Starship is still not understood
caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
Starship is still not understood
1–10 of 364 posts
Re: Starship is still not understood
#2I think he's handwaving a bt on how easy "space tractors" are going to be. Caterpillar etc are as fully invested int heir corporate structures and current practices as Kodak and all the other dead companies he mentions were; just because they could adapt things with "vacuum rated bearings" etc doesn't mean they will.
I fear we'll need some legal reforms before we can have "the remainder of human industry" keep up with SpaceX here. They've got Musk's "laws don't apply" card shielding them, or something, to explain how they've managed to innovate this far and this fast. The company that produces a cheap vacuum capable drone tractor won't have that, and will be rendered a wet stain by big competitors before they can get one of their products on a rocket. I expect.
Re: Starship is still not understood
#3> The Artemis program to the Moon requires a Gateway and separate Human Landing System (HLS) because even the SLS doesn’t have enough lift capacity to be execute the mission on its own.
The Artemis programme requires a Gateway because senators decided it would be cool to have a gateway. AFAIK, anyone with actual technical expertise thinks it's stupid.
There's a bunch of logic in this piece i just can't follow. Like:
> How can the space industry saturate this increased launch supply?
It doesn't need to?
> What “lunar exploration objectives” can be “fulfilled” with such an architecture?
The only objective which has been pursued since the end of the Cold War, that of pumping billions of dollars into politically important states.
Who is this guy? Is he new?
Re: Starship is still not understood
#4> The Artemis program to the Moon requires a Gateway and separate Human Landing System (HLS) because even the SLS doesn’t have enough lift capacity to be execute the mission on its own. The Artemis programme requires a Gateway because senators decided it would be cool to have a gateway. AFAIK, anyone with actual technical expertise thinks it's stupid. There's a bunch of logic in this piece i just can't follow. Like:…
> It doesn't need to?
The point there is that if legacy aerospace doesn't do it, new players will, and the legacy companies will be left far behind.
Re: Starship is still not understood
#5I think he's handwaving a bt on how easy "space tractors" are going to be. Caterpillar etc are as fully invested int heir corporate structures and current practices as Kodak and all the other dead companies he mentions were; just because they could adapt things with "vacuum rated bearings" etc doesn't mean they will. I fear we'll need some legal reforms before we can have "the remainder of human industry" keep up wit…
I loved this bit:
> McMaster-Carr already stocks thousands of parts that will work in mines, on oil rigs, and any number of other horrendously corrosive, warranty voiding environments compared to which the vacuum of space is delightfully benign.
Yeah, working underwater means it'll work in space no problem!
Re: Starship is still not understood
#6I know that going into space is sexy and nerdy and cool and that it’s a difficult problem. What I don’t get is why so many people think about going to space and spend so much money on it when there are people in the US who drink water that catches on fire..and people elsewhere who don’t have access to water at all. Seems like we should work on the truly hard problems rather than the ones that are basically “just go up, really fast”
Re: Starship is still not understood
#7> The Artemis program to the Moon requires a Gateway and separate Human Landing System (HLS) because even the SLS doesn’t have enough lift capacity to be execute the mission on its own. The Artemis programme requires a Gateway because senators decided it would be cool to have a gateway. AFAIK, anyone with actual technical expertise thinks it's stupid. There's a bunch of logic in this piece i just can't follow. Like:…
> It doesn't need to? The point there is that if legacy aerospace doesn't do it, new players will, and the legacy companies will be left far behind.
Why will they? Where is all this demand coming from?
Re: Starship is still not understood
#8I’m kinda confused by the criticism of the industry and NASA not designing for Starship.
The author argues that NASA doesn’t understand Tempe game changer that Starship is, but I don’t think that’s accurate. I think the risk to NASA of assuming the benefits of Starship before it’s proven are just too high.
If NASA (or other industry players), assume Starship will deliver the benefits it promises, they to fundamentally alter their approach to space. But that leaves them with no backup plan in the event that Starship fails to materialize or deliver on its promises.
Whereas this other approach, of treating Starship like a much better vehicle but integrating it into its old processes, gives them an out if Starship fails in some way. Because they’re still using the “old” assumptions, they can fall back to other “old space” style providers.
I think once Starship has proven itself capable of deliver on its promises, you’ll see NASA changing its approach radically in the manner the author describes.
So, fundamentally, I think it’s not a lack of “understanding”, but a different calibration of “risk”. This also applies to many existing space companies, and I also think this gives opportunities for new companies that have a higher risk tolerance to take advantage.
Re: Starship is still not understood
#9I know that going into space is sexy and nerdy and cool and that it’s a difficult problem. What I don’t get is why so many people think about going to space and spend so much money on it when there are people in the US who drink water that catches on fire..and people elsewhere who don’t have access to water at all. Seems like we should work on the truly hard problems rather than the ones that are basically “just go u…
Why not to do both?
Re: Starship is still not understood
#10I know that going into space is sexy and nerdy and cool and that it’s a difficult problem. What I don’t get is why so many people think about going to space and spend so much money on it when there are people in the US who drink water that catches on fire..and people elsewhere who don’t have access to water at all. Seems like we should work on the truly hard problems rather than the ones that are basically “just go u…
So much money on it?
NASA budget is $23B, total govt spending is $4000B.
Show me your math.