Space Things

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

i'm guessing they'll add them on later. I misspoke as well, it's the booster that doesn't have landing legs and is designed to be snagged out of the air.

Yeah, booster is going to be caught. Starship has landing legs, which I think can be seen here, but if those aren't them then they could have omitted them from the test flights because the ITF1 and ITF2 planned on splash landings.

[Unplugem]

Ouch!!!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Ouch!!!

[url]

That is clearly a reflection of light hiding the side of the rotated microphone that you can clearly see it is in front of him. The angle is all wrong, but I don't get why you think they had to CGI the microphone in his hand? I mean the camera quality is crap here. Bigfoot could have walked through the frame, and it would look like a brown rug is drifting by.

[Irace86.2.0]

I found this video of IFT2. It was shorter than the long format video posted prior. Still amazing feat.

[ZDan]

I'd call the 1st launch an abject failure, mainly due to someone not believing massive amounts of water is *required* to reduce acoustic energy into the bottom of the ship along with a dozen or so other considerations, and also thinking it'd be cute to launch on "4/20".

2nd launch I'd agree *mostly* successful, but still, failure of booster and failure of Starship.

If it works, it works, but I still have my doubts that it can be made reliable enough to launch 20 times in a short enough time to fully tank a lunar lander. It's just a hideously inelegant solution, stark contrast to Apollo.

I do have to think there must be a *much* better way...

Another thing is I think that they expanded mission scope vs. Apollo too much. It's a BIG step from setting 2 people down on the moon for a day or so and bringing them straight back.

Anyway, we shall see...

[Dadhawk]

@Irace86.2.0 post above....

I hadn't noticed before what appeared to be issues with the reignition of the booster engines after separation (based on the engine graphic on the left).That definitely explains the self-destruct, particularly given the issue seems to have been primarily with the steering engines in the center, the outer ring being non-steerable.

It also looks like Starship reached it's suborbital altitude, something else I hadn't noticed before. It just didn't stick the landing at the end. I have to admit it was "this close".

[Unplugem]

[86league]

Originally Posted by ZDan

If it works, it works, but I still have my doubts that it can be made reliable enough to launch 20 times in a short enough time to fully tank a lunar lander.

If it takes ~20 launches to get enough fuel to go to the moon, how many launches is it going to take to fully fuel a mars mission?

Thought that was the point of starship? Using it as a lunar lander is kind of like hammering a square peg into a round hole. Sure you can make it fit, but the result won't be pretty.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I'd call the 1st launch an abject failure, mainly due to someone not believing massive amounts of water is *required* to reduce acoustic energy into the bottom of the ship along with a dozen or so other considerations, and also thinking it'd be cute to launch on "4/20".

2nd launch I'd agree *mostly* successful, but still, failure of booster and failure of Starship.

If it works, it works, but I still have my doubts that it can be made reliable enough to launch 20 times in a short enough time to fully tank a lunar lander. It's just a hideously inelegant solution, stark contrast to Apollo.

I do have to think there must be a *much* better way...

Another thing is I think that they expanded mission scope vs. Apollo too much. It's a BIG step from setting 2 people down on the moon for a day or so and bringing them straight back.

Anyway, we shall see...

There was a plan to put a metal plate, but yes, they wanted to get the ship launched on 4/20, yet the engineers were under the impression that the deck would hold for several more launches before it NEEDED to be reinforced. That was an expensive and unfortunate miscalculation.

I agree that it isn't elegant and seems overcomplicated, but only in relation to Apollo. In light of what they plan to do for Mars, it seems entirely necessary. We basically need an ISS around the moon like we do earth.

I agree too. We will have to wait and see.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

@Irace86.2.0 post above....

I hadn't noticed before what appeared to be issues with the reignition of the booster engines after separation (based on the engine graphic on the left).That definitely explains the self-destruct, particularly given the issue seems to have been primarily with the steering engines in the center, the outer ring being non-steerable.

It also looks like Starship reached it's suborbital altitude, something else I hadn't noticed before. It just didn't stick the landing at the end. I have to admit it was "this close".

Yeah, looks like it lost power/control of some of the center engines. I don't know if the ring was suppose to light then or after or not at all, but it is clear the gimbal engines didn't all light and then more failed and then boom.

Firing up the engines is not an easy process. Musk was basically saying it is a delicate orchestra of pressure, temperature and timing in a sequence that needs to play out like a ballet. Convo starts at 9:20. I guess we will have to wait for the findings when they get released.

People can say what they want about Musk, but the dude is an engineer at heart. You can tell that. He knows more about the specifics of the rockets, cars, batteries, etc. than most CEOs.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

[url[/url]

That is what photographers call a reflection. Hard to tell with the grainy image if it is a reflection of the image of the station off the lens of the window from a display screen inside the ship, or if it is reflection of the ISS overhead refracting off the lens of the window.

Spend a few bucks and rent some time with a powerful telescope and video/see the ISS yourself. It is right up there, plain as day. I've seen it. Check for yourself.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 86league

If it takes ~20 launches to get enough fuel to go to the moon, how many launches is it going to take to fully fuel a mars mission?

Thought that was the point of starship? Using it as a lunar lander is kind of like hammering a square peg into a round hole. Sure you can make it fit, but the result won't be pretty.

We need more fuel to leave mars than we do to leave the moon because of gravity, but the long term plan is to harvest propellants on Mars and the moon. The long term plan involves robots and factories.

In the meantime, the fuel needed to go to Mars isn't as signifiant as you may think. The velocity needed to go to the moon could be maintained to go to Mars. It just takes a lot longer like months instead of days. It only takes fuel to accelerate and decelerate and break the pull of gravity. The first missions to Mars will probably be complex to get to a refueling point, but they will likely be similar to Apollo missions where we go, we orbit, we land, and we pull out, and sling shot back--no staging.

It would be nice to be accelerating the whole time, which is the fastest way to get there, but that would be miserable for the crew. If we had the fuel to do that then the trip would be shorter, but half the time would be positive acceleration and then half the time with negative acceleration (deceleration). Imagine pulling g's or having a steady acceleration for weeks just to shorten the trip from six months to days or weeks. It would be terrible.

[Unplugem]

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

People can say what they want about Musk, but the dude is an engineer at heart. You can tell that. He knows more about the specifics of the rockets, cars, batteries, etc. than most CEOs.

You don't know much about him, do you. He is an idiot. His code was too terrible to be usable for PayPal, he mucked up the original Tesla Roadster, and the people who really run SpaceX are only able to do so by controlling Musk to keep his terrible judgement from derailing progress.

He is a grifter at heart. He is almost always WRONG. He is not an engineer. He is not a scientist. He is a grifter.