Starship breakup footage over Turks and Caicos
Posted by Recoil42@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 183 comments
SpaceX lost Starship 33 post stage separation and it exploded in sub-orbit.
Clips pouring in now:
- https://x.com/adavenport354/status/1880026262254809115
- https://x.com/Grantjemima_16/status/1880027402954514513
- https://x.com/KingDomRedux/status/1880027949862384107
- https://x.com/timmaayd/status/1880027549667061832
- https://x.com/GregMunch1/status/1880028695873876149
- https://x.com/deankolson87/status/1880026759133032662
- https://x.com/IamRanaldo/status/1880027819213983962
animalfath3r@reddit
People shit all over NASA and say "how come NASA can't do what SpaceX does???" It's because NASA has less tolerance for risk because they are using public dollars... and rightfully so. Can you imagine how outraged politicians would be if NASA blew up rockets at the same pace SpaceX does??
Space X has blown up more rockets in the past five years than NASA has through its entire history.
lozoot64@reddit
Oh boy. NASA blew up a lot of rockets in the 60s.
BeefyMcPissflaps@reddit
So 60+ years of technology ago is a good comparison? GTFO
lozoot64@reddit
Your view on the advancement of aeronautic and space propulsion is a bit skewed, as we really haven’t advanced a significant amount in those areas since the 60s.
Our true advancements have come in the size of our microchips.
BeefyMcPissflaps@reddit
Understood. Thanks for sharing. I assumed that our advancement in computing/chips/materials would have been more significant.
DagamarVanderk@reddit
Not defending Elon, fuck that guy but the engineers at space X are trying to do something fundamentally different than what NASA was doing in the 60s
My_useless_alt@reddit
Actually not really, the Saturn program was a lot closer to SpaceX-style move-fast-and-break-things than it was to today's NASA style, because they had similar priorities, they needed progress ASAP and they didn't have budgetary constraints
ants_a@reddit
I can think of worse insults to an engineer than being compared to the people who took less than 12 years to get from the first orbital craft to man on the moon.
AutisticToasterBath@reddit
It's a bit different when you're trying for usability....
ScarHand69@reddit
Bruh NASA blew up a lot of shit in the 60’s. They’ve also killed quite a few astronauts.
We owe a ton to NASA and the brilliant people that work there….but they are encumbered by federal bureaucracy just like any other federal agency. They move slower and cost significantly more.
I don’t think politicians would mind if NASA was providing breakthroughs at the pace that SpaceX is. We now have low-latency satellite internet…anywhere on the planet. That is solely from SpaceX. A fuckton of the money that goes to NASA is for administrative bloat.
Mestizo3@reddit
Let's not forget NASA blew up a school teacher in front of millions of school children watching on TV, and no one was punished for it.... Infuriating.
Jdazzle217@reddit
They also discharge their deluge water full of toxic rocket fuel chemicals directly into a protected wetland in flagrant violation of the clean water act and EPA and FAA regulations.
ants_a@reddit
The supposedly toxic rocket fuel chemicals are methane and oxygen...
Jdazzle217@reddit
Even if that’s true, which I highly doubt without seeing a water test from an independent source (i.e. there is ablation of the pad), the water is still significantly hotter the surrounding water, which still makes it untreated industrial waste water.
ants_a@reddit
If you have decided to hate SpaceX, don't let any inconvenient facts stand in your way.
Jdazzle217@reddit
Don’t let your love of SpaceX stand in the way of pretty clear federal and state regulations. They clearly tried to side step the regular process
Slogstorm@reddit
This is bs and refuted by both SpaceX and EPA.
Ni987@reddit
Every NASA rocket launched have ended up crashing into the ocean.
The majority of SpaceX rockets performs a controlled landing.
NoGoodMc2@reddit
Get that “Elon Bad” karma while it’s hot!
animalfath3r@reddit
Prepare for downvotes...
NoGoodMc2@reddit
Lmao this is the funniest response. Made my day.
Zero self awareness.
Kingofthewho5@reddit
SpaceX tests and develops new vehicles much differently than NASA can. Rockets blowing up during testing is expected for the most part. SpaceX has a stellar success rate on their fully complete vehicles like Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and crew and cargo variants of the dragon capsule. Most of the rocket explosions you are citing from the last 5 years are from a development program.
RBJ_09@reddit
There is also the defense/intelligence missions riding on the back of SpaceX launches. Don’t know why it can’t happen with NASA though.
Misophonic4000@reddit
Don't know why what can't happen with NASA?
RBJ_09@reddit
The defense missions. Seems like an easy way to get them more funding while also allowing them a path to more missions.
Misophonic4000@reddit
I'm confused - NASA is a civilian space agency, and also not a launch provider (they don't make the launch vehicles)
RBJ_09@reddit
This is probably why I didn’t know that. I just figured, space people put things in space lol
biggles1994@reddit
Before SpaceX came along, NASA would contract out launches to United launch alliance (ULA - Atlas and Delta rockets), or Ariane space, or older systems like the Shuttle and Saturn V which were built by conglomerations of companies like Thiokol, Boeing, Grumman etc. to NASA's request. The SLS rocket is also built by Rocketdyne, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and ULA.
Misophonic4000@reddit
Well, the Space Force is the agency that does that for the military, along with private launch providers like SpaceX, ULA, Arianespace, etc
Slogstorm@reddit
Why would anyone be outraged by how many rockets they blow up? They have chosen a design methodology that implies a lot of tests and failures to end up with a robust product, rather than spending most of the budget on design like the SLS. This is standard for a lot of different sectors, and the methodology that is most likely to lead to success.
A_Moon_Named_Luna@reddit
NASA moves at a snails pace . SLS is a failure and likely to be scrapped. You know realize how many launches SpaceX has done? Successful launches? Falcon flys regularly , lots of them being reused boosters, flying at a fraction of the cost of any other launch vehicle.
1II1I1I1I1I1I111I1I1@reddit
SLS is a failure, yes, but how many times has it been launched? How many times has it reached orbit? How many times has it reached the moon's orbit? How many times has it blown up?
