←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
EncomLab ◴[] No.42736458[source]
First Shuttle orbited astronauts and successfully recovered all intended components. Every Saturn 5 was successful, the 3rd flight sent a crew to lunar orbit, and the 6th put a crew on the moon.

To date a Starship has yet to be recovered after flight - and those launched are effectively boilerplate as they have carried no cargo (other than a banana) and have none of the systems in place to support a crew.

Some people are really fetishizing iterative failure - but just because you are wandering in the desert does not mean there is a promised land.

replies(22): >>42736473 #>>42736508 #>>42736510 #>>42736544 #>>42736558 #>>42736593 #>>42736608 #>>42736877 #>>42737180 #>>42737649 #>>42737788 #>>42738106 #>>42738784 #>>42739075 #>>42739145 #>>42741930 #>>42741991 #>>42742118 #>>42742635 #>>42743357 #>>42744151 #>>42745261 #
jve ◴[] No.42736593[source]
Apollo WAS an impressive achievement

Starship IS an impressive achievement while they speed up development process with real-world hard data

New Glenn IS an impressive achievement while taking their time to develop a vehicle that reached the orbit on first time

Per wiki on Apollo

> Landing humans on the Moon by the end of 1969 required the most sudden burst of technological creativity, and the largest commitment of resources ($25 billion; $182 billion in 2023 US dollars)[22] ever made by any nation in peacetime. At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities.[23]

Different budget, different number of people working on this stuff and different mindset. Actually the Apollo program was also iterative and it paid off.

replies(1): >>42736722 #
tsimionescu ◴[] No.42736722[source]
The Apollo program was inventing all of this technology, and using only extremely rudimentary computers, still doing many calculations with slide rulers.

SpaceX has all of the Apollo program's work to build on, and computers that could do all the computing work that the Apollo program ever made, in total, in probably a few minutes.

replies(2): >>42736758 #>>42736774 #
me_me_me ◴[] No.42736774[source]
this doesn't even scratch the surface. Slow motion cameras and real time sensors for debugging hardware issues, computer simulations, 3d printing.

Apollo program directors would advocate to start a nuclear war with ussr if they could get hands on that kind of tech.

But also NASA landed two SUVs on mars first try, using skycrane, Full remote. they developed and built mars helicopter/drone (rip). First try. But spaceX gets the glory because... break things??

replies(5): >>42736942 #>>42738202 #>>42738564 #>>42740437 #>>42745571 #
1. ceejayoz ◴[] No.42738564[source]
> But also NASA landed two SUVs on mars first try, using skycrane, Full remote. they developed and built mars helicopter/drone (rip). First try. But spaceX gets the glory because... break things??

NASA lost a good number of probes in the process of getting the expertise to do that.

And likely quite a few test devices in building out the skycrane.

replies(1): >>42741365 #
2. me_me_me ◴[] No.42741365[source]
citation needed

You cant be making shit up and equating a test to blowing up 7 rockets

replies(1): >>42741596 #
3. ceejayoz ◴[] No.42741596[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Polar_Lander

replies(1): >>42744117 #
4. me_me_me ◴[] No.42744117{3}[source]
wtf does that have to do with Curiosity program? All of these are 2+ decades old.

Besides, you make it as if SpaceX couldn't learn from nasa mistakes, not to mention core team of SpaceX are ex-nasa already.

what kind of elon musk logic is that?

replies(1): >>42744337 #
5. ricardobeat ◴[] No.42744337{4}[source]
> wtf does that have to do with Curiosity program? All of these are 2+ decades old.

That’s 20 years of learning how to design and land things on mars. They wouldn’t have been able to build Curiosity without the past experiences. The Curiosity program itself started in 2002, just a couple years after the missions above.

What people say is that knowledge in the field is extremely hard to transfer, and easily lost. As an example, apparently we are completely unable to rebuild the Space Shuttle and Saturn rocket, even though technology is vastly more advanced today. Each vehicle really is a “program” including all its people and supply chain. This is also something SpaceX is trying to change by building actual production lines for their engines and bodies, not one-off builds.

replies(1): >>42744813 #
6. me_me_me ◴[] No.42744813{5}[source]
> What people say is that knowledge in the field is extremely hard to transfer, and easily lost.

So you are saying that Curiosity team had probably not learned anything from those 20 years old programs?

You are literally strengthening my point...

replies(1): >>42745017 #
7. ricardobeat ◴[] No.42745017{6}[source]
No, that’s about “SpaceX learning from NASA’s past mistakes”. You also don’t seem to get the point that they were 2-year old programs when Curiosity started, so I’ll just leave it here.