totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[mikegarrison]

18 minutes ago, tater said:

I suppose it needs to be said periodically, but SpaceX exists to "make humanity multiplanetary." (doesn't matter who here signs on to that—they do)

35 years working for big corporations taught me many things, but one of them was that what a company says they value and what they actually value in practice may or may not be congruent.

[tater]

17 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

35 years working for big corporations taught me many things, but one of them was that what a company says they value and what they actually value in practice may or may not be congruent.

While certainly true, everything I have heard from SpaceX employees shows that they seem to think this. Also, and probably more importantly, what else would their goal be? Musk's goal, as it's not a public company. Creating wealth ain't it—because the money would be better spent on Tesla as the car/solar/battery/robot market is vastly large in dollars than launch services will be during our lifetimes.

 

EDIT: specifically Starship. Regardless of size, if it can in fact operate at Falcon 1 level operational costs, then SpaceX can keep their same gross revenue, but make 10X more profit, or eventually there's a price war and costs drop. I'm not sure I see the launch market increasing to match any drop in cost. Unless they manage to solve safety for humans, then I still think the killer app is tourism/P2P. Note that I think that is a veeeeeery long pole issue.

Edited April 19, 2023 by tater

[mikegarrison]

11 minutes ago, tater said:

While certainly true, everything I have heard from SpaceX employees shows that they seem to think this.

Another thing I have learned is that what the employees think the company is (or should be) aiming for and what what management actually aims for also are not always congruent.

I'm not saying SpaceX isn't actually trying to do what they say they are trying to do. I'm just saying that you can't assume they really are just because they say so.

Edited April 19, 2023 by mikegarrison

[tater]

16 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Another thing I have learned is that what the employees think the company is (or should be) aiming for and what what management actually aims for also are not always congruent.

I'm not saying SpaceX isn't actually trying to do what they say they are trying to do. I'm just saying that you can't assume they really are just because they say so.

True again—but there is literally no path to SpaceX making a gazillion dollars as a launch service company. They have already secured most of the commercial launch market, and much of the US government market. While they only got 40% of Space Force vs ULA's 60%, they likely get some of ULA's flights as Vulcan is not gonna be there at the expected time, and even then—it's a finite pie, and not likely to grow terribly much.

What's the counterfactual goal of SpaceX if not colonizing Mars?

Earning slightly more Space Force and NASA money than they do so that they can eventually make as much as Tesla does in a month or two?

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Money is certainly needed, since Mars has no spice.

TBD.  Could be underground with the sandtrout.

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Nothing else leaps to mind.

Space manufacturing.  100t to orbit is a great bite into economy of scale for a low g manufactory.

 I'm still thinking that lunar titanium, processed in the vacuum of space (hot Ti and O don't play well) is a possible winner.  Aluminum also.  Both require a lot of heat to process, which is in theory there for the taking: maybe too much.

Bezos is likely correct in thinking that moving manufacturing off the surface is a win long term.  Especially if orbital, lunar, and Martian habs, factories, and facilities take off as they would be a large part of the market for many of the materials and products space manufactured so the deep gravity well could be avoided

[Scotius]

Regolith might be a valuable cargo one day.

It sounds silly, but here on Earth we are actually running out of good quality sand for cement mixing. Regolith is excellent replacement for it.

IMO, SpaceX main role is opening the door to space. Time will tell what human ingenuity will do with it.

[Codraroll]

16 minutes ago, Scotius said:

It sounds silly, but here on Earth we are actually running out of good quality sand for cement mixing. Regolith is excellent replacement for it.

The quantities involved would be absolutely humongous, however. The construction industry regularly gobbles up shiploads of sand on single projects (a statement also correct if you moved a certain letter in the unit of measurement four letters down the alphabet). If sand shortages get to the point where it makes economic sense to use lunar regolith as a substitute, things will have gotten rather desperate indeed. 

[magnemoe]

11 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Space manufacturing.  100t to orbit is a great bite into economy of scale for a low g manufactory.

 I'm still thinking that lunar titanium, processed in the vacuum of space (hot Ti and O don't play well) is a possible winner.  Aluminum also.  Both require a lot of heat to process, which is in theory there for the taking: maybe too much.

Bezos is likely correct in thinking that moving manufacturing off the surface is a win long term.  Especially if orbital, lunar, and Martian habs, factories, and facilities take off as they would be a large part of the market for many of the materials and products space manufactured so the deep gravity well could be avoided

Agree, we know you can make better optical fibers in orbit.  3d printing organs is another possible application.
One problem is that access to space is so expensive its hard to test larger processes like metallurgy. That one get even more interesting with spin gravity as you change the gravity at will. 

And yes here I agree with Bezos more than Musk. 

1 minute ago, Codraroll said:

The quantities involved would be absolutely humongous, however. The construction industry regularly gobbles up shiploads of sand on single projects (a statement also correct if you moved a certain letter in the unit of measurement four letters down the alphabet). If sand shortages get to the point where it makes economic sense to use lunar regolith as a substitute, things will have gotten rather desperate indeed. 