1, 1, 1, 0. NASA managed to get one of the worst vehicles every made to perform a total mission success on the very first launch.
Starship has yet to reach orbit and blew up today attempting to do so
Even New Glen (yes I know New Glen is a Falcon Heavy competitor, not Starship) reached orbit on its first flight very recently.
I understand that SLS has a greater volume of launches with aggressive cost cutting, but the repeated partial/total failures of Starship are becoming an issue and effectively nullify the concept of reusable stages. They only have one of these things at a time, so every vehicle that explodes is a vehicle that could have been used to perform additional testing in the near future. Instead the entire timeline is delayed while they build a new one, pushing both the Starship development timeline and the Artemis mission timeline back even further. Its insane to deny that this has become a problem.
Slogstorm@reddit
The way SpaceX designs rockets is so radically different from other companies that this is completely natural. Test-driven design necessitates failures to end up with a safe and predictable system, rather than spending most of the budget on design like the SLS. This launch will only delay the progress by about a month, which is the time until the next scheduled launch. SLS failures lead to complicated and expensive redesigns, that will seriously delay progress.
ants_a@reddit
You must be willfully disingenuous. Starship has reached what is effectively orbit on the last 4 flights. It has performed controlled splashdown of the second stage 3 times, something others mentioned her are not even thinking about. And your are bringing up loss of a test article like a huge deal when there is a manufacturing pipeline of vehicles coming up and the vehicle would have been lost anyway even on total mission success. The next launch vehicle is likely to be ready to go before the safety review finishes.
yourlocalFSDO@reddit
SpaceX is blown up more rockets in the past five years than NASA has through its entire history
This is nowhere close to true. 3 starships have exploded if you count the ship disintegrating on reentry and no Falcon 9s have exploded in the past 5 years. That’s 3 explosions for SpaceX in the past 5 years. Here’s a video of NASA working to get people into space.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8
blueb0g@reddit
Hardly any of those launches in that video are NASA launches.
Taaargus@reddit
If your argument requires going back to when NASA was doing things in the 60s obviously their risk tolerance was much higher then.
blendorgat@reddit
Difference is the contracting basis - SpaceX gets plenty of funding from NASA, but it's payment for services rendered, not cost plus profit like old contractors. NASA would end up paying the exact same price for the Starship moon landing whether SpaceX nailed it in one shot, or blew up 20 rockets first - every failure comes out of Elon's pocket.
Mike__O@reddit
SpaceX is not government-funded. They derive some of their revenue from contracts with NASA and other government agencies, but to imply that the government is the primary financier of SpaceX is false.
Starship is funded internally from SpaceX. Funding comes from profits from Falcon 9/Heavy launches, as well as Starlink internet sales and investment from private shareholders.
CarbonKevinYWG@reddit
SpaceX literally wouldn't exist without government funding.
Mike__O@reddit
Yes, the commercial resupply program and subsequent commercial crew program contracts were huge in allowing SpaceX to develop and grow. The government paid SpaceX for a service, which SpaceX delivered.
That is VERY different from the common implication that SpaceX has some kind of blank check from the government, or that the Starship program is a government program. Neither is true.
Just_Another_Scott@reddit
SpaceX has also received grants from NASA to develop their rockets. Grants do not have to be paid back. They used these grants to develop the Falcon 9 and then subsequently bidded on government contracts.
NASA gave grants to multiple companies including Orbital ATK, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada.
Just_Another_Scott@reddit
But they've always done so in a safe manner. This is literally the first time they've had a RUD in an unsafe manner during a test.
They've only ever lost two operational rockets. They are overwhelmingly safe.
fellipec@reddit
Tell me which cargo were in the rockets they blew?
Sorry to inform dude but SpaceX launched more the 440 rockets with only 2 failures.
Boeing, on the other hand, left 2 astronauts stranded in the ISS, waiting for a SpaceX rocket to bring them back home. ULA barely can launch in a year what SpaceX can launch in a month.
And you are mad that SpaceX got more funding?
atticaf@reddit
Honestly for Boeing to keep the doors on long enough to get them up there was a success. Who could expect them to bring them home too?
atticaf@reddit
I have a sneaking suspicion that musk might wind up either testifying in front of congress or deported within 2 years. Icarus springs to mind.
polit1337@reddit
Totally disagree with your reasoning. Not “rightly so” at all!
The relevant metrics are cost and speed. It isn’t at all clear that the ideal number of blown up rockets is zero when it comes to this…
Blown up rockets are not necessarily “wasted money.” Learning from these launches can help iterate faster. Also, if 1 in 20 rockets blow up but the rockets cost 90% as much, it would be cheaper (though this is neglecting payload, for the numbers to actually work in practice the difference would need to be larger.
I’ll also add that I only subscribe to the above reasoning for unmanned flights.
CommanderCorrigan@reddit
They used to blow up all the time
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
Starship was supposed to be on the moon by now and it hasn’t even made orbit.
I hate to be negative but this is a completely failed system in my opinion. 7 launches this far, massively behind schedule, massively over budget, and no even one of the original goals achieved, not to mention the basic functionality of reaching orbit.
The plug needs to be pulled on this program and the tax dollars funding it needs to go into something else that has a chance of working.
RulerOfSlides@reddit
Meanwhile as the “more behind” Blue Origin successfully launches New Glenn with a payload and nails every flight goal… really makes you ask some questions.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
Hell the SLS went around the moon years ago. Using proven parts. Why we are chasing Starship is crazy to me.
TheRocketeer314@reddit
Because SLS and most other launchers today are wayyyy too expensive. It’s like Elon himself said, imaging that you take a trip on a 747, and at the end, throw it away. How expensive would air travel be then?
The whole point of Starship is to be rapidly and fully reusable, hence reducing the costs massively. SpaceX has done this with Falcon 9 and they are gonna improve the costs with Starship.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
Falcon 9 is no cheaper per seat to the ISS than buying seats from the Russians. Its also no faster to turn around than the Shuttle.
The rapidly reusable thing hasn’t really happened tbh.
TheRocketeer314@reddit
That’s just completely wrong. A seat on Falcon costs around $55 million whole a seat on Soyuz costs $90 million.
And the fastest time for a turnaround of a Falcon booster is 14 days while the Shuttle’s fastest was 54 days, although it was closer to 90. And since SpaceX has multiple Falcon 9 boosters operating, they can launch multiple times a week, something the Shuttle could never do. In fact, SpaceX launched 134 Falcon rockets (including 2 Falcon Heavys) last year alone, while the Space Shuttle only launched 135 times in its life time. And next year will surely see more launches. And Starship will just better both metrics.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
You are correct! I was using old data and didn’t realize things had changed so much. The Soyuz average seat cost is the same as Falcon at $55 million but thats including all the purchases going back to 2006. And the current cost is $90 million.
I stand corrected.
TheRocketeer314@reddit
Wow! Thanks for understanding!
Broccoli32@reddit
SLS launched 2 years ago after 20 years of delays and nightmare development costing taxpayers billions and has not launched again due to issues with the heat shield. SLS is also insanely simple in comparison to starship
It’s disappointing how little you all know in an aviation subreddit
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
The complication of Starship is the problem.
Why are we trying to use a Lamborghini V12 to plow a field?
redstercoolpanda@reddit
Because it was still the cheapest and most capable lander presented to Nasa.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
And is turning out to not be either of those things in reality
Broccoli32@reddit
What you’re saying isn’t making any sense, this level of complexity is necessary for the goals SpaceX and NASA want to achieve. Could they have made a copy paste Saturn V and just went to the moon again? Yes. But that is not what they are trying to accomplish.
idostufandthingz@reddit
“Nails every goal” is blatantly wrong. The first stage was not recovered, so both Blue Origin yesterday and SpaceC today were only ~50% successful
Recoil42@reddit (OP)
This is, to say the least, very generous to Starship.
Blue Origin was on their first flight — the primary goal was only to get to orbit and deploy the payload. Landing was a secondary objective, and BO actually named this particular booster "So You're Telling Me There's a Chance" due to the low probability of landing success. Deployment of the payload was achieved.
Starship is on it's seventh full flight — the primary objective was to put S33 into sub-orbit and deploy Starlink test vehicles as well as test new re-entry mechanisms. It failed — the second stage blew up, and primary deployment did not occur.
There'll be an FAA inquiry into this flight (IFT-7) whereas Blue Origin won't have one. While SpaceX's flight may have been more impressive, it was a mission failure.
My_useless_alt@reddit
The primary goal of this launch was to verify that Starship Block 2 can fire it's engines, secondary goals were to catch, to orbit, to test a re-flown Super-heavy engine, to successfully reenter, and if it fails to provide information to SpaceX to inform them on how to not fail next time. The success rate there is no, yes, no, yes, no, yes respectively. That's hardly a total failure
Also you're moving the goalposts, you said BO "Nailed every goal", now you're saying that they got more goals that Starship so that's good enough, those are different claims and you switched to the second one because you didn't one to have to admit that your first one was false.
TheRocketeer314@reddit
Thing is, this is the the first flight of the second version of Starship, and they made some massive changes, such as to the fins, plumbing, etc. So, some issues are definitely expected when flying a new version and they’ll just learn from this and end up with a more reliable rocket in the future.
redstercoolpanda@reddit
New Glenn is not competing with Starship is payload capacity, reusability, or launch cadence. Its a competitor to Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.
My_useless_alt@reddit
Or more importantly, development style. BO is using a more traditional ground-test approach
TheRocketeer314@reddit
Wdym, SpaceX has been orbital for years so BO is definitely behind. Starship is just a different beast altogether and SpaceX follows a different philosophy than BO. (Not saying that BO didn’t do a good job though, they definitely deserve some more praise)
Cadet_BNSF@reddit
Starship started development years after New Glenn and had first flight well before New Glenn
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
First flight doesnt mean much if if blows up everytime.
The Dehaviland Comet flew before the 707, but the 707 was a better plane
killerrobot23@reddit
...Starship has already proven it can survive reentry from what is effectively orbital velocity and super heavy has managed to land. SpaceX works like this and it has shown the trial and error philosophy gets success through the Falcon 9. Stick to aviation as you clearly don't understand rocketry.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
Has it survived reentry? When?
Making it back in one piece is one thing. Making it back in a piece thats functional and keeps the payload safe is different and when has it achieved that?
BeanAndBanoffeePie@reddit
The previous flight basically achieved that
Malfrador@reddit
They failed the landing attempt and it also was significantly off target at 25km of altitude. Really does not impress me much
Recoil42@reddit (OP)
Starship took five launches before it landed. Falcon took many more than that. Both had a significant number of soft landing tests or other partial tests.
If New Glenn hasn't stuck the landing by 4-5 attempts, we can start talking about it as failing the grade. Remember, Starship's IFT-1 didn't even get past a "flight termination" result.
Broccoli32@reddit
New Glenn didn’t nail every goal the booster failed to land, it just met the basic mission requirements. New Glenn is also significantly less powerful and complex than starship and Blue Origin has been around longer than SpaceX yet it took them 24 years to get to orbit.
It literally has less payload capability than Falcon Heavy and your comparing it to starship
My_useless_alt@reddit
It has basically made it to orbit, the previous orbital test flights were send to a velocity that would be orbital if it were pointing in the right direction, if they'd programmed in a slightly different path it would've gone orbital.
Yes, Starship is behind schedule, but all that demonstrates was the original schedule was extremely optimistic. Who cares what the original timeline was, in under 6 years it's gone from literally not existing (first prototype flew in 2019, 18m then 150m) to performing successful catches and successful re-entries and splashdowns. Literally every launch is progressing the program, and almost every launch is breaking some SpaceX record or doing something new to the program, like better surviving reentry or catching it or reflying an engine or even if it fails providing information on how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
I don't know how people can look at a program that has progressed so quickly, with everyone proclaiming the program's failure at every setback then being proven wrong, and still insist that it doesn't have a chance.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
I’m upset with the program because the milestones achieved aren’t very relevant to achieving its mission of getting to the moon.
