Space X

[Culican]

[mikeylikey]

Space X was just awarded the exclusive contract for NASA’s moon lander.

Next step: M A R S. Mars, birches.

[mbasic]

Petty good synopsis

[aurelius]

I like how they cut corners to save costs and didn't build a launch pad that could handle the take off. Now they are facing lawsuits and will have difficulty getting FAA approval for future launches in the near future.

[mikeylikey]

I like how they cut corners to save costs and didn't build a launch pad that could handle the take off. Now they are facing lawsuits and will have difficulty getting FAA approval for future launches in the near future.

It wasn't so much to save money as it was to save TIME. This was never going to be the final iteration of the pad, it needed major renovations to handle repeated launches anyway. So they were already planning to spend that money. The rocket was ready, the pad wasn't, they didn't want to wait. And, supposing they waited 3-6 more months while finishing a more complex flame handling system, only to blow the rocket up on the pad, which was a real possibility that arguably almost happened. Okay now you have to rebuild the fancy upgraded pad instead of the bare-bones just make it work pad. Now you've wasted the time and the money.

You have to understand that this wasn't a question of cheaping out. It's an inherent part of SpaceX's philosophy; go as fast as you can and fix problems as they come up. Which seems dumb right up until it doesn't.

[BostonRugger]

I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.

[mikeylikey]

I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.

And the fact that it is the largest rocket ever is arguably 4th or 5th on the list of things that make it impressive and important.

[mbasic]

I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.

It seems they barely eclipsed the Saturn V in some of the dick measuring metrics ....
...but Saturn rockets were circa 19-fucking-60's tech, materials, engineering, etc .... drawn up with slide rulers and pencils. Seems like they should be able to do better these days.

Seems like a failure, to me, it exploded like that. I like the mental gymnastics of Elon fans that this was a win; and the contrived cheering after the explosion. Especially since these are being designed to carry a lot of people (100?). That doesn't instill any confidence in me. I don't think any Saturn V's blew up.

I'm not a rocket engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night .... it is just me, or did it not even get to a point of the lunch where anything was interesting and/or challenging .... and/or far enough along to where anything could be learned from this incident?

The whole go as fast as possible, and expect failures and learn from those so called non-mistakes, and figure it out on the fly thing ... has a lot of downsides.

-----------------

EDIT: I just watched the launch. Seems like it did about 5-6 loops before the explosion. Seems like as soon as it went over 45 degrees, they should have blown it up then .... I doubt there's any regaining of control after it lists off center a bit. You're only letting the rocket get into a more dangerous spot for the public the more as time goes by.

[mbasic]

I like how they cut corners to save costs and didn't build a launch pad that could handle the take off. Now they are facing lawsuits and will have difficulty getting FAA approval for future launches in the near future.

It wasn't so much to save money as it was to save TIME. This was never going to be the final iteration of the pad, it needed major renovations to handle repeated launches anyway. So they were already planning to spend that money. The rocket was ready, the pad wasn't, they didn't want to wait. And, supposing they waited 3-6 more months while finishing a more complex flame handling system, only to blow the rocket up on the pad, which was a real possibility that arguably almost happened. Okay now you have to rebuild the fancy upgraded pad instead of the bare-bones just make it work pad. Now you've wasted the time and the money.

You have to understand that this wasn't a question of cheaping out. It's an inherent part of SpaceX's philosophy; go as fast as you can and fix problems as they come up. Which seems dumb right up until it doesn't.

They probably fucked themselves by cheeping-out on smartly fabricating a disposable pad: Debris prolly fucked up the rocket yet they don't want to say it because it was all this "intentional smartly calculated short-cut" mikey describes.

Back on the ground, Musk said the booster created a “rock tornado” underneath the rocket as it was lifting off. While SpaceX has not seen “evidence that the rock tornado actually damaged engines or heat shields in a material way,” Musk noted that the company “certainly didn’t expect” to destroy the launch pad’s concrete and create a crater in its wake.

“One of the more plausible explanations is that ... we may have compressed the sand underneath the concrete to such a degree that the concrete effectively bent and then cracked,” Musk said.

lol at "Rock Tornado"

[BostonRugger]

I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.

And the fact that it is the largest rocket ever is arguably 4th or 5th on the list of things that make it impressive and important.

I'm too dumb to even conceive of all that. Big rocket go WHHOOOOOOSHHHHHHHH

ETA: Wife is a Worcester girl and I'm kind of a sucker for hometown hero Robert Goddard's ("father of modern rocketry") cherry tree dream.

