totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[RyanRising]

34 minutes ago, tater said:

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?

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

Kinda contrary to what Pthigrivi said, I think big investors have shown pretty well that they're not necessarily the smartest people around, and are very impressionable. If that "big vision" is persuasive enough, you can get people to funnel money into it without necessarily having a clear path to profitability.

At any rate, SpaceX's Mars plans seem to be more aligned with stroking Musk's ego rather than making technologies for a practical mission architecture. The really important, development-heavy parts of a Mars mission: "how do we keep people alive and healthy for so long in such unforgiving environments," "what can we do there to best make use of human presence," while extremely criticial, aren't sexy. Making the biggest rocket ever made? That's sexy, put our money and effort into that. The payloads aren't just going to magically be there to launch once Starship starts working, but what plans SpaceX has put out almost unviversally glosses over that part, instead focusing on the evocative images of domes already there, big towers touching down on the red planet, people stepping out from the lander in a SpaceX Dragon IVA suit, etc. It's not serious as a Mars plan, but what it does do is make the people who are putting money into it - one person in particular, but no doubt the others too - think they're contributing to some great higher purpose, and feel motivated to continue fudning the project.

In the meantime, they're making a really big rocket that has the potential to be very useful in a much more general sense, so that's cool and I'm rooting for them there. But when they say "making humanity multiplanetary," given the information of what they're actually doing, it reads to me as either very naive about what really needs doing, or just a platitude to tell those with infludence "hey that money is definitely well spent here, don't take it elsewhere."

Edited April 20, 2023 by RyanRising

[tater]

7 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

At any rate, SpaceX's Mars plans seem to be more aligned with stroking Musk's ego rather than making technologies for a practical mission architecture. The really important, development-heavy parts of a Mars mission: "how do we keep people alive and healthy for so long in such unforgiving environments," "what can we do there to best make use of human presence," while extremely criticial, aren't sexy. Making the biggest rocket ever made? That's sexy, put our money and effort into that. The payloads aren't just going to magically be there to launch once Starship starts working, but what plans SpaceX has put out almost unviversally glosses over that part, instead focusing on the evocative images of domes already there, big towers touching down on the red planet, people stepping out from the lander in a SpaceX Dragon IVA suit, etc. It's not serious as a Mars plan, but what it does do is make the people who are putting money into it - one person in particular, but no doubt the others too - think they're contributing to some great higher purpose, and feel motivated to continue fudning the project.

They have enough mass margin that dealing with the less sexy parts is not as difficult. For 100 people? LOL, I'm not one to take that very seriously. For a decent sized Mars mission? Sure.

They have to meet NASA milestones for LSS—do you think they are not already working on that? NASA said their proposal went deep into the weeds on specifics of the entire human landing system. They have seen that, we haven't—are they just rubes? That's the point of LSS. Not just to offset some dev cost, but they get a complete human spacecraft built. They hit the marks, and their very involved customer also helps with it. If they actually start reusing LSS, they can slowly build data on the lifespan of crew systems on the spacecraft in a space environment. This is the long duration flight version of using paid for boosters to test landing.

Like I said, I'm not a Mars-bro, I'd be better described as one of Gerry's kids—and super heavy lift actually helps enable that, so woot (since Bezos while an explicit Gerry O'Neill fan, is not really moving the ball down the field).

[Pthigrivi]

16 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

Kinda contrary to what Pthigrivi said, I think big investors have shown pretty well that they're not necessarily the smartest people around, and are very impressionable. If that "big vision" is persuasive enough, you can get people to funnel money into it without necessarily having a clear path to profitability.

This is the big Juicero question. Were all those early investors stupid? Or did they just know people were dumb enough to buy it anyway and happened to get caught? A question for the age. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[NFUN]

4 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.

The ultimate Meat Tornado

[Pthigrivi]

22 minutes ago, tater said:

They have enough mass margin that dealing with the less sexy parts is not as difficult. For 100 people? LOL, I'm not one to take that very seriously. For a decent sized Mars mission? Sure.

They have to meet NASA milestones for LSS—do you think they are not already working on that? NASA said their proposal went deep into the weeds on specifics of the entire human landing system. They have seen that, we haven't—are they just rubes? That's the point of LSS. Not just to offset some dev cost, but they get a complete human spacecraft built. They hit the marks, and their very involved customer also helps with it. If they actually start reusing LSS, they can slowly build data on the lifespan of crew systems on the spacecraft in a space environment. This is the long duration flight version of using paid for boosters to test landing.

