Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

[theprestige]

The space shuttle was an important innovation and a lot was learned for the next generation of space vehicles.

One major difference between it and the Starship is that it had a sophisticated interior.

That is something that seems to be overlooked when comparisons are being made.

The Starship is currently an empty vessel. I have heard very little about the interior and what it will actually be. That alone would take a decade to develop to something of the complexity of the shuttle.

We're not comparing Starship with Shuttle. We're comparing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy with Shuttle. Or at least jeremyp is, for some reason. It remains to be seen if the Starship interior becomes sooo sophisticated as to completely offset the reusability gains.

 

[jeremyp]

On the other hand, no one says the 747 was rubbish because the DC3 preceeded it.

And if Starship is successful, nobody will say it is rubbish either. They might say it is successful in spite of Musk, though.

 

[jeremyp]

We're not comparing Starship with Shuttle. We're comparing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy with Shuttle. Or at least jeremyp is, for some reason. It remains to be seen if the Starship interior becomes sooo sophisticated as to completely offset the reusability gains.

Wait, what?

That is precisely what I am not doing. Space Shuttle and Flacon 9 are designed for different missions. The comparable thing to Space Shuttle will be Starship.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I'm not sure that's true. There are fewer disposed of parts and the turnaround time seems to be a lot, lot less than the shuttle. Am I missing something?

At the moment SpaceX's fastest turnaround time is slightly better than the Space Shuttle's average. And given that fuel is about 90% of any rocket's mass (and will likely always will be for either solid or liquid fuel systems), reusability is a misnomer anyway.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The comparable thing to Space Shuttle will be Starship.

With the tiny difference that the former was engineered to get stuff into orbit - an admirable goal, to be sure - while the latter has a goal of getting mankind to Mars.

 

[Roboramma]

Wait, what?

That is precisely what I am not doing. Space Shuttle and Flacon 9 are designed for different missions. The comparable thing to Space Shuttle will be Starship.

Then your reply to 3point14's post:

Not a single one of those things needed Musk.

On the model Y being the "best selling" car, lots of government contracts will do that. On the reusable rockets, they're no more reusable than the space shuttle forty years ago (and space x rockets still cannot get beyond low earth orbit, something NASA did in the '60s). People all over the globe had reliable and fast broadband before starlink and didn't need satellites that have to be replaced every few months neither.

If Musk wasn't able to access so much government money, none of his companies would exist.

I'm not sure that's true. There are fewer disposed of parts and the turnaround time seems to be a lot, lot less than the shuttle. Am I missing something?

[highlighting is mine]

Had no relevance to what was being said, given that he was responding to Gulliver Foyle who was clearly talking about the falcon rockets (he's talking about rockets already in use).

 

[Roboramma]

At the moment SpaceX's fastest turnaround time is slightly better than the Space Shuttle's average.

Given that this claim was debunked earlier in this thread, the fact that you keep repeating it seems more like lying than error:

He’s wrong. The fastest turnaround time the shuttle ever did was 54 days, and that wasn’t typical. SpaceX has done it in 21 days, and can probably do faster.

 

[Ziggurat]

At the moment SpaceX's fastest turnaround time is slightly better than the Space Shuttle's average. And given that fuel is about 90% of any rocket's mass (and will likely always will be for either solid or liquid fuel systems), reusability is a misnomer anyway.

In addition to Roboramma's point, why on earth is mass fraction the relevant metric? It's quite obviously not. The relevant metric is cost fraction. And fuel isn't 90% of the cost.

 

[GlennB]

With the tiny difference that the former was engineered to get stuff into orbit - an admirable goal, to be sure - while the latter has a goal of getting mankind to Mars.

I seriously doubt it. The Mars 'plan' was pure Muskian hype.

 

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

In addition to Roboramma's point, why on earth is mass fraction the relevant metric? It's quite obviously not. The relevant metric is cost fraction. And fuel isn't 90% of the cost.

Yeah, fuel for F9 is what, $500,000? Be generous and round to $1 million, including the required helium. It's like 2% at best of a base launch.

Also, that 21 day turnaround included 4 days on the barge to get back to land! SpaceX has at least 19 launches faster than the 54 day Shuttle record. I'm sure they could go faster, they just don't need to at this time.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I seriously doubt it. The Mars 'plan' was pure Muskian hype.

I chose the words “has a goal of” pretty carefully.

 

[crescent]

At the moment SpaceX's fastest turnaround time is slightly better than the Space Shuttle's average.

Woah! Not even close. The fastest turnaround time for a shuttle launch was 54 days. Post-Challenger explosion, the fastest was 88 days. The average was greater than 100 days even when excluding non-launching periods post-Challenger and post-Columbia losses. Source.

Current turnaround time for Falcon 9 Block 5 is between 40-45 days, down from 60 days a year or two ago. Source. Record turnaround time looks to have been 27 days.

The longer turnaround times involve boosters modified to be side-boosters for Falcon Heavy missions.

 

[Bogative]

I seriously doubt it. The Mars 'plan' was pure Muskian hype.

Unadulterated MDS.

 

[a_unique_person]

Unadulterated MDS.

Ever since Elon Musk founded a start-up space company 14 years ago, the goal has always been the same: Establishing a colony on Mars. Now he’s finally beginning to reveal how he plans to get there.
Starting as soon as 2018, Musk’s SpaceX plans to fly an unmanned spacecraft to Mars. The unmanned flights would continue about every two years, timed for when Earth and Mars are closest in orbit, and, if everything goes according to plan, build toward the first human mission to Mars with the goal of landing in 2025, Musk has said.
But in an interview with The Post this week, Musk laid out additional details for the first time, equating the spirit of the missions with the settlement of the New World by the colonists who crossed the Atlantic Ocean centuries ago. And he acknowledged the immense difficulties of getting to a planet that is, on average, 140 million miles from Earth.
The months-long journey is sure to be “hard, risky, dangerous, difficult,” Musk said, but he was confident people would sign up to go because “just as with the establishment of the English colonies, there are people who love that. They want to be the pioneers.”

IMHO it is Musk who has MDS. Comparing colonising Mars to colonising North America is delusional. There is no comparison at all.

Elon Musk provides new details on his ‘mind blowing’ mission to Mars

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-details-on-his-mind-blowing-mission-to-mars/

2025 was never a realistic first mission date. Mars is completely hostile to human life. North America is a fertile and relatively benign environment. You are protected from radiation and you can breathe the air.

Sailing was a risky but well understood technology. Starship does not even have an interior.

 

[gabeygoat]

You are protected from radiation and you can breathe the air.

Unless you're in LA

 

[GlennB]

IMHO it is Musk who has MDS. Comparing colonising Mars to colonising North America is delusional. There is no comparison at all.

Elon Musk provides new details on his ‘mind blowing’ mission to Mars

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-details-on-his-mind-blowing-mission-to-mars/

2025 was never a realistic first mission date. Mars is completely hostile to human life. North America is a fertile and relatively benign environment. You are protected from radiation and you can breathe the air.

Sailing was a risky but well understood technology. Starship does not even have an interior.

Yep, and the purely robotic missions needed to set up the refuelling facilities, shelter etc etc would take a staggering array of equipment.

Somebody let us all know when SpaceX even trials a robotic, solar-powered ice digging and retrieving vehicle, out in a desert somewhere.

Musk was just pimping his brand. Probably sold plenty of extra Teslas to the morons who were whooping' and hollerin' at the Mars presentation.

 

[Bogative]

IMHO it is Musk who has MDS.

Your argumentation against Musk wanting to go to Mars is an article explaining how Musk wants to go to Mars.

Thank you for providing evidence that Musk wants to go to Mars.

 

[Bogative]

Yep, and the purely robotic missions needed to set up the refuelling facilities, shelter etc etc would take a staggering array of equipment.

Which is the point of the Starship program. 200 tons per launch.

ETA: 100 tons per mission to Mars.

Somebody let us all know when SpaceX even trials a robotic, solar-powered ice digging and retrieving vehicle, out in a desert somewhere.

I'm sure when SpaceX or another company developing equipment for SpaceX presents what you are asking for, you will totally change your mind because the $6,000,000,000 already spent on the Starship program is only Elon pimping his brand.

Musk was just pimping his brand. Probably sold plenty of extra Teslas to the morons who were whooping' and hollerin' at the Mars presentation.

More MDS.

 

[a_unique_person]

Your argumentation against Musk wanting to go to Mars is an article explaining how Musk wants to go to Mars.

Thank you for providing evidence that Musk wants to go to Mars.

Did you read the dates?

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Yeah, fuel for F9 is what, $500,000? Be generous and round to $1 million, including the required helium. It's like 2% at best of a base launch.

Also, that 21 day turnaround included 4 days on the barge to get back to land! SpaceX has at least 19 launches faster than the 54 day Shuttle record. I'm sure they could go faster, they just don't need to at this time.

Any citation for that figure. Because if the fuel was that cheap, there's no way that Galaxy Brain could have burned through NASA's $3bn already without massive fraud.

And he has burnt through it in three rockets.