“It was one of the quiet, colorful afternoons of sheer beauty which we have in October in New England, and as I looked toward the fields at the east, I imagined how wonderful it would be to make some device which had even the possibility of ascending to Mars, and how it would look on a small scale, if sent up from the meadow at my feet...I was a different boy when I descended the tree from when I ascended, for existence at last seemed very purposive.”

[mikeylikey]

Saturn V

Rockets were pretty mature technology by the late 60s. The Germans had figured out how to convert something like 85% of the energy from burning chemical fuel into thrust in the 1940s. By the Saturn V they were at about 95%. Space X today is maybe pushing 97% efficiency. Diminishing returns are the name of the game in rockets. There are limits of physics that can't be engineered around. Much Pareto.

[aurelius]

It wasn't so much to save money as it was to save TIME. This was never going to be the final iteration of the pad, it needed major renovations to handle repeated launches anyway. So they were already planning to spend that money. The rocket was ready, the pad wasn't, they didn't want to wait. And, supposing they waited 3-6 more months while finishing a more complex flame handling system, only to blow the rocket up on the pad, which was a real possibility that arguably almost happened. Okay now you have to rebuild the fancy upgraded pad instead of the bare-bones just make it work pad. Now you've wasted the time and the money.

You have to understand that this wasn't a question of cheaping out. It's an inherent part of SpaceX's philosophy; go as fast as you can and fix problems as they come up. Which seems dumb right up until it doesn't.

Too much 4D chess for Musk. The ongoing Twitter saga has shown he doesn't think that far ahead. Bare in mind he had his engineers make the rocket nose more pointy after watching the Dictator. A rounded nose is better by the way.

The $$$ is no big deal as Space X is a state sponsored company. There is more printed money to replace the printed money that just exploded. It is the lawsuit Space X and the FAA will now have to fight before they can launch again. Which will take a lot longer than 3-6 months to resolve. Please see previous GIF.

[aurelius]

Rockets were pretty mature technology by the late 60s. The Germans had figured out how to convert something like 85% of the energy from burning chemical fuel into thrust in the 1940s. By the Saturn V they were at about 95%. Space X today is maybe pushing 97% efficiency. Diminishing returns are the name of the game in rockets. There are limits of physics that can't be engineered around. Much Pareto.

Not to mention We the People were willing to accept A LOT more risk. And keep in mind Nasa was 5% of GDP for ~10 years. It is now a tenth of 1%. Unlimited funding plus disposable astronauts equals A LOT of progress.

[mikeylikey]

Too much 4D chess for Musk. The ongoing Twitter saga has shown he doesn't think that far ahead. Bare in mind he had his engineers make the rocket nose more pointy after watching the Dictator. A rounded nose is better by the way.

I don't think it is 4d chess. Elon wanted to launch as fast as possible, and factors both reasonable (overall design philosophy) and silly (4/20!), no doubt played into that decision. The outcome wasn't ideal but not as bad as some are making it out to be.

The $$$ is no big deal as Space X is a state sponsored company. There is more printed money to replace the printed money that just exploded. It is the lawsuit Space X and the FAA will now have to fight before they can launch again. Which will take a lot longer than 3-6 months to resolve. Please see previous GIF.

I am not sure what a "state sponsored company" is but it seems like an unnecessarily pejorative moniker. SpaceX does contract work for the federal government. So do IBM and Phizer.

And SpaceX is saving taxpayers billions of dollars by taking people and cargo, for the government, to space for orders of magnitude cheaper than anything the government has access to before.

Boeing has gotten billions of dollars for Starliner alone and it has yet to carry a live passenger. The next closest thing to Starship is the SLS/Orion that NASA is building with the help of the usual suspects. That has been in development for almost 20 years, they have spent $50b so far, and have had one uncrewed test flight, and that was built literally out of left-over space shuttle parts. And yeah it didn't explode. Congratulations Government.

Whether the government should be spending tax money on spaceflight is a fine discussion to have, but the fact is the congress you people elected wants to spend that money so I'd prefer they do so with the lowest cost provider, and that is SpaceX by a mile.

[convergentsum]

I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.

It seems they barely eclipsed the Saturn V in some of the dick measuring metrics ....
...but Saturn rockets were circa 19-fucking-60's tech, materials, engineering, etc .... drawn up with slide rulers and pencils. Seems like they should be able to do better these days.