They caught a booster with the chopsticks. Impressive, yes. But how does this further our mission to getting to the moon?
It could have gone orbital, with no payload. Cool, but how does no payload get us closer to the moon?
This sort of thing is the source of the disappointment. There is progress but are we getting to the moon with this system? The advancements made so far don’t suggest we are.
My_useless_alt@reddit
>I’m upset with the program because the milestones achieved aren’t very relevant to achieving its mission of getting to the moon.
Moving the goalposts but whatever
>hey caught a booster with the chopsticks. Impressive, yes. But how does this further our mission to getting to the moon?
Because lunar infrastructure will require a lot of launches, getting it out to the moon will take a lot of launches, and it's better if those launches are cheap and easy rather than hard and expensive.
Also it's not just a moon rocket, it's a Low Earth Orbit rocket with Moon and Mars capability, being able to quickly reuse it helps it there. You're the only one insisting The Moon is the only relevant goal.
>It could have gone orbital, with no payload. Cool, but how does no payload get us closer to the moon?
Because orbital without a payload is the step before orbital with a payload, how else do you want to demonstrate that it works than by trying and seeing if it works? They want to go orbital, so they do, and then use that information to make it better next time.
18m wasn't very impressive, until they did 150m. 150m wasn't very impressive, until they did 12.5km. 12.5km wasn't very impressive until they did imperfect orbital. Imperfect orbital won't be very impressive when they make full orbital. Orbital won't be very impressive when the go to the Moon. And so on.
Even for Apollo, they launched a boilerplate suborbital, then orbital, then a real one suborbital, a real one orbital uncrewed, then a real one orbital crewed, then to The Moon. They even launched 2 Saturn Vs before putting people on it and 3 more before landing. You could argue that launching multiple uncrewed prototype moonrockets doesn't he
Unfortunately, progress can't happen all at once, there is not a program in the world that has immediately trotted out a completely finished complex product on day one, every development has intermediate steps. It takes time to build a thing, and sometimes the intermediate steps aren't as capable as the final goal
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
I’m not moving the goalposts, I’m claiming how this system was contracted to go to the moon, and the achievements thus far have not been in pursuit of that goal.
Working on things that make it better at putting starlink satellites in LEO is putting it behind schedule for its intended mission: going to the moon.
Designing it to be a good mars rocket is not the intended mission. Its supposed to go to the moon.
Let move this to a hypothetical: the military asks for a transport plane to move tanks around. 2 years after the plane was supposed to be delivered and flying active missions, the plane has the wings falling off every time a test flight is attempted. Its still in the testing phase.
When confronted about this lack of progress, defenders of the program claim “sure, it can’t fly reliably yet, but they’ve already achieved a worlds first record of having it be the first cargo plane to take off backwards!”
You see how that feature, while cool, isn’t what the original contract asked for? Who cares if it can take off backwards, its supposed to be moving tanks around and it was supposed to be doing it reliably years ago but at this point, the wings are still falling off.
Thats the Starship program. Cool, it can be caught by the chopsticks. Cool, its gonna be able to deliver sats to LEO. Cool, its got design elements to go to mars. Who cares, its supposed to be going to the moon and it was supposed to already be there.
I’m insisting the moon is the relevant goal because it is. Spacex wants to use it for LEO and mars, but NASA paid them $4 billion to make it go to the moon. That is the ONLY relevant goal right now, the rest is all extra. Its the only goal with a schedule, and its the only goal that has outside money tied up to make it happen. Its needs to be the focus. Mars does not matter until the moon is achieved.
My_useless_alt@reddit
As a side project. Not every milestone has to be in furtherance of the secondary goal it was tasked with after it began development.
It's intended mission is to go to Mars, everything else, the moon and LEO, is secondary. Why should they actively refuse to make a better vehicle because one client doesn't need it to do that?
This is simply false. Starship was designed from the ground up as a Mars rocket, half it's features were chosen specifically to be a Mars rocket, the upper stage is so big because that's what's needed to leave Mars, Elon decided to make it because he wanted a Mars rocket and NASA came later asking about The Moon. For crying out loud it was originally called the Interplanetary Transfer Rocket! Yes, NASA is contracting it for The Moon, but that is not it's primary purpose.
Doing well by military standards then
Except that Starship was originally conceived because Elon wanted a Mars rocket, it was already planned to be a 2-stage fully-reusable Mars rocket before NASA ever asked about it helping with The Moon.
Even if it could go to the moon, it's going to be like a decade before NASA's side is ready for it, they could have 100 of these things on the Lunar surface and it wouldn't do anything for SLS
If I contract you to do something, that doesn't mean everything else in your life is irrelevant. Yes, NASA wants to be a SpaceX client, but that doesn't mean that SpaceX then has to change the plan away from what was already planned. NASA contracted SpaceX to use Starship, that contract does not include NASA overriding SpaceX's own design schedule. Noone can walk in, ask for a contract for an existing product in development, and then suddenly insist that it is developed only for them. That's just not how it works.
SpaceX also has other contracts available, does that mean that those also get top priority?
And all this is putting aside that NASA WANTS SPACEX TO CATCH THE FUCKING BOOSTER! It will take about 5 launches for every Moon landing, NASA wants Starship to have easy and quick reuse, because it makes refilling quicker and easier! You're insisting SpaceX make their product worse to give NASA a benefit they don't even want!
Also, I'm fairly sure you're moving the goalposts again, all of this is completely new none of your comments in other threads seemingly cared about the moon, but idc
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
My original comment was how this was behind schedule in relation to the moon mission. I’m not moving goalposts.
My_useless_alt@reddit
Okay, agree to disagree
Care to respond to the rest of what I said?
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
I see what you are saying. Mars was the original goal for starship back in like 2017 when it was BFR.
My complaint here is that the moon was a contractual obligation. So yes, it does become a priority.
If I’m working on my own car and someone pays me money and I sign a contract to fix their car, fixing their car is now the priority. I can’t keep working on something else when I agreed with them to have their product done by a certain date.
