Remix.run Logo
▲ hinkley 2 hours ago

I know engineering is about expediency, and price, but I’m still bummed that we aren’t getting ships with landing gear in this or likely the next generation of rockets either.

Seems that the heavier the rocket the more ground clearance to need to self-land, and so you can’t scale up the dragon’s landing system. I don’t think there’s anywhere near enough weight to shave off of the next rocket or enough specific impulse to add to bring the size back down.

▲modeless 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Starship HLS has landing gear. For Earth landings everything is so marginal that the weight penalty of landing gear is too high.

▲pfdietz an hour ago | parent [-]

Also, landing it on the chopsticks makes rapid turnaround easier.

▲m4rtink 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yeah, the chopstics mechanism is just so elegant in the end!

It can catch both stages & be used to stack the thing as well, simple and genius!

▲RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The space shuttle orbiter definitely had a lot more cool factor.

▲hinkley an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I think I’m convinced that VTOL is a better engineering trade off for space ships rather than making space planes.

▲bluescrn 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was extremely cool 45+ years ago. But the space race ended, and while government-funded space programs did some fantastic work beyond that (space telescopes and Mars landers), it took capitalism to develop the resuable rocket, then scale it up to Starship proportions.

▲timacles an hour ago | parent [-]

Like 50% of SpaceXs initial development came from tax payer money.

▲kortilla an hour ago | parent [-]

The government was a customer. That’s very different from the government giving a research grant.

That’s like saying 25% of Exxon’s development came from tax payer money because the government uses a shitload of oil.

▲qlte 3 minutes ago | parent [-]

A more accurate analogy would be giving contracts to Exxon back before they had ever found or drilled a single oil well, as their primary source of revenue to subsidize their R&D and learning curve, in the hope that they would eventually be able to supply the government with needed oil, and ultimately succeeded to become a key supplier.

▲pfdietz 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It also had a large stupid factor. Like one of von Braun's Germans was reported to have said: "they reinvented the wheel -- and made it square."

▲Onavo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I had to read the comment below (from u/modeless) before I realized by landing gear you meant the upright ones. I thought you wanted it to land sideways like a plane. (Arguably doable, though the control systems might add a lot more weight)

▲hinkley 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem with space planes is they are terrible planes, terrible rockets, and feed the egos of pilots.

To be fair to NASA and the astronauts, NASA needed humans who behave like military test pilots. In physiology, in reaction time, in crisis management, in following chain of command. And the armed forces were willing to give them access to known quantities.

We didn’t know how control systems would evolve over the next three decades, but the pilots wanted to pilot, and did not trust the control systems. And the irony of it all is that the Space Race was a proxy war for nuclear armament, so control systems needed to be made autonomous anyway.

Better control systems, wider telemetry, and not worrying about incinerating employees let current generation rocketry iterate faster, and do more fucking around and finding out. We found out twice with the shuttle and it killed the program.

It’s curious how much the upper stage now resembles a space shuttle on a ballistic trajectory instead of a glide angle. Very different landing strategies for those two modes of descent…

▲MarsZebra 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah the Starship program isn't about landing on Mars or even going there.

It's about pumping mass into low Earth orbit, partly for commericial, but mostly military purposes such as Golden Dome. Been in the works for decades and finally here. The people who know are very excited.

▲bluescrn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Starlink is pretty amazing tech which can be used for both good and evil - from enabling reliable communication in disaster zones to letting civilians browse social media from remote locations to communicating with weapons of war.

▲hinkley an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Every product has the same adoption curve. Early customers pay a premium which pays for building the factories, not just the product. By the time everyone is using them the prices have gotten low enough that the price is informed by supply rather than demand.

SpaceX being their own customer, and a lower priority one, lets them levellize their revenue, which also helps retain staff. And if anyone commoditizes launch systems, they have a hedge against that. However if demand for starlink ever does exceed capacity, the launch side could find their schedules being much more variable.

In software, you see this with priority queues all the time if you know where to look. Someone makes a “low priority” system that soaks up spare capacity. Internal customers become dependent on these systems and then become delay-averse. Meanwhile, other teams also start soaking up that spare capacity, by improved design or feature creep or both. That low priority system becomes starved of resources, and the internal customers start saber rattling. That system gets its own dedicated resources, and now stranded resources climb back to the original levels, if not worse.

Starlink will eventually become the same thing. And I wonder if they will spin it off when that situation arises.

▲MetaWhirledPeas an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> to communicating with weapons of war

You could say the same thing for terrestrial internet. Not trying to be contradictory, I just find this a very interesting ethical topic.

▲hinkley an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The Internet was built to be literally bomb-proof rather than figuratively. The utility of that has been self evident and “five nines” thinking continues this tradition. AWS AZs are meant to partially survive floods and wildfires. A super volcano would take out an entire region but people would have other problems at that point (the exception being if emergency services were on those machines, but disaster teams have been learning to bring emergency infrastructure with them ever since New Orleans).

As a UIUC student used to be fond of reminding me, part of the University of Illinois’ contribution to the old Internet was in a building that, if it were to collapse, would fall outward and not crush the basement. Officially that building was designed so every office has natural light, like a collapsible water cup, but it’s a very interesting coincidence that it (the basement) is bomb proof.

▲MarsZebra an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah but Starlink also intends to put weapons ONBOARD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s...

▲bluescrn an hour ago | parent [-]

Defensive weapons.

It would be a pretty inefficient way to deploy offensive weapons.

▲api an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I unfortunately agree. Years ago I realized the Mars talk was just talk when I noticed that Musk and SpaceX were not funding any of the other stuff you’d need to fund if you wanted to “make life multiplanetary.”

Continuing to iterate on self contained biospheres and long term closed cycle life support? (Not a solved problem!) Working on construction techniques for the Moon or Mars? Studies on the dose response curve for gravity, like sponsoring a spin lab for the ISS to at least see if mice can reproduce in 0.3g? Self contained industrial infrastructure leaning heavily on 3D printers? Psychological research on the best way to build interiors and run social units?

Musk could personally fund all of that with little impact on his net worth.

It’s also decades of work. Some of what I listed is harder than the rockets. Better get started if you want to have a settlement on Mars this century.

Nope. Nothing. Just rockets, the a satellite network that is clearly “dual use.” Then Trump 2.0 and lots of “golden dome” (Star Wars 2.0) talk.

It’s not to go to Mars.

I love space and I hugely admire the engineering achievement, but it’s disappointing to learn for this and many other reasons that the people behind it were not the visionaries they pretended to be. They’re just more territorial apes obsessed with ape tribal stuff like race and nationalism and fighting over dirt at the bottom of a gravity well. Small minds with big toys.

▲stevep98 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t think is right at all. It’s just Musk focusing on the fundamentals of ‘what is stopping us making significantly (100x or 1000x) more progress on space exploration. And the answer to that is that it’s just too expensive to launch mass off the earth.

If you make it much cheaper, then everything else flows from that. You no longer have to spend years engineering everything at the cutting edge of your mass budget. You can use off the shelf parts, you can have redundancy.

The gains will come when these flights become commonplace.

▲dgroshev 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

Biosphere stuff is more fundamental than just mass. We had several closed ecosystem projects built on the ground out of concrete, with no mass limits, and all of them failed.

▲dnautics a minute ago | parent [-]

A habitat on Mars would certainly not be closed ecosystem, especially not in the beginning. The biggest issue at biosphere IIRC was CO2 poisoning. You can crack the air in a mars habitat with power and in the worst case find Martian resources that will do some advantageous chemistries

▲adrian_b an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> a spin lab for the ISS to at least see if mice can reproduce in 0.3g?

That was done and the results were published a few months ago, but the study did not have any relationship with SpaceX.

