"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)
#4460594 - 02/09/1903:32 PMRe: Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship
[Re: F4UDash4]
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
In the spring of 2014, I visited the Michoud Assembly Facility, based in Southern Louisiana. Already, technicians were building barrels for the Space Launch System rocket's core stage. And NASA was investing tens of millions of dollars to modernize Michoud to produce the rocket. At the time, an aerospace analyst for the Rand Corporation, Peter Wilson, explained that, "They’re throwing the money into this program, into places like Michoud, to make it very expensive to change course."
NASA has not changed course. And after at least 5.5 years, during which time NASA has spent more than $10 billion on the SLS rocket, they are finally almost done assembling that first core stage, consisting of two large fuel tanks, four main engines, and all of a rocket's associated plumbing.
One answer to the question of why this has taken so long, and required so much money, is that there has been a lack of urgency. Large complex development programs—like, say, super heavy lift rockets—work best with low levels of funding during the design phase, a spike during development, and then diminished funding during flight production. Instead, after Congress created the SLS rocket program with a baseline of about $2 billion a year, it kept funding at, more or less, flat levels plus inflation. This is a great strategy for creating and sustaining jobs, but it's a poor way to go about rocket development.
SpaceX's Starship prototype, fabricated in a field in South Texas in five months, offers a counter example. It's what a sense of urgency can accomplish.
The SLS rocket core stage, consisting of four space shuttle main engines, measures 64.6 meters tall, with a diameter of 8.4 meters. The Starship Mk1 vehicle is 50.0 meters tall, with a diameter of 9.1 meters. So they are roughly the same size. Neither is the complete rocket. On the launch pad, the SLS will have two very large side-mounted solid-rocket boosters, derived from the space shuttle. And Starship is actually the upper stage of SpaceX's next-generation rocket, Super Heavy.
By itself, the SLS core stage cannot get to orbit. In fact, according to physicist Scott Manley, without its side-mounted boosters a fully fueled SLS core stage cannot even lift off the launch pad. The SpaceX Starship prototype, with three Raptor engines instead of a full complement of six, also cannot get to orbit. But it should be able to reach at least 25 to 30km, said Manley, who has a popular rocket science YouTube channel.
The SLS rocket remains a couple of years from its maiden flight. Starship, however, will likely make a 20km flight in November, Musk said.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two new rockets is the velocity of their development. The SLS core stage, which uses heritage technology from the space shuttle, including its main engines, has taken at least 5.5 years to build, and billions of dollars.
Starship Mk 1 didn't even exist until this spring, and it may leap off the pad before year's end. This appears to underscore the value of urgency and clarity of purpose. At SpaceX the urging comes from the top. As Musk said of schedules on Saturday night, "tight is right, long is wrong." And Starship has a clear exploration purpose as well, allowing humans to settle other worlds, and fuel optimism in humanity's future.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4495228 - 10/30/1903:20 PMRe: Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship
[Re: F4UDash4]
A space elevator is the potential end game. Once we have one of these and the requisite "geostationary" orbital counterweight platform, fueling up these starships from orbit will be relatively easy.
Relatively.
Pumping all that fuel up into space won't be without challenges and difficulties. But it'll be better than burning fuel to put more fuel into orbit.
That is, until we perfect some propulsion methods that don't require liquid fuel for travel to the Moon, Mars and beyond.
This is all barring our discovery of a better solution to arrive in orbit and beyond. If we were to unlock the secrets of the Higgs boson sooner, perhaps we'd be countering gravity with massless craft, defying all logic and reason, entering space with little to no effort, or through other exotic avenues. Until then, think elevators.
Regardless, Starship is pretty #%&*$# cool. Nice blog, btw.
Last edited by Mr_Blastman; 10/30/1905:48 PM.
#4495252 - 10/30/1906:24 PMRe: Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship
[Re: F4UDash4]
Joined: May 2009 Posts: 1,496Genbrien
Stick to the plan man!
Yeah, that orbital counterweight would have to be a doozy (as in, a LOTTA mass)... and coming up with an elevator connection that could stand up to the various physical challenges... It's going to be a long time, if ever, before that comes to pass.
A long linear accelerator going up some mountain flank might be a more practical (intermediary?) solution than an elevator.
An elevator might be a much more practical thing to build on the moon. Mars OTOH has Phobos on a collision course, not ideal. Phobos would have to be moved out of the way, one way ot the other.
#4495613 - 11/01/1908:05 PMRe: Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship
[Re: Genbrien]
"Musk said that fuel costs for the Starship should be around $900,000 per launch, and that once you factor in operational costs, it’ll probably add up to around $2 million per use. That’s “much less than even a tiny rocket,” Musk added, explaining why he views it as “imperative” that this launch system needs to be made."
Even if he's off by a factor of 10 ($20 million) or 50 ($100 million) it's still a game changer.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4497808 - 11/21/1912:59 AMRe: Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship
[Re: F4UDash4]
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4497992 - 11/22/1909:22 PMRe: Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship
[Re: F4UDash4]
"The key to grasping why SpaceX can afford an accident like this is to understand its iterative design philosophy. Under this approach to the design of spaceflight hardware, the company builds vehicles, tests them, and flies them as quickly as possible. And if they fail, as often happens, SpaceX fixes them. This is especially true of the Starship program in which teams of SpaceX engineers in Texas and Florida are separately building prototypes of Starship to learn from them and then improve the design in subsequent versions.
The nomenclature SpaceX uses is "Mark," as in the vehicle the that was severely damaged Wednesday was Mark 1, with Mark 2 being built in Florida, and work already beginning on Mark 3 in Texas. It is possible this "Mark 3" vehicle will fly into orbit sometime in 2020.
This "fail early, fail forward" strategy allows a company to move more quickly and improve its design along the way. It also results in public failures, such as the all-explodey rocket Wednesday. This cannot exactly strengthen customer confidence in Starship, but given that failures are baked into the development process, it does not diminish Starship's overall prospects."
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4509001 - 03/01/2001:24 PMRe: Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship
[Re: F4UDash4]
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
#4509070 - 03/01/2010:38 PMRe: Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship
[Re: F4UDash4]
Unfortunate, but I really hope they iron out the kinks and get to where they're trying to go.
But with two failed prototypes, I have to wonder whether or not their engineering team is making enough effort to account for all the possible variables, using information gleaned from previous space program development.
#4509073 - 03/01/2010:48 PMRe: Why SpaceX Built A Stainless Steel Starship
[Re: F4UDash4]
Supposedly they changed the way they weld the seams on the top but the bottom was welded with the old method and they expected it to fail because of the old welds. The next one should be 100% new weld method... (it will probably also explode lol)
SpaceX will learn more from these physical tests than months/years of computer modeling and it will probably be cheaper as well. Thus far the vast majority of people who have second guessed Musk's ways of doing things at SpaceX or Tesla etc. have ended up wrong.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz