- Location
- USA
SpaceX rocket launches private moon lander and NASA 'trailblazer' to hunt for lunar water (video)
If all goes according to plan, the Athena lander will touch down near the moon's south pole on or around March 6.
SpaceX Launches, Landings and News
- Thread starter Shadows
- Start date
- Megathread
Except when they arbitrarily cut service, usually in response to russian requests.
Starlink is gonna hurtle us into kessler syndrome because Musk is an irresponsible dickhead
Yeah, himself.
Starlink will not, they were on purpose pulled down to much lower orbits in part to avoid that outcome. At these lower orbits any debris clouds will degrade far more quickly and obviously not as easily be able to intrude in to higher orbits, it also allowed for more rapid de-orbiting of the constellation if needed. SpaceX also made the sats less reflective to be less of an annoyance to people on the ground, though obviously astronomers will still see them.
Sadly, I'm a lot less sure that the copy cat constellations will take even that much precaution. Some are suggested to be setup in much higher orbits and the Chinese have had a history of not caring as much about environmental impacts from their space program, so I fear their particular variant might be far more reflective as well.
So Kessler syndrome might indeed come for us, but interestingly enough it won't be because of Starlink but rather its copycats.
- Location
- Omniverse #1345
That is not how that works. They can and will still cause Kessler syndrome, it just will 'only' last 10-15 years before they have largely fallen into the atmosphere and burned up, allowing escape to be possible again.
Kessler Syndrome, after all, is just "they got turned into enough flak it's impossible to consistently pass the barrier they form"
Last edited:
Kind of, but Kessler syndrome requires you can build up in to a situation where debris levels are ever increasing. And there small debris particles have a lot more relative drag that low down, they tend to deorbit faster, and as noted, the constellation is in a far easier position to be de-orbited in the worst case in such a low altitude. As such it seems unlikely they'd ever be able to form such a barrier. Overall the chance of an out of control increasing debris field between these factors seems low.
As such Starlink in its current configuration in my point of view is not that big of a risk to a Kessler syndrome situation. That can be cut off with this particular setup still. Whether they keep to it in future we will have to see, but for now I'm actually more concerned by various copycat constellations, as those seem far more able to leave us with a long lasting problem.
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- It/Them
Kessler Syndrom would make the orbits unusable due to lowered lifespan of stuff put in there. It wouldn't significantly increase the risk for space ships passing through.
That's the same logic that claims the Van Allen Belt prevented the moon landing...
far more quickly does a lot of work. Kessler syndrome lasting 5 years is still quite devastating.
Because Elon Musk and his companies are bastions of forethought and safety right?
The dude is pumping thousands of sats, planning to pump tens of thousands. And, like, everyone knows how shoddy and shitty his products tend to be.
- Location
- Omniverse #1345
The problem with kessler syndrome is that in the pure form there is a bunch of untracked flak floating around. Sending stuff through is only possible if you both don't care about the stuff and don't mind a good chance of making the problem worse.
It's nowhere near impossible, but most aren't going to do it.
That conclusion is only possible if one presumes that wouldn't de-orbit the sats in case an out of control situation occurred. Something so far I know they said they would, and in a way makes sense, as the sats are dead in such a case anyway and they'd be able to launch new ones sooner if there is less debris to wait on getting dragged down by the atmosphere.
Can't say I think of him like that, but in the end I struggle to think of a much safer way to setup a mega-constellation then SpaceX has done beyond not launching one at all or having some kind of future tech where one can actively remove debris from orbit. I really am more concerned about the other mega-constellations that seem to compromise on some of the things SpaceX did to reduce debris buildup danger.
If one wants a potential motive for why Musk might actually care for once. He does seem very Mars obsessed and kessler syndrome would make that particular dream of his impossible to achieve. So perhaps his motives just by chance are lining up with public needs for once.
Still in summary of the various mega-constellations proposed and being built, SpaceX seems to have put the most effort in mitigating the risks of kessler syndrome by a substantial margin.
- Location
- Omniverse #1345
You are putting a lot more faith in Elon Musk to not do something stupid and shortsighted because he had a Great Idea than seems warranted.
I'm just stating what I heard was their approach on the matter and how that helps mitigate some issues, faith is kind of different from that. Of course maybe they're lying and they'd not deorbit as claimed in case of an emergency, but I gave some basis why it could make economic sense as well as support his long term goal on Mars.
You can of course interpret everything as pessimistically as one can for the available data, but I just can't help you much on this particular topic. From what I know of SpaceX policy for Starlink, they've just chosen some of the better options for a mega-constellation.
All I can say is, things seem to be as they seem to be. And as all to often SpaceX has defied the most pessimistic takes on them, at least, so far.
Still these are just how things seem 'now', they are no guarantee they won't do increasingly stupid things in the future. People change over time after all and I'm sure you're aware of how Musk has changed over time.
- Location
- USA
Headline and subhead say all.
www.space.com
SpaceX gets FAA approval for Flight 8 of Starship megarocket
Liftoff is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. ET on Monday (March 3).
- Location
- USA
SpaceX calls off Starship Flight 8 launch test due to rocket issues (video)
The company troubleshot several issues but ultimately decided to call off today's (March 3) attempt.
Falcon 9 booster lost after droneship landing
A Falcon 9 booster was lost after making a droneship landing March 2, the latest incident involving the rocket that has raised reliability concerns.
spacenews.com
- Location
- USA
Another launch, another Starship screw-up.
www.space.com
SpaceX Starship Flight 8 launch: Live updates
Read the latest news about SpaceX's Starship megarocket test flights, launches, photos and more.
E.I.G.
Robo-Bird
- Pronouns
- It/They
So, I know they are going to be continuing to fix things, but this is the exact thing I was concerned about with the idea that they were reworking the Starship to be bigger:
Doing so means they need to start over with getting it to make it to space again.
They are back to losing them before they get there, because it isn't the same one that made it there before.
Doing so means they need to start over with getting it to make it to space again.
They are back to losing them before they get there, because it isn't the same one that made it there before.
The thing is that they had to do the stretched version because they were running out of margin for payload. All those heat tiles and then an entire secondary layer of ablative under that had the Starship down to under the Falcon 9 heavy in fully reusable mode (using Elon numbers). Not to mention that it is very likely the hing burn through was completely unsolvable for V1 without moving them. Now doing a tank stretch is something that both other companies and SpaceX has done before but it might just be that having worked people for 60+ hours a week for over a decade and burning through multiple generations of employees has acutally had negative effects on SpaceX. Not to mention all the moral issues for the people that didn't understand they were working for modern day von Braun pre-NASA instead of post-Operation Paperclip but do now.
Two failures in a row for the same stage certainly isn't great, especially as it's once again engines dropping. It makes one wonder if they actually understand the problem in their upper stage.
They had some relight problems in the booster stage as well, and admittedly they have a margin with how many engines they have there, but makes it kind of seem like their ability to get all their engines up reliably right now isn't the best. I suppose it could be an issue with getting fuel to the engines as well... but either way.
They had some relight problems in the booster stage as well, and admittedly they have a margin with how many engines they have there, but makes it kind of seem like their ability to get all their engines up reliably right now isn't the best. I suppose it could be an issue with getting fuel to the engines as well... but either way.
- Location
- Lost in the internet
I hate to say it but the Spaceship launches make me remember the N1 more and more...
The more engine you have the more leeway but also the greater the challenge is to keep the ''plumbing'' reliable...
The more engine you have the more leeway but also the greater the challenge is to keep the ''plumbing'' reliable...
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Yeah.
Also... like, I have to wonder. How many billions of dollars worth of superheavy rockets has Musk launched and blown up in the process of iteratively prototyping this beast? I have to wonder how this compares and contrasts to the cost of the development process of the Saturn V, for instance, where as I recall every single launch at least made it to orbit and where the sum total of prototype launches of the full Saturn V stack before they considered the rocket man-rated was...
Two.
Apollo 4, Apollo 6, and then they did a manned launch for Apollo 8.
In an era with far less capacity to do computer simulation and so on, NASA's people managed to get a works-every-time superheavy rocket going after TWO prototype launches, both of which did NOT explode in space or on the way to space.
I get the feeling that Musk's noted ketamine-brain tendencies are fucking this project up by repeated rounds of "measure once, cut twice," just as he's been fucking up Twitter and now the entire US government in general. And at this point, who in their right mind would rely on the rocket not to kill them if they flew on it or flew any mission profile dependent on it actually working?
...
Piecing together some Wikpedia statements, total cost to date of Starship is probably, uh... about
(3 billion up through May 2023) + (4 million per day)*(700-ish days since then)
Something in the neighborhood of 5.5 to 6 billion dollars to launch zero working models, assuming no major costs are hidden and I haven't missed anything critical. Hmmm.
...
Now, in fairness, that's actually less than the inflation-adjusted cost of the Saturn V program in 1966 alone (which was somewhere north of 8.6 billion 2024 dollars), and the total cost of the Saturn V program was around 40 billion 2024 dollars or a bit more, it seems. But this process is not cheap and from the sound of it there really isn't an end in sight. If nothing else, because how many of these test flights would they need in a row before they're sure they have a consistently working design?
Also... like, I have to wonder. How many billions of dollars worth of superheavy rockets has Musk launched and blown up in the process of iteratively prototyping this beast? I have to wonder how this compares and contrasts to the cost of the development process of the Saturn V, for instance, where as I recall every single launch at least made it to orbit and where the sum total of prototype launches of the full Saturn V stack before they considered the rocket man-rated was...
Two.
Apollo 4, Apollo 6, and then they did a manned launch for Apollo 8.
In an era with far less capacity to do computer simulation and so on, NASA's people managed to get a works-every-time superheavy rocket going after TWO prototype launches, both of which did NOT explode in space or on the way to space.
I get the feeling that Musk's noted ketamine-brain tendencies are fucking this project up by repeated rounds of "measure once, cut twice," just as he's been fucking up Twitter and now the entire US government in general. And at this point, who in their right mind would rely on the rocket not to kill them if they flew on it or flew any mission profile dependent on it actually working?
...
Piecing together some Wikpedia statements, total cost to date of Starship is probably, uh... about
(3 billion up through May 2023) + (4 million per day)*(700-ish days since then)
Something in the neighborhood of 5.5 to 6 billion dollars to launch zero working models, assuming no major costs are hidden and I haven't missed anything critical. Hmmm.
...
Now, in fairness, that's actually less than the inflation-adjusted cost of the Saturn V program in 1966 alone (which was somewhere north of 8.6 billion 2024 dollars), and the total cost of the Saturn V program was around 40 billion 2024 dollars or a bit more, it seems. But this process is not cheap and from the sound of it there really isn't an end in sight. If nothing else, because how many of these test flights would they need in a row before they're sure they have a consistently working design?
Last edited:
Presumably at a certain point they'd start launching Starlink satellites with them to try and build up the stats and get some use out of it. At the least they're already launched the last two with Starlink dummy loads. Of course then suddenly they didn't even make it in to space anymore...
Still, there it's the upper stage that is breaking on them and it 'only' has six engines, so I'll presume they'll manage to fix that up again eventually. They certainly had it working once after all and then they can presumably continue on their now substantially delayed path of testing if they could deploy Starlink from it.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Maybe. But I'm honestly expecting that fifty years later when the historians with a sideline in forensic accounting piece it all together, it'll turn out that some shit-for-brains Musk decision set back Starship by several prototypes and at least a few billion dollars.
And this is the guy that the far right is praising for wanting to "prevent waste..."
[rolls eyes, spits]
And this is the guy that the far right is praising for wanting to "prevent waste..."
[rolls eyes, spits]
No, this looks like a very different problem.
The N1 failed due to the difficulty of controlling all those engines, but here the stage with more engines is the one that's working fine, it's working really well actually, since it has managed to perform its part of the mission and return to dock with the tower right in its first flights.
I know it's an unpleasant feeling to agree with something Musk-related, but there might something of value in here? Ok, the second stage may or may not work but the first appears to be good, perhaps some company can pick up the idea and work it into a Musk-free launcher?
- Pronouns
- He/Him
There was a very famous failure of the Apollo program that killed Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chafee, in a pre-launch test and rehearsal.
Last edited:
Jonen C
F.M.D.G.
- Location
- Lincopense, Ostrogothia, Suecia
Well yeah, and since then, NASA still has to occasionally be reminded not to shake hands with danger.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
That wasn't a failure of the Saturn rocket; that was a failure of the Apollo capsule. I'm trying to compare apples to apples here.
If you want to argue that SpaceX did a better job with Dragon than NASA did with Apollo or for that matter the Space Shuttle in avoiding fatalities, well, you've got a solid place to start the argument by going with "no fatalities." But Starship isn't Dragon.