Yeah, NASA is way behind on SLS, but from SpaceX point of view, that doesnt matter. Deliver tour part of the contract, dont focus on what NASA is doing.
This thing should not be blowing up at this point is what I’m saying. If they signed that they were going to be on the moon, then make it happen. I know it was an insane timeframe, but its what they signed on for.
My_useless_alt@reddit
More like "If you're driving a truck, and someone asks you to pick them up, you are still allowed to take a route convenient to you not them". NASA asked for service on an existing concept, that doesn't give them power over the concept.
Also, what happened to you complaining about the catch?
Also, the current method is producing results, as I've already explained. If SpaceX used a slower method, they would go slower than they are currently doing, which would be worse for NASA
Also, most importantly, if you acknowledge that it doesn't actually matter, why are you upset that SpaceX isn't hitting their target?
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
Part of my frustration with this whole thing comes down to NASA as I dont think SpaceX was the company they should have partnered with. The whole concept is far too complex and requires too many firsts. The catch being one of them. Rapidly reusable catching the thing, cool. Make it to orbit first then I will care.
The truck analogy doesnt work because you are missing the part where SpaceX agreed with NASA to hit certain milestones at certain points. They weren’t just picking up NASA on their way to go somewhere, they agreed to be NASAs uber ride but then decided they would run their errands first and get NASA where they wanted on their own timeline.
An Uber driver needs to prioritize getting the passenger to their destination at the pace agreed upon at the time of pickup. They cant take a detour to go get a carwash with the passenger in the back. And thats what SpaceX is doing.
My_useless_alt@reddit
They already did. The only reason it was technically suborbital is they told it to fly the wrong way.
Also, you're whole NASA shouldn't have partnered with SpaceX thing is new. NASA made a bad choice and asked for what you admit was an unrealistic goal, and that's somehow a problem with SpaceX?
Also, forget the analogies, NASA wants SpaceX to catch it and they want SpaceX to progress as fast as reasonably possible, which they are doing, SpaceX is literally doing what NASA wants them to do, what's the problem?
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
The timeline is both of their problems. So rightfully so, I’m partially blaming SpaceX for missing the timeline because this is a video of their 7th rocket exploding a year after the due date. If this was a video of SLS blowing up, I’d be lambasting them right now.
The catch is one example. The original comment I claimed this will not go to the moon and I stand by that. They need to get this to orbit. Then it needs to be refueled 8-16 times (no one has been clear about the actual amount and the number keeps changing). This refueling has never been done before.
Then the engines need to be relit. Turbopump engines have never been relit after sitting in vacuum for that long.
Then it need to get out of orbit and get to the moon. Then they need to land it. Theres no publicly available detailed information about how landing this skyscraper sized object on the moon will go. Theres no barge or chopsticks to land on there. The starship doesnt have a landing gear solution.
Then the astronauts need to exit the Starship. Currently and elevator is the only way to get out of the thing. If the elevator breaks, game over. There is currently no other way to get in or out of the vehicle so you will now die on the lunar surface because the entry to you craft is 100 feet off the ground.
Then the Starship needs to take off from the lunar surface using its single set of engines. Apollo avoided this by having a second set of engine for take off incase the loose lunar surface damaged the engines when landing, something that did happen on one mission. If the turbo pumps fail, or the engines are damaged during landing, game over. All astronauts are stuck on the moon and will die.
This system, is not going to the moon. Its far too complex and introduces far too many potential problems. And if it doesnt go to the moon, it wasted $4 billion dollars of taxpayer money.
Currently, its in the blowing up on launch stage, all those other problems are not even something they can address yet because its not reliable enough to test it.
My_useless_alt@reddit
False, multiple of their launches were successful, I think only 3 of the orbital launches failed. The ones that survived reentry only exploded because they didn't have a pad to land on, SpaceX didn't plan to recover them.
So they should do it then. And a good way to make it easier is catching and reuse, which NASA acknowledges and wants to happen.
Yet, they didn't need to be working on landing gear maybe 2 years before it's needed. You're basically just complaining they haven't completed later progress points before earlier ones.
Also, no public information =/= no information.
False. Basically every engine is a turbopump engine. Almost every deorbit burn is relighting a turbopump engine after hours or days.
I'll skip a few because they all follow basically these formats, they haven't dealt with later problems before earlier problems and that's somehow bad. They haven't nailed down the moon landing before orbit, on no, anyway.
You have failed to demonstrate this, no issue you've mentioned cannot be fixed. The same could've been said for Saturn V right up until it went. Heck, it was, iirc it was estimated at 5% chance of success at one point by an agency NASA asked to evaluate them.
Also, if it's literally impossible, why is it SpaceX's problem they aren't pulling literal miracles?! If NASA contracted SpaceX to do the impossible, which I still don't think they did, that's NASA's fault alone.
Then why are you bringing them up?
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
I’m tired of repeating myself. NASA is part to blame, I’m focusing on spaceX because this is a video about them.
Theres shuttle didnt use turbopumps for in orbit burns, it used hypergolics because turbopump are finicky and u reliable in comparison.
I’m not saying this system is impossible to get to the moon, I’m saying its very unlikely and there are much easier ways to achieve the goals. I’m saying it is unnecessarily complex
My_useless_alt@reddit
While also saying that it was impossible to meet their deadlines.
Okay, but there's plenty of examples, like deorbit burns or or it boost burns like to GTO or circularisation, or literally the simulated deorbit burn Starship did.
You're saying that the rocket that wasn't primarily designed to go to the moon... Isn't optimised for going to the moon? Shocker.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
Ok, I feel like we arent getting anywhere with this conversation. No turbo pump has sat in vacuum for 6 months and then be relit.
But I dont think I will get you to admit to any of the engineering challenges here. Have a good one
Recoil42@reddit (OP)
Afaik the funding program is milestone-based so Elon's taking the hit on all these lost airframes.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
3 billion were awarded at the start of the program and then an additional $1 billion was awarded afterwards. Thats $4 billion taxpayer dollars gone with no orbit achievement. It is suborbital WITHOUT a payload.
