620
Massive explosion rocks SpaceX Texas facility, Starship engine in flames
(interestingengineering.com)
this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
620 points (92.1% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
2617 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is it ok to shit on NASA for dumping so much money into developing Starship?
Also the SLS doesn't seem much better. But at least they've been around the moon on the SLS.
Personally I'd rather they work on developing spacecraft that can be launch on Falcon 9 or Falcon 9 Heavies, even if it meant multiple launches and assembling things at the ISS before going to the Moon and onwards. Doing this during the Apollo era was difficult because docking operations weren't all that reliable and there was no ISS back then so giant rockets was the way to go. But things have changed and dumping insane amounts of money into building massive rockets seems like a waste of money and probably isn't as safe as using proven rocket systems.
Are you joking? The SLS is a pretty major step backward for American spaceflight. If we continue flying the SLS, and make all the launches we plan (spoiler alert, that isn't going to happen) then the cost per launch could be as low as $2 billion. But more likely we will end the SLS program when it proves to be a never ending money sink, and with so much money put into development, we'll end up with a per launch cost upwards of $5 billion. Meanwhile, for that price it can only manage to get 95 tons to low Earth orbit.
Compare this to the Saturn V, which could lift more and cost much less, even when adjusted for inflation. The Saturn V cost $185 million, or $1.23 billion adjusting for inflation. And it could put 141 tons into low Earth orbit.
To sum up, this new rocket is much less capable and much more expensive than what we were doing 55 years ago.
You could of course also compare this to what spaceX is doing... Their aim is to make a rocket of similar payload capability 100-150t, but with a per launch cost of about $100 million via reusability. That's an order of magnitude of improvement, that's huge.
Then why arent we building Saturn Vs?
That's actually a really good question. The short answer is that we don't remember how to. A lot of the techniques used to actually make the parts were poorly documented. That was partly on purpose, everything was top secret because we didn't want the Russians to know how we were doing it all. And now, all the people who did those jobs have gotten old and left the industry.
Elon Musk promises a lot of things, but doesn't have a good track record on delivering.
SLS has at least been around the moon. I agree that it's a step backwards, but Starship is two steps backwards. Just seems to be a knock-off of the Space Shuttle (which also proved to be a bad idea) that's being developed by just blowing shit up. I hope I'm wrong about Starship, it would be awesome it it worked. But it's the same goes fore the Space Shuttle too.
SpaceX has already blown through $5 billion and hasn't launched anything yet. Well yeah I guess they got it into space briefly... spinning out of control until it burnt up. They haven't even gotten to the part of testing to make see if the heat tiles that we see peeling off the thing will make it go full Columbia on a regular basis. If it ever works it'll be a long time before that thing gets man rated.
Like I say, SLS sucks but it's has a successful launch and has gotten around the Moon. Actually successful not SpaceX "successful".
SpaceX is currently losing the "bad idea space race" to NASA. The only winners in the Space race will be the billionaires that'll make a lot of money from making giant rockets that go nowhere.
SpaceX has a fantastic track record of delivering. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. Just look at the dragon capsule and compare that to Boeing's Starliner. They got funding to the exact same thing and they started work around the same time. So far dragon has done 10 cargo missions and 13 crew missions without any major problems. The Starliner has done 1 test mission in which there were major problems (including a parachute that didn't deploy... yikes), and only recently, years later, 1 crew mission.
Is the SLS a failure? I guess not... but it's not worth the 30 billion we have already put into it for a technological step backward. Calling it a success is like calling the Concord a success, that vehicle flew too.
But the idea that spaceX is losing the space race is just laughable. They're clearly dominating the space race. They put the Russian commercial launch program completely out of business (the Russian space program actually named SpaceX as the reason they gave up). These days SpaceX launches more rockets than the rest of the world combined. Through the savings they see with reusability they can undercut all their competition and still make a great profit. The starship promises to do that to a much greater extent. They're on track to be able to produce these for something in the area of 100 million a piece, and then be able to reuse them up to 100 times. This could bring launch costs down immensely. Can you imagine launching 100 tons to orbit for $10 million? Think of all the things that would suddenly be possible.
SpaceX is essentially two companies. One company uses the Falcon 9 launch system, launches from Cape Canaveral and is very successful. The other company is directed by Elon Musk and launches giant fireworks from Boca Chica.
The Boca Chica SpaceX is burning money and does lame brained shit like not building a proper launch pad just chucking whatever up there. This siphons off money from the Falcon SpaceX which takes away from improving the Falcon 9 launch system, and also siphons off money from NASA.
Given that they're throwing away money at Boca Chica, other competitors will catch up and overtake the Falcon 9.
Kinda like Tesla not improving quality control and doing stupid shit like the Cyber Truck and allowing competitors to catch up in making sensible EVs.
Musk is an idiot but no one can tell him no at his companies. At least SpaceX was smart enough to send him to Boca Chica to play around so he wouldn't screw up the part of the business that actually works.
Well, basically that whole post is simply incorrect.
SpaceX is definitely 1 company the whole company has the same CEO (Gwynne Shotwell) who oversees the whole operation. And for what it's worth, the highly successful falcon 9 definitely was one of those "Lame brained" ideas once. "Landing an orbital class rocket is ****impossible" that was the prevailing wisdom, because it had never been done before. SpaceX is experimenting, figuring out what's actually possible and redesigning a rocket from the ground up. The falcon 9 was the first phase of redesigning, it proved that you can make a rocket cheaper and you can further optimize a staged combustion cycle rocket engine, more than anyone has in the past, and finally it proved that you can land a booster and reuse it. The starship is phase two of that process, (Reusing the whole thing). They've switched from kerosene to methane, a change that will make engines much more reliable for extended use. They've figured out how to make very large rocket bodies out of sheet metal. And they've figured out how to mass produce the first ever reliable full flow staged combustion engines (That's a very big deal)! In short, nothing about Starship is "Lame brained".
The boca chica facility is not taking money away from development of falcon 9, there is no development of falcon 9, it's done, the design set in stone. Ever since they started ferrying astronauts NASA needs them to stick with a set design. They got that design (called block 3) approved for crew use by NASA and from this point on they're only allowed to make very minor changes to the rocket.
I actually agree that Musk has some problems and seriously needs some people who can tell him "no". He needs that in his companies and he needs that at home, I think he's got some addictions he needs to deal with before they ruin him.
Gwynne Shotwell is not the CEO of SpaceX, she's the President and COO. Elon Musk it the CEO and chairman of SpaceX.
Yeah... so Presidents are often figureheads, both in corporations and for countries.
Even the CEO can be a figurehead, because what really matters is who's the majority shareholder. Or do you really think Linda Yaccarino is calling the shots at ~~Twitter~~X?
But anyway Gwynne Shotwell is COO, so that would involve be overseeing operations of the company. Boca Chica is R&D so it wouldn't be a thing the COO would have a big hand in.
But the Falcon 9 operations would be something that you'd expect a COO be heavily involved in. So it's likely Gwynne Shotwell is overseeing operations of that side of things.
You see Elon Musk hanging around Boca Chica sometimes (when he can pry himself away from his insane $44B social media addiction) but doesn't seem all that involved in the boring routine Falcon 9 launches. Which is kinda the point. SpaceX has a reliable launch system with the Falcon 9, but Elon Musk only cares about big new and shiny things. If he was heavily involved with Falcon 9 he'd be wanting to make all kinds of arbitrary changes which would be problematic in keeping the Falcon 9 human rated, and would likely negatively impact it's reliability. So give him a few billion dollars and keep him at his little Boca Chica playground where he can't hurt the core launch business. Well other than taking financial resources away from it of course.