I’ve seen that math and something like that could work. Elon turned off the spigot on falcon heavy launches to create a bigger market for Starship.
Blue’s lander aggregates in a manner similar to what you describe, as did NASA’s original government reference design.
The other thing you’re talking about is basically Gateway. You’re pitching (more or less) the NASA concept circa 2019. :)
Oh c’mon.
Cannot possibly spin “blew up randomly during test prep” as a positive outcome. They probably don’t know how not to build that specific one unless they happened to instrument the faulty prop system components - they know that it failed but likely not why or how to fix it.
All evidence points to Starship having a super-finicky MPS that fails on the regular… which probably means they’re chasing performance by removing mass from the MPS and tank structure… which means either this design doesn’t work (totally possible) or that the as-built performance falls short of what was promised.
If you want to stan for Musk, I guess everyone has a type and I’m not going to shame you over it… but blowing up during test prep is not a good news story.
Maybe. Regardless, problem either in design or build.
Designing under-reinforced tanks indicates that the design can’t make payload and they’re cutting too far into structure allocations to make up for it.
Rupture could also be poor materials (sign of Boeing-style disregard for standards and safety) or a bad weld (same plus maybe training issues on the line). Means they’re running bad QA/QC protocols if the faulty material/construction made it to flight.
Chasing performance at the cost of safety sounds right down Musk’s alley.
Honestly curious about that. Anyone around know what the impact is? May need to get a NASA scientist involved… oh, wait, they all are getting fired. /sigh
Hey methane is a viable fuel for lots of stuff, no shade - it’s got lots of benefits, way easier to manage than liquid hydrogen.
Now, if what you’re thinking about is nuclear… YES. We desperately need prop sources that aren’t locked to the rocket equation. Give me a hybrid NEP/SEP and I’ll try to colonize Mars.
Tough to really throw even partial blame for global warming on chemical propulsion launches. Funny thought, though. :)
Go fast and break stuff is a viable way to rapidly iterate inside a known box, which is really what spaceX did with dragon and falcon. NASA gave them a big head start - they more or less had an engine design, more or less knew how to build a gn&c (even for propulsive return), more or less knew how to build the sticks… just wasn’t efficient or cost-effective. Cutting bits off to see if the overall system still operates is kinda how the relationship between govt and industry is supposed to work.
Starship isn’t iterating inside a known box. It’s not a smarter cheaper version of existing tech, it’s a whole new thing that Elon just kinda spoke into existence. It must be fun to have that kind of money and power, but it doesn’t mean the idea will ever actually work - and this is where the deliberate, methodical process that NASA uses becomes more valuable.
What’ll be interesting is when SpaceX starts missing payment milestones. I think they’ve gotten some grace in the past. Not sure the current environment is as permissive. Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s part of why Elon wants to shift the goalposts to Mars - it’d give him more time to sort out some of the fundamental challenges with his concept.
Feeling very conflicted about this. Glad the folks are safe. Worried about the implications for Artemis III and the agency. Pretty sure every failure so far has been in the prop system, which is troubling given that the whole strategy for Starship requires extraordinary advancement in prop transfer technology.
Hard to deny a bit of schadenfreude for Elon taking it in the shorts again. Curious if his antics have had morale implications in SpaceX that are helping to generate misses.
A reminder for folks that starship is only viable if they can routinely execute autonomous in-space cryogenic fuel transfers. This explosion appears to be the result of a problem in human-executed on-Earth cryogenic fuel transfer.
The president proposed cutting Artemis after Artemis III. Congress hasn’t yet agreed, so there’s a lot more to go and it wouldn’t affect the Artemis II launch.
I could be talked into Europe. Not so sure about Beijing. Folks that might be willing to go to china (at least in my neck of the woods) get weeded out pretty quick.
It’d require an Apollo-level investment and I think Europe is gonna be focused on more prosaic concerns.
I don’t think a brain drain is avoidable and I don’t think it’s undesirable for the current administration. Keeping a strong civil servant workforce doesn’t seem like a priority.
I think honestly it’s not just the conflict of interest threat that warrants someone in public office divesting themselves. We’re seeing that it’s better for the companies too - keeps them insulated from the impact of unpopular decisions.
SpaceX playing soccer with COPVs and then bolting them on the vehicle doesn’t feel like a more comforting answer but I agree it’s one I didn’t list. Not sure I understand why people would be rattling around inside the vehicle after a single engine test and then not re-running the single engine for a regression test.
/shrug, still you’re right. Unreported damage post-installation would totally do this, it’s just not a root cause I’ve seen. Would speak to a breakdown in safety culture for my folks, not sure what the safety culture looks like on the Starship line.