[flagged]
[deleted]
Starship's Tenth Flight Test
221–230 of 245 posts
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#222Always an inspiring sight!
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same age when I started watching Star Trek (original series). To say it had a profound impact on my interest in science and ethics is an understatement. English wasn't even my first language, but I think I picked up a lot of the themes, and my interest in science, tech and ethical philosophy continues to this day. I actually wrote this bit about introducing children to Star Trek (answer is a bit dated now…
Dated indeed, as nobody is interested in Star Trek anymore since they've actively ruined the IP. Heck, the person spearheading star Trek vision has gone on public records essentially saying he never liked star Trek and that's why he's gonna make it more like star wars....
You're talking about the movies, and yeah, that has failed. They're talking about yet another one, and I'm baffled, but we'll see where (if anywhere) it goes.
But the Paramount+ stuff is doing pretty well. Strange New Worlds is very popular. So was Lower Decks. The last season of Picard, at least, gave fans a lot of what they had been looking for. They've got a new series coming out, and what little we know is that it has a bang-up cast. (Not that that's sufficient; Discovery did very badly by some very talented actors. But it's a good start.)
So Trek: The IP is still going pretty strong. At least as well as Star Wars, which has also been hit-and-miss.
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly do you think is the “more technology development than the current flights actually show“ needed to get into and out of orbit? My impression is they just need to leave the engines on a little longer to get to orbit, then turn them on again with the ship pointed in another direction to get back to the suborbital trajectory they’ve already demonstrated deorbiting from. The hard part is reentering through th…
A little more longevity and one more engine restart, unless the suborbital is very suborbital, then it also means a lot more delta v. It doesn't seem that far away at all.
A zero-G engine restart is the big piece of technology.
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Scott is missing is that the only reason "it did not get to orbit" is of interest at all is that SpaceX keeps claiming they got to orbit with starship. I believe that the trajectories have all been suborbital by design, but it still pisses me off that they keep claiming they got to orbit. The reason this matters is that if they get into an orbit in a short test, they need to exit that orbit with some sort of act…
Is it really a lot more technology? If they were landing 100 km away I'd agree, but aren't they basically reaching the required orbital speed and reentering and landing under retrorocket control? I'm no expert on orbital dynamics, so I might be missing something important.
A zero-G engine restart to break orbit is the technology. And yes, it is a lot more technology given how the engines work.
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really a lot more technology? If they were landing 100 km away I'd agree, but aren't they basically reaching the required orbital speed and reentering and landing under retrorocket control? I'm no expert on orbital dynamics, so I might be missing something important.
A zero-G engine restart to break orbit is the technology. And yes, it is a lot more technology given how the engines work.
Oh! Thank you!
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Scott is missing is that the only reason "it did not get to orbit" is of interest at all is that SpaceX keeps claiming they got to orbit with starship. I believe that the trajectories have all been suborbital by design, but it still pisses me off that they keep claiming they got to orbit. The reason this matters is that if they get into an orbit in a short test, they need to exit that orbit with some sort of act…
Where are they claiming that? For example, this is from their Flight 4 press release ( https://www.spacex.com/launches/starship-flight-4 ): "Flight 4 ended with Starship igniting its three center Raptor engines and executing the first flip maneuver and landing burn since our suborbital campaign, followed by a soft splashdown of the ship in the Indian Ocean one hour and six minutes after launch." Note that they clearl…
I have most heard this in terms of "orbital velocity" and "orbital trajectory," as well as statements from the announcers on their livestreams, who are SpaceX spokespeople whether you want to excuse them or not, of "we reached orbit." I agree that if you look at their carefully-crafted press releases, there are fewer exaggerations than if you look at other communications. Even so:
> To be fair, there were two press releases where they didn't correctly use "sub-orbital" and used orbital instead. Releases 3 and 9.
Another example of an official communication is a March 14, 2024 Musk tweet after a rocket did not reach orbital velocity:
> Starship reached orbital velocity! Congratulations @SpaceX team!!
Orbital velocity at the altitudes they target is 28-30 km/h. They consistently stop their tests at about 26 km/h. This is not to say the rocket can't make it to orbital velocity, just that it didn't.
"They get sloppy with their language sometimes" is a good way to excuse repeated lies. If this were a company you were less of a fan of, "they get sloppy with their language sometimes" probably wouldn't fly for you, either. Getting called on their bluffs about this is probably the reason they have gotten more precise about their language.
By the way, it is my opinion that it is time to cancel the entire Artemis program and both of its failures of rocket technology. If SpaceX wants to continue to develop Starship, it should do so without federal funding. I would have no problems with the Starship program if not for the use of public money.
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#228Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hype had this thing already on the Moon by now.
*Mars
"An uncrewed test flight was planned for 2025 to demonstrate a successful landing on the Moon which has since been delayed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
Still they are making good progress if a bit slower than that.
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
They mentioned in the stream they were intentionally stressing the ship on reentry. But yes, “rapid reusability” is a ways off. I expect they’ll be spending weeks inspecting and repairing ship and booster before reflight for a few years, but they’ll drive it down over time. TBD how “rapid” the reusability ends up being in the end.
The ship and booster both sank in the ocean as planned, so there is no inspecting and repairing phase. I think that work can be done quite well based on all the footage and other collected metrics.
I didn't mean this ship and booster, I mean in a year or so when they're done with the test phase and frequently launching Starlink satellites on Starship.