• elucubra@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    I like how the article reminds us of creating goverment efficiency by creating an additional department. I’m an old IT guy. I worked for the US goverment in the 80´s, and my org was the pilot place for a paperless office. We got a “fast” scanner, a 4 ppm Laser printer (in the 80´s those things went for 1000´s,) the size of a washing machine, and two additional new filing cabinets!!

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Starship’s upper stage will make a partial orbit of Earth, re-enter the atmosphere and splash down in the Indian Ocean…

    Also known as not an orbit, or a suborbital flight / trajectory.

    Saying a suborbital flight is a partial orbit is like saying a cessna can partially achieve hypersonic velocities.

    NASA is also counting on a specialized version of Starship to ferry astronauts to the lunar surface later this decade under its Artemis program.

    There is no public information indicating design on this variant has even begun.

    … And Starship+Heavy Booster was supposed to have completed a succesful orbital flight in Q2 2022, per NASA’s contract with SpaceX.

    Which it still has not done, in Q4 2024.

    If SpaceX somehow completes an orbital flight of this thing in say Q2 2025, and keeps to the originally agreed contract timeline, well thats only 3 years behind schedule.

    But this is Musk. Not the best track record on delivering on promises, more of a ‘pray i do not alter the deal further’ kinda vibe, but spoken with all the menacing intimidation of Darth Helmet.

    So far he’s gotten a banana to suborbit in this thing.

    I’ll eat a sock if a SpaceX launcher and lander gets human beings to the moon and back safely by the end of 2030.

    Did I forget to mention Musk’s plan for a moon mission requires the Starship Lunar Lander variant to remain in Earth orbit, rendevouz and dock with and refuel from something like 12 or 16 other Starships?

    … And there is also no publicly available information indicating actual design of this refuelling system either, just vague cgi concept arts of a plan?

    I’ll eat two fucking socks.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      You’ll stay hungry.

      How about hyperloop? Rocket teslas? Sub orbital rockets to transport people “safely” anywhere in the world in 30 mins? Boring co making tunnels 1000 times cheaper?

      I could go on for a while but you get the point.

      Musk is not just a “pray that I don’t change it more” vibe, he’s a straight up scammer who got lucky.

    • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I’m a space systems propulsion design engineer by profession. I worked on a project which I will not name that requires on-orbit refuelling. (It’s not this one and I don’t and will never work for Elon Musk).
      The technology for in-orbit refuelling doesn’t exist, and there’s a whole lot of new technology required. Remotely docking is akin to self-driving in complexity; don’t forget to factor in the signal delay if you’re in a lunar or translunar orbit. If you make this a crewed activity only, then the problem becomes one of pneumatics. A pressure system that can reliably contain and transfer pressure up to the levels of spacecraft fuel (around 300 psi for liquid, 3000 for gas) repeatedly, in both directions is very, very heavy. The valves are heavy, the tanks are heavy, the control systems are heavy. Too heavy to be considered viable for spaceflight. Even less so for a mission whose payload is “as much transfer fuel as we can possibly get up there”. A huge amount of innovation has to take place before this can become real. As of 2022, when I last worked on this, none of the technology was even being researched, that is to say it was not even at TRL 3. Typically these things take on the order of a decade or so to get to TRL 9, if they are successful and quick.
      I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m saying I’ll be fascinated to see which solutions they come up with, and that I’m sceptical that they do have current solutions which are feasible and useful, rather than something like a one-shot refueling subsystem that weighs 250kg and delivers 15 litres of hydrazine.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I appreciate your expert input!

        Yeah the only stuff I could find about actual orbital refueling was basically some tests with cryogenic fuel pumping on the ISS, which had some fairly serious problems, and a few times that basically a small satellite was refueled / serviced by another small satellite, which yeah as you say, just deliver a tiny amount of hydrazine, an exceptionally less volatile and easier fuel to deal with.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      So yet another government contractor with delays and cost overruns getting rich off the American tax dollar being feted by the Right.

      Sounds normal.

    • rImITywR@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Saying a suborbital flight is a partial orbit is like saying a cessna can partially achieve hypersonic velocities

      Starship reached over 26000km/h, it had enough energy to be in orbit if it was in a circular orbit. The orbit was intentionally left eccentric enough that the perigee was within the atmosphere, so that a deorbit burn was not required.

