SpaceX Starship

We aren’t really struggling to launch a rocket. Look at how successful the recent Artemis test flight was. That’s all new generation technology which will take the next Americans to the moon.

This Space X rocket is a next step.
To be fair, SLS is space shuttle hardware from the 70s. Even with the existing hardware it took tens of billions of dollars and more than a decade to develop. Nasa is pretty much a government jobs program that occasionally launches rockets. I think eventually nasa will leave the launchers to private industry and stick to probes and rovers (which they do really well).
 
I lived by there for awhile. Incredible area out on the island. Great fishing!
OK, read up a little on this. Apparently Texas ecological areas have been upset with Space X debris for a couple years now.
Again, this stuff is cool, and I'm sure useful but it sounds like Space X doesn't have a good handle on this aspect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyDude16 and wxman1
The launch pad doesn't have anything to direct the exhaust into a particular direction. It simply blasts into the concrete below. Look at all the material flying around right before liftoff, I'm sure that was an issue with some of the engine outs. It was an issue with past static fires. SpaceX is building a flame diverter to help with the issue.
Back to this, if it's been an issue, why do they keep doing launches, especially if there's endangered species that can be impacted and engine failures on the rocket itself.

Is there some gigantic hurry to get this rocket flying for 4 minutes when basics like a proper launch site should be just as important?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyDude16
Back to this, if it's been an issue, why do they keep doing launches, especially if there's endangered species that can be impacted and engine failures on the rocket itself.

Is there some gigantic hurry to get this rocket flying for 4 minutes when basics like a proper launch site should be just as important?
Because as a private enterprise advancing the mission comes before anything else and the fanboys eat it up. Meanwhile very basic things and lessons that were learned DECADES ago are pushed to the side.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CloneIce
The press question SpaceX CEO on Thursday’s epic 420 failure:

“Elon, was your heart and mind elsewhere yesterday?”

LinearFlimsyBarracuda-max-1mb.gif
 
Because as a private enterprise advancing the mission comes before anything else and the fanboys eat it up. Meanwhile very basic things and lessons that were learned DECADES ago are pushed to the side.
SpaceX's way of doing things definitely comes with some hiccups. It's hard to argue the results though. Rapid progress is the only way forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NateTheBoss
SpaceX's way of doing things definitely comes with some hiccups. It's hard to argue the results though. Rapid progress is the only way forward.
Not disagreeing. But outright disregarding common practice/lessons learned from your grandparents is just idiocy. Not to mention the potential impacts ignoring those lessons will likely have on future approvals due to pressure from various groups.

We can agree to disagree but it is just another example of Elon's/SpaceXs arrogance. I watched with anticipation and think what they are doing is cool on several fronts but I just can't get past how lousy their business practices and sometimes decision making can be.
 
I love everything about this. I know there are so many reasons to hate this guy but my God he's changed the world for the better in so many ways. There has never been anyone close to him in my lifetime that has made this kind of impact.
Whoa there big fella. EM has an incredible knack for monetizing cutting edge science on a grand scale. For that society should be grateful. But you are really undermining a crapton of scientists whose incremental work has brought us to where we are today by giving Musk credit for being more than a grand scale capitalist.
 
Back to this, if it's been an issue, why do they keep doing launches, especially if there's endangered species that can be impacted and engine failures on the rocket itself.

Is there some gigantic hurry to get this rocket flying for 4 minutes when basics like a proper launch site should be just as important?
Yeah it is one of the bigger head scratchers. Definitely a cost/time savings gamble that did not payoff. Also worth noting that SpaceX doesn't have much launch pad infrastructure building experience as they lease pads at the Cape and Vandenberg. Including 39A which launched Saturn V and is basically a mountain of concrete and steel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wxman1
Whoa there big fella. EM has an incredible knack for monetizing cutting edge science on a grand scale. For that society should be grateful. But you are really undermining a crapton of scientists whose incremental work has brought us to where we are today by giving Musk credit for being more than a grand scale capitalist.

EM is very good at having an idea and then the money/drive to push to get there despite any amount of ridicule. Most of his success is on the backs of other people. He's not out there leading the design team for the rockets.

As far as the launch, how many Falcon 9 boosters did they blow up on the pad, then blow up in the air, then crash land while attempting to land on a recovery barge before they got it all right? SpaceX has always seemed to take a much more empirical (hold my beer!) approach to these things. NASA has always been more of a analytical/theoretical approach. Which was is more successful/productive probably depends on who is holding the checkbook and has to pay for it / face the scrutiny.
 
Yeah it is one of the bigger head scratchers. Definitely a cost/time savings gamble that did not payoff. Also worth noting that SpaceX doesn't have much launch pad infrastructure building experience as they lease pads at the Cape and Vandenberg. Including 39A which launched Saturn V and is basically a mountain of concrete and steel.

I can also see EM not wanting to spend the money on it because it's not "cool" (that's just a personal opinion). Remember how hyped up his traffic solution / The Boring Company was supposed to be? Then they got in there and realized oh hey, mining a tunnel underground isn't actually that easy, not all that practical, and there are already private companies that do this on a regular basis who are pretty damn efficient at it.
 
EM is very good at having an idea and then the money/drive to push to get there despite any amount of ridicule. Most of his success is on the backs of other people. He's not out there leading the design team for the rockets.

As far as the launch, how many Falcon 9 boosters did they blow up on the pad, then blow up in the air, then crash land while attempting to land on a recovery barge before they got it all right? SpaceX has always seemed to take a much more empirical (hold my beer!) approach to these things. NASA has always been more of a analytical/theoretical approach. Which was is more successful/productive probably depends on who is holding the checkbook and has to pay for it / face the scrutiny.
Yes, I remember people laughing about the falcon 9 and number of crashes. It's strange that these people haven't came back and mentioned how successful this program has become.

There is no doubt that he constantly over promises but I can't think of anyone else who has pushed progress so far in such a short time frame. He also forces other companies to improve or die.

I'll wait for other nominations.
 
Last edited:
SpaceX's way of doing things definitely comes with some hiccups. It's hard to argue the results though. Rapid progress is the only way forward.
Worked both sides of the fence. Private sector=risk=reward. Public sector=take no risks=promotion by not screwing up. Simple to understand why Musk progresses so much more rapidly, but may leave a greater wake.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron