That’s huge. If they weren’t trying to make a reusable 2nd stage, this program could be done and operational.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        That re-used first stage exploded when it started its final descent burn.

        I would not class that as ‘re-usability achieved’.

        No, no the program would not be done already.

        Also, the entire concept of Starship does not work if it is not reusable, unless you wanna build about 30 tanker craft to fuel it for a moon landing and return.

        And yes, thats about 30, not about 15 refueling flights, because almost a year ago now, Musk admitted his Starship+Booster combo is only actually capable of about 50 tons to orbit, not 100.

        Which is why now ‘version 2’ is being rushed.

        What is actually going on is massive quality control problems all across the board, especially the reliability of the plumbing and pumps, as well as the rocket engines themselves.

        Not only are the engines just unreliable, prone to failure, not being properly checked/repaired/rebuilt… they just fundamentally seem to be some combination of not as powerful and/or fuel efficient as was previously stated.

        • burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 hours ago

          The reused booster that blew up was coming in with an extra hot and stressing landing profile, so I wouldn’t read too much into that blowing up.

          I agree that they need to make reuse and refueling work for their proposed Artemis architecture to be viable. I’m saying they could be up and running as a traditional disposable upper stage already if they wanted to. 50 tons to LEO is a start. Add a kick stage and you can do some cool stuff with that.

          • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            A Falcon Heavy can already lift over 60 tons to orbit, expending only the central rocket, and recovering the boosters.

            Something under 50 tons in fully reusable mode, about 70 tons in fully expendable mode.

            I am no fan of Elon, but I do admit the Falcon platform actually works, works well, and works reliably.

            Why not just use a couple Falcon Heavy launches to send a modern equivalent of the Apollo Lunar Module, the Apollo Command and Service Module, mate them together in LEO, and maybe throw in a few more Falcon launches if you need to top up on fuel/supplies?

            The Lunar Module from Apollo would fit in a Falcon Heavy cargo fairing, as would the CSM.

            This would work to actually complete the general Artemis mission profile of just ‘get humans on moon and then return them.’

            this idea explored / described in more detail

            Oh, thats not enough pure stuff/people to the Moon? We want more stuff getting to the moon and back in each go?

            Ok, first send up basically an analogue of a CSM with docking ports all over it.

            Then send up two cargo modules and dock them symmetrically to the psuedo CSM. Then send up a translunar booster, then send up two lunar modules with crew.

            Now you have a stick with roughly a wheel on one end of it.

            )–===-|o

            )-- is the translunar rocket module

            === is the CSM

            (its not the 1960s so it can deploy solar panels and thermal radiative panels radially as well)

            -|o

            is the initial docking node thing that looks like a + when viewed head on, and its got two symmetrically connected cargo landers, and two symmetrically connected human landers.

            the o is your return crew to earth lander, either send that up along with your docking node thing, or another flight if it wont fit all together.

            Send this all to LLO, keep the CSM in LLO, drop off your people and cargo, do stuff on the moon, send the cargo landers and human landers back up to the CSM, go back to LEO, crew gets in the return lander, goes home, CSM and translunar engine stay in LEO.

            Now, send up a maintenenance crew in a dragon capsule, along with some supplies, they check out the CSM and translunar module and make sure its all good, ready to be reused.

            If it is, ok now send up some refuelling capsules and manually refuel, EVA if you have to.

            Now you have what is functionally a translunar tugboat, that can be reused for a while, and modularly refitted with supplies, crew, lunar cargo and crew modules, earth return modules.

            Now I am not saying all this is easy or guaranteed to work, but… why has Musk spent a decade chasing this giant mega rocket scheme, when he could have been … just attempting a more modular system like this, that he and clever engineers could figure out how to do with … probably not entirely, at least initially, but vast majority mostly recoverable and reusable rocket launches to LEO, and possibly even partially reusable two stage lunar cargo and crew modules?

            (Just send up some new landing modules for the bottom half of the lunar cargo/crew modules and maintain and refuel the lunar ascent engines)

            You could do some kind of configuration of modular parts in LEO as defined by the Falcon Heavy’s LEO launch capacity and how reusable vs how many components, how much assembly time you need… and just make a, or possibly many just modular lunar tugboats like this.

            Everything could also be tested, one segment at a time, instead of testing the whole thing at once and basically losing everything on any failure.

            Everything other than in orbit cryogenic refueling has already been proven possible to do by other people, other organizations.

            Now getting humans to Mars is a whole other story, but again, you could use a modular approach to assemble essentially a big boy version of this concept, but it would be more complex and difficult… you’re gonna need beefier martian lander/return modules, more LEO modular assembly required … but this way, you have construction happen either directed remotely or with mainteance crews, then you stock up on supplies and fuel, then you send people… and this is way more efficient in the long run as you dont have as much fuel boil off and martian bound crew just eating 3 to 6 months of rations and water while waiting for all the refuelling tankers to reach them, as is SpaceX’s current approach.

    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It would be funny if it wasn’t sponsored by taxpayers. Every blown up Starship is that many billions just, poof, gone. And yes, I know they do learn a great deal from failures as well, but the Apollo program didn’t have nearly as many issues…

      • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        sponsored by taxpayers.

        Eh, only kinda. NASA have agreed to purchase Starship launch services for the Artemis program, but they aren’t funding each test individually.

        Every blown up Starship is that many billions just, poof

        That’s money that SpaceX have to pay though, not NASA. The Starship contract for Artemis is fixed-price, not cost-plus. Whether SpaceX blow up one Starship or ten during the testing phase, NASA pay the same amount for the operational flights.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Apollo cost about 300 billion in today’s money, and spacex has gotten about 20 billion in contracts so far. Less than 10% of the cost.

        • martin4598@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Appolo did the job (with the exception of appolo 1). Because they paid the real price of a working program.

            • martin4598@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              What I’m trying to say is that there is a connection between the money invested and the quality of the result. SpaceX starship programs several times cheaper than the NASA Apollo program, but keeps failing. At the end of it, it will probably cost the same for a successful launch.

              • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                You realise NASA isn’t paying for the development of Starship, yes? If spacex doesn’t get it working on budget, it’s spacex who’s paying for it, not NASA.

                What I’m trying to say is that there is a connection between the money invested and the quality of the result.

                The space shuttle disagrees with you.

  • vermaterc@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I understand that people are mad at Musk, but despite that I can not really see any other organisations that have a potential of moving space exploration further. It just feels bad to me, I wanted Starship to happen