User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 6:46:17 AM EDT
[#1]
Anybody seen pics from RGV yet that show the blast diverter berm they put up between the OLM and the Tank farm ?
I'm thinking that a bunch of debris busted lose from that. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 6:51:27 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuLun6jWcAo4kLO?format=png&name=360x360 The engine bells are relatively cool. The cryogenic liquid or very cold gaseous fuel is routed through them. Here's a video during a test fire with icicles forming on the engine bell while there's a blue flame coming out of the nozzle.  Icicles on NASA's CECE Engine |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 7:11:14 AM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 7:23:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ILfreedom]
[#4]
I believe NASA made an error in awarding the moon lander contract to Spacex. Starship requires 8 to 10 orbital refuelings in earth LEO to get to lunar orbit and then take the astronauts down to the surface. NASA isn't going to let men ride on that ship until it has a safety record at least as good as the Falcon 9.
Instead, Starship should just do unmanned cargo flights to deposit everything you need on the lunar surface to build a lunar base. Let some other company do the actual landings and then those astronauts can unload the cargo starship. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 8:19:59 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: I believe NASA made an error in awarding the moon lander contract to Spacex. Starship requires 8 to 10 orbital refuelings in earth LEO to get to lunar orbit and then take the astronauts down to the surface. NASA isn't going to let men ride on that ship until it has a safety record at least as good as the Falcon 9. Instead, Starship should just do unmanned cargo flights to deposit everything you need on the lunar surface to build a lunar base. Let some other company do the actual landings and then those astronauts can unload the cargo starship. NASA Astronauts aren't supposed to ride it till it docks with gateway, then ride down to the surface and back to gateway. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 8:30:55 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: NASA isn't going to let men ride on that ship until it has a safety record at least as good as the Falcon 9. That has always been the plan anyway, I'm confused why you don't think that will happen just like F9, how many of those did they lose before the manned missions? way more than starship probably. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 8:31:41 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By truculenity: NASA Astronauts aren't supposed to ride it till it docks with gateway, then ride down to the surface and back to gateway. Yep the whole thing is hilarious. Tiny module to tiny space station, then get in a 30 story building land on the moon and leave, then back to tiny capsule. |
|
|
|
SYC
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 8:35:48 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AJ-IN-JAX: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/86739/FB_IMG_1682066939197_jpg-2790421.JPG Ahh yes they forgot to add flamey end down to the code at stage sep |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 8:39:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Lab Padre's channel is showing smoke coming out of the Booster Quick Detach hut. Interesting.
Gas? Smoke? unclear  Starbase Rover 2.0 Cam SpaceX Starship Launch Complex |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 8:45:44 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By double_trouble_2003: Lab Padre's channel is showing smoke coming out of the Booster Quick Detach hut. Interesting. Gas? Smoke? unclear  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbBeoReu12EThey likely damaged equipment and controls used for safing the launch mount. It will take them time to safely recover and return to operations. |
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 8:46:12 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By truculenity: NASA Astronauts aren't supposed to ride it till it docks with gateway, then ride down to the surface and back to gateway. I'm quite aware of the process and understood that astronauts were only riding the Starship from lunar orbit down. But it's a waste to do this when Starship is more ideally designed as an autonomous cargo ship. I saw the first lunar landing when I was 12 years old. I'd like to see another one before I croak. Starship is not that answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 8:49:29 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Furloaf: The engine bells are relatively cool. The cryogenic liquid or very cold gaseous fuel is routed through them. Here's a video during a test fire with icicles forming on the engine bell while there's a blue flame coming out of the nozzle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smswUgtMTfAThat is wild! 
