Let's launch some rockets!
June 6, 2024 1:49 PM Subscribe
On Wednesday, Boeing was finally able to launch the Starliner, their much delayed spacecraft, and dock it to the International Space Station. Meanwhile, Space X did the fourth launch of its Starship rocket, finally managing to complete its first successful return from space.
The Starliner helium leaks are new and persistent, but small enough to ignore apparently. The bigger hiccup in the mission seemed to be near docking, where some of the thrusters couldn't be activated. Fortunately they didn't end up needing them.
Seems like Boeing still have some work to do before being put into operational service. And they're only contracted for six missions--maybe that lifetime will get extended, but I don't know.
Starship, meanwhile, has 2 years remaining to get humans up to lunar orbit when they can't even get a ship with no cargo to complete a mission in-tact, and a booster that still isn't running without losing at least an engine. I wouldn't feel very comfortable landing that thing on the moon.
posted by Room 101 at 2:10 PM on June 6 [3 favorites]
Seems like Boeing still have some work to do before being put into operational service. And they're only contracted for six missions--maybe that lifetime will get extended, but I don't know.
Starship, meanwhile, has 2 years remaining to get humans up to lunar orbit when they can't even get a ship with no cargo to complete a mission in-tact, and a booster that still isn't running without losing at least an engine. I wouldn't feel very comfortable landing that thing on the moon.
posted by Room 101 at 2:10 PM on June 6 [3 favorites]
Well, and they still haven't really shown any good way of delivering cargo, either. The Pez slot might work for flat Starlink satellites, but the first big ol' traditional satellite or Hubble replacement that wants a 5m fairing is going to need something bigger, and big moving doors like that in something as lightweight as a rocket have historically not been very easy.
I mean, it's neat, and I'm sure over a long enough term they'll work out the worst of the kinks even if it does only ever just put more Starlink satellites in orbit instead of a Falcon launch every 3rd or 4th day like it seems have been going up lately. But yeah, they lost one engine at liftoff and another one pretty explosively at landing. And did you see how much that grid fin was dancing around as it hit the atmosphere? Yikes. I guess the whole stack was slightly outdated compared to what they already know they're going to need to do, but still - oof.
posted by Kyol at 2:40 PM on June 6 [1 favorite]
I mean, it's neat, and I'm sure over a long enough term they'll work out the worst of the kinks even if it does only ever just put more Starlink satellites in orbit instead of a Falcon launch every 3rd or 4th day like it seems have been going up lately. But yeah, they lost one engine at liftoff and another one pretty explosively at landing. And did you see how much that grid fin was dancing around as it hit the atmosphere? Yikes. I guess the whole stack was slightly outdated compared to what they already know they're going to need to do, but still - oof.
posted by Kyol at 2:40 PM on June 6 [1 favorite]
To get those humans into that lunar mission, there are hints that they need to do something like twenty back to back missions to Earth orbit, to then stage enough propellant to ready the human stage for the lunar shot (the propellant can't just wait around in orbit, it'll boil off and need to be constantly topped up).
I think the record turnaround for a Falcon 9 is something like 21 days (9 days actually-- some extra for the logistics of doing another launch) at the quickest-- and Starship is a lot more complicated.
Even with perfect reusability and a (fantastical?) 14 day turn around, they might end up having to build 20 of them to meet the launch needs. Kinda shocked NASA hasn't blinked yet and pulled the plug.
posted by Static Vagabond at 3:08 PM on June 6 [2 favorites]
I think the record turnaround for a Falcon 9 is something like 21 days (9 days actually-- some extra for the logistics of doing another launch) at the quickest-- and Starship is a lot more complicated.
Even with perfect reusability and a (fantastical?) 14 day turn around, they might end up having to build 20 of them to meet the launch needs. Kinda shocked NASA hasn't blinked yet and pulled the plug.
posted by Static Vagabond at 3:08 PM on June 6 [2 favorites]
NASASpaceflight had an excellent stream of the Starship launch, now archived (link jumps to fifteen seconds before liftoff). It's a hell of a thing to watch, but the best part is right here during reentry, watching the atmosphere ahead of the craft heat up to a brilliant, colorful plasma, and then over the course of several minutes start burning through the flap, which somehow holds on just long enough to bring the craft in for a soft landing on the ocean. It's worth a watch; it's beautiful and super intense.
posted by phooky at 3:10 PM on June 6 [3 favorites]
posted by phooky at 3:10 PM on June 6 [3 favorites]
they might end up having to build 20 of them to meet the launch needs
I read that the plan for the SpaceX factory is aiming for one new rocket a day. So a slow month.
posted by sammyo at 3:34 PM on June 6 [1 favorite]
I read that the plan for the SpaceX factory is aiming for one new rocket a day. So a slow month.
posted by sammyo at 3:34 PM on June 6 [1 favorite]
Thank you for this one, Brandon. I'm working on another space exploration post and will gladly reference this.
posted by doctornemo at 4:02 PM on June 6 [1 favorite]
posted by doctornemo at 4:02 PM on June 6 [1 favorite]
And here I thought the video from the last Starship reentry was impressive.
I was pretty surprised when the flap didn't come off entirely, given that there was definitely a bunch of hot gas in the hinge mechanism.
posted by wierdo at 4:13 PM on June 6 [2 favorites]
I was pretty surprised when the flap didn't come off entirely, given that there was definitely a bunch of hot gas in the hinge mechanism.
posted by wierdo at 4:13 PM on June 6 [2 favorites]
the SpaceX factory is aiming for one new rocket a day
But sometimes they hit London.
posted by notoriety public at 5:31 PM on June 6 [3 favorites]
But sometimes they hit London.
posted by notoriety public at 5:31 PM on June 6 [3 favorites]
But sometimes they hit London
A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now?
posted by aramaic at 5:37 PM on June 6 [3 favorites]
A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now?
posted by aramaic at 5:37 PM on June 6 [3 favorites]
Someone pointed out the possibility of diving to the wreck of the booster. Imagine if the engine nozzles are intact. Wouldn't that be a trip.
posted by other barry at 6:03 PM on June 6 [1 favorite]
posted by other barry at 6:03 PM on June 6 [1 favorite]
I watched the launch in bed on my phone. The booster separations were cool. Also the animations. And rows of guys in suits in front of monitors. But one thought that came to mind was 'Boy, that Boeing Starliner's design is one step beyond.' Richard Dreyfuss as Roy Neary's mashed potato scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind came to mind -- only with nc17 cucuzzi. 'This means something.' indeed.
posted by y2karl at 6:28 PM on June 6
posted by y2karl at 6:28 PM on June 6
Looks like they are up for a major reengineering of the flaps - to be reusable they have to be able to survive without any appreciable wear.
Meanwhile I wouldn't be surprised if meanwhile they launch a few boosters and practised catching them
posted by mbo at 7:30 PM on June 6
Meanwhile I wouldn't be surprised if meanwhile they launch a few boosters and practised catching them
posted by mbo at 7:30 PM on June 6
I read that the plan for the SpaceX factory is aiming for one new rocket a day. So a slow month.
That isn’t a plan, it’s just marketing patter. Even if one could achieve that insane goal, there is nothing to DO with 365 rockets that size per year. Nobody is building a colony on Mars, and I don’t think Starlink is going to sustain that scale either.
posted by Room 101 at 8:17 PM on June 6 [4 favorites]
That isn’t a plan, it’s just marketing patter. Even if one could achieve that insane goal, there is nothing to DO with 365 rockets that size per year. Nobody is building a colony on Mars, and I don’t think Starlink is going to sustain that scale either.
posted by Room 101 at 8:17 PM on June 6 [4 favorites]
There’s definitely no need to make 365 fully-reusable rockets a year. But I think it is impossible to predict what demand might be once the world has a much lower cost way of putting stuff in space.
posted by snofoam at 12:03 AM on June 7
posted by snofoam at 12:03 AM on June 7
Mod note: Comment removed after being flagged several times. Please avoid avoid trolling and deraily type comments about how you dislike the subject of the post.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:48 AM on June 7 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:48 AM on June 7 [1 favorite]
and a booster that still isn't running without losing at least an engine.
Turns out that firing your chief engine designer for pointing out the stupidity of building unneeded engines has...foreseeable consequences.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:15 AM on June 7 [2 favorites]
Turns out that firing your chief engine designer for pointing out the stupidity of building unneeded engines has...foreseeable consequences.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:15 AM on June 7 [2 favorites]
> Turns out that firing your chief engine designer for pointing out the stupidity of building unneeded engines has...foreseeable consequences.
wait, what, what are the details here? i feel like i should know the details here but i don't know the details here and i want to know the details here.
has gywnne shotwell's team of elite key-janglers failed to keep mr. musk sufficiently distracted? has he been putting his sticky fingers all over the (unironically) very cool and awesome spacey-shippies?
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 6:28 AM on June 7
wait, what, what are the details here? i feel like i should know the details here but i don't know the details here and i want to know the details here.
has gywnne shotwell's team of elite key-janglers failed to keep mr. musk sufficiently distracted? has he been putting his sticky fingers all over the (unironically) very cool and awesome spacey-shippies?
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 6:28 AM on June 7
wait, what, what are the details here? i feel like i should know the details here but i don't know the details here and i want to know the details here.
So, remember a few years back when Musk was apoplectic about how SpaceX's production of Raptor engines had "fallen behind" and that he forced workers to work long hours to build new engines? It turns out that was even stupider than you thought!
Because it turns out that the reason they had stopped making engines was because by that point SpaceX had committed to the Raptor 2 engine, and they were waiting to retool for production. Every one of those Raptor 1 engines coming off the production line was scrap. And when SpaceX's chief engine designer pojnted out that this was a stupid waste of time and money, Musk responded to this the same way he responds to anyone challenging his authoriteh and fired him. Unsurprisingly, this has caused SpaceX's engine development to, well, stall out, especially with development of the Raptor 3.
has gywnne shotwell's team of elite key-janglers failed to keep mr. musk sufficiently distracted?
The problem at both Tesla and SpaceX is that their Elon Management Systems can work - but only if the subject is sufficiently distracted. When he has laser focus on a business, it winds up a bad time for all involved.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:46 AM on June 7 [3 favorites]
So, remember a few years back when Musk was apoplectic about how SpaceX's production of Raptor engines had "fallen behind" and that he forced workers to work long hours to build new engines? It turns out that was even stupider than you thought!
Because it turns out that the reason they had stopped making engines was because by that point SpaceX had committed to the Raptor 2 engine, and they were waiting to retool for production. Every one of those Raptor 1 engines coming off the production line was scrap. And when SpaceX's chief engine designer pojnted out that this was a stupid waste of time and money, Musk responded to this the same way he responds to anyone challenging his authoriteh and fired him. Unsurprisingly, this has caused SpaceX's engine development to, well, stall out, especially with development of the Raptor 3.
has gywnne shotwell's team of elite key-janglers failed to keep mr. musk sufficiently distracted?
The problem at both Tesla and SpaceX is that their Elon Management Systems can work - but only if the subject is sufficiently distracted. When he has laser focus on a business, it winds up a bad time for all involved.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:46 AM on June 7 [3 favorites]
I am very excited that groundbreaking stuff is happening in space in a way that has largely not been true for a long time. Starship has the potential to totally transform what is possible in space. I'm sure every spacecraft has some issues, but Starship, even if it were totally disposable, is already more transformational than something like the Space Shuttle, which was kind of doomed from the start. In my lifetime, most of the best space stuff has been telescopes and unmanned probes, and I could see the potential for doing much more of this kind of exploration with much more capacity and lower cost to orbit. I think we're also probably going to see a lot of innovation at other companies around the world (maybe not ULA, Boeing, etc). As what is possible gets redefined, many companies and countries will step up their rocket game. Beyond that, many companies will be unleashed to pursue previously cost-prohibitive stuff in space, and I bet some of it will be really cool.
posted by snofoam at 6:48 AM on June 7 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 6:48 AM on June 7 [2 favorites]
Kinda shocked NASA hasn't blinked yet and pulled the plug.
I think it's schedule chicken. There isn't a single element of Artemis 3 that'll make the 2026 goal, and they're all waiting for each other to blink. Given that the alternative lander to Starship is Blue Origin's, I don't see anyone else overtaking SpaceX in the meantime.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 7:55 AM on June 7
I think it's schedule chicken. There isn't a single element of Artemis 3 that'll make the 2026 goal, and they're all waiting for each other to blink. Given that the alternative lander to Starship is Blue Origin's, I don't see anyone else overtaking SpaceX in the meantime.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 7:55 AM on June 7
Yeah, there's a part of me that wonders how economically unfeasible a fully disposable Starship would be, just going up and dropping off a half an ISS at a shot. The wiki articles are totally useless here, an Ariane 5 at $150-200 million per launch (in 2016) with Starship in "expendable" mode only costing $100 million, so someone has their thumbs on the scales or isn't counting R&D costs in Starship's cost. But would it still be cheaper than the ~ $1.5b per Shuttle flight, even amortizing the R&D into Starship costs? Hrm.
posted by Kyol at 8:02 AM on June 7
posted by Kyol at 8:02 AM on June 7
re: lander sweartogod sometimes i wish they’d just cobble together an apollo lem clone and call it good
then i remember that the apollo lem was a device for committing suicide that had been sloppily and incompletely converted into a device for landing on the moon
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 12:34 PM on June 7
then i remember that the apollo lem was a device for committing suicide that had been sloppily and incompletely converted into a device for landing on the moon
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 12:34 PM on June 7
I genuinely thought the flaps being ablated meant Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly, especially when the commentary spoke of the amazing pictures coming via Starlink before one of a number of cutouts.
posted by k3ninho at 3:58 PM on June 7
posted by k3ninho at 3:58 PM on June 7
I'm also impressed the control surface/wing didn't just completely melt down and blow right off that big dumb steel rocket and they managed to any kind of a controlled splashdown.
If you tried that stunt with the aluminum-bodied SST/Shuttle it probably would have vaporized into glitter and oxides pretty much just a few seconds after first burning through to internal airframe parts.
Something that I think gets lost and that I've personally been having a hard time wrapping my head around is the actual scales involved in Starship Heavy because it just doesn't look that big on the launch structure and environment, and there really isn't a good frame of reference.
So here's a couple of comparison pictures that seem to be about right.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F1v8ix2bqggp91.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fvr3y05v66doc1.jpeg
And it still doesn't make any sense to me. Just look at that fuckin' thing. It's fucking massive. And it's basically just a big dumb stainless steel grain silo capable of going hypersonic.
Just Starship alone is basically bigger than the external tank of the SST stack and looks like it has more volume and cargo space than the Orbiter does including cockpit and cargo bay, even though Starship also has it's own fuel tanks that are similar in size and total volume of the external tank.
Considering this is only the fourth test flight they're doing better than I thought they would.
posted by loquacious at 4:41 PM on June 7
If you tried that stunt with the aluminum-bodied SST/Shuttle it probably would have vaporized into glitter and oxides pretty much just a few seconds after first burning through to internal airframe parts.
Something that I think gets lost and that I've personally been having a hard time wrapping my head around is the actual scales involved in Starship Heavy because it just doesn't look that big on the launch structure and environment, and there really isn't a good frame of reference.
So here's a couple of comparison pictures that seem to be about right.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F1v8ix2bqggp91.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fvr3y05v66doc1.jpeg
And it still doesn't make any sense to me. Just look at that fuckin' thing. It's fucking massive. And it's basically just a big dumb stainless steel grain silo capable of going hypersonic.
Just Starship alone is basically bigger than the external tank of the SST stack and looks like it has more volume and cargo space than the Orbiter does including cockpit and cargo bay, even though Starship also has it's own fuel tanks that are similar in size and total volume of the external tank.
Considering this is only the fourth test flight they're doing better than I thought they would.
posted by loquacious at 4:41 PM on June 7
Aww, now I feel bad. It's ok capitalist space junkies, I still love you.
posted by evilDoug at 5:25 PM on June 7
posted by evilDoug at 5:25 PM on June 7
Eh, every space program in the West has been capitalist to the core. At least now the government isn't the one taking the entirety of the risk and getting soaked by cost plus contracts.
I don't think it balances out Elon Musk's over the top douchebaggery, but there is some real value in his money/schemes/ideas/stolen ideas having dragged the world kicking and screaming into new ways of thinking. Electric cars were a complete joke to the masses before Tesla, but after the market was demonstrated every auto maker is at least giving it a go. SpaceX's pathfinding drastically changed the launch market and enabled Rocket Labs to raise enough investment to do their fine work. Together they basically are the entire smallest market outside of China, which is enabling all kinds of cool and useful shit on top of making hedge fund bros even richer. Then there's Starlink, which again has upended the global data connectivity market and enabled people in remote areas to have Internet access on par with that which is available in less remote locations. Whether any of that is worth the tradeoffs is a value judgement I leave to the reader, but it's undeniable that all of these ventures have had positive effects.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Starship could well reduce the impact on astronomy that Starlink presents by enabling much larger telescopes to be launched much more cheaply, which itself could help being down the cost of space based observatories both by increased production volume and reducing the need for excessively complex engineering to fit within the mass budget and volume limits of existing rockets. That will be true even if reusability doesn't work out or if they end up only being able to reuse the booster.
I do wish I could figure out why it is that success in rocketry is so strongly correlated with authoritarian dickheads being at the helm, though.
posted by wierdo at 1:55 AM on June 8 [1 favorite]
I don't think it balances out Elon Musk's over the top douchebaggery, but there is some real value in his money/schemes/ideas/stolen ideas having dragged the world kicking and screaming into new ways of thinking. Electric cars were a complete joke to the masses before Tesla, but after the market was demonstrated every auto maker is at least giving it a go. SpaceX's pathfinding drastically changed the launch market and enabled Rocket Labs to raise enough investment to do their fine work. Together they basically are the entire smallest market outside of China, which is enabling all kinds of cool and useful shit on top of making hedge fund bros even richer. Then there's Starlink, which again has upended the global data connectivity market and enabled people in remote areas to have Internet access on par with that which is available in less remote locations. Whether any of that is worth the tradeoffs is a value judgement I leave to the reader, but it's undeniable that all of these ventures have had positive effects.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Starship could well reduce the impact on astronomy that Starlink presents by enabling much larger telescopes to be launched much more cheaply, which itself could help being down the cost of space based observatories both by increased production volume and reducing the need for excessively complex engineering to fit within the mass budget and volume limits of existing rockets. That will be true even if reusability doesn't work out or if they end up only being able to reuse the booster.
I do wish I could figure out why it is that success in rocketry is so strongly correlated with authoritarian dickheads being at the helm, though.
posted by wierdo at 1:55 AM on June 8 [1 favorite]
I don't think it balances out Elon Musk's over the top douchebaggery
Yeah, I'm no fan of the ol' Melon Husk, but if it makes anyone feel any better apparently almost everyone at Space X actually hates working for him, and Space X is as successful as it is in spite of Musk, not because of him.
I have met and hung out with a couple of Space X engineers who work at relatively high levels, and I don't want to get too specific so I don't out them.
When I met one person in particular through a friend they seemed to take a weird, perverse joy in listening to me rant about what I really thought about Musk, and I was honestly expecting them to be more defensive about it.
But, no, it was more like "Ohhhh yes, tell me more. Snag on him! That's it, off the top rope, now! Fuck yeah, give him the elbow!" because I had the freedom as an outsider to say all the things they don't get to say.
Something else I wanted to note and observe is that I've also met a number of NASA and JPL engineers and they feel like a totally different breed than the couple of Space X folks I've met.
The NASA and JPL folks I've met are... oh, I don't know how to say this. More used to bureaucracy and paperwork, probably a bit smarter, and - generally speaking - weirder and more intense? Like much more in the general vibe of Weird Science and Revenge of the Nerds classical nerds.
The couple of Space X folks I've met are also smart, but it's been more like meeting a smarter than average Javascript or Python dev. Like they'd fit right in at tech startup or FAANG. Very corporate and more mellow and, I don't know, more "normal" or whatever. They don't have the edginess of the NASA/JPL nerds that I've met.
I think this distinction is interesting, revealing and important because it's almost like the concept of "rocket scientist" is about as exotic as "cargo truck engineer", kind of the same way a web/dev engineer who mostly configures, deploys and interconnects cloud-based SaaS tools is less exotic and interesting instead of, say, hand-weaving genius-tier bespoke microcode for bare silicon.
I mean that in the sense that I get the very real sense that the Space X folks I've met seem to know they're standing on the shoulders of giants and have access to a lot more advanced modeling and engineering tools and support and have it a lot easier than, say, an Apollo engineer who had to invent everything from scratch and bash out calculations on slide rules and rudimentary calculators and computers, and that space flight is more of a previously solved problem than it used to be the same way building huge databases is more of a solved problem than it used to be.
I think that this kind of normalization is kind of cool and interesting, and it's a remarkably different kind of design production and philosophy that's... curiously boring and non-exotic.
posted by loquacious at 11:06 AM on June 8
Yeah, I'm no fan of the ol' Melon Husk, but if it makes anyone feel any better apparently almost everyone at Space X actually hates working for him, and Space X is as successful as it is in spite of Musk, not because of him.
I have met and hung out with a couple of Space X engineers who work at relatively high levels, and I don't want to get too specific so I don't out them.
When I met one person in particular through a friend they seemed to take a weird, perverse joy in listening to me rant about what I really thought about Musk, and I was honestly expecting them to be more defensive about it.
But, no, it was more like "Ohhhh yes, tell me more. Snag on him! That's it, off the top rope, now! Fuck yeah, give him the elbow!" because I had the freedom as an outsider to say all the things they don't get to say.
Something else I wanted to note and observe is that I've also met a number of NASA and JPL engineers and they feel like a totally different breed than the couple of Space X folks I've met.
The NASA and JPL folks I've met are... oh, I don't know how to say this. More used to bureaucracy and paperwork, probably a bit smarter, and - generally speaking - weirder and more intense? Like much more in the general vibe of Weird Science and Revenge of the Nerds classical nerds.
The couple of Space X folks I've met are also smart, but it's been more like meeting a smarter than average Javascript or Python dev. Like they'd fit right in at tech startup or FAANG. Very corporate and more mellow and, I don't know, more "normal" or whatever. They don't have the edginess of the NASA/JPL nerds that I've met.
I think this distinction is interesting, revealing and important because it's almost like the concept of "rocket scientist" is about as exotic as "cargo truck engineer", kind of the same way a web/dev engineer who mostly configures, deploys and interconnects cloud-based SaaS tools is less exotic and interesting instead of, say, hand-weaving genius-tier bespoke microcode for bare silicon.
I mean that in the sense that I get the very real sense that the Space X folks I've met seem to know they're standing on the shoulders of giants and have access to a lot more advanced modeling and engineering tools and support and have it a lot easier than, say, an Apollo engineer who had to invent everything from scratch and bash out calculations on slide rules and rudimentary calculators and computers, and that space flight is more of a previously solved problem than it used to be the same way building huge databases is more of a solved problem than it used to be.
I think that this kind of normalization is kind of cool and interesting, and it's a remarkably different kind of design production and philosophy that's... curiously boring and non-exotic.
posted by loquacious at 11:06 AM on June 8
From the internet:
In a world of Raptor #1’s, be a Starship front starboard flap.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:44 PM on June 11 [1 favorite]
In a world of Raptor #1’s, be a Starship front starboard flap.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:44 PM on June 11 [1 favorite]
« Older “Charlie is the kind of guy where you just really... | "A genre’s name means absolutely nothing if we... Newer »
And I'm hearing that Starliner is having another helium valve problem, or are the reports getting crossed from the prior attempt?
posted by Kyol at 1:59 PM on June 6 [3 favorites]