      This is a cessna going mach 4.99 and you’re being pedantic enough to say it was not hypersonic.

      I agree with the rest of what you say though. As fun as it is to watch, Starship is over budget and behind schedule. Elon has over promised (pronounced “lied to get government subsidies”) on timelines and capabilities so much that it may jeopardize the Artemis program. Which makes me mad.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I fell asleep after making my original comment, but you are correct that the velocities and altitude achieved are indicative of something capable of achieving orbit.

        So for that, thank you for the correction.

        I will caveat that with: We still have literally no idea what this things LEO payload capacity is.

        Up until a few months ago, Musk was saying its 100 tons. Then he says its more like 50 tons, and we’re gonna make Starship+Booster 2 and 3, 2 will be capable of 100 tons, 3 will be even more.

        So far its proven payload capacity is ‘banana’.

        =/

      • tb_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        so much that it may jeopardize the Artemis program.

        Which means he’s successfully cornered the market and he hasn’t even launched his product yet! What a great billionaire, I’m sure he’s a great fit for a government position.

      • dellish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        You’re being pedantic enough to say it was not hypersonic

        That’s not what OP was saying at all. He/she was pointing out calling the $100 in your pocket a “partial $1000” is just silly. So instead of saying “partial orbit” , the author should have I stead said “sub-ortial flight”. Their words, not mine - although I do agree. The tendency for journalists to over-exaggerate anybody’s claims is infuriating.

        • rImITywR@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          My point is that this flight wasn’t $100 out of $1000. It was $999 out of $1000. If the engines burned for a couple of seconds longer, it would have been a stable orbit. But their intended orbit was eccentric and had a low perigee, so that it would reenter after half an orbit.

        • rImITywR@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Are we talking about the same flight I watched today? It made it through re-entry and made a controlled, powered, soft splash down exactly where it was supposed to.

          • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 minutes ago

            It was a suborbital flight. They never accelerated to the orbital speed, hence the apogee was ballistic and upon “reentry”, the vehicle only experienced negligible heatup. A real atmospheric reentry from orbit is the biggest technological challenge in return vehicles, and they still have to do that with Starship

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Ehhh, two years late for a rocket isn’t terrible. Space is hard.

      But yeah 2030 is an aggressive timeline. I’m shocked NASA didn’t go for an Apollo-style service module and lander that gets assembled in-orbit, launched by Falcon Heavies. That seems like the least crazy architecture and requires very little new technology.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        The original timeline NASA gave to SpaceX was to have a successful landing on the moon, with humans, and their safe return, in Q2 2025.

        7 months from now.

        You could theoretically refuel the S-IVb, the Apollo/Saturn V third stage, in LEO, with Falcon Heavies…

        …assuming you redesigned both to do refueling in orbit, which has never been accomplished before with huge volumes of cryogenic fuel.

        But you could not actually launch even a completely unfueled, completely dry S-IVb with a Falcon Heavy.

        The S-IVb is about 22ft in diameter.

        The Falcon Heavy’s final ascent rocket is about 12 ft in diameter.

        There’s almost certainly no way that would be aerodynamically stable through launch.

        The service module and lander are just too wide.

        NASA did actually award another contract to Blue Origin (Bezos Private Space Program) for an updated, embiggened Apollo style lander.

        https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/05/blue-origin-wins-pivotal-nasa-contract-to-develop-a-second-lunar-lander/

        That’s going to be mated to a Locked Martin designed orbiter, and they’ll all launch on the SLS.

        … Assuming the SLS does not also fall (further) behind schedule or suffer from quality control problems.

        A whole lot of SLS is built by Boeing. Not doing so great in the quality control department lately.

        But hey at least one of the things so far has actually completed an uncrewed lunar fly by!

        To conclude: Yes, Space is indeed hard.

        But uh, the last thing Musk said about Starship+Booster is that it will actually have… half… the originally promised payload capacity to LEO.

        … and they’re going to making a Starship+Booster 2, that will have the original promised payload, and then a 3rd version that will have even more!

        If you have to cut your effective payload capacity in half, thats a whole lot more than quality control problems, its fundamental design mishaps.