The apollo mission cost, allowing for inflation, a quarter of a *trillion* dollars. It's difficult to comprehend just how ridiculous a thing it is to have done. You can't really compare it to a contemporary effort towards a commercially viable operation.

[mbasic]

I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.

It seems they barely eclipsed the Saturn V in some of the dick measuring metrics ....
...but Saturn rockets were circa 19-fucking-60's tech, materials, engineering, etc .... drawn up with slide rulers and pencils. Seems like they should be able to do better these days.

The apollo mission cost, allowing for inflation, a quarter of a *trillion* dollars. It's difficult to comprehend just how ridiculous a thing it is to have done. You can't really compare it to a contemporary effort towards a commercially viable operation.

I can compare with basic tech problems and logistical mistakes.

Apparently 3 engines didn't fire;
the thing spiraled looped out of control for what seemed like a minute, without recognizing that or self-destructing;
the launch pad thing;
separation failed;

....none of that, in my mind, is inflation dependent and/or is relative to the will of the country to throw untold amounts of resources at a challenge.
I guess a bonus the basic "air-frame" seems quite robust with all the high velocity loops it did, still coupled up, and it hung it there.....lol.

EDIT:
Dickipedia tells me 165 Billion-2021-dollars for a ten year program that was like 20-some-odd launches (test flights and 17 Apollo space missions).
That doesn't seem bad at all. As a percentage of our US budget back then, yes its obscene. Elon paid what exactly for Twitter in 2022? $44B.
What a fucken joke.


Some of this stuff is funny.
They really can't improve things too much beyond a certain point because physics.
B-52 is still a pretty impressive and useful platform even today.
The military's new rifle really isn't all the much better (or different) than an M-16/M-4.
An excavator (trackhoe) looks and performs about the same as it did 40-50 years ago.
"Space Rockets" are fairly basic lowbrow technology: throw a projectile and hard as possible with a controlled explosion to escape earth's gravity.

[mikeylikey]

Dickipedia tells me 165 Billion-2021-dollars for a ten year program that was like 20-some-odd launches (test flights and 17 Apollo space missions).

Acktchually, as with Start Wars, they started with #4.

There were 14 official Apollo launches (including 3 unmanned tests), 16 if you count Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz. Not all "Apollo" missions used the Saturn V. The Saturn V itself flew 12 times in Lunar configuration (2 were unmanned, and one crewed flight to LEO only) and once more for Skylab.

Some of this stuff is funny.
They really can't improve things too much beyond a certain point because physics.
B-52 is still a pretty impressive and useful platform even today.

This is what I was getting at a couple posts back;

The B52 is a great example. If you were going to design a non-stealth heavy lift long rang bomber today, it would superficially look a lot like a B52 and most likely have operating capabilities not dramatically better. However if your new plane cost half as much to make and had 90% lower operating and maintenance costs, that would be very impressive.

Of course this is not how it works with military contractors but, that would be impressive.

"Space Rockets" are fairly basic lowbrow technology: throw a projectile and hard as possible with a controlled explosion to escape earth's gravity.

Yes and no. The basic physics of converting heat to thrust is pretty simple and has been well understood for 100 years. This is why you shouldn't expect huge improvements in the "dick measuring" metrics. There is just not enough meat left on the bone.

However while there is not a lot left to squeeze out of the chemistry and physics of mixing carbon and oxygen under pressure, there is a lot of room for innovation in how you accomplish the task. Where you can (and SpaceX has, see Falcon series) still make meaningful improvements in rockets is things like ease and cost of manufacturing, reliability, operating cost, and most of all reusability. Until you stop throwing away a 9-plus-figure $$$ rocket after every use the rest is mostly academic.

[mbasic]

Until you stop throwing away a 9-plus-figure $$$ rocket after every use the rest is mostly academic.

What are you getting at here? That I should cut them some slack because we are comparing quasi-reuseable rockets with one time use units of the 60's?

As an aside, I thought/heard the whole re-useable aspect is a joke.
By the time you have recover, inspect, certify, refurbish a re-useable rocket .... the cost and "turn-around" time doesn't make sense.
Especially if you are putting people on them.
Reuseable rockets are ... to your point I think .... harder to engineer and make, and more expensive than disposable rockets.
They still only will have so many launches in them.
If something fucks up on the reentry/landing part .... ooof, that's a huge loss and really fucks up The Books.

[mikeylikey]

Until you stop throwing away a 9-plus-figure $$$ rocket after every use the rest is mostly academic.

What are you getting at here? That I should cut them some slack because we are comparing quasi-reuseable rockets with one time use units of the 60's?

Uh, I guess? You were complaining that it's not that much bigger than Apollo. I think that misses the point.

As an aside, I thought/heard the whole re-useable aspect is a joke.
By the time you have recover, inspect, certify, refurbish a re-useable rocket .... the cost and "turn-around" time doesn't make sense.
Especially if you are putting people on them.
Reuseable rockets are ... to your point I think .... harder to engineer and make, and more expensive than disposable rockets.
They still only will have so many launches in them.
If something fucks up on the reentry/landing part .... ooof, that's a huge loss and really fucks up The Books.

So what, nobody should try because you heard it was hard?

Turns out we have some information on this. SpaceX charges about 65 million for a Falcon 9 launch when they recover the booster. If you want them to expend the booster (because you need more payload or a higher orbit) they charge about $100m. So apparently they value the hardware more than the refurbishment cost. It's already at least somewhat more cost effective, with extant, currently operational tech, to not throw the thing away.

And, to your point, to date, 'reusable' systems are probably more fairly classified as 'refurbishable'. Ideally, you'd land it, refuel it, and take off again like an airplane. And they're not there yet.

We all remember the famous JFK quote, "We do these things because they are easy. To hell with things that are hard."

[mbasic]

We all remember the famous JFK quote, "We do these things because they are easy. To hell with things that are hard."

50 October 26, 1963 Austin, TX Texas 10–6
51 October 24, 1964 Houston, TX Texas 6–3
52 October 23, 1965 Austin, TX Rice 20–17
53 October 22, 1966 Houston, TX Texas 14–6
54 October 28, 1967 Austin, TX Texas 28–6
55 October 26, 1968 Houston, TX Texas 38–14
56 October 25, 1969 Austin, TX Texas 31–0
57 October 24, 1970 Houston, TX Texas 45–21
58 October 23, 1971 Austin, TX Texas 39–10
59 October 28, 1972 Houston, TX Texas 45–9
60 October 27, 1973 Austin, TX Texas 55–13
61 October 26, 1974 Houston, TX Texas 27–6
62 October 25, 1975 Austin, TX Texas 41–9
63 October 2, 1976 Houston, TX Texas 42–15
64 October 1, 1977 Austin, TX Texas 72–15
65 September 16, 1978 Houston, TX Texas 34–0
66 October 6, 1979 Austin, TX Texas 26–9
67 October 4, 1980 Houston, TX Texas 41–28
68 September 12, 1981 Austin, TX Texas 31–3
69 October 2, 1982 Houston, TX Texas 34–7
70 October 1, 1983 Austin, TX Texas 42–6
71 October 6, 1984 Houston, TX Texas 38–13
72 October 5, 1985 Austin, TX Texas 44–16
73 October 4, 1986 Houston, TX Texas 17–14
74 October 3, 1987 Austin, TX Texas 45–26
75 October 1, 1988 Houston, TX Texas 20–13
76 October 7, 1989 Austin, TX Texas 31–30
77 October 6, 1990 Houston, TX Texas 26–10
78 October 5, 1991 Austin, TX Texas 28–7
79 October 3, 1992 Houston, TX Texas 23–21
80 October 2, 1993 Austin, TX Texas 55–38
81 October 16, 1994 Houston, TX Rice 19–17
82 October 7, 1995 Austin, TX Texas 37–13
83 September 27, 1997 Houston, TX Texas 38–31
84 September 26, 1998 Austin, TX Texas 59–21
85 September 18, 1999 Austin, TX Texas 18–13
86 September 20, 2003 Houston, TX Texas 48–7
87 September 25, 2004 Austin, TX Texas 35–13
88 September 17, 2005 Austin, TX Texas 51–10
89 September 16, 2006 Houston, TX Texas 52–7
90 September 22, 2007 Austin, TX Texas 58–14
91 September 20, 2008 Austin, TX Texas 52–10
92 September 4, 2010 Houston, TX Texas 34–17
93 September 3, 2011 Austin, TX Texas 34–9
94 September 12, 2015 Austin, TX Texas 42–28
95 September 14, 2019 Houston, TX Texas 48–13
96 September 18, 2021 Austin, TX Texas 58–0