/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11171024

67KiB, 1200x799, SpaceX-orbital-Starship-prototype.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Is the Starship program in trouble?

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 17:55:14 2019 No.11171024 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11171175 >>11171345 >>11171607 >>11171718 >>11171779 >>11173356 >>11174714 >>11176056

>Mk1 Ship explodes before even static firing
>Mk2 Ship is being dismantled
>Any work on Mk3 and Mk4 is being taken apart

Also

>Only flown prototype is barely related to the "final design"
>Elon says the design will change AGAIN
>SpaceX will now have no prototypes in construction at all

It seems like they've gone back several months. Very disappointing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 18:29:40 No.11171111 Report

Quoted By: >>11175975

Hard to say since there's many conflicting rumors about what's happening. For example, I heard that Mk3 and Mk4 are continuing on just fine. The program probably got a setback due to the intended design moving away from some of the prototypes while they're being built. Which is expected due to the nature of the program.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 18:55:40 No.11171175 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171024
Mk1 was supposed to do a 20km jump.

What were mk2, 3 and 4 supposed to do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 20:17:50 No.11171345 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171024
It failed a test. They wouldn't have tested it if they thought there wasn't a chance it would fail. Everything is going according to the overall starship plan. All the prototypes and iterations are to test specific variables cheaply because they were never meant to be a product or service in the first place. Relax and enjoy the ride

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 21:53:55 No.11171607 Report

Quoted By: >>11171770 >>11173303 >>11175768 >>11176014 >>11176048

>>11171024
>Is the Starship program in trouble?
Modules assembled onorbit are still a better approach. Starship is trying to solved to many problems with a single airframe, especially when SpaceX already has Falcon Heavy which is more than enough to send large, crewed, payloads across the solar system. They should be working on a decent onorbit heatshield and drive attached to a truss instead. IMHO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:06:23 No.11171639 Report

Quoted By:

The loss of Mk1 sucks but so long as commercial crew goes alright SpaceX as a whole will be fine and be profitable enough to fund Musk's passion project (Mars). Starlink offers a shitload of extra profit and if successful should allow rapid development of just about anything they want to do.
My money is still on Starship in the 3 way race with New Glenn and SLS.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:12:04 No.11171659 Report

Quoted By:

Yeah, I think they're canning it for now. It was fun while it lasted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:34:29 No.11171718 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171024
>Is the Starship program in trouble?
Nope. Testing is testing as usual. If something deosn't work right in testing then you CHANGE THE DESIGN.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO New-Glenn--879x485.jpg, 51KiB, 879x485

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:56:27 No.11171770 Report

Quoted By: >>11171831 >>11177278 >>11177288

>>11171607
This or make a 6 or even 9 meter diameter falcon that can take even bigger payloads than falcon heavy without being as complex.

If Elon is not careful based Bezos will cuck spaceX with New Glenn rocket.

tin can rocket was fun while it lasted.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO BE404284-5934-4DEB-A3C0-4982F836 (...).jpg, 143KiB, 1200x1200

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:03:35 No.11171779 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171024
yes. we’re never becoming a space faring civilization.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:36:17 No.11171831 Report

Quoted By: >>11171883 >>11171986

>>11171770
You can do anything we've imagined with a 5m X 11m payload fairing and 64 tons to LEO. Anything, as long as you aren't an ideolog about methods.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:55:19 No.11171883 Report

Quoted By: >>11171893 >>11171920

>>11171831
Semi related but didn't Bigelow purposely made their module larger than what FH can carry?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 00:00:02 No.11171893 Report

Quoted By: >>11171978

>>11171883
Doubt it, bigger fairings aren't hard to do. If it starts costing SpaceX contracts they will build them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 00:14:17 No.11171920 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171883
Bigger than Falcon Heavy? No Bigelow flight units have been over 64 tons and their technology is very scalable. Nautilus or BA330 or whatever they're calling it this week has been a moving target for almost 20 years, ie. vaporware until there's a customer. That customer will determine exacts.
>note the Bigelow lease of the TransHab patents should expire in a few years
>open source inflatables soon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 00:35:49 No.11171978 Report

Quoted By: >>11171990

>>11171893
They really can't make bigger fairings on Falcon. They're basically already at the limits of aerodynamic instability as-is the rocket's so long and thin.
Adding a huge diameter fairing on top of that is going to make it ridiculously unstable. You're never going to see anything above 5 meters without some SERIOUS modifications to the base rocket.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 00:42:06 No.11171986 Report