|
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 8:52:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ILfreedom]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: That has always been the plan anyway, I'm confused why you don't think that will happen just like F9, how many of those did they lose before the manned missions? way more than starship probably. Because the NASA timeline for the first moon landing in 2025 or 2026 isn't going to allow for that testing. 8 to 10 orbital refuelings,something that has never been done before, just to get Starship to the Gateway orbit? I understand that Spacex was low bidder for the lander but mark my words, it won't be Starship that lands astronauts on the moon. Eventually NASA will go with an alternate lander. Don't get me wrong here. I love the advancements that Spacex has done for mankind. But picking them for the lander was stupid of NASA. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:02:54 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: Because the NASA timeline for the first moon landing in 2025 or 2026 isn't going to allow for that testing. 8 to 10 orbital refuelings,something that has never been done before, just to get Starship to the Gateway orbit? I understand that Spacex was low bidder for the lander but mark my words, it won't be Starship that lands astronauts on the moon. Eventually NASA will go with an alternate lander. Don't get me wrong here. I love the advancements that Spacex has done for mankind. But picking them for the lander was stupid of NASA. But none of the others who bid on the contract had even a prototype, SpaceX was at least a few years ahead already. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:07:12 AM EDT
[#15]
There also just wasn't enough money in the NASA budget for any of the other options since SLS was billions over budget. It was either SpaceX or fly around the moon and wave.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:21:47 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By double_trouble_2003: Lab Padre's channel is showing smoke coming out of the Booster Quick Detach hut. Interesting. Gas? Smoke? unclear https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbBeoReu12ELooks like the stairs survived! Make everything out of stair material! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:33:48 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MFP_4073: so did it explode ? or not explode. i did not see an explosion --- did that occur at a high altitude ? I don't wanna explode |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:40:57 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mort: Isn't a Yard kind of like a meter, but wrong? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mort: Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44: Originally Posted By cgrant26: Originally Posted By AgeOne: they seriously underestimated the power of this thing. if I'm google earthing this right, that van was over 400 yards away. More like 1200+ ft. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203945/1273_starbase_NSF_JPG-2789941.JPG Do you know what a yard is? could you convert that to buses please, or Eiffel towers if it's more convenient? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:44:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: snakes19]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: Because the NASA timeline for the first moon landing in 2025 or 2026 isn't going to allow for that testing. 8 to 10 orbital refuelings,something that has never been done before, just to get Starship to the Gateway orbit? I understand that Spacex was low bidder for the lander but mark my words, it won't be Starship that lands astronauts on the moon. Eventually NASA will go with an alternate lander. Don't get me wrong here. I love the advancements that Spacex has done for mankind. But picking them for the lander was stupid of NASA. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: Originally Posted By DirkericPitt: That has always been the plan anyway, I'm confused why you don't think that will happen just like F9, how many of those did they lose before the manned missions? way more than starship probably. Because the NASA timeline for the first moon landing in 2025 or 2026 isn't going to allow for that testing. 8 to 10 orbital refuelings,something that has never been done before, just to get Starship to the Gateway orbit? I understand that Spacex was low bidder for the lander but mark my words, it won't be Starship that lands astronauts on the moon. Eventually NASA will go with an alternate lander. Don't get me wrong here. I love the advancements that Spacex has done for mankind. But picking them for the lander was stupid of NASA. 2025 seems completely off the table if the damage to Starbase is as significant as is speculated, they probably won't be able to do another test launch until sometime in 2024 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:47:55 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: I'm quite aware of the process and understood that astronauts were only riding the Starship from lunar orbit down. But it's a waste to do this when Starship is more ideally designed as an autonomous cargo ship. I saw the first lunar landing when I was 12 years old. I'd like to see another one before I croak. Starship is not that answer. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: Originally Posted By truculenity: NASA Astronauts aren't supposed to ride it till it docks with gateway, then ride down to the surface and back to gateway. I'm quite aware of the process and understood that astronauts were only riding the Starship from lunar orbit down. But it's a waste to do this when Starship is more ideally designed as an autonomous cargo ship. I saw the first lunar landing when I was 12 years old. I'd like to see another one before I croak. Starship is not that answer. Why do you say that? It's not today and it won't be tomorrow, but with their rapid prototyping and testing it could very well be in a year or two. Nothing is ready for it today and if we leave it to big space it'll cost 10+ trillion dollars and take 20 years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:50:41 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By snakes19: 2025 seems completely off the table if the damage to Starbase is as significant as is speculated, they probably won't be able to another test launch until sometime in 2024 Musk even stated that the hardest part of the program was the infrastructure, that it was very difficult to design and construct and was very time consuming. I really want to see aerial shots of the damage. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:55:51 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:01:03 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: ... I understand that Spacex was low bidder for the lander but mark my words, it won't be Starship that lands astronauts on the moon. Eventually NASA will go with an alternate lander. Don't get me wrong here. I love the advancements that Spacex has done for mankind. But picking them for the lander was stupid of NASA. I don't think you understand it at all. SpaceX did not get the HLS contract because they were the low bidder. They got the contract because they were the only bidder to submit an actual design that could work. Both of the other bids were basically "We kind of have an idea, but couldn't be bothered to fully develop it - so just give us a ton of money and maybe we'll build something someday." The Dynetics bid was basically of a design that couldn't work (because it didn't meet the mass requirements of the contract), and would have to be re-designed and the Blue Origin team bid basically admitted up front that their design didn't work and promised to design something new after they got the bid. Keep in mind, both Dynetics and the Blue Origin team were each given way more money by NASA up front to develop lander designs for the bid than SpaceX was given. Blue Origin was given almost $600 million up front, Dynetics was given $250 million up front, and SpaceX was given about $130 million - and guess who was the only company to actually come up with a realistic design?  I also don't think you understand how SpaceX operates. This was the first TEST (of many) of an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle. There are going to be tons and tons of tests, as they slowly iterate their way towards the final version. Once they have the final version, THEN they will start working more on reliability and safety and start worrying about getting it man-rated. Lots of Falcons blew up as the Falcon 9 was being developed, and now it is the ONLY man-rated rocket built by a US company and used by NASA. Why would Starship be any different? They are still in the very early stages. To immediately start clutching pearls and wringing hands about how people should never be on a fully developed Starship, just because a super-early test vehicle didn't work perfectly - missed the entire point of how the development process works. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:16:28 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I don't think you understand it at all. SpaceX did not get the HLS contract because they were the low bidder. They got the contract because they were the only bidder to submit an actual design that could work. Both of the other bids were basically "We kind of have an idea, but couldn't be bothered to fully develop it - so just give us a ton of money and maybe we'll build something someday." The Dynetics bid was basically of a design that couldn't work (because it didn't meet the mass requirements of the contract), and would have to be re-designed and the Blue Origin team bid basically admitted up front that their design didn't work and promised to design something new after they got the bid. Keep in mind, both Dynetics and the Blue Origin team were each given way more money by NASA up front to develop lander designs for the bid than SpaceX was given. Blue Origin was given almost $600 million up front, Dynetics was given $250 million up front, and SpaceX was given about $130 million - and guess who was the only company to actually come up with a realistic design? I also don't think you understand how SpaceX operates. This was the first TEST (of many) of an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle. There are going to be tons and tons of tests, as they slowly iterate their way towards the final version. Once they have the final version, THEN they will start working more on reliability and safety and start worrying about getting it man-rated. Lots of Falcons blew up as the Falcon 9 was being developed, and now it is the ONLY man-rated rocket built by a US company and used by NASA. Why would Starship be any different? They are still in the very early stages. To immediately start clutching pearls and wringing hands about how people should never be on a fully developed Starship, just because a super-early test vehicle didn't work perfectly - missed the entire point of how the development process works. Car rolls down a hill veers off the road and hits a tree. The engineers are excited by the successful test that shows it rolls well. Then some yahoo pipes up with "they should never put people in that... it'll never be safe." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:16:51 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By elcope:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2hxT_gXwAELbLP?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 too bad SpaceX got rid of both platforms. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:22:14 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_of_Orion: It's like looking at a test of a new car where the only things developed and being tested are the axles and the wheels. Everything else is a place holder so they can test the axles and the wheels. The purpose of the test is to see if it rolls well... Car rolls down a hill veers off the road and hits a tree. The engineers are excited by the successful test that shows it rolls well. Then some yahoo pipes up with "they should never put people in that... it'll never be safe." Yep, lol. Funny how Falcon went from this:  How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster To being one of the most reliable and cheap orbital launch vehicles in history. |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:23:28 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I don't think you understand it at all. SpaceX did not get the HLS contract because they were the low bidder. They got the contract because they were the only bidder to submit an actual design that could work. Both of the other bids were basically "We kind of have an idea, but couldn't be bothered to fully develop it - so just give us a ton of money and maybe we'll build something someday." The Dynetics bid was basically of a design that couldn't work (because it didn't meet the mass requirements of the contract), and would have to be re-designed and the Blue Origin team bid basically admitted up front that their design didn't work and promised to design something new after they got the bid. Keep in mind, both Dynetics and the Blue Origin