Like I said, I'm not a Mars-bro, I'd be better described as one of Gerry's kids—and super heavy lift actually helps enable that, so woot (since Bezos while an explicit Gerry O'Neill fan, is not really moving the ball down the field).

Its a good point. Ive been pondering this for years. Its not just pure dV efficiency, its total manufacturing and testing costs over time. Something heavy might indeed be cheaper than something light if the production throughput and reliability curve worked in your favor. At the same time though the goal is to keep reusing the landers and transfer vehicles over and over and the compounding mass savings has to overrule, right? Like just make a really comfortable, robust crew module thats mass optimized and deliver it to orbit the once. For delivering equipment to the lunar surface you just need minimal deployment guts, you don’t need an enclosure in vacuum. It seems crazy to haul around the ascent housing for years on end? 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

34 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

The problem is that big private equity players don’t care if this thing makes sense 10 years from now.

I don't think any category of people is monolithic like that.  Knowing what I know of the dark and light of human nature I'm about certain that for every SpaceX investor that fits your description there is another that simply thinks Musk's vision makes sense for humanity's future.  And It doesn't hurt that he seems to make stuff around him work quite well and run more efficiently by any real world measure than his competitors and detractors 

[tater]

9 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Its a good point. Ive been pondering this for years. Its not just pure dV efficiency, its total manufacturing and testing costs over time. Something heavy might indeed be cheaper than something light if the production throughput and reliability curve worked in your favor. At the same time though the goal is to keep reusing the landers and transfer vehicles over and over and the compounding mass savings has to overrule, right? Like just make a really comfortable, robust crew module thats mass optimized and deliver it to orbit the once. For delivering equipment to the lunar surface you just need minimal deployment guts, you don’t need an enclosure in vacuum. It seems crazy to haul around the ascent housing for years on end? 

FWIW, if they actually stretch the lander by the ~10m Musk suggested, LEO—>lunar surface—>LEO closes propulsively.

 

[Meecrob]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

*Multi-page discussion on my concerns about Starship*

Hold on a sec...I didn't know @kerbiloidhad two accounts!

 

I'm just messing...no harm intended.

[Ultimate Steve]

1 minute ago, tater said:

FWIW, if they actually stretch the lander by the ~10m Musk suggested, LEO—>lunar surface—>LEO closes propulsively.

 

What numbers are you using for that? That's 12.6km/s there, at 382s vac and 1800t props that requires a dry mass of 65 tons by my napkin math.

[Pthigrivi]

36 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I don't think any category of people is monolithic like that.  Knowing what I know of the dark and light of human nature I'm about certain that for every SpaceX investor that fits your description there is another that simply thinks Musk's vision makes sense for humanity's future.  And It doesn't hurt that he seems to make stuff around him work quite well and run more efficiently by any real world measure than his competitors and detractors 

So… Im in a funny spot because these folks are basically all my clients. Most are pretty smart, some push too hard and burn out all their people and relationships, some are outright gullible and I think they’re just burning family wealth. The longer you deal though its not even really them or what they hold in their own minds. Most of them have no real idea how the real world works. But if they’re clever they hire people who do. The real operators understand people, and if they’re lucky enough they have the rolling capital to hire really smart people. Cleverness goes so far though. Maybe it makes you rich. Maybe it makes you the richest person ever for a time. But what I see from my end, from the real-people end, is mostly ego, bloodsucking, and industrial destruction. Big investors pay my my salary on one end, but on the other end—the manufacturers, the vendors, the suppliers, the installers, investors are death. They buy up companies that have grown sustainably for decades and hired and cultivated engineers and builders and staff that really understand the product and produce real quality and value. And every time the investors  fire everyone who knows what they’re doing. They ‘value engineer’ the product until its walmart disposable garbage, and they trade on the good reputation the company built over decades, ripping off all that company’s most important customers until they figure out its trash and by then the investors have sold out and moved on. They got their buck and hundreds and thousands of makers, designers, and sellers all get laid off when the rotten husk collapses. 
 

So, long rant. I have a very low opinion of scammy, adolescent financiers. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

7 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

So, long rant. I have a very skeptical opinion of scammy, adolescent financiers

Ok.  I'm fairly sure the track records of SpaceX and Tesla proves out that Musk has a fairly good bullshot radar and isn't being scammed by adolescents nor will any of his companies be taken over by raiders easily.  Heck, if Twitter keeps on its current trend it will actually turn a profit for once and carry its own weight

Edited April 20, 2023 by darthgently

[Pthigrivi]

30 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Hold on a sec...I didn't know @kerbiloidhad two accounts!