This shouldn’t be considered for the moon, at all.
DagamarVanderk@reddit
The US government spent the equivalent of 40 billion 2023 dollars to fly the Saturn V a total of 13 times.
I not an Elon fan in any way, but you have to admit that the development of a fully reusable rocket with similar or greater cargo capacity than the Saturn V developed on a fraction of the budget is incredibly cool if they can pull it off.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
What cargo capacity?
Disregard Elons claims and lets look at what its done.
It has taken a bannana sub orbital. It doesnt have a payload capacity.
The Saturn V worked first flight. It flew with zero failures. It was the first rocket of its type and it worked flawlessly.
The Starships reusability isnt very impressive if it can’t even reach orbit.
DagamarVanderk@reddit
Firstly, stating that starship can’t reach orbit is untrue, it did so in June of 2024 according to this NBC news article
I’m not disregarding the fact that the cargo capacity of starship is unproven, I’m simply saying that trying to solve a huge part of the coat prohibitive nature of space launches on a huge scale is an admirable goal.
The fact that the Saturn V worked on its first flight was an incredible feat of engineering and human perseverance, that much is indisputable.
Klutzy-Residen@reddit
Starship hasnt reached orbit yet, but that is because they intentionally shut down the engines right before it does so. For their testing it has no value and only introduces additional risks. Getting stuck in LEO for a while and having a uncontrolled re-entry if they are unable to relight the engines.
My_useless_alt@reddit
IIRC it doesn't so much shut down the engines right before as it does fly a slightly higher trajectory than is optimal, in space you trade height for speed and Starship went for more height less speed to deliberately fall short of orbit, for those reasons
killerrobot23@reddit
If you don't understand how spaceflight works shit the hell up about it. SpaceX has always used a test and fail method to developed rockets. Just look at the initial Falcon 9 failures that led them the build it into the workhorse it is today. The failures aren't a negative they are just allowing for Starship to develop naturally. If anything they have surpassed targets by already proving they can survive reentry and land successfully. Acting as if a different design philosophy is hilariously naive and all it takes is one look at the SLS program to see why.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
The target was to be on the moon…
Last year
killerrobot23@reddit
Which was a rediculous target that anyone with any foresight knew wasn't going to be met. How about SLS being nearly a decade behind in development and only getting further delayed while costing billions more? It is rare for things, especially those on the cutting edge, to happen on schedule and at least SpaceX is working to achieve their goals with starship while SLS continues to be a money sink.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
It was a crazy target, but it was a contractual target that SpaceX signed on for and has completely missed.
And bringing up delays in SLS as we are watching Starship burn up is a hilarious use of whataboutism. Yeah SLS is bad too, but it has at least flown to orbit, and past the moon. Starship is just blowing up.
At this point, SLS is bad, star ship is worse
killerrobot23@reddit
The issue you are missing is failures are to be expected when you do iterative development. The whole point is to push the designs to failure so that when time comes it will be failure proof and starship is very clearly still in its development phase. The program isn't without issue but going after it for braking up during a TEST flight just shows you don't understand how SpaceX works.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
I’m going after it for being on a test flight a year after it was supposed to be on the moon.
I’m not saying they can’t have failures, I’m saying they massively over promised and have underdelivered.
If you pay me for a car and I promise it will be at your house in 6 months, then 12 months later you call me and I show off a radio flyer wagon with a lawn mower engine, you would be pissed off. And rightfully so. And I couldn’t claim “its still in testing” as a credible defense for being extremely behind schedule.
At that point, I failed the contract
NiftyShadesOfGray@reddit
These are prototypes specifically for working out how to land and reuse them. They are not supposed to deliver anything to orbit yet. They were never planned to bring anything to orbit yet and it was always known and agreed on by all involved parties that they would not bring anything to orbit yet.
Recoil42@reddit (OP)
Parent commenter is right, though: Elon does not have this. He has the idea of this which he's selling to NASA, but he does not have the actual thing, and he's nowhere near on track to provide it in a realistic timeline. It's quite likely Starship will never go to the moon and will end up a glorified (subsidized) dispenser for Starlink satellites at this rate, which would represent significant budget burn for NASA.
Kingofthewho5@reddit
I don’t think it’s accurate to say starship will never make it to the moon but I guess we will wait and see.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
In order for starship to get to the moon they need to solve a few things.
None of this has been tested, none of this has been clearly planned out publicly, and plenty of engineering problems persist. I highly doubt the funding lasts long enough to resolve these and therefore, I highly doubt we are going to the moon with Starship.
Kingofthewho5@reddit
The first 3 of those are practically trivial, the others are difficult, and yes even engineering hurdles. I personally think that a company that has 400 landings of orbital class boosters and is now catching 71 meter, 275,000kg boosters out of the air is capable of solving those problems.
I do not like Elon Musk at all but I would point out that he could match NASA’s HLS contract many times over and still be the richest man in the world. And keep in mind that SpaceX’s HLS bid was much cheaper than the other companies who bid, with way more capability. Funding is not an issue currently and the project is nowhere near to any crucial failure point where NASA would cancel.
But like I said, we’ll just have to wait and see.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
More “promised” capability. Which is the entire point of my critique.
Elon promises Starship will get to orbit with a 100 ton payload, but so far has carried 0 tons to orbit. It completely empties its tanks just to get ip there with no payload so idk where the 100 tons is going.
Elon promises Starship will be refueled in space from other Starships, but we have yet to see any demonstration of this capability. Hell, the pez dispenser door got stuck on launch 3.
My critique is that there are alot of promises but the reality is even the basic benchmarks have been missed for Starship thus far. Its waaaay off schedule.
TheRocketeer314@reddit
That’s the whole point of testing. They don’t expect it to work perfectly on the first iteration and hence, test to get better. Also, it could have definitely gotten to orbit on 4 of the past launches and they haven’t put any payload on it because, well, it’s still a prototype. Also, it’s extremely rare for a program of this complexity to meet its original deadlines and pretty much all other rockets have crossed them, some by many years, so you can’t really blame SpaceX for being late, especially when the rocket supposed to carry humans to the moon (SLS) is late by a decade.
Kingofthewho5@reddit
SpaceX’s track record is enough for me to not bet against them. Obviously they are attempting things that have never been done before. That’s SpaceX’s whole M.O. though. What modern heavy lift launcher isn’t behind on schedule? SLS? New Glenn?
We don’t exactly know what payload capacity is at the moment but it’s obviously not 0 tons. Within a year I’d bet they will be launching full payloads of starlink satellites. It’s still a prototype vehicle though and improved versions are coming and a V3 raptor too. I believe the final iterations of Starship will be capable of 100+ tons to LEO and be reusable.
We are both focused on what they haven’t yet done, with different opinions on how that will play out. We will have to wait and see.
Recoil42@reddit (OP)
I'd recommend Smarter Every Day's analysis of the Starship propellant problem. The Pressure-Fed Astronaut has touched on it a couple times as well, but I forget on which video.
Basically, Starship is so heavy it needs to do multiple on-orbit propellant transfers just to get to the moon. By multiple, I mean over a dozen transfers. When you factor in boil-off, it's basically a non-starter. It will take them years, and this is before you add in all the general problems they have with human-rating and building a sufficient hab.
It's near-intractable and the program is progressing nowhere near quickly enough to meet any sort of reasonable timeline goal to make it happen.
Sweet_Building2057@reddit
The in orbit fuel transfer has never been done either. The sheer amount of “firsts” needed for this thing to get to the moon gives it a very low chance of success
Kingofthewho5@reddit
I was already aware of the things Dustin presented in his talk, so nothing there was a surprise to me.
I think their goals are attainable, although it will certainly require a launch cadence not yet achieved. But that has been their goal from the beginning. Apparently NASA thinks their goals are attainable too, since they awarded them the contract. I guess we will see.
jack-K-@reddit
It doesn’t really matter when SLS is lagging so far behind, they’re unlikely to actually cause delay that other factors didn’t cause first. On top of that, starship hasn’t gone to orbit by choice, they’ve had several flights now where the ship has reached orbital velocity and have successfully performed in space engine relights, meaning they absolutely had the ability to go to orbit with previous flights, there is just no reason for them to actually go to orbit as they still want to test and upgrade the vehicle considerably which brings us to this flight, the first launch of an entirely new version of the ship. There’s lots of new things interacting with each other that lack real world data, spacex will learn what went wrong, upgrade the new ship they have waiting in their bay with what they learn, and launch again, this is exactly how they developed falcon, and the previous version of starship, and it really does work.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Continued political comments will create a permanent ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
carbon_koke@reddit
how toxic are those debris falling into the ocean??
My_useless_alt@reddit
Not very. the only toxic stuff on there is probably the methane, which would burn into CO2 on entry. The heat sheild is mostly just lumps of carbon and the rocket body is mostly just lumps of steel, sure there's a tiny bit of electronics on board but almost none.
And that's before mentioning that this is how every rocket in history has been disposed of except Falcon 9 and arguably Shuttle.
ash_elijah@reddit
the most toxic thing would probably be the batteries. but thats about it really.
fellipec@reddit
This is the quality and amount of videos I expect at minimum from any clains of UFOs.
If a bunch o people can film a rocket exploding with FULL HD quality, if UFOs were real, then should got similar amount of footage.
No_The_White_Phone@reddit
If UFOs flew around in groups of 100+ all with long flaming trails streaming off them you probably would see videos like the one of this starship explosion.
I_Like_Smg1@reddit
It’s convenient aliens come one at a time then
Gilmere@reddit
That and bigfoot...
fellipec@reddit
Is bigfoot/yeti still a thing people talk about? I dont see any "reports" of it for a looooong time.
FrankiePoops@reddit
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2ykyew50go
Literally just over a couple of weeks ago.
fellipec@reddit
Geez, incredible
FrankiePoops@reddit
Yep. When I read that headline I was baffled that it was still a thing.
fellipec@reddit
Other day I was talking to a friend how some crazy things were a fad and we never saw news about it again. We commented about bigfoot and Nostradamus prophecies. Look we were wrong, very wrong.
Forward_Package_1445@reddit
Yes. It's funny because the things people belive are made up are typically real and the things they swear are real are always simulated or orchestrated. Im sure this has alot to do with why the 'elite' are so confident.
blueb0g@reddit
Grow up
Rus_s13@reddit
/r/bigfoot is still around
Mostly debating about old footage or theories
yaw94@reddit
I don't think anyone who isn't mentally unwell believes in Bigfoot in 2025.
Any_Wallaby_195@reddit
Don't forget wee Nessie!
Acrobatic_Switches@reddit
Here's to hoping space x fails as spectacularly.
Elon Musk can die and burn along with it.
My_useless_alt@reddit
Elon can eat shit and die, no complaints there, but SpaceX has done and is continuing to do great things in space innovation. Landing Falcon 9 has massively increased the availability of Space and decreased the cost and the environmental impact (though the second may be offset by the first). And if Starship even lives up to half of it's promises it'll still represent the first real gateway to Space and allow us to properly start on-orbit construction for the first time.
Elon mostly isn't involved in SpaceX except for being the money source and setting the general direction, most of the actual development is done by skilled engineers and technicians that don't deserve the guilt-by-association just from working at Elon's company
Acrobatic_Switches@reddit
I personally feel space has become a giant money pit for billionaires to scam the country out of tax dollars.
My_useless_alt@reddit
Okay
Your evidence for this is where exactly? Your reasoning is what exactly? Your counter to the dozens of space-based services we use every day (including internet, GPS, weather, etc) is what exactly?
Acrobatic_Switches@reddit
Elon Musk has 400 billion dollars in assets. In 2019, the People's Policy Project found that 79% of the country's wealth was owned by billionaires and millionaires.
It's unsustainable and if that's what it takes to reach mars I guess we ain't ever getting there.
My_useless_alt@reddit
Yes, capitalism does suck.
Please explain why that means space is any more of a problem than any other industry under capitalism? Why is this a space problem rather than just a capitalism problem?