team were each given way more money by NASA up front to develop lander designs for the bid than SpaceX was given. Blue Origin was given almost $600 million up front, Dynetics was given $250 million up front, and SpaceX was given about $130 million - and guess who was the only company to actually come up with a realistic design? I also don't think you understand how SpaceX operates. This was the first TEST (of many) of an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle. There are going to be tons and tons of tests, as they slowly iterate their way towards the final version. Once they have the final version, THEN they will start working more on reliability and safety and start worrying about getting it man-rated. Lots of Falcons blew up as the Falcon 9 was being developed, and now it is the ONLY man-rated rocket built by a US company and used by NASA. Why would Starship be any different? They are still in the very early stages. To immediately start clutching pearls and wringing hands about how people should never be on a fully developed Starship, just because a super-early test vehicle didn't work perfectly - missed the entire point of how the development process works. 10 pmag bet that Starship won't be the lander that puts astronauts on the moon. Ante up. We have plenty of time to wait on this. |
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:24:08 AM EDT
[#28]
The media bias against Elon is disgusting. Every headline I saw about this test implied it was a failure. I am not an Elon nut hugger but shit give the guy credit here as that launch was amazing and we are now another step closer to being able to truly go to Mars and the moon with ease.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:25:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: 10 pmag bet that Starship won't be the lander that puts astronauts on the moon. Ante up. We have plenty of time to wait on this. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: I don't think you understand it at all. SpaceX did not get the HLS contract because they were the low bidder. They got the contract because they were the only bidder to submit an actual design that could work. Both of the other bids were basically "We kind of have an idea, but couldn't be bothered to fully develop it - so just give us a ton of money and maybe we'll build something someday." The Dynetics bid was basically of a design that couldn't work (because it didn't meet the mass requirements of the contract), and would have to be re-designed and the Blue Origin team bid basically admitted up front that their design didn't work and promised to design something new after they got the bid. Keep in mind, both Dynetics and the Blue Origin team were each given way more money by NASA up front to develop lander designs for the bid than SpaceX was given. Blue Origin was given almost $600 million up front, Dynetics was given $250 million up front, and SpaceX was given about $130 million - and guess who was the only company to actually come up with a realistic design? I also don't think you understand how SpaceX operates. This was the first TEST (of many) of an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle. There are going to be tons and tons of tests, as they slowly iterate their way towards the final version. Once they have the final version, THEN they will start working more on reliability and safety and start worrying about getting it man-rated. Lots of Falcons blew up as the Falcon 9 was being developed, and now it is the ONLY man-rated rocket built by a US company and used by NASA. Why would Starship be any different? They are still in the very early stages. To immediately start clutching pearls and wringing hands about how people should never be on a fully developed Starship, just because a super-early test vehicle didn't work perfectly - missed the entire point of how the development process works. 10 pmag bet that Starship won't be the lander that puts astronauts on the moon. Ante up. We have plenty of time to wait on this. Which account should he contact to collect? This one's not on a good arc for longevity. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:31:29 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: too bad SpaceX got rid of both platforms. Launch pad sheriff, came in after booster test and said, "You're going to need a bigger offshore platform." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:32:29 AM EDT
[#31]
Chris Hadfield on SpaceX rocket exploding: It was 'enormously successful'
 Chris Hadfield on SpaceX rocket exploding: It was 'enormously successful' |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:35:11 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wyorock: The media bias against Elon is disgusting. Every headline I saw about this test implied it was a failure. I am not an Elon nut hugger but shit give the guy credit here as that launch was amazing and we are now another step closer to being able to truly go to Mars and the moon with ease. Media headlines Elon Musk loses $16 BILLION on rocket exploding. Elon Musk lowers the price of Tesla's a THIRD Time. Elon Musk's Tesla cashes into a truck. Twitter is failing... Every since he was red pilled the media has been going after him 24/7 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:39:06 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: I don't love him and I don't hate him. I wanted to see this launch complete its mission, even in it's final iteration I wanted it to be successful. Elon owns this one IMHO, he pushed too hard and I imagine against heavy opposition within his closest team members. And now his response is "everything is old and outdated so we decided to let it go" Really ? That's a huge cop out for something that's about 2 years old, he is just trying to cover his own ass and push the fail blame on somebody else and not own it. Cutting corners bit him in the ass today, HARD. But he will pick up the pieces and move on because he want's to and has to at this point, he just has too much invested in it to quit. He should have listened to his seasoned engineers instead of firing them and bringing on new guys with bigger and better ideas that pitch a fit because triple A didn't show up in time to change their flat tire. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:45:44 AM EDT
[#34]
Some damage
 SpaceX Starship Launch Here is Some of The Damage Round Starbase After It Left The Pad |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:45:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: LurkerII]
[#35]
All the fault of the extremist enviroweenies/PEA/EPA/extreme regulations.