The results were rather pessimistic for the long-term missions on Moon or Mars.

In my opinion, even if it is possible that humans might support a somewhat lower gravity than mice, the conclusion is that for interplanetary travel humans must use only spaceships that create artificial gravity by rotation.

The results of the study were that mice require a gravity of at least 2/3 of that of Earth to stay in perfect health and of at least 1/3 of that of Earth to avoid extremely severe health damage.

This means that even on Mars the gravity is not sufficient for long-term human life. In an underground Mars base, one could make a part with increased gravity by rotation, where the crew should spend most of the time, but that would increase a lot the complexity of building and maintaining such a base.

▲api 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I didn’t know this had been done.

If the results hold then it’s another thing that counts toward settling space, not another planet.

It’s where I’ve been leaning for a while. If we want to go beyond Earth build huge rotating stations or spacecraft. Don’t just go down another gravity well.

Build your own spin stations and dial in the exact gravity and everything else you want. Mine asteroids, which are super easy to access. You can launch mass off an asteroid by throwing it really hard.

▲hinkley an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Or by constant thrust at 1/3g, or a mix of thrust and rotation that achieves sufficient acceleration, though spinning + thrust means precession which I’m glad isn’t my job to zero out.

Unless someone invents the Epstein drive we aren’t going to have astronauts experiencing acceleration for months rather than minutes of the trip. And the more constant the acceleration the shorter the trip anyway.

▲MarsZebra an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Mars smokescreen was strong so a lot of people bought into it, even employees who didn't have the security clearances.

The origin of SpaceX with Michael D. Griffin and Pete Worden really make it clear though.

https://ioc.exchange/@muskfiles/116333241408716236

▲MetaWhirledPeas an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Curious to know what the smoke would be screening?

▲sfblah 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sounds like they're saying it's actually for military applications.

▲api 7 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Really interesting. I remember scratching my head a little about stainless steel. It’s durable but heavy, cuts into payload fraction, and probably not what you would pick if the goal was to shoot interplanetary. At least not for the upper stage. Maybe for the big chunky reusable booster, but there aluminum probably makes more sense. Falcon is aluminum so it’s already the devil they know anyway.

I recall talk about transpiration cooling. My guess is it died due to complexity or that it would use fuel as coolant which further eats mass. There was a bunch of original work on composites which would make way more sense if you want to hit high energy orbits.

You could still, AFAIK, use Starship to put a bunch of components into LEO and assemble something to go interplanetary. Or at least its booster.

I have wondered if we won’t see interplanetary on a big scale (beyond Apollo scale) until we have fusion or beamed power. You could put up a beamed power constellation with this architecture I guess.

But it makes a lot more sense as is for LEO military applications. I can see that.

The weird Musk-Russia links, if that is real, are odd given this thesis. If we are building Golden Dome or whatever it’s called now then who is the adversary? If not Russia than who?

China isn’t expansionist beyond Taiwan and it’d be way cheaper to build our own domestic TSMC than to fight that proxy war.

North Korea and maybe Iran are the only other credible threats with an interest in attacking the US, and they are kind of a joke compared to Russia and China when it comes to long range capacity.

▲MetaWhirledPeas an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh I doubt very much he has given up on that. He's smart enough to know that the delivery time is going to be extremely variable, and that most of the other problems involve figuring out how to make the place palatable to humans, which is just too far in the future right now. Don't bite off more than you can chew.

▲ordu 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

> which is just too far in the future right now.

How much time is needed to do the required research? Like, how long it would take to learn how to create an artificial biosphere on a small scale, so you can have a farm on the Moon or Mars? 10 years? 20 years? Maybe 50 years? Isn't now is the good time to start the research?

▲hinkley an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The silver lining is that if Elon had continued pushing for Mars, to not let it happen organically, Mars would become a company town, with all the bad connotations that ever had, with paying for air added on top of it.

▲api 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

Until they toss Musk out an airlock and found the Mars Colonial Republic. :)