←back to thread

404 points voxleone | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.532s | source | bottom
Show context
reactordev ◴[] No.45655443[source]
Posture, no one can compete, not even NASA.
replies(2): >>45655530 #>>45655583 #
raverbashing ◴[] No.45655530[source]
Yeah who is going to deliver faster and more reliable than SpaceX? Boeing? LM?

Doubt

replies(2): >>45655624 #>>45655892 #
JohnFen ◴[] No.45655624[source]
I don't know who else can, but I do seriously doubt SpaceX is going to be able to deliver within the next decade or so either.
replies(3): >>45655721 #>>45655732 #>>45655895 #
1. peterfirefly ◴[] No.45655732[source]
They have a pretty good chance, actually. They are almost done with the hard parts of the Starship.
replies(2): >>45655873 #>>45656338 #
2. virgilp ◴[] No.45655873[source]
I wouldn't say "almost done" - orbital refueling is likely one of the hard parts, and it wasn't attempted yet.
replies(2): >>45656075 #>>45657347 #
3. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45656075[source]
> orbital refueling is likely one of the hard parts

It's the most novel and riskiest. I wouldn't say it's hardest. That's launch, reëntry and reüse. They've substantially de-risked those components with IFT-11.

I'd put IFT-12 validating Block 3 as the actual hardest launch next year. If that goes smoothly, I'm betting they make orbit and propellant transfer before the end of the year. And if that happens, I'm betting they get at least one rocket off to Mars before year end.

replies(1): >>45670678 #
4. haspok ◴[] No.45656338[source]
> They are almost done with the hard parts of the Starship.

That's what Musk wants you to believe.

In reality, reusability was the Achilles heel of the space shuttle, due to the thermal insulator tiles that could be easily damaged during reentry, so they had to be rechecked rigorously before the next flight, and the damaged tiles replaced. We haven't seen any of that - so far only the booster was reused, somewhat, as in 2 were reused, with one failure and one success, but only much later.

And then there is the orbital refueling, but that is so far in the future that it's not even worth discussing.

replies(3): >>45657320 #>>45660744 #>>45663451 #
5. peterfirefly ◴[] No.45657320[source]
Not just due to the tiles!

They had to take a lot of the back end of the shuttle apart after every landing, which was cumbersome because things weren't packed right for that. Also, they used hydrazine for the (many!) smaller rocket engines and that requires special protective suits and breathing equipment.

Starship doesn't use hydrazine and the big engines are pretty fast to remove/mount. We've seen them do that many times now.

Shuttle tiles were tested by having somebody going around and pinging them all with a special mallet and using a cart with a special computer that checked if they made the right sound.

Starship tiles can be inspected remotely and quickly with a camera.

Replacing a shuttle tile wasn't easy. Replacing a Starship tile is fairly easy. They have done it many, many times already. The question isn't whether they can do it fast (they can) or easily (they can) or whether they can detect bad tiles (they can). It's not even whether they can tolerate a few missing or defective tiles (they can). The only question there is whether enough fail so that the replacement time cuts too much into the recycling time budget for when they want to launch Starships really fast. We don't know that yet. They won't be needing really fast turnarounds for some time so there's plenty of opportunity to fix any issues with tile design/placement and with the underlying thermal blankets.

Don't argue by analogies. Especially not bad ones.

6. peterfirefly ◴[] No.45657347[source]
It's probably a lot easier than the raptors, the plumbing, the launch tower, the launch mount, the belly flop, staging, and the catching. It's probably easier than the pez dispenser.
7. m4rtink ◴[] No.45660744[source]
Shuttle had the unfortunate combination of fragile indivudally unique (!) tiles glue to lightweight aluminum structure that would fail if heated to 175 C (!!) [0], even in a small area.

In comparison Starship is covered by mostly identical tiles attached to hull welded from milimeters thick (internet data indicates something between 4 and 2 mm thick & often multiplied in important places) steel plate.

The steel hull has demonstrated surviving missing tiles just fine - and during earlier flight even multiple burn throughs on the flaps with bits falling off and even back then Starship completed simulated landing to the ocean (including the flip manuever and landing burn!).

So even if SpaceX does not perfect rapid reusability of Starship immediately, they would still have hands down the best orbital launcher in the world, with the option of populating new Starship hulls with reused engines, acuators and avionics for the time being.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protecti...

8. terminalshort ◴[] No.45663451[source]
Good thing SpaceX learned from that mistake and built a much simpler heat shield out of identical tiles that can be cheaply and easily replaced.
9. virgilp ◴[] No.45670678{3}[source]
I never claimed "hardest". And yes, block3 being as of right now still unproven is another reason to say "not almost done with the hard parts yet".