This, now the issue is that sand start getting too expensive some places,  expensive as you have to move it by cargo ships and for large projects you need multiple large ships. 
For large orbital constructions however regolith is probably very useful. 
Titanium especially exotic alloys is into the space manufacturing realm. 

[darthgently]

2 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

3d printing organs is another possible application.

Consider the spherical cow.

How about herds of GMO zero g 3m diam spherical "cows" that are 100% prime  meat grown like a pearl around a starter.  Giant meatballs, cooked on reentry, and caught by giant Stage 0 towers wearing audaciously large and stylish chef's hats.

[darthgently]

Ok, the spherical cow thought experiment generalized turns into this question:

How could the heat of reentry become part of some manufacturing process (aside from cooking fantastical meatballs)?

[Scotius]

When Age of Exploration started, only most expensive items were considered worth transporting across the oceans. Things like precious metals and stones, silk, spices and so on. Then technological advancements and economy of scale happened, and today we ship cheap, mass-produced T-shirts from Asia to Europe - and consider it profitable. No one can predict what our grandchildren might consider worth shipping from Mars.

[tater]

1 hour ago, Scotius said:

Regolith might be a valuable cargo one day.

I always ignore those contracts.

23 minutes ago, Scotius said:

No one can predict what our grandchildren might consider worth shipping from Mars.

The wonderful terroir of martian memes will be a growth industry, perhaps?

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

Consider the spherical cow.

How about herds of GMO zero g 3m diam spherical "cows" that are 100% prime  meat grown like a pearl around a starter.  Giant meatballs, cooked on reentry, and caught by giant Stage 0 towers wearing audaciously large and stylish chef's hats.

Okay, I hate you now... Because someone is actually going to do this 

NuSteak

[sevenperforce]

8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

You know that if an airplane's engines fail, it can still glide, right? Not that this is ideal, but it's better than just plummeting to the ground helplessly.

I will note that with transoceanic flights, the odds of survival on a ditch with total engine failure is uncomfortably low. There have only been three instances where a commercial aircraft was intentionally ditched in deep water due to engine failure; one resulted in total LOCV and the other two had about a 50% passenger rescue rate. And near-airport ditch events caused by engine trouble  just after takeoff routinely result in loss of life.

Total engine failure on Starship is essentially the equivalent of total engine failure over the open ocean. And keep in mind that numerous ocean ditches with multiple or total fatalities have resulted from a partial engine loss; Starship can land even with two engine failures. 

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

6 hours ago, Terwin said:

Starship to have 100+ flights and probably 50+ consecutive 'norminal' flights before it ever launches with crew on-board, even a version with a LES pod.

That seems excessive.  Dragon flew - what? 20 flights before Crew Dragon was a thing?

I see your point, but at the same time Falcon 9 had flown MANY times before Doug and Bob climbed into Dragon Endeavor. When the reliability of the underlying launch vehicle is a larger aspect of the LOCV calculation, it’s more appropriate to have a large number of launches before people hop on.

Which just reminds us of the utter insanity and inanity that was the Shuttle. Sure, let’s throw human beings onto a vehicle that (a) has never flown before and (b) has zero contingency abort modes.

[sevenperforce]

5 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

If a single engine failure on landing is causing LOCV, then the landing burn needs to be started earlier.

The engines can ignite and start the flip at a higher altitude when people are on board. If all engines ignite nominally, then they just throttle down; if there’s a problem then there’s time to adjust. 

[mikegarrison]

29 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I will note that with transoceanic flights, the odds of survival on a ditch with total engine failure is uncomfortably low. There have only been three instances where a commercial aircraft was intentionally ditched in deep water due to engine failure; one resulted in total LOCV and the other two had about a 50% passenger rescue rate. And near-airport ditch events caused by engine trouble  just after takeoff routinely result in loss of life.

Um, no?

Pan Am 6 -- 100% survival rate. That comes to mind instantly. I'm not sure which other incidents you are referring to.

[Pthigrivi]

8 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Why do you think the belly-flop maneuver is risky? The Shuttle had an incredibly thin range of allowable flight angles during re-entry, far less than what Starship can handle. Columbia didn't come apart directly due to heat shield failure; it came apart because the change in drag over the failure area became greater than what the control surfaces and RCS could handle and so it yawed out of the acceptable flight angle range.

I think that plasma melting the wing from the inside kinda counts as a direct cause. This is a big part of my issue with the idea that humans will ever ride this thing to the ground--that you have 25k heat tiles and if you lose a single one you've got 4mm of steel between reentry plasma and your landing fuel or some other critical system. Am I the crazy one for pointing out this isn't actually a great idea? 
 