Quoted By: >>11173720

>>11171831
for space travel to be viable we will need bigger modules, 5m fairing is pretty small t b h.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 00:46:37 No.11171990 Report

Quoted By: >>11172140

>>11171978
Interesting, surprised it's running do close to the limit already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 01:58:54 No.11172140 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171990
It makes more sense when you realized they used up most of their margin when they stretched the original Falcon design to enable RTLS.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 14:58:39 No.11173303 Report

Quoted By: >>11173720

>>11171607
Can your module based approach land 100+ tons on Mars?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO screenshot256.png, 638KiB, 1280x800

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 15:39:54 No.11173356 Report

Quoted By: >>11173362

>>11171024

!niqjediPCA

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO screenshot257.png, 638KiB, 1280x800

!niqjediPCA Sun 24 Nov 2019 15:43:33 No.11173362 Report

Quoted By:

>>11173356
forgot trip

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 17:49:55 No.11173588 Report

Quoted By: >>11173599 >>11174163

It's been doomed from the start. We've already invented everything worth inventing so barring any new physics its impossible to create something with superior performance and certainly not on the level to allow thousands of tons be shipped to mars and billions of people. I pity those ignorant enough to emotionally invest themselves in that project but it should serve as a lesson not to look away from reason and science.

!niqjediPCA

!niqjediPCA Sun 24 Nov 2019 17:53:26 No.11173599 Report

Quoted By:

>>11173588
>We've already invented everything worth inventing

hehehehehehe.... no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 18:49:03 No.11173720 Report

Quoted By: >>11176174

>>11171986
Inflatable/expandable modules and clustering are real things. The beauty about clustering modules is that habitable volume is automatically redundant, unlike on Starship.
>>11173303
Arbitrary value is arbitrary. Name something that absolutely can't be under 64 tons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 21:36:47 No.11174163 Report

Quoted By:

>>11173588
>We've already invented everything worth inventing
Prove it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO libertyShip.jpg, 509KiB, 1803x3456

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 02:00:18 No.11174714 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171024
Starship isn't ambitious enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 14:21:58 No.11175768 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171607
>Modules assembled onorbit are still a better approach.
That's debatable.
They pose a lot of structural problems and they are not cost effective.
The ISS is a good example of that.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO elon-tusk-rick-morty.jpg, 72KiB, 744x389

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 15:32:01 No.11175891 Report

Quoted By:

We can't stop him now bros, imagine how high his IQ must be after this

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 16:30:40 No.11175975 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171111
JESUS CHRIST CHECK THESE DIGITS

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 16:53:30 No.11176014 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171607

Falcon Heavy based exploration is too expensive for a private outfit like SpaceX. It can be done, but it is too high a pricetag for what they'd get out of it.

They need to completely change the cost equation and that is what Starship is for, and to be so cost competitive they stay one step ahead of Bezos with his cost inferior rocket. Then sending large crewed payloads to destinations becomes so affordable they can afford it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 16:59:21 No.11176023 Report

Quoted By:

Even rapid failures are impressive. Imagine how much time and money it would take ULA to fuck up four different iterations of a rocket.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO tenor.gif, 1MiB, 244x160

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 17:10:39 No.11176048 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171607
>increasing cost and complexity is the best solution

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 17:16:04 No.11176056 Report

Quoted By: >>11176058

>>11171024
Here is a secret: Elon Musk is a meme, Tesla is a meme, spacex is a meme.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 17:17:55 No.11176058 Report

Quoted By:

>>11176056
also space is a meme

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 25 Nov 2019 18:16:20 No.11176174 Report

Quoted By:

>>11173720
>Arbitrary value is arbitrary. Name something that absolutely can't be under 64 tons.

Well, let me rephrase: can your module based approach land 500 tons of useful payload on Mars every synod?

We ain't going to Mars in tiny tin cans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Nov 2019 03:21:31 No.11177278 Report

Quoted By:

>>11171770
O can’t believe they used a vector downloaded from google images as blue origins logo

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Nov 2019 03:27:31 No.11177288 Report

Quoted By: >>11177295

>>11171770
Bezos can't even deliver a phone case to my house in the promised time. What makes you think he will get the timeline right for space delivery?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 26 Nov 2019 03:31:58 No.11177295 Report

Quoted By:

>>11177288
He cares more about spaceflight than you.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches