Big rocket go up
March 14, 2024 6:01 AM Subscribe
In about 24 minutes from, Space X will attempt the third launch of its Starship rocket. YouTube Live, Space X live feed
Lift off with completely gorgeous views from the onboard cameras!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:26 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:26 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Looks like they lost control of the booster on the way back, but Starship is looking good.
posted by cardboard at 6:36 AM on March 14
posted by cardboard at 6:36 AM on March 14
That was a thing of beauty. Pure Buck Rogers rocketry.
posted by kikaider01 at 6:36 AM on March 14
posted by kikaider01 at 6:36 AM on March 14
Stage separation complete with the hot staging!
Starship is continuing onward while the booster is guiding itself back to non-recoverable water landing (hey, it's a test flight). Everything is looking great and ooops, lost signal with the booster. Not sure what happened, but everything worked better and longer than the previous two test flights.
Starship itself has reached its highest point, engines have cut off, so everything is going well on that end. The flight will only last for an hour, and the Starship will crash down in an ocean.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:36 AM on March 14
Starship is continuing onward while the booster is guiding itself back to non-recoverable water landing (hey, it's a test flight). Everything is looking great and ooops, lost signal with the booster. Not sure what happened, but everything worked better and longer than the previous two test flights.
Starship itself has reached its highest point, engines have cut off, so everything is going well on that end. The flight will only last for an hour, and the Starship will crash down in an ocean.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:36 AM on March 14
The Space X broadcast has gone off air, says it'll be back in about 40 minutes.
Here's the objectives for this third test flight: "The third flight test aims to build on what we’ve learned from previous flights while attempting a number of ambitious objectives, including the successful ascent burn of both stages, opening and closing Starship’s payload door, a propellant transfer demonstration during the upper stage’s coast phase, the first ever re-light of a Raptor engine while in space, and a controlled reentry of Starship. It will also fly a new trajectory, with Starship targeted to splashdown in the Indian Ocean. This new flight path enables us to attempt new techniques like in-space engine burns while maximizing public safety."
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:49 AM on March 14
Here's the objectives for this third test flight: "The third flight test aims to build on what we’ve learned from previous flights while attempting a number of ambitious objectives, including the successful ascent burn of both stages, opening and closing Starship’s payload door, a propellant transfer demonstration during the upper stage’s coast phase, the first ever re-light of a Raptor engine while in space, and a controlled reentry of Starship. It will also fly a new trajectory, with Starship targeted to splashdown in the Indian Ocean. This new flight path enables us to attempt new techniques like in-space engine burns while maximizing public safety."
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:49 AM on March 14
Ok, Space X has elevator music playing while showing what looks like live views of Starship in orbit and it is absolutely surreal.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:58 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:58 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
It would be interesting to know if this slow roll is planned for thermal management or is a control issue.
posted by cardboard at 7:02 AM on March 14
posted by cardboard at 7:02 AM on March 14
Right when it was around 100km up, it showed a roll that then stopped, so maybe not a problem?
I'm really looking forward to later in the day when somebody like Scott Manley or NSF or everyday astronaut or whoever compiles a short video with the good clips and analysis.
The booster as it fell back through the clouds was gorgeous!
posted by Acari at 7:09 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
I'm really looking forward to later in the day when somebody like Scott Manley or NSF or everyday astronaut or whoever compiles a short video with the good clips and analysis.
The booster as it fell back through the clouds was gorgeous!
posted by Acari at 7:09 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
And we're back with camera views as Starship heads back to Earth. They're using Starlink satellites to hopefully keep the views as Starship reenters the atmosphere. Typically the plasma generated during reentry block radio signals to the ground, but hopefully the satellite link prevents that.
I think there was some debris falling off, possibly heat shields.
And yeah, we're seeing the heat buildup on the Starship as it renters, it's amazing! Kerbal Space Program got the look right!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:12 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
I think there was some debris falling off, possibly heat shields.
And yeah, we're seeing the heat buildup on the Starship as it renters, it's amazing! Kerbal Space Program got the look right!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:12 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
The re-entry and re-use may have failed, but with this launch I believe it's surpassed Saturn V and SLS as the most powerful rocket to make it to orbit.
posted by Luddite at 7:24 AM on March 14 [4 favorites]
posted by Luddite at 7:24 AM on March 14 [4 favorites]
The flight path was intentionally sub-orbital so that they wouldn’t leave the spacecraft up there if something went wrong. Which it did, so that was a smart and safe plan by SpaceX. All in all, excellent progress since the last test, and no doubt many interesting problems to be addressed before the next test.
posted by cardboard at 7:39 AM on March 14 [5 favorites]
posted by cardboard at 7:39 AM on March 14 [5 favorites]
Some other SpaceX news: Musk's SpaceX sued for negligence in accident that led to worker's coma. SpaceX allegedly fostered serial sexual abuse, according to this lawsuit. And from a previous Starship launch, Botched SpaceX Starship Launch Leaves Texas Town Covered in Debris and Dust and The Messy Reality of Elon Musk’s Space City.
That last story is part of David Fahrenthold's latest tour-de-force of forensic finance journalism, Elon Musk Has a Giant Charity. Its Money Stays Close to Home.
The article is long but very well researched and written, worth the time.
posted by Nelson at 7:46 AM on March 14 [32 favorites]
That last story is part of David Fahrenthold's latest tour-de-force of forensic finance journalism, Elon Musk Has a Giant Charity. Its Money Stays Close to Home.
Before March 2021, Elon Musk’s charitable foundation had never announced any donations to Cameron County, an impoverished region at the southern tip of Texas that is home to his SpaceX launch site and local officials who help regulate it.This donation is notable for being one of the few that Musk's foundation has actually made. "In 2022, the last year for which records are available, they gave away $160 million, which was $234 million less than the law required — the fourth-largest shortfall of any foundation in the country."
Then, at 8:05 one morning that month, a SpaceX rocket blew up, showering the area with a rain of twisted metal.
The Musk Foundation began giving at 9:27 a.m. local time.
The article is long but very well researched and written, worth the time.
posted by Nelson at 7:46 AM on March 14 [32 favorites]
It is unfortunate that this failure will do absolutely nothing to make Elon Musk reflect on his own failures as a human being, especially as he continues on a path of dragging everyone down with him.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:03 AM on March 14 [14 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:03 AM on March 14 [14 favorites]
Right as the launch started I saw some enormous solid shit flying away from the tower (again). I am pretty sure I saw that.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:16 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:16 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
I just don't care about crewed space exploration any more. It's bad enough already to have a legacy tainted by the involvement of Nazis. Elon Musk aspiring to make sure fascism and rockets will always go hand in hand is just too much. We should've better.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:07 AM on March 14 [11 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:07 AM on March 14 [11 favorites]
If that's the case, you can be sure that the Nasaspaceflight channel will have slow motion footage of the debris and also any damage in the next week or so.
(I didn't see any big debris chunks and it looked like the water deluge system started up before the launch, which is a big improvement)
posted by Acari at 9:10 AM on March 14
(I didn't see any big debris chunks and it looked like the water deluge system started up before the launch, which is a big improvement)
posted by Acari at 9:10 AM on March 14
OK I went back and looked and I think it is just a startled bird.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:33 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:33 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
I just don't care about crewed space exploration any more.
They're going to be using Starship to launch craploads of satellites. Obviously they intend to use it to send people to the moon too, but it's going to be a big bus to stick stuff in orbit for cheap.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:45 AM on March 14
They're going to be using Starship to launch craploads of satellites. Obviously they intend to use it to send people to the moon too, but it's going to be a big bus to stick stuff in orbit for cheap.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:45 AM on March 14
Craploads of Starlink satellites to ruin our view of the cosmos?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:55 AM on March 14 [14 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:55 AM on March 14 [14 favorites]
Major advancement in space technology, led by a Bond villain...
On the one hand, this is so cool...on the other: we certainly don't have ENOUGH space junk floating around up there...
posted by Chuffy at 9:58 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
On the one hand, this is so cool...on the other: we certainly don't have ENOUGH space junk floating around up there...
posted by Chuffy at 9:58 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
On his live stream, Everyday Astronaut pointed out that if SpaceX hadn't bothered with the reusable-rocket stuff and had just built this as an expendable rocket, it could have been a complete success that put about 200 tons into orbit.
For comparison, the ISS, which took dozens of launches to build, weighs about 400 tons.
Or for another comparison, the current sticker price for a Falcon 9 launch is $65 million, and it can put not quite 25 tons into orbit. At that same price, SpaceX could theoretically have charged something like $500 million for this one launch.
posted by Hatashran at 10:05 AM on March 14 [7 favorites]
For comparison, the ISS, which took dozens of launches to build, weighs about 400 tons.
Or for another comparison, the current sticker price for a Falcon 9 launch is $65 million, and it can put not quite 25 tons into orbit. At that same price, SpaceX could theoretically have charged something like $500 million for this one launch.
posted by Hatashran at 10:05 AM on March 14 [7 favorites]
As much as I hate Elon, I really want humanity to get into space, and the smart folks at SpaceX seem to be doing a good job.
They aren't though. This stuff is flashy, and it's just intended to dump a pile of briefly-useful space trash into orbit that will eventually burn up in the upper atmosphere doing we-have-no-idea-what but it won't be good.
posted by mhoye at 10:36 AM on March 14 [7 favorites]
They aren't though. This stuff is flashy, and it's just intended to dump a pile of briefly-useful space trash into orbit that will eventually burn up in the upper atmosphere doing we-have-no-idea-what but it won't be good.
posted by mhoye at 10:36 AM on March 14 [7 favorites]
That seems like a remarkably pessimistic view. Despite my criticism above I think SpaceX is doing quite a good job of getting stuff into space, cheaply. And those thousands of satellites are not space trash, at least not the Starlink ones. They are a phenomenally good Internet connection accessible anywhere in the world, including my own home in Grass Valley, CA. Yes they have a limited lifespan, like all LEO satellites, but they are deorbiting them responsibly to they burn up.
It's a contradiction. The guy who is the CEO of the company is terrible, although the woman who actually runs SpaceX seems quite competent and not terrible. SpaceX makes some bad decisions and cuts some corners they shouldn't, like the underbuilt launch pad that sent shrapnel flying all over a residential area. But then they also are getting stuff into space, really useful stuff.
posted by Nelson at 10:40 AM on March 14 [8 favorites]
It's a contradiction. The guy who is the CEO of the company is terrible, although the woman who actually runs SpaceX seems quite competent and not terrible. SpaceX makes some bad decisions and cuts some corners they shouldn't, like the underbuilt launch pad that sent shrapnel flying all over a residential area. But then they also are getting stuff into space, really useful stuff.
posted by Nelson at 10:40 AM on March 14 [8 favorites]
I don't see this thing going to Mars or the Moon or anywhere beyond LEO. The orbital refueling scheme requiring 8 more Starship launches makes it impractical at best and implausible at worst. And, please, Artemis 3 is not going to be landing on the Moon with this thing in 2026. I doubt the Starship will see a crewed flight to orbit in this decade.
posted by drstrangelove at 11:14 AM on March 14 [6 favorites]
posted by drstrangelove at 11:14 AM on March 14 [6 favorites]
although the woman who actually runs SpaceX seems quite competent and not terrible
I wouldn't give Shotwell too much credit. She was saying in 2018 that within a decade the Starship will be used for rapid intercontinental travel like a passenger jet.
posted by drstrangelove at 11:16 AM on March 14 [7 favorites]
I wouldn't give Shotwell too much credit. She was saying in 2018 that within a decade the Starship will be used for rapid intercontinental travel like a passenger jet.
posted by drstrangelove at 11:16 AM on March 14 [7 favorites]
I say this as someone who loves space and the human exploration of it: this is all dumb as shit and I can't believe NASA actually gave SpaceX money. The BEST case scenario is that they run out of money before they get someone killed.
posted by Krazor at 11:28 AM on March 14 [12 favorites]
posted by Krazor at 11:28 AM on March 14 [12 favorites]
Here's a 13 minute video of the launch (with commentary), and then there's a 4 minute video of Starship's return, up to the point that they lost the signal.
Once in orbit, there seems to be a lot of leaking of something, or the ship was out of control and thrusters were firing to try and keep control. When it starts reentry, you definitely see what looks like pieces of the heat shield falling off and the spacecraft seems.
Overall, cool stuff to see, but yeah, there's still work to be done, no surprise. I'm guessing another 2-3 test flights before they declare complete success.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:49 AM on March 14 [6 favorites]
Once in orbit, there seems to be a lot of leaking of something, or the ship was out of control and thrusters were firing to try and keep control. When it starts reentry, you definitely see what looks like pieces of the heat shield falling off and the spacecraft seems.
Overall, cool stuff to see, but yeah, there's still work to be done, no surprise. I'm guessing another 2-3 test flights before they declare complete success.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:49 AM on March 14 [6 favorites]
Why can't Elmo cosplay Jimmy Neutron with his own money? If it works, he can sell it to the government for whatever he wants.
posted by tommasz at 12:15 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 12:15 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
the smart folks at SpaceX seem to be doing a good job.
They aren't though
SpaceX is the world's most widely used orbital carrier. It might be the most widely used in history, at least at an annual basis. NASA relies on them for what seems like most launches; is NASA erring here?
posted by doctornemo at 12:23 PM on March 14 [4 favorites]
They aren't though
SpaceX is the world's most widely used orbital carrier. It might be the most widely used in history, at least at an annual basis. NASA relies on them for what seems like most launches; is NASA erring here?
posted by doctornemo at 12:23 PM on March 14 [4 favorites]
I understand the objections to:
-musk
-space junk
-overly optimistic projections
I really, really do.
But you absolutely cannot deny that cool, useful, and innovative things are happening here.
Or, I mean, you can and lots of folks absolutely will, but...
Reusable rockets, rockets landing upright, and taking 200 tons to orbit were all fiction until very recently. There are 4 more of these things built (or so it seems) already, and the pace of development is honestly too fast (re:worker injuries)
It's cool to hate, I get it. There's a lot to point at especially given the name attached, and his utter disdain for all things that aren't his own ego. The approach is not what NASA would do, and that has its good and bad sides. NASA got people killed despite all of their legendary precautions and safety culture, and spacex will, too. It's tragic, but it will never be near the number of people killed by tesla or any other car manufacturer.
The engineers, welders, and everybody else involved in the real work done are doing something really cool and exciting and I'm glad I get to watch from a safe distance. It's gross that it wouldn't happen without a billionaire being involved. Ideally this would be done publicly and without the showmanship involved in gaining funding.
I don't want to post this because I don't want to argue on the internet, but I think there are a lot of people who are in my position: torn between cheering on the big rocket and booing the big asshole whose name is attached. I just want to say that it's okay to enjoy the biggest thing ever going to space and hope that it learns how to land safely back on Earth. There are a lot of humans involved in this project who are solving new problems and making history and they also strapped 33+6 rocket engines together to make a big boom and also:
big shiny rocket go up.
posted by Acari at 12:27 PM on March 14 [21 favorites]
-musk
-space junk
-overly optimistic projections
I really, really do.
But you absolutely cannot deny that cool, useful, and innovative things are happening here.
Or, I mean, you can and lots of folks absolutely will, but...
Reusable rockets, rockets landing upright, and taking 200 tons to orbit were all fiction until very recently. There are 4 more of these things built (or so it seems) already, and the pace of development is honestly too fast (re:worker injuries)
It's cool to hate, I get it. There's a lot to point at especially given the name attached, and his utter disdain for all things that aren't his own ego. The approach is not what NASA would do, and that has its good and bad sides. NASA got people killed despite all of their legendary precautions and safety culture, and spacex will, too. It's tragic, but it will never be near the number of people killed by tesla or any other car manufacturer.
The engineers, welders, and everybody else involved in the real work done are doing something really cool and exciting and I'm glad I get to watch from a safe distance. It's gross that it wouldn't happen without a billionaire being involved. Ideally this would be done publicly and without the showmanship involved in gaining funding.
I don't want to post this because I don't want to argue on the internet, but I think there are a lot of people who are in my position: torn between cheering on the big rocket and booing the big asshole whose name is attached. I just want to say that it's okay to enjoy the biggest thing ever going to space and hope that it learns how to land safely back on Earth. There are a lot of humans involved in this project who are solving new problems and making history and they also strapped 33+6 rocket engines together to make a big boom and also:
big shiny rocket go up.
posted by Acari at 12:27 PM on March 14 [21 favorites]
Those launch videos are great! Thanks BB.
As someone born a little after Apollo, I lived through the somewhat disappointing shuttle era, the even more disappointing post shuttle era when the US couldn’t send people to space, and other stuff like the end of the Concorde. There have been some amazing missions, like Mars rovers and drones and the new telescope, but I really love seeing a giant rocket like this and the relatively sudden pivot of the industry to reusable rockets and other innovations.
Almost everything in the world has some problematic aspects, but few things are this exciting to me.
posted by snofoam at 12:51 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
As someone born a little after Apollo, I lived through the somewhat disappointing shuttle era, the even more disappointing post shuttle era when the US couldn’t send people to space, and other stuff like the end of the Concorde. There have been some amazing missions, like Mars rovers and drones and the new telescope, but I really love seeing a giant rocket like this and the relatively sudden pivot of the industry to reusable rockets and other innovations.
Almost everything in the world has some problematic aspects, but few things are this exciting to me.
posted by snofoam at 12:51 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
I think NASA and DoD have gotten their money's worth, given that the alternative is Russian RD-180 engines that ULA is just now phasing out, 25 years after finding them in that old barn near Moscow or whatever.
posted by credulous at 1:00 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
posted by credulous at 1:00 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
It's cool to hate, I get it.
That's dismissive as hell
posted by Dr. Twist at 1:00 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
That's dismissive as hell
posted by Dr. Twist at 1:00 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
It's bad enough already to have a legacy tainted by the involvement of Nazis. Elon Musk aspiring to make sure fascism and rockets will always go hand in hand is just too much.
And India put something on the moon under Modi, if you're looking for another data point along those lines.
posted by clawsoon at 1:05 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
And India put something on the moon under Modi, if you're looking for another data point along those lines.
posted by clawsoon at 1:05 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
And India put something on the moon under Modi, if you're looking for another data point along those lines.
It's almost as if fascists care more about symbols and appearances than people.
posted by tommasz at 1:07 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
It's almost as if fascists care more about symbols and appearances than people.
posted by tommasz at 1:07 PM on March 14 [7 favorites]
I’d love to read a good analysis of the failures with both the booster and the Starship after they’ve had time to analyze it. Watching the launch with SpaceX’s own commentary is cool, and they give some nice telemetry to look at while it’s going on. I don’t know if that’s really common for launches to send feeds like that out into the public, but I love seeing it. The booster seemed to completely expend all its fuel before shutdown, leaving it basically nothing for landing. It also seemed as though the Starship was continually bleeding gas out into space after engine shutdown, and I couldn’t figure out if that was intentional (guessing not, since it went on erratically for basically the whole time).
While I enjoy reading about this stuff, I find the whole Artemis program to be pretty dumb. The part that makes the absolute least sense to me about Starship in particular is that it’s a program which will likely have only a tiny handful of customers (national governments with space programs) in anything resembling a near term. So what is the point of privatizing such a program? There’s no true competition that would drive costs downward and no economy of scale. All you have is the government outsourcing under some magical thinking that a private company can shoot people (because the goal IS to have humans on board) into space substantially cheaper than the government, including after taking a profit for itself.
posted by Room 101 at 1:16 PM on March 14
While I enjoy reading about this stuff, I find the whole Artemis program to be pretty dumb. The part that makes the absolute least sense to me about Starship in particular is that it’s a program which will likely have only a tiny handful of customers (national governments with space programs) in anything resembling a near term. So what is the point of privatizing such a program? There’s no true competition that would drive costs downward and no economy of scale. All you have is the government outsourcing under some magical thinking that a private company can shoot people (because the goal IS to have humans on board) into space substantially cheaper than the government, including after taking a profit for itself.
posted by Room 101 at 1:16 PM on March 14
Space costs are dropping significantly. That last link really slams home how efficient Falcon truly is. Is it due to Emerald Mine? Possibly. But they aren't peddling fluff and nonsense as far as I can tell. Moon bases and Mars missions are daydreaming, yes. (Cf Weinersmiths book) but that doesn't mean there is no revolution in space launching. Because there is.
posted by Jacen at 1:27 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
posted by Jacen at 1:27 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
There’s no true competition that would drive costs downward and no economy of scale.
Space X's original competition was the official government channels and they've succeeded against them. Currently Boeing is still struggling to get the Starliner off on its maiden crewed flight, hopefully in May? Considering that Space X has sent eight crews to the ISS, Boing's efforts look pitiful, but much of Boeing's work is looking sus these days, sadly.
I'm very excited about Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser, which is planned to be able to land at commercial airports. It is supposed to have its uncrewed test to the ISS sometime this year
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:35 PM on March 14 [6 favorites]
Space X's original competition was the official government channels and they've succeeded against them. Currently Boeing is still struggling to get the Starliner off on its maiden crewed flight, hopefully in May? Considering that Space X has sent eight crews to the ISS, Boing's efforts look pitiful, but much of Boeing's work is looking sus these days, sadly.
I'm very excited about Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser, which is planned to be able to land at commercial airports. It is supposed to have its uncrewed test to the ISS sometime this year
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:35 PM on March 14 [6 favorites]
SpaceX's bid for the moon lander was cheaper than the others, that's why it won. The orbital refueling thing makes it seem a bit sketchy to me but who knows. The economy of scale with Starship is that SpaceX is planning to make money launching satellites with it whether they end up going to the moon with it or not. I don't know if that is going to work out economically but it doesn't seem totally crazy.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:15 PM on March 14
posted by BungaDunga at 2:15 PM on March 14
Not sure a costing that comes from Elon can really be trusted in any way shape or manner.
posted by Artw at 2:35 PM on March 14 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:35 PM on March 14 [5 favorites]
One weird but true thing is that SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets have among the best safety records of any rocket ever built.
Starship is its own thing, obviously, but the company has a track record of getting rockets to space and back again in one piece.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:43 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Starship is its own thing, obviously, but the company has a track record of getting rockets to space and back again in one piece.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:43 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
A rapidly growing rocket industry could undo decades of work to save the ozone layer: Rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can damage the ozone layer, but they are neither measured nor regulated. It’s a policy gap we have to close if the space industry is to grow sustainably.
(Laura Revell, Astronomy.com, February 13 2023)
Coming increase in rocket launches will damage ozone, alter climate, study finds
(Tereza Pultarova, June 27, 2022, Space.com)
(Laura Revell, Astronomy.com, February 13 2023)
Coming increase in rocket launches will damage ozone, alter climate, study finds
(Tereza Pultarova, June 27, 2022, Space.com)
The study analyzed the consequences of a tenfold increase in rocket launches, which is in line with current predictions. The researchers were interested in the soot content in the exhaust of rockets burning fossil fuels. Currently, rockets inject about 1,000 tons of soot per year into the otherwise pristine upper layers of Earth's atmosphere. This pollutant accumulates at high altitudes over the years and absorbs heat, which can lead to the warming of those atmospheric layers.posted by MrVisible at 2:47 PM on March 14 [12 favorites]
The study found that a tenfold increase in the amount of soot injected into the stratosphere every year would after 50 years lead to an annual temperature increase in that layer of 1 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius).
Easy to make a bid cheaper then the others, harder to deliver.
In 2026, to meet the goals of the Artemis mission, SpaceX has to deliver fourteen back to back launches to get the fuel into a staging area in orbit, to then load into the HLS to go to the moon, all pretty much within a week window. None of those elements has been even tested yet, yet alone proven.
posted by Static Vagabond at 3:02 PM on March 14 [6 favorites]
In 2026, to meet the goals of the Artemis mission, SpaceX has to deliver fourteen back to back launches to get the fuel into a staging area in orbit, to then load into the HLS to go to the moon, all pretty much within a week window. None of those elements has been even tested yet, yet alone proven.
posted by Static Vagabond at 3:02 PM on March 14 [6 favorites]
I'm really looking forward to later in the day when somebody like Scott Manley or NSF or everyday astronaut or whoever compiles a short video with the good clips and analysis.
Scott Manley : SpaceX Orbit Largest Spacecraft In History also SpaceX Destroy Largest Spacecraft In History.
posted by Pendragon at 3:39 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Scott Manley : SpaceX Orbit Largest Spacecraft In History also SpaceX Destroy Largest Spacecraft In History.
posted by Pendragon at 3:39 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
While I enjoy reading about this stuff, I find the whole Artemis program to be pretty dumb. The part that makes the absolute least sense to me about Starship in particular is that it’s a program which will likely have only a tiny handful of customers (national governments with space programs) in anything resembling a near term. So what is the point of privatizing such a program? There’s no true competition that would drive costs downward and no economy of scale.
The old model is basically the US government hiring companies to do this work on a cost plus basis, like the SLS rocket being built for the Artemis program by ULA, which is Lockeed/Boeing. Since 2011, this has cost over $23 billion and flown one rocket.
By comparison, the Commercial Crew Program has been much less expensive and at least one of the contract winners has had lots of very cost effective success. (The other has spent a ton and been repeatedly late, but Boeing has to eat the cost on that, not the US taxpayer.)
The two lowest cost rockets per mass to LEO are Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and they are an order of magnitude cheaper than many of the alternatives because they are partially reusable. Seems like there is a lot of room for some profit margin there while still beating the cost structure of the old model.
posted by snofoam at 3:45 PM on March 14 [4 favorites]
The old model is basically the US government hiring companies to do this work on a cost plus basis, like the SLS rocket being built for the Artemis program by ULA, which is Lockeed/Boeing. Since 2011, this has cost over $23 billion and flown one rocket.
By comparison, the Commercial Crew Program has been much less expensive and at least one of the contract winners has had lots of very cost effective success. (The other has spent a ton and been repeatedly late, but Boeing has to eat the cost on that, not the US taxpayer.)
The two lowest cost rockets per mass to LEO are Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and they are an order of magnitude cheaper than many of the alternatives because they are partially reusable. Seems like there is a lot of room for some profit margin there while still beating the cost structure of the old model.
posted by snofoam at 3:45 PM on March 14 [4 favorites]
SpaceX makes some bad decisions and cuts some corners they shouldn't, like the underbuilt launch pad that sent shrapnel flying all over a residential area. But then they also are getting stuff into space, really useful stuff.
I don’t think there’s disagreement that both things (“bad decisions” and “useful stuff into orbit”) can be and are true. It seems to me there may be disagreement about how to weight these factors.
posted by nickmark at 6:30 PM on March 14
I don’t think there’s disagreement that both things (“bad decisions” and “useful stuff into orbit”) can be and are true. It seems to me there may be disagreement about how to weight these factors.
posted by nickmark at 6:30 PM on March 14
Yes, that phrase does sound dismissive and I'll try to do better in the future.
posted by Acari at 6:43 PM on March 14
posted by Acari at 6:43 PM on March 14
It's cool to hate, I get it.
Yeah, dismissive. I don't hate it. I'd love to love it. But it's all just showy bullshit. Why is the asshole billionaire getting money from the government to make his toys? Money that could go towards helping people with housing, health care, education. Money that could go toward towards solving problems with our environment. Humans are so stupid--we're firing rockets that we know will pollute the atmosphere. Musk has a big rocket, and the guy down the street has a big honkin' coalroller toy. At this point in human history, I really can't see the difference between the either boy and their toys. Musk's experiments might expand our knowledge base, but is it the knowledge we need now to save our world? Is what his hired scientists learn from his launches going to benefit mankind, or will it just make Musk richer and more powerful? It's good that there are no Moonies or Martians, because this is Musk's playing Manifest Destiny.
I don't hate it, I just feel sad and concerned. How many MetaFilter posts have there been lately indicating that things are so bad that the rich are preparing to save themselves at the expense of the rest of humanity? You can bet Musk has a bunker, but meanwhile he's going to have fun at our final expense.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:49 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
Yeah, dismissive. I don't hate it. I'd love to love it. But it's all just showy bullshit. Why is the asshole billionaire getting money from the government to make his toys? Money that could go towards helping people with housing, health care, education. Money that could go toward towards solving problems with our environment. Humans are so stupid--we're firing rockets that we know will pollute the atmosphere. Musk has a big rocket, and the guy down the street has a big honkin' coalroller toy. At this point in human history, I really can't see the difference between the either boy and their toys. Musk's experiments might expand our knowledge base, but is it the knowledge we need now to save our world? Is what his hired scientists learn from his launches going to benefit mankind, or will it just make Musk richer and more powerful? It's good that there are no Moonies or Martians, because this is Musk's playing Manifest Destiny.
I don't hate it, I just feel sad and concerned. How many MetaFilter posts have there been lately indicating that things are so bad that the rich are preparing to save themselves at the expense of the rest of humanity? You can bet Musk has a bunker, but meanwhile he's going to have fun at our final expense.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:49 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
For me the part that continues to grate most, even as I enjoy watching these launches, is that SpaceX did its original environmental impact assessment early on for a site that would have occasional Falcon launches but then, via an ongoing stream of environmental "reevaluations" basically rubber-stamped by the FAA, morphed the site into a full-fledged Starship test, development, and launch facility, which is quite a different thing that should have required another full impact assessment.
Eric Roesch's now-famous "SpaceX's Texas Rocket is Going To Cause A Lot More Damage Than Anyone Thinks" article, published 4 days before Musk's stupid waterless exploding concrete launch, is worth reading again for Roesch's discussion of the FAA’s "rushed approval for SpaceX’s launch facility":
SpaceX convinced FAA to approve a site that would host launching the Largest Rocket in History under NEPA’s Environmental Assessment (EA) process, which is saved for projects that do not have a “significant impact” to the environment. This action was and is eyebrow-raising, as no major spaceport has ever been authorized under this process, always requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is the default multi-year approval process specified under NEPA. The FAA piggybacked on an existing 2015 authorization for SpaceX’s operation of 2-3 annual launches of the much smaller Falcon 9 rockets to forward this streamlined Starship “low impact” approval process through the system...
I could sit here and snipe at Mr. Musk; it wouldn't be the first time I’ve done so. But the real failure here sits with the FAA. The same agency that enabled Boeing to approve and deploy the critically flawed and deadly Boeing 737 Max appears to have learned nothing. They gaslighted advocates and critics from day one. They pulled every trick in the book: releasing legal documents on Fridays, ignoring requests for legally mandated bi-lingual outreach, compressing review schedules, and bullying other federal agencies into submission at the behest of Mr. Musk.
For more, here's an interview Roesch did with The Planetary Society soon after:
So the question to ask is whether Boca Chica was the best site for this new rocket development. Is there more land they could've bought? Could they have done offsets with the Department of Interior and converted another portion of the Texas shoreline into a different refuge that would offset these impacts?....we talk about iterating fast and I get it, but they actually did have plenty of time to go through and do these processes the right way.
...yeah, we should have developed another space port. Absolutely we should have. But is the right way to do it to have a private company come in, buy 20 acres and say, “Deal with the consequences”? I don't think so. But that's basically what the FAA has allowed in my view.
It didn't have to be done that way, but it was, and it's a terrible precedent.
posted by mediareport at 7:12 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
Eric Roesch's now-famous "SpaceX's Texas Rocket is Going To Cause A Lot More Damage Than Anyone Thinks" article, published 4 days before Musk's stupid waterless exploding concrete launch, is worth reading again for Roesch's discussion of the FAA’s "rushed approval for SpaceX’s launch facility":
SpaceX convinced FAA to approve a site that would host launching the Largest Rocket in History under NEPA’s Environmental Assessment (EA) process, which is saved for projects that do not have a “significant impact” to the environment. This action was and is eyebrow-raising, as no major spaceport has ever been authorized under this process, always requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is the default multi-year approval process specified under NEPA. The FAA piggybacked on an existing 2015 authorization for SpaceX’s operation of 2-3 annual launches of the much smaller Falcon 9 rockets to forward this streamlined Starship “low impact” approval process through the system...
I could sit here and snipe at Mr. Musk; it wouldn't be the first time I’ve done so. But the real failure here sits with the FAA. The same agency that enabled Boeing to approve and deploy the critically flawed and deadly Boeing 737 Max appears to have learned nothing. They gaslighted advocates and critics from day one. They pulled every trick in the book: releasing legal documents on Fridays, ignoring requests for legally mandated bi-lingual outreach, compressing review schedules, and bullying other federal agencies into submission at the behest of Mr. Musk.
For more, here's an interview Roesch did with The Planetary Society soon after:
So the question to ask is whether Boca Chica was the best site for this new rocket development. Is there more land they could've bought? Could they have done offsets with the Department of Interior and converted another portion of the Texas shoreline into a different refuge that would offset these impacts?....we talk about iterating fast and I get it, but they actually did have plenty of time to go through and do these processes the right way.
...yeah, we should have developed another space port. Absolutely we should have. But is the right way to do it to have a private company come in, buy 20 acres and say, “Deal with the consequences”? I don't think so. But that's basically what the FAA has allowed in my view.
It didn't have to be done that way, but it was, and it's a terrible precedent.
posted by mediareport at 7:12 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
The old model is basically the US government hiring companies to do this work on a cost plus basis, like the SLS rocket being built for the Artemis program by ULA, which is Lockeed/Boeing. Since 2011, this has cost over $23 billion and flown one rocket.
Which is terrible. I’m not understanding the point of privatizing any launch system designed to get humans past LEO (or a good rationale behind being able to repeatedly put stuff on the moon, but that’s a slightly different conversation).
I can understand that launch systems with a primary focus on cargo like Falcon 9 and Heavy have enough demand to drive the costs lower, since there appear to be plenty of commercial customers out there who want satellites lifted up. But the crewed lunar programs and their associated companies I have a harder time seeing how they get those same benefits.
posted by Room 101 at 7:20 PM on March 14
Which is terrible. I’m not understanding the point of privatizing any launch system designed to get humans past LEO (or a good rationale behind being able to repeatedly put stuff on the moon, but that’s a slightly different conversation).
I can understand that launch systems with a primary focus on cargo like Falcon 9 and Heavy have enough demand to drive the costs lower, since there appear to be plenty of commercial customers out there who want satellites lifted up. But the crewed lunar programs and their associated companies I have a harder time seeing how they get those same benefits.
posted by Room 101 at 7:20 PM on March 14
Was it cool seeing the onboard cameras? Absolutely. Is this a completely unneccesary, wasteful testing model? Also yes. I don't want to piss in anyone's cheerios, so I'll tap out after this, but when you look at the launch stats for the tests of the R7 from '57-'59 vs SpaceX's 8 untethered rest flights, that's pretty pathetic.
posted by Krazor at 7:20 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
posted by Krazor at 7:20 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
The researchers were interested in the soot content in the exhaust of rockets burning fossil fuels.
Good thing Starship does not use fossil fuels.
posted by sammyo at 7:45 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Good thing Starship does not use fossil fuels.
posted by sammyo at 7:45 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
I don't want to piss in anyone's cheerios, so I'll tap out after this, but when you look at the launch stats for the tests of the R7 from '57-'59 vs SpaceX's 8 untethered rest flights, that's pretty pathetic.
Assuming they hit their goal, the result is going to be a lot less wasteful, I figure. Every single R-7 launched ended up in little pieces, even the 100% successful tests. Starship's whole point is to be reusable.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:09 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
Assuming they hit their goal, the result is going to be a lot less wasteful, I figure. Every single R-7 launched ended up in little pieces, even the 100% successful tests. Starship's whole point is to be reusable.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:09 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
Good thing Starship does not use fossil fuels.
I am not sure there are any other sources currently of the amounts of methane these engines use, but either way it doesn't matter, injecting a bunch of soot into the upper atmosphere is going to have whatever effects it's going to have.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:15 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
I am not sure there are any other sources currently of the amounts of methane these engines use, but either way it doesn't matter, injecting a bunch of soot into the upper atmosphere is going to have whatever effects it's going to have.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:15 PM on March 14 [3 favorites]
I am not sure there are any other sources currently of the amounts of methane these engines use
Now I'm picturing a rocket running on cow burps.
posted by clawsoon at 8:21 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Now I'm picturing a rocket running on cow burps.
posted by clawsoon at 8:21 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
I came in here bracing for opinionated haterade, and was pleasantly surprised to see a decent fraction of you all expressing support and excitement. Yeah, all this is absolutely groundbreaking (literally, on that first flight) and will change space exploration forever. But we can explain why until we are blue in the face and it won't matter. Let's just skip ahead three years to when it's undeniable. (Then again, half of y'all probably don't even realize how much SpaceX has revolutionized the sector in the last ten years, so maybe actual facts and performance don't matter.)
I doubt the Starship will see a crewed flight to orbit in this decade.
I'll take that bet. The same was said about Dragon on Falcon 9, especially by OldSpace guys, and SpaceX has now literally relegated all of them to the dustbin. Seriously, bet terms?
Thanks BB for the post.
posted by intermod at 8:28 PM on March 14 [5 favorites]
I doubt the Starship will see a crewed flight to orbit in this decade.
I'll take that bet. The same was said about Dragon on Falcon 9, especially by OldSpace guys, and SpaceX has now literally relegated all of them to the dustbin. Seriously, bet terms?
Thanks BB for the post.
posted by intermod at 8:28 PM on March 14 [5 favorites]
I hate corporations and I hate that the exploration of space is becoming the exploitation of space. Do I want to see these guys fail? Fuck yes!I know that hurts some little rocket nerd feelings, so I'm sorry.
OK, I'm not sorry.
Boohoo you little corporate apologists!
I mean I love you big manly pro capitalist heroes! Yay for space exploitation!
Imean,
I disagree with the point of view that all space exploration is good. I feel that the privatization of this bodes ill for the future. Honestly, I feel that most privatization of formerly public projects is bad, however we're talking aboutElon Musk, space hero, and all around super groovy guy Space X's program in specific. I know some of you feel my opinion is ill informed and I'm a big cry baby who should shut my anti corporate librul pinko mouth I should consider not sharing it but I assume we're all adults here and can take a little difference of opinion.
Besides, the mods will delete this anyway.
posted by evilDoug at 9:50 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
OK, I'm not sorry.