        • niemcycle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Yeah, the Starship was severely over-promised from the start, especially the payload capacity. I wish there had been more required demonstrations from the beginning, instead of just using the numbers promised by Musk, who is known to inflate numbers for marketing purposes.

          Not to mention the assumption of orbital fuelling working perfectly without even doing any demonstrations at all or pointing to any existing technologies. It’s a very Kerbal Space Program idea but significantly more complex in reality. Especially as now they are planning 5+ refuelling missions per Starship going to the Moon, which is logistically baffling.

        • deltapi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Or…Elon maybe was talking out of his ass when he came up with the original numbers? If he went wildly optimistic on the “if I tell them to do it we’ll do it” attitude it would explain it too.

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        They’ve also blown their entire development budget and have received another billion dollars in development funds.

        The sheer number of people looking at starship’s delays and cost overruns and not seeing the exact same issues SLS had with Boeing are kind of staggering.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          If you think that Starship has the exact same issues that SLS has you’re truly stretching reality. A billion dollars and two years is a TINY cost overrun compared to what they are doing. I know it sounds like a lot but for comparison, SLS costs like $2.5 billion per launch, not including development costs.

    • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I assume China will put somebody on the moon before Musk’s meme rocket gets there.

  • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Damn. One good malfunction could have taken out Elmo, Trump, and Zodiac all at once.

    • Danitos@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’m a huge space fan/nerd, but LHC is far more impressive if you consider it to be of our generation. Even if not, ITER takes the spot, IMO (although I admit some personal bias when it comes to ITER).

      • voluble@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        ITER seems interesting to me. What gets you excited about ITER? Seems to me that their operational timeline is so far in the future, and the outcomes are unknown. As an engineering artifact, I understand its boner factor. From a broader human achievement standpoint, I can’t really see what all the buzz is about. I want to learn and try to understand.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      What do you care when it’s only the elite that will make it there? The rest of us will burn here on earth

      • Free_Opinions@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I love this narrative that space colonization is about getting the “elite” off Earth after they’ve supposedly ruined it, leaving the rest of us behind. And then what? Are the elite going to sit inside a tiny capsule on Mars for the rest of their lives, eating potatoes and drinking recycled urine?

        If an asteroid were about to impact Earth and I had to choose between the elite escaping to another planet or humanity going extinct, I’d gladly let the elite survive to restart civilization elsewhere.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          You think those selfish dicks, who would rather fuck off to another planet instead of try to curb their own behavior to fix this one, are gonna create some idea egalitarian society?

          Fuck no, they’re gonna have a slave class to do all the work for them.

        • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          I’d argue that if we can’t protect the little guy from the billionaires, then the race has no business continuing on into space.

            • vladmech@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Hypothetically if the ultra rich built this up and got to a point where humanity is ending, and they could save 10,000 of their friends and hanged-oners, but everyone else on Earth dies, and you have a button that could trap them here, would you poke it?

              • Billiam@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 hours ago

                Are there any extra effects if I push the button quicker or more than once? I gotta know if I should worry about spraining my finger or not.

              • Well first i believe thw earth won’t get to the point its completely lost except if we have a astroid strike or sonthibg of the sort. And second i probably wouldnt simply cos i believe humanity is worth saving over being a spitefull cunt.

                U didnt answer my question would u willingly genocide 8billion people simply to get revenge on 1?

                • vladmech@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  I wouldn’t kill 8 billion to get revenge on one person, nah. I’d happily let 10,000 billionaires die though if they were abandoning Earth and letting 8 billion people die. They’ve had innumerable chances to help lift up humanity and instead all they do is enrich themselves at the expense of the 99.999%, why the fuck would I care about humanity surviving if that’s what ‘humanity’ is being defined as?

        • niemcycle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Honestly given current technology, it makes the most sense to care for the Earth than attempt to colonize other planets, which are fundamentally unlivable in a myriad of ways. Survival of our species doesn’t mean a whole lot if it is 8 guys in a Mars base dependent on regular supply missions from Earth.

          Not to mention, if we do focus on our planet and how to best manage the environment, it teaches lessons on how to potentially manage other planets’ one day.

    • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Agreed. SpaceX has and continues to do awesome shit. Elon simply bought the company. I don’t equate the two.