 

I'm just messing...no harm intended.

Hey don’t you compare my obnoxious but diligent concern trolling for that nonsense. 

9 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Ok.  I'm fairly sure the track records of SpaceX and Tesla proves out that Musk has a fairly good bullshot radar and isn't being scammed by adolescents nor will any of his companies be taken over by raiders easily.  Heck, if Twitter keeps on its current trend it will actually turn a profit for once and carry its own weight

Has anyone read Black Leopard Red Wolf? 

I have a nose. 

[darthgently]

24 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I have a nose

If the only tool is a hammer everything looks l like a nail.   If one lives by their nose, everything stinks.  I just made that last part up so grain of salt there

[Pthigrivi]

4 minutes ago, darthgently said:

If the only tool is a hammer everything looks l like a nail.   If one lives by their nose, everything stinks.  I just made that last part up so grain of salt there

Oh everything stinks. But stinks like what? Thats the trick. 

[darthgently]

5 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

But stinks like what?

Usually what our biases tell us what it will stink like.  Stink colored glasses.  Tricky indeed

[tater]

1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said:

What numbers are you using for that? That's 12.6km/s there, at 382s vac and 1800t props that requires a dry mass of 65 tons by my napkin math.

Yeah, I was assuming that a LSS has no need for 3.6 or 4mm steel. At 3mm, the 6 ring longer hull is ~42t. It needs no SL engines, so either 3 or 6 Rvacs (4.5t – 9t). Add 15t for fitting out, and we have a vehicle that is 63t – 66t. The props of just the 6 rings are ~450 – 510t, but some crew area could be eaten into to get the total props to that 1710t if needed (I didn't estimate the domes well). The 66t version just closes.

Obviously cargo is not much of an option, but that's what a cargo vehicle could be for (and at the lower mass end, it closes with 3t cargo)

[CatastrophicFailure]

9 hours ago, tater said:

since Mars has no spice.

That. We. Know. Of. 

[tater]

6 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

That. We. Know. Of. 

Maybe we could deorbit spherical cows from up thread onto Mars to feed the hungry martians (cause otherwise I'm pretty sure they're eating each other in New Donner).

 

Also:

 

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

6 hours ago, darthgently said:

Consider the spherical cow.

I, too, am sadly all out of likes for the day, so here’s some (roughly) spherical not-cows:

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

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? 

One of the advantages of the change to stainless steel is that it has a much, much higher melting point vs aluminum or composite. It’s been mentioned in the past that Starship could (and likely will) lose multiple tiles and still reenter just fine, thanks to all that metal wicking the heat away. It’s actually even better if there’s cryogenic fuel on the other side of that metal, cuz now there’s an even bigger temperature difference, with an energy-sucking phase change, before burn-though can occur. Ever taken a lighter to a water balloon?

There was an STS before Columbia mission that lost a C-C tile and would have been LOCV had the hole not been directly over a plain-steel antenna bracket, which withstood the heat just fine. And this stainless is even more tolerant. 

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Hold on a sec...I didn't know @kerbiloidhad two accounts!

Because you didn't read the ancient history thread to get ensured that he doesn't.

[tater]

 

 

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Maybe we could deorbit spherical cows from up thread onto Mars to feed the hungry martians (cause otherwise I'm pretty sure they're eating each other in New Donner).

 

Well, since you mention it, if we can genetically engineer giant cow balls (no, the other kind) in space, then doing so on Mars should be fairly trivial. Maybe make them cuboid for more efficient storage, though. 

Mmmmm, cube steak! 

[CBase]

Since it got a little bit lost into some discussions: SpaceX targets today another attempt !

A little surprising as I thought the TFR was cancelled.

[Superluminal Gremlin]

While its a shame the Ship 4 Booster 20 combination will not fly, April the 20th is arguably better.

 

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

make them cuboid

But cuboids don't like vacuums (or near vacuums). . Anyway spherical cows are funnier

 

 

 

[Meecrob]

5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Hey don’t you compare my obnoxious but diligent concern trolling for that nonsense.

Does this mean you actually think the launch will go well? If you thought it would blow up, you'd have"been concerned" afterwards

Edited April 20, 2023 by Meecrob