Boohoo you little corporate apologists!
I mean I love you big manly pro capitalist heroes! Yay for space exploitation!
Imean,
I disagree with the point of view that all space exploration is good. I feel that the privatization of this bodes ill for the future. Honestly, I feel that most privatization of formerly public projects is bad, however we're talking about
Besides, the mods will delete this anyway.
posted by evilDoug at 9:50 PM on March 14 [2 favorites]
Good thing Starship does not use fossil fuels.
Assuming this isn't sarcasm, the Starship definitely does use fossil fuels in the form of methane. And this doesn't even broach the subject of all of the fossil-based energy needed to build these things.
posted by drstrangelove at 3:36 AM on March 15 [2 favorites]
Assuming this isn't sarcasm, the Starship definitely does use fossil fuels in the form of methane. And this doesn't even broach the subject of all of the fossil-based energy needed to build these things.
posted by drstrangelove at 3:36 AM on March 15 [2 favorites]
I'll take that bet. The same was said about Dragon on Falcon 9, especially by OldSpace guys, and SpaceX has now literally relegated all of them to the dustbin. Seriously, bet terms?
The first crewed Dragon flight was delayed for four years. In Musk's own words, it turned out that human spaceflight is a "lot harder" than he realized. And the Dragon really didn't break much new ground. It still lands conventionally, with parachutes, because that is a method with a 60-year track record.
Starship, on the other hand, will have to land vertically using only its rockets and without any back-ups or abort systems. There is simply no way anyone will trust it with a crew until it has demonstrated, over and over again, that it can land safely with absolute reliability. Do I think SpaceX will eventually prove this? Yes, but it will take YEARS. During their initial tests of the Starship only one survived the landing without exploding and it still caught fire. And, so far, they haven't put anything into orbit without something going wrong. The third Saturn V launch actually sent a crew to the Moon.
posted by drstrangelove at 3:50 AM on March 15 [2 favorites]
The first crewed Dragon flight was delayed for four years. In Musk's own words, it turned out that human spaceflight is a "lot harder" than he realized. And the Dragon really didn't break much new ground. It still lands conventionally, with parachutes, because that is a method with a 60-year track record.
Starship, on the other hand, will have to land vertically using only its rockets and without any back-ups or abort systems. There is simply no way anyone will trust it with a crew until it has demonstrated, over and over again, that it can land safely with absolute reliability. Do I think SpaceX will eventually prove this? Yes, but it will take YEARS. During their initial tests of the Starship only one survived the landing without exploding and it still caught fire. And, so far, they haven't put anything into orbit without something going wrong. The third Saturn V launch actually sent a crew to the Moon.
posted by drstrangelove at 3:50 AM on March 15 [2 favorites]
I agree that we are a long way from manned spaceflight on a Starship, because it always takes time and also because it is a totally different way of landing.
Comparing Starship development to Saturn V is probably not that useful. Saturn V was built on a model of get it perfect then try it out and Starship is based on a model of iterative testing. The SpaceX prototype, test, improve model seems to be a faster way to develop. Saturn V made, like, a dozen launches ever, so if half of them were failed tests then it would be a big deal (especially at over $1 billion/launch in today's $). SpaceX is planning to launch Starship hundreds (thousands?) of times. Even if they have 10 failed launches, that would be a drop in the bucket. I would assume manufacturers in most sectors create and test lots of prototypes during the development process. Doing that with rockets seems reasonable. But being rockets, you can't do it in secret.
posted by snofoam at 4:07 AM on March 15
Comparing Starship development to Saturn V is probably not that useful. Saturn V was built on a model of get it perfect then try it out and Starship is based on a model of iterative testing. The SpaceX prototype, test, improve model seems to be a faster way to develop. Saturn V made, like, a dozen launches ever, so if half of them were failed tests then it would be a big deal (especially at over $1 billion/launch in today's $). SpaceX is planning to launch Starship hundreds (thousands?) of times. Even if they have 10 failed launches, that would be a drop in the bucket. I would assume manufacturers in most sectors create and test lots of prototypes during the development process. Doing that with rockets seems reasonable. But being rockets, you can't do it in secret.
posted by snofoam at 4:07 AM on March 15
I actually agree that it's not entirely useful to compare the development of these rockets as the Saturn V was built with the full might of the US gov't behind it to meet JFK's "deadline." But the point is that it's going to take a while. And that's not a criticism. Even if it's 2030 before there is the first crewed flight that would still be a hell of an accomplishment.
But the primary purpose for the Starship's development is to have a means to launch a large number of Starlink satellites as quickly as possible and I would imagine that within a year SpaceX will be using it for that purpose while continuing the iterative design process.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:29 AM on March 15
But the primary purpose for the Starship's development is to have a means to launch a large number of Starlink satellites as quickly as possible and I would imagine that within a year SpaceX will be using it for that purpose while continuing the iterative design process.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:29 AM on March 15
Krazor: Agreed, Dilbert Stark is an odious pile of nazi memes in a trenchcoat ... but SpaceX is 12,000 people, not just it's CEO. And they're currently NASA's only US carrier ferrying astronauts to and from the ISS—and they've been doing so safely[*] for years now. Boeing (remember them?) has a capsule that's running years late and billions of dollars over budget, and their initial bid was twice the price of SpaceX's.
Meanwhile, Starship flights are test flights as they develop new hardware. Do you remember the run of 16 or so Falcon 9's they crashed as they were trying to figure out how not to land a booster?
[*] I was going to say with "no fuss" but apparently they had a toilet leak a couple of flights ago.
posted by cstross at 5:00 AM on March 15 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, Starship flights are test flights as they develop new hardware. Do you remember the run of 16 or so Falcon 9's they crashed as they were trying to figure out how not to land a booster?
[*] I was going to say with "no fuss" but apparently they had a toilet leak a couple of flights ago.
posted by cstross at 5:00 AM on March 15 [1 favorite]
With respect to Saturn V: it did not get it right first time. Saturn V was essentially a Saturn IB with an extra humongous first stage underneath. And the S-IB was a development of the S-I, which in turn was based on a cluster of Jupiter-C IRBMs. When you trace its lineage back, Saturn V was the outcome of a decade-plus of cost-no-object military development. And they still nearly lost one of the first crewed launches due to pogoing, had another moon shot that nearly aborted in flight when it was struck by lightning on the way up, then there was Apollo 13, and so on (to say nothing of the Apollo 1 launch pad fire tragedy).
And I notice nobody here is comparing the "big rocket go boom" experience with Korolev and Mishin's N1 moon rocket—a much better comparison! 30 engines on the first stage, hot staging, and all. (And much more explodey than Starship.)
posted by cstross at 5:20 AM on March 15 [6 favorites]
And I notice nobody here is comparing the "big rocket go boom" experience with Korolev and Mishin's N1 moon rocket—a much better comparison! 30 engines on the first stage, hot staging, and all. (And much more explodey than Starship.)
posted by cstross at 5:20 AM on March 15 [6 favorites]
Saturn V was built on a model of get it perfect then try it out...
Not actually. The engineers wanted to get each stage perfect, one at a time, but one of the NASA administrators insisted on "all-up testing" so that the stages were tested together. It worked out pretty well, considering the first crewed flight was also the first flight to the Moon.
But yeah, Saturn V and Starship are designed to do different things. While both will land on the Moon (probably), that isn't Starship's main goal
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:33 AM on March 15
Not actually. The engineers wanted to get each stage perfect, one at a time, but one of the NASA administrators insisted on "all-up testing" so that the stages were tested together. It worked out pretty well, considering the first crewed flight was also the first flight to the Moon.
But yeah, Saturn V and Starship are designed to do different things. While both will land on the Moon (probably), that isn't Starship's main goal
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:33 AM on March 15
Landing a booster is one thing but landing a crew-- on earth-- is quite another. It'll happen eventually but these crazy time lines of Musk's is the primary reason why he and his fanboys (like Everyday Astronaut) irritate me.
posted by drstrangelove at 5:53 AM on March 15 [1 favorite]
posted by drstrangelove at 5:53 AM on March 15 [1 favorite]
And they still nearly lost one of the first crewed launches due to pogoing
Which crewed launch was "nearly lost" due to pogo?
I thought it was solved after Apollo 6.
posted by drstrangelove at 6:26 AM on March 15
Which crewed launch was "nearly lost" due to pogo?
I thought it was solved after Apollo 6.
posted by drstrangelove at 6:26 AM on March 15
I thought it was solved after Apollo 6.
Apollo 13 had severe pogo problems which came close to the makings of a very bad day. Luckily that didn't happen and the mission went on to be successful in ways no one wanted or dreamed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:40 AM on March 15 [1 favorite]
Apollo 13 had severe pogo problems which came close to the makings of a very bad day. Luckily that didn't happen and the mission went on to be successful in ways no one wanted or dreamed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:40 AM on March 15 [1 favorite]
Why is the asshole billionaire getting money from the government to make his toys? Money that could go towards helping people with housing, health care, education. Money that could go toward towards solving problems with our environment.
This is an expression of a long-running progressive anti-space argument dating back to the 1960s. It applied to public space then, and to the mix of public with private now. We see it here on the blue from time to time.
It's worth remembering that human spaceflight has rarely been popular. Apollo only polled well with Americans around the first moon landing.
(The counterarguments are also long-running: that investment into spaceflight usually pays back manyfold in terms of R&D with civilian economic benefits)
posted by doctornemo at 7:07 AM on March 15
This is an expression of a long-running progressive anti-space argument dating back to the 1960s. It applied to public space then, and to the mix of public with private now. We see it here on the blue from time to time.
It's worth remembering that human spaceflight has rarely been popular. Apollo only polled well with Americans around the first moon landing.
(The counterarguments are also long-running: that investment into spaceflight usually pays back manyfold in terms of R&D with civilian economic benefits)
posted by doctornemo at 7:07 AM on March 15
I wasn't trying to say that any rocket is perfect, and the first launch of anything is, by definition a test. The point I was making is that Saturn V and SLS are over a billion dollars per launch in today's dollars, so the goal is to have very high confidence going into the first launch. If Starship failed the first dozen times it wouldn't be that big a deal, which is basically the lifetime total number of launches for those other rockets.
posted by snofoam at 9:06 AM on March 15
posted by snofoam at 9:06 AM on March 15
Cheap access to space directly helps solve problems on Earth. One recent example, satellite imagery is providing evidence to hold the New York City Police Vehicular Towing Unit accountable for an illegal move resulting in significant vandalism to the car. Planet has launched over 500 satellites with SpaceX. Cheap launches lower the cost of the satellites, thus the imagery becomes more useful via it's frequency and cost. Imagine the possibilities when Starship enables a further 10X reduction in launch costs.
posted by Sophont at 2:44 PM on March 15 [2 favorites]
posted by Sophont at 2:44 PM on March 15 [2 favorites]
While both will land on the Moon (probably), that isn't Starship's main goal
Which is carrying Musk's enormous ego to orbit and keeping him in a position of power where he can effectively dictate policy by withholding services.
It's wrong to apologize for SpaceX by saying it's run by different people than Musk. He still owns it. He still benefits enormously whenever they accomplish something. The John Oliver piece is clear how dangerous this situation is, and I'm a little disappointed by how quickly people are willing to overlook it because of a desire to see scifi dreams become reality. We've all heard the Tom Lehrer song and we all know about Operation Paperclip and the moral hazards of celebrating progress no matter who is at the helm.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:35 AM on March 18
Which is carrying Musk's enormous ego to orbit and keeping him in a position of power where he can effectively dictate policy by withholding services.
It's wrong to apologize for SpaceX by saying it's run by different people than Musk. He still owns it. He still benefits enormously whenever they accomplish something. The John Oliver piece is clear how dangerous this situation is, and I'm a little disappointed by how quickly people are willing to overlook it because of a desire to see scifi dreams become reality. We've all heard the Tom Lehrer song and we all know about Operation Paperclip and the moral hazards of celebrating progress no matter who is at the helm.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:35 AM on March 18
Elon Musk replies to post by far-right Austrian linked to Christchurch terrorist after X account restored
“Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship.”
Crackpot billionaire Elon Musk flirts with Trump endorsement in call for 'red wave'
This is the price of Starship. Is it worth it?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:41 AM on March 19 [1 favorite]
“Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship.”
Crackpot billionaire Elon Musk flirts with Trump endorsement in call for 'red wave'
This is the price of Starship. Is it worth it?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:41 AM on March 19 [1 favorite]
[4K Slow-Mo] Starship Flight 3 Supercut w/ Incredible Audio
Features views of the launch and flight from various angles! This closeup is particularly cool.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:18 AM on March 20
Features views of the launch and flight from various angles! This closeup is particularly cool.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:18 AM on March 20
« Older Solidarity and strategy | At least Ru told us her plan, which was also her... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
So a sincere wish for "Surely, this [time]!"
posted by wenestvedt at 6:13 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]