jeremyp
Philosopher
If an engine does that on the launchpad, probably the whole rocket will be toast.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla II
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
plague311
Great minds think...
Right, but to me it's MORE of a failure. That's what I was trying to get at. I understand there will be more damage to launchpad, and the rocket, and etc. but if you're looking at it from a mission success standpoint, it doesn't seem to be any better at all. It seems to be a step backwards, right?
jeremyp
Philosopher
Yes. I think he announced the concept 11 years ago and since then everybody who's tried to develop the technology has failed and given up.
I did the maths. Apparently "current demand" is roughly 20,000 people a day (one way). That seems low.
jeremyp
Philosopher
No. As a general rule, the earlier in the development process that you discover a problem, the cheaper it is to fix it.
If we assume that this was caused by a manufacturing problem, it is cheaper to discover it now than once the engine is incorporated into the rocket where its failure could cause the loss of a whole mission which is a massive cost in terms of hardware and in terms of delays to the programme.
If, on the other hand, there is a fundamental design flaw, it's still better to discover the problem now than later when you've already built a hundred engines and several rockets.
plague311
Great minds think...
I was under the impression that the rockets being used for this were a mature technology (relatively speaking) for SpaceX (what is his deal with X anyway?). Admittedly, I don't do space ◊◊◊◊ so I'm probably lower than your standard layman. It's all Greek to me.
From a networking standpoint if I had a switch brand that I used, and I got a new one, but I couldn't even get to the point of deployment I would consider that a massive failure.
From a networking standpoint if I had a switch brand that I used, and I got a new one, but I couldn't even get to the point of deployment I would consider that a massive failure.
jeremyp
Philosopher
The rockets are fairly mature technology but the engines are relatively new.
I'm not saying it's not a massive failure but it would be even more massive if you didn't find the problem until it had been deployed. What would you rather happen?
- you discover the problem when you unbox the switch
- you discover the problem after you have installed it in a data centre 100 miles from where you normally work
jeremyp
Philosopher
By thew way, I'm not trying to diminish the severity of this. I'm just saying t is better they discover the problem now than while the engine is supposed to be powering a ship into orbit. It's still pretty bad because these engines need to be really reliable by rocket engine standards for Starship to be practical.
plague311
Great minds think...
Sure, your previous post makes sense.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
How many years behind schedule are they now?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Which schedule? Elon's schedule or a realistic and practical one?
plague311
Great minds think...
I'd think they'd be behind no matter which schedule was used.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Yeah, you'd think, but you already said that you "don't do space ◊◊◊◊" and it's "all Greek" to you, so maybe what you think isn't all that accurate.
As it turns out, Test Flight 12 of the V3 Starship has indeed been delayed until May - it was originally scheduled for March - which is a schedule that has not been impacted by the recent anomalous rapid disassembly of the test rocket.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Primary school level humour.
X = X-rated = (snigger) boobies.
Similar to the model IDs of his cars, model: S; E; X; Y.
He's just a juvenile wanker.
Don't forget his 'send nudes' joke.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
It's a completely new design. After all their 'iterations' on the previous design it's back to square one.
jeremyp
Philosopher
The only schedule they have apart from Elon Musk's fantasy schedule is the one set by the HLS contract. In that schedule, an unmanned HLS was supposed to land on the Moon in 2024.
You'll note from the above schedule that the first orbital launch test was meant to happen at the beginning of 2022. That milestone has not yet been achieved. SpaceX are at least four years behind their contractual schedule. The only saving grace is that the NASA side of the project is also late.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
No, it's not completely new. They're not going back to square one. It's a Version 3.0 rather than a 2.5.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
And has far less sales than either. Or ever will.
Many pages behind, probably ninja'd, don't care.
GraculusTheGreenBird
Muse
No you couldn't, Elon, you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ liar, cheat and conman.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
It's a complete redesign of the engine.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
No it isn't, it's based on the same basic Raptor design, just with more power.
ETA and some design updates for streamlining of manufacturing.
The biggest difference between this Starship and the previous one is that it's bigger.