261–270 of 391 posts
What you don't get a sense for in the video is the size of this thing... It's absolutely bonkers. 9m (30 ft) in diameter 50m (160 ft) in height (or would be with the nose-cone) That's the height of a 12-story building. And this is the upper stage of the full rocket.
I really love the out-in-the-open development process. It doesn't cost SpaceX anything, yet they attract lots of internet media where people set up streams, discuss progress etc. The next year should be pretty exciting as they develop things further. Starship has a number of big innovations, which are: - the raptor engine. This was developed behind closed doors and is sort of finished. We won't see much of it, but it…
>> - in-orbit refueling. Starship is big and heavy and basically can't get anywhere unless it's re-fueled in orbit. This is one of those "let's see" things that SpaceX has talked about but never actually explained. Their current rocket tech offers no hint as to how this is might happen. They aren't running internal bladders in their tanks. So the physical act of moving fuel from one tank to another is an open questio…
SpaceX has done experiments with how much thrust is necessary for ensuring propellant settling. That's one reason you often see a video feed of inside the upper stage liquid oxygen tank during a Falcon 9 mission. It doesn't take much thrust to ensure propellant settling. Not at all an open question.
This always struck me as one of the least questionable new things in SpaceX's architecture. Much less Kerbal than most Mars architectures which require assembling a massive craft in LEO or whatever.
(One would be remiss to not mention the history of refueling... SpaceX's competitor ULA had been pushing refueling and orbital depots, which it called "distributed launch", since its formation, but has only been able to do small experiments since one of its parent companies, Boeing, sees orbital refueling as a threat to NASA's SLS rocket, which Boeing is the main contractor for. That's a huge reason for a lot of the "skepticism" about orbital refueling you sometimes see in aerospace circles, besides the usual pathologically conservative mindset of many grey beards...)
I really love the out-in-the-open development process. It doesn't cost SpaceX anything, yet they attract lots of internet media where people set up streams, discuss progress etc. The next year should be pretty exciting as they develop things further. Starship has a number of big innovations, which are: - the raptor engine. This was developed behind closed doors and is sort of finished. We won't see much of it, but it…
>> - in-orbit refueling. Starship is big and heavy and basically can't get anywhere unless it's re-fueled in orbit. This is one of those "let's see" things that SpaceX has talked about but never actually explained. Their current rocket tech offers no hint as to how this is might happen. They aren't running internal bladders in their tanks. So the physical act of moving fuel from one tank to another is an open questio…
[slide] https://spaceflight101.com/spx/wp-content/uploads/sites/113/... [video] https://youtu.be/tdUX3ypDVwI?t=1411
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's look at this way, humanity needs to become multiplanetary species to prevent extinction if some sort of cataclysm happens on Earth: nuclear war; Yellowstone erupts, etc. Compared to that, any other problem seems insignificant.
This will sound weird, but I have no idea why anyone cares about the abstract "survival of human species". I care very deeply about the lives of people actually living here right now. But if Earth is wiped out, what does it matter that some humans are alive somewhere? Except of course that I'm glad for them that they didn't get killed. But we're talking about generations from now anyway, and there are more direct way…
I really love the out-in-the-open development process. It doesn't cost SpaceX anything, yet they attract lots of internet media where people set up streams, discuss progress etc. The next year should be pretty exciting as they develop things further. Starship has a number of big innovations, which are: - the raptor engine. This was developed behind closed doors and is sort of finished. We won't see much of it, but it…
> any upcoming engine that can compete with it. There's the criminally underfunded SABRE engine, an a air-hydrogen mix breathing-rocket hybrid design from Reaction Engines that rated to reach speeds of Mach 25 (roughly 35,000 miles per hour). As modelled, it's more efficient than any other current or proposed chemical propulsion technology, and the proposed single-stage runway launchable system would be capable of de…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate this argument. There is no foreseeable disaster that would make Earth less habitable than any other solar system body. Even if every nuke we have was detonated, it would still be orders of magnitude easier to survive on what remains of Earth than to live in Mars. I'm not saying there are no existential risks at all, but being on other planets would not make us any more likely to survive to them than to simply…
Every comment of this nature overlooks the challenge of politics and territory. Any significant social experiment is basically impossible on Earth because every space and person is claimed property by an existing state. Mars would also offer cultural redundancy. Also, sometimes people choose to do things brcause they are hard.
If I were a betting person, I'm not sure I'd go all-in on a CEO-Emperor-King of Mars over existing nation-states on Terra
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Future of space as presented in shows like the Expanse. controlled by trillionaires and their companies and powerful people in governments all killing each other over space rocks. We're a long way from Star Trek, that's going to take a more fundamental advance not at all related to technology.
Many of the colonies that make up the US and Canada were at one time controlled by the rich elite of the time. A few hundred years and they rebel to the point nobody even remembers them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> any upcoming engine that can compete with it. There's the criminally underfunded SABRE engine, an a air-hydrogen mix breathing-rocket hybrid design from Reaction Engines that rated to reach speeds of Mach 25 (roughly 35,000 miles per hour). As modelled, it's more efficient than any other current or proposed chemical propulsion technology, and the proposed single-stage runway launchable system would be capable of de…
> Not sure why SpaceX haven't invested in it yet > an a air-hydrogen mix breathing-rocket hybrid design Tough to use a breathing rocket anywhere but Earth. And SpaceX's goal is to use this to land on the Moon, Mars, everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another significant thing is that Starship is designed to be mass manufactured at a relatively low cost. SpaceX can crank out thousands of Starships, fly them to Mars and build a million people colony. Starship is truly a game changer!
> mass manufactured at a relatively low cost. ... which also explains Tesla, mass production of Earth-faring machines is one way to prepare for mass production of space-faring machines (and battery tech is going to be important for living in space). When you look at Musk's ventures, they really all end at Mars.
Does anyone else get super depressed by this? I did some great work today. I coded something pretty cool and useful. I built a little deck to explain it. My coworkers loved it. My job security went up. I enjoyed it. The journey is the reward. But these guys are making rockets in tents. Should I be rethinking life? Because that's how it feels. I love it. I admire them. But it feels unobtainable. I want to make that ki…
It sounds like you are not working in a field that is intrinsically motivating to you. Perhaps you should find an employer with a product whose end value you can appreciate? For example I work in CAD. I'm just a software engineer. But the products we make help engineering companies design huge beautiful monsters of steel an concrete. Sure, they are not rockets, but they are things that impact peoples lives. Working o…
If only it were that simple. Sometimes the stars align and that happens yes, but for many people - especially those of us with families that can't just up and move somewhere else - it's not reality.
Let's say you reside in an area with such a job to begin with. First your resume has to be looked at, so let's assume it makes it through the various automated filters. Then it gets picked up by an actual person who glances at it for maybe 1-2 minutes tops and throws you into the "to be considered" pile. Next your resume is competing against a relatively large pool of other resumes. If it makes it through that, you then have to captivate the recruiting/hiring manager enough to move to the next step. Now you're at the dreaded technical interview where all sorts of shit can go wrong (especially since this is a highly sought position); maybe you're a little too slow at figuring something out, maybe you're not a good "cultural fit", maybe they don't like the way you look or dress, maybe you're a genius but your communication skills are abysmal etc. If you somehow make it through that garbage disposal unit then you have to talk to some manager who gauges your personality and how you handle stress; room for more screwing up. You make it through all that, but wait! You're still competing with 10 other folks that are just as good if not better than you. You get lucky and make it and get an offer letter - but the pay is dreadful and doesn't match the cost of living. Now what?