Who gives 2 fucks if deluge water kills a few fish? You have to break some eggs to make an omelet. The multi-year PEA process was more than ridiculous. Animal crossings, education centers/signs and ocelot protection? Really EPA? We would have never flown to the moon if we had all these extremist regulations in the 60s. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:53:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Hesperus]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LurkerII: All the fault of the extremist enviroweenies/PEA/EPA/extreme regulations. Who gives 2 fucks if deluge water kills a few fish? You have to break some eggs to make an omelet. The multi-year PEA process was more than ridiculous. Animal crossings, education centers/signs and ocelot protection? Really EPA? We would have never flown to the moon if we had all these extremist regulations in the 60s. “How dare you spend so much as one dime on space travel as long as we have a single homeless person in this country!?” “Humanity is a curse on this holy Earth and we deserve to die here.” Blah, blah, blah. Just another religious belief/control system in my view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:53:17 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I don't think you understand it at all. SpaceX did not get the HLS contract because they were the low bidder. They got the contract because they were the only bidder to submit an actual design that could work. Both of the other bids were basically "We kind of have an idea, but couldn't be bothered to fully develop it - so just give us a ton of money and maybe we'll build something someday." The Dynetics bid was basically of a design that couldn't work (because it didn't meet the mass requirements of the contract), and would have to be re-designed and the Blue Origin team bid basically admitted up front that their design didn't work and promised to design something new after they got the bid. Keep in mind, both Dynetics and the Blue Origin team were each given way more money by NASA up front to develop lander designs for the bid than SpaceX was given. Blue Origin was given almost $600 million up front, Dynetics was given $250 million up front, and SpaceX was given about $130 million - and guess who was the only company to actually come up with a realistic design? I also don't think you understand how SpaceX operates. This was the first TEST (of many) of an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle. There are going to be tons and tons of tests, as they slowly iterate their way towards the final version. Once they have the final version, THEN they will start working more on reliability and safety and start worrying about getting it man-rated. Lots of Falcons blew up as the Falcon 9 was being developed, and now it is the ONLY man-rated rocket built by a US company and used by NASA. Why would Starship be any different? They are still in the very early stages. To immediately start clutching pearls and wringing hands about how people should never be on a fully developed Starship, just because a super-early test vehicle didn't work perfectly - missed the entire point of how the development process works. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By ILfreedom: ... I understand that Spacex was low bidder for the lander but mark my words, it won't be Starship that lands astronauts on the moon. Eventually NASA will go with an alternate lander. Don't get me wrong here. I love the advancements that Spacex has done for mankind. But picking them for the lander was stupid of NASA. I don't think you understand it at all. SpaceX did not get the HLS contract because they were the low bidder. They got the contract because they were the only bidder to submit an actual design that could work. Both of the other bids were basically "We kind of have an idea, but couldn't be bothered to fully develop it - so just give us a ton of money and maybe we'll build something someday." The Dynetics bid was basically of a design that couldn't work (because it didn't meet the mass requirements of the contract), and would have to be re-designed and the Blue Origin team bid basically admitted up front that their design didn't work and promised to design something new after they got the bid. Keep in mind, both Dynetics and the Blue Origin team were each given way more money by NASA up front to develop lander designs for the bid than SpaceX was given. Blue Origin was given almost $600 million up front, Dynetics was given $250 million up front, and SpaceX was given about $130 million - and guess who was the only company to actually come up with a realistic design? I also don't think you understand how SpaceX operates. This was the first TEST (of many) of an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle. There are going to be tons and tons of tests, as they slowly iterate their way towards the final version. Once they have the final version, THEN they will start working more on reliability and safety and start worrying about getting it man-rated. Lots of Falcons blew up as the Falcon 9 was being developed, and now it is the ONLY man-rated rocket built by a US company and used by NASA. Why would Starship be any different? They are still in the very early stages. To immediately start clutching pearls and wringing hands about how people should never be on a fully developed Starship, just because a super-early test vehicle didn't work perfectly - missed the entire point of how the development process works. It seems that nearly everyone looks at the Saturn V program and forgets that: 1. NASA blew a lot of stuff up in the 1950's in the development process. Failure rates in some test programs were as high as 50% 2. NASA considered Von Braun and his team to be anomalous in just how much stuff they didn't blow up during development. 3. NASA attributes Von Braun and his teams success in a large part to the fact that by Saturn V, Von Braun and his team had been working together, blowing stuff up and watching others blow stuff up since the 1930's. SpaceX on the otherhand, their development process is absolute shit. /s |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:56:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LurkerII: We would have never |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:57:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: LurkerII]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RinsableTick: We would be still living in caves, except with NO CAMPFIRES!!! CARBON OH NOES! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:58:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: I believe NASA made an error in awarding the moon lander contract to Spacex. Starship requires 8 to 10 orbital refuelings in earth LEO to get to lunar orbit and then take the astronauts down to the surface. NASA isn't going to let men ride on that ship until it has a safety record at least as good as the Falcon 9. Instead, Starship should just do unmanned cargo flights to deposit everything you need on the lunar surface to build a lunar base. Let some other company do the actual landings and then those astronauts can unload the cargo starship. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:00:08 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: Because the NASA timeline for the first moon landing in 2025 or 2026 isn't going to allow for that testing. 8 to 10 orbital refuelings,something that has never been done before, just to get Starship to the Gateway orbit? I understand that Spacex was low bidder for the lander but mark my words, it won't be Starship that lands astronauts on the moon. Eventually NASA will go with an alternate lander. Don't get me wrong here. I love the advancements that Spacex has done for mankind. But picking them for the lander was stupid of NASA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:00:43 AM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:01:33 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirkericPitt: There also just wasn't enough money in the NASA budget for any of the other options since SLS was billions over budget. It was either SpaceX or fly around the moon and wave. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:04:33 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I don't think you understand it at all. SpaceX did not get the HLS contract because they were the low bidder. They got the contract because they were the only bidder to submit an actual design that could work. Both of the other bids were basically "We kind of have an idea, but couldn't be bothered to fully develop it - so just give us a ton of money and maybe we'll build something someday." The Dynetics bid was basically of a design that couldn't work (because it didn't meet the mass requirements of the contract), and would have to be re-designed and the Blue Origin team bid basically admitted up front that their design didn't work and promised to design something new after they got the bid. Keep in mind, both Dynetics and the Blue Origin team were each given way more money by NASA up front to develop lander designs for the bid than SpaceX was given. Blue Origin was given almost $600 million up front, Dynetics was given $250 million up front, and SpaceX was given about $130 million - and guess who was the only company to actually come up with a realistic design? I also don't think you understand how SpaceX operates. This was the first TEST (of many) of an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle. There are going to be tons and tons of tests, as they slowly iterate their way towards the final version. Once they have the final version, THEN they will start working more on reliability and safety and start worrying about getting it man-rated. Lots of Falcons blew up as the Falcon 9 was being developed, and now it is the ONLY man-rated rocket built by a US company and used by NASA. Why would Starship be any different? They are still in the very early stages. To immediately start clutching pearls and wringing hands about how people should never be on a fully developed Starship, just because a super-early test vehicle didn't work perfectly - missed the entire point of how the development process works. Now, iirc, not sure if it was in any of those huge spending bills but there will be a second lander because Congress was SO pissed SX was the only one chosen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:05:10 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryA bit of a head scratcher at the number of mobile machines/equipment that were left on-site. I can only assume it speaks to how much they underestimated the resulting shrapnel. I'm guessing stage 0 is going to be a bigger engineering challenge than 1 or 2 is... and it's harder to iterate through design changes. Awesome stuff though... just awesome. |
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:07:39 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: I don't think you understand it at all. SpaceX did not get the HLS contract because they were the low bidder. They got the contract because they were the only bidder to submit an actual design that could work. Both of the other bids were basically "We kind of have an idea, but couldn't be bothered to fully develop it - so just give us a ton of money and maybe we'll build something someday." The Dynetics bid was basically of a design that couldn't work (because it didn't meet the mass requirements of the contract), and would have to be re-designed and the Blue Origin team bid basically admitted up front that their design didn't work and promised to design something new after they got the bid. Keep in mind, both Dynetics and the Blue Origin team were each given way more money by NASA up front to develop lander designs for the bid than SpaceX was given. Blue Origin was given almost $600 million up front, Dynetics was given $250 million up front, and SpaceX was given about $130 million - and guess who was the only company to actually come up with a realistic design? I also don't think you understand how SpaceX operates. This was the first TEST (of many) of an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle. There are going to be tons and tons of tests, as they slowly iterate their way towards the final version. Once they have the final version, THEN they will start working more on reliability and safety and start worrying about getting it man-rated. Lots of Falcons blew up as the Falcon 9 was being developed, and now it is the ONLY man-rated rocket built by a US company and used by NASA. Why would Starship be any different? They are still in the very early stages. To immediately start clutching pearls and wringing hands about how people should never be on a fully developed Starship, just because a super-early test vehicle didn't work perfectly - missed the entire point of how the development process works. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By ILfreedom: ... I understand that Spacex was low bidder for the lander but mark my words, it won't be Starship that lands astronauts on the moon. Eventually NASA will go with an alternate lander. Don't get me wrong here. I love the advancements that Spacex has done for mankind. But picking them for the lander was stupid of NASA. I don't think you understand it at all. SpaceX did not get the HLS contract because they were the low bidder. They got the contract because they were the only bidder to submit an actual design that could work. Both of the other bids were basically "We kind of have an idea, but couldn't be bothered to fully develop it - so just give us a ton of money and maybe we'll build something someday." The Dynetics bid was basically of a design that couldn't work (because it didn't meet the mass requirements of the contract), and would have to be re-designed and the Blue Origin team bid basically admitted up front that their design didn't work and promised to design something new after they got the bid. Keep in mind, both Dynetics and the Blue Origin team were each given way more money by NASA up front to develop lander designs for the bid than SpaceX was given. Blue Origin was given almost $600 million up front, Dynetics was given $250 million up front, and SpaceX was given about $130 million - and guess who was the only company to actually come up with a realistic design? I also don't think you understand how SpaceX operates. This was the first TEST (of many) of an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle. There are going to be tons and tons of tests, as they slowly iterate their way towards the final version. Once they have the final version, THEN they will start working more on reliability and safety and start worrying about getting it man-rated. Lots of Falcons blew up as the Falcon 9 was being developed, and now it is the ONLY man-rated rocket built by a US company and used by NASA. Why would Starship be any different? They are still in the very early stages. To immediately start clutching pearls and wringing hands about how people should never be on a fully developed Starship, just because a super-early test vehicle didn't work perfectly - missed the entire point of how the development process works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:15:39 AM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:17:54 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JQ66: The real tragedy is, they had planned the booster to separate and make a water landing. If the booster did not immediately sink, the commentators said the boat crew planned to shoot it with guns to make it sink So what guns did they have for the task? You’d think they would want something substantial- .50 cal. Maybe some Barretts? Why can’t my employer let us shoot something? We do send out armor samples to APG for testing, but we don’t get to do that, and that’s a quite different manner of shooting. Back a few years ago for the first proposed launch, we got a request for support, and a test opportunity for us, to shoot it with 30mm and 105mm!! That was going to be hotly competed for! |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:18:16 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmnoid77: Which account should he contact to collect? This one's not on a good arc for longevity. You joined Arf in 2008. I joined in 2023. I'm failing to see the difference here. Is there some unspoken rule on longevity of accounts I don't understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:19:18 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kallnojoy: A bit of a head scratcher at the number of mobile machines/equipment that were left on-site. I can only assume it speaks to how much they underestimated the resulting shrapnel. I'm guessing stage 0 is going to be a bigger engineering challenge than 1 or 2 is... and it's harder to iterate through design changes. Awesome stuff though... just awesome. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kallnojoy: A bit of a head scratcher at the number of mobile machines/equipment that were left on-site. I can only assume it speaks to how much they underestimated the resulting shrapnel. I'm guessing stage 0 is going to be a bigger engineering challenge than 1 or 2 is... and it's harder to iterate through design changes. Awesome stuff though... just awesome. The SxS's look to be in pretty good shape considering. I've seen man lifts in much worse condition, that didn't have a front row seat to a building taking flight.....those things are a damage magnet on a job site.  Pretty sure the vehicles are from reporters / streamers and not SpaceX owned. Considering how close everything is there and the amount of power shot into the ground completely uncontrolled....I'm surprised there wasn't more damage. The concrete repair / replacement depending on what they plan to do is probably their biggest concern right now. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