Acrobatic_Switches@reddit
Because it's orders of magnitudes more expensive than any other industry.
My_useless_alt@reddit
>Because it's orders of magnitudes more expensive than any other industry.
I repeat: And your source for this is what exactly?
Acrobatic_Switches@reddit
The total cost of a Falcon launch is about US$67 million.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-starship-revolution-in-space/
The only industry close to that is the defense industry which also uses Rockets.
My_useless_alt@reddit
Okay, the Salvador Mundi cost 6 times that, does that mean the art market is 6 times larger than the Space industry or does that mean that volume matters as well as unit price?
Acrobatic_Switches@reddit
Do you know how many falcon launches there have been. Orders of magnitudes more than 6.
My_useless_alt@reddit
So volume does matter then? Okay, so please demonstrate that the unit cost * volume is bigger for space than for anything else?
Acrobatic_Switches@reddit
There are 7000 starlink satellites with plans for 5000 more.
12000 × 67 million = 804 billion.
The entire American car industry. Dozens of companies that are competing against each other aren't even double what one company is worth.
Google ai values the entire American car industry(which might include Tesla) was valued at $1,514.8 billion in 2022.
My_useless_alt@reddit
That's... Not how any do this works. They aren't spending one rocket to launch one Starlink, and they don't charge themselves the same as others. I request that you please spare even the slightest thought towards what you're actually talking about if you want me to care what you have to say
Acrobatic_Switches@reddit
Keep licking elons asshole I'm sure his tax breaks will triple down to you eventually.
My_useless_alt@reddit
It's not my fault you're unable to have a good-faith discussion like an adult. Elon can eat shit and die but that won't make Starlink sats change size
Acrobatic_Switches@reddit
And one other thing.
Do you think I don't have the utmost disdain for Walmart?
My_useless_alt@reddit
Nothing, it's just that your premise is size. You're now moving the goalposts. Again.
AnonAccount-2023@reddit
For the haters, this was a test flight. Explosions happen when testing new tech.
My_useless_alt@reddit
A test flight from a company with a move-fast-and-break-things attitude to development no less
switch8000@reddit
I assume it's high enough to burn up so that it doesn't rain down on passing airplanes?
Rainebowraine123@reddit
No, it didn't get fast enough. All that debris will land in the Atlantic.
Kingofthewho5@reddit
Most of it will burn up. It was just seconds from ending its ascent burn. For reference it was going a few thousand kph faster than shuttle Columbia was going when it broke up on reentry (21,000 kph vs 18,000 kph).
My_useless_alt@reddit
Normally yes, but half of Starship is plated in material specifically designed to survive reentry, the heat shield tiles. The first few launches have been on technically-suborbital trajectories specifically for this reason, if there's a failure during flight they don't want to drop hundreds of entry-resistant rocks on who-knows-where
cumminsrover@reddit
Semantically yes, but almost 40% of it was recovered. The starship should have more of it survive because there is more stainless steel and less aluminum....
Aircraft should avoid the area until it is clear, though that won't be super long.
planetrainguy@reddit
There’s video floating on Instagram of flaming debris passing at eye level with a 737-700 at cruise altitude.
mayhemtime@reddit
I would guess the debris is not actually at cruise altitude and it's because of the curvature of the Earth why it appears to be. The ship broke up >100 km of altitude.
Doesn't mean there wouldn't be a risk of debris but most of it was way way higher and they diverted the aircraft out of precaution.
My_useless_alt@reddit
The glowing debris would be away from planes yes, but a large portion of that debris is heat shield tiles so a lot will survive and will have to get from space to the water somehow, there was definitely a danger to planes in the path of the debris (Which is why they kept planes away from where debris might fall)
Rainebowraine123@reddit
The debris was almost certainly way higher than the aircraft. Just an illusion that it was at the same level.
planetrainguy@reddit
What makes you say this? So they shouldn’t have diverted all those flights due to debris risk? I’m hearing from numerous pilots that they had debris passing through their FLs.
Rainebowraine123@reddit
In that video, they were way above the plane. Yes, of course debris eventually descended through the level. It wouldn't have been flaming and I doubt anyone would have been close enough to see it.
planetrainguy@reddit
How do you know it wouldn’t be flaming? Debris from Columbia in 2003 was on fire when it hit the ground and started small brush fires in Texas.
Rainebowraine123@reddit
Ok, let me rephrase, it wouldnt be leaving a huge streak of light through the sky.
planetrainguy@reddit
As a spacecraft engineer I have to disagree.
Rainebowraine123@reddit
Starship broke up at nearly 150 km. No way the debris was still moving that fast at 10 km.
planetrainguy@reddit
Likely not from atmospheric heating at 30-40k ft but burning materials.
Rainebowraine123@reddit
My original point was the video I saw of the debris from the cockpit the debris was definitely still way up in the upper atmosphere.
My_useless_alt@reddit
Considering that re-entry is when a spaceship goes from space to the ground, no.
There was a TFR in place in case this happened to keep planes out the path of the debris, which apparently got extended in time when it exploded resulting in it being necessary for longer
GensAndTonic@reddit
Flights were diverted away from the airspace, held in ground stops, air returns, etc., so no.
BlackandRead@reddit
Flightradar said their most tracked flights right now are aircraft avoiding the area due to debris, so I don't think so.
opteryx5@reddit
Yeah, looks like TSC498 was in a holding pattern for a bit. They’re on their way now.
cruiserman_80@reddit
Relevant ATCs might issue safety advisories but the chance of a bit of descending debris actually hitting a passing aircraft is extremely remote.
jstop633@reddit
Rocket Musk should be fined.
qejfjfiemd@reddit
People simp really hard for SpaceX don't they
AdrianInLimbo@reddit
Elon's folly
yourlocalFSDO@reddit
This is nowhere close to true. 3 starships have exploded if you count the ship disintegrating on reentry and no Falcon 9s have exploded in the past 5 years. That’s 3 explosions for SpaceX in the past 5 years. Here’s a video of NASA working to get people into space.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8
Mindless-Chemical274@reddit
Aldahni