5 hours ago, tater said:

I suppose it needs to be said periodically, but SpaceX exists to "make humanity multiplanetary." (doesn't matter who here signs on to that—they do)

Im sorry I just take that kind of marketing babble with a grain of salt. SpaceX is a private company and its purpose is to keep investors pumping money in. There's nothing wrong with that, really, so long as they aren't playing fast and loose with peoples lives. Space is awesome and I hope people make money investing in it. I think Dragon is great. It's got an abort system, not flawlessly reliable obviously but it exists. It's got a big simple ablative heat shield and multiple parachutes, a pretty reliable formula for crew survival for decades. Thats all pretty responsible. I think as an uncrewed launch vehicle starship is pretty cool too. Landing that exact form on the moon instead of using it to deliver a lighter weight, vacuum optimized lander is a bit of a headscratcher and flying it to Mars is basically crazy. I think the best hope we have (and its probably not unreasonable) is that pitching starship as an interplanetary transfer vehicle is just marketing hype, similar to when they showed Dragon landing on Mars in the early days. By the time thats actually on the table smarter people will develop more sensible reusable transfer and landing systems. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Okay, I hate you now... Because someone is actually going to do this 

NuSteak

My "like" token bucket is empty for the day.  So here is my LIKE

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Consider the spherical cow.

How about herds of GMO zero g 3m diam spherical "cows" that are 100% prime  meat grown like a pearl around a starter.  Giant meatballs, cooked on reentry, and caught by giant Stage 0 towers wearing audaciously large and stylish chef's hats.

Post of the day.

[darthgently]

16 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Landing that exact form on the moon instead of using it to deliver a lighter weight, vacuum optimized lander is a bit of a headscratcher and flying it to Mars is basically crazy

Because having that much permanent internal space on the Moon is valuable.  I'm picturing phased out lunar and Martian Starships as naturally becoming surface habs, factories, etc. with interconnecting pressurized tubes at various levels.  Imagine a cluster of 3 or 4.  Or 12...

 

[Nuke]

mmmmm spherical beef. just roll it through the kitchen. 

[tater]

 

[tater]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im sorry I just take that kind of marketing babble with a grain of salt.

Marketing implies sales. Who would be buying trips to Mars exactly?

Who would invest in Mars—what's the RoI on that? Do they hope to get their payout while they are still alive as part owner in some city on Mars?

 

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

SpaceX is a private company and its purpose is to keep investors pumping money in.

Investors in? People with the large quantities of money to participate in SpaceX funding rounds are capable of doing the research of business models. The launch market is pretty well established, and it's chump change. To the extent they are investing they are throwing money at space because they think it's cool—not because they expect a meaningful return.

 

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

There's nothing wrong with that, really, so long as they aren't playing fast and loose with peoples lives.

Who is "playing fast and loose?" They are literally the only way NASA sends astronauts to space right now. Does NASA find them "fast and loose" with astronaut safety?

 

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Space is awesome and I hope people make money investing in it. I think Dragon is great. It's got an abort system, not flawlessly reliable obviously but it exists. It's got a big simple ablative heat shield and multiple parachutes, a pretty reliable formula for crew survival for decades. Thats all pretty responsible. I think as an uncrewed launch vehicle starship is pretty cool too. Landing that exact form on the moon instead of using it to deliver a lighter weight, vacuum optimized lander is a bit of a headscratcher

Why? So 2-4 people can live in a place they can barely stand in, covered with lunar dust for a week or two, going to the bathroom by have the other 3 turn the other way? I'd prefer a 3500 sqft house sized lander to the alternatives, myself.

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

and flying it to Mars is basically crazy. I think the best hope we have (and its probably not unreasonable) is that pitching starship as an interplanetary transfer vehicle is just marketing hype, similar to when they showed Dragon landing on Mars in the early days. By the time thats actually on the table smarter people will develop more sensible reusable transfer and landing systems. 

The whole point is Mars. Again, "marketing" for what? Selling Nuke Mars t-shirts as their primary source of revenue?

Spoiler

 

I should add that I have posted in this thread how they could make a lander/habitat as a third stage, BTW. I think that's a decent idea—but they will do what they want to do.

Edited April 20, 2023 by tater

[Pthigrivi]

17 minutes ago, tater said:

Investors in? People with the large quantities of money to participate in SpaceX funding rounds are capable of doing the research of business models. The launch market is pretty well established, and it's chump change. To the extent they are investing they are throwing money at space because they think it's cool—not because they expect a meaningful return.

The problem is that big private equity players don’t care if this thing makes sense 10 years from now. They care that the hype keeps rolling and they can flip their shares for a meaningful return in future rounds or when SpaceX goes public. They’re not investing in Mars. They’re investing in future suckers who think the mars plan is real. Its like the way hedge funds all dumped billions into crypto. They knew it was a stupid idea, but they also knew they could get Matt Damon to sell it off high to people who didn’t realize how stupid it was. 
 

But! Tomorrow might be a big day so lets put this chat on on pause?