Post

ESG Hound
@esghound.com

lol this image from last night shows SpaceX is popping open LOX tanks during routine pressure testing. The Starship program was being hyped as closing in on rapid commercial launch cadence 2-3 years ago

ESG Hound
@esghound.com

The Falcon rocket exited development for its first commercial deployment in 2012 and the success of this program is basically the only reason why everyone assumes this idiotic superheavy Starship program will work eventually. It's pure faith completely detached from engineering or design principles

29 reposts345 likes

Raging Spirit
@ragingspirit.bsky.social

Looking at it, i don't see any frost on the side walls, but the failure itself looks like a pressure vessel rupture, so i'm thinking maybe it was just the header tank blowing up and then taking the rest of the LOX tank with it? IIRC the header tank was one of the new big parts on the V3.

Michael 🇺🇦
@heluecht.pirati.ca

BTW: this reminds me of discussions I had with SpaceX fanboys while watching the New Glenn launch. They kept saying, 'SpaceX is ahead and BO only copies them!' I then told them that Blue Origin is two years older and patented sea landings before SpaceX did them. patents.google.com/patent/US867...

patents.google.comUS8678321B2 - Sea landing of space launch vehicles and associated systems and methods - Google PatentsLaunch vehicle systems and methods for landing and recovering a booster stage and/or other portions thereof on a platform at sea or on another body of water are disclosed. In one embodiment, a reusabl...
ESG Hound
@esghound.com

The initial payload assumptions on 100 tons was stretching it but they've since reduced by 60% + so it's not quite that dumb But the mass to orbit assumptions for profitability/cost were and still are really stupid using the same gravitational constraints

Bob Dole's Communist Doppelganger
@zeltar.bsky.social

I mean, it goes to space, it's more an issue of using a very complex new engine that has not yet reached thrust hoped for + rocket being too heavy because of design decisions based on thrust assumptions. They may yet 'succeed', but the thing may never be economically viable as a launch system.

Alan Grofield
@alangrofield.bsky.social

In addition to Starship’s troubled development now lasting longer than the entire Apollo program, we’re also at “Starship has been in development longer than the gap between the end of WW2 and Sputnik”.

Alan Grofield@alangrofield.bsky.social

A funny thing about this is that Starship was announced in October of 2012, 12 and a half years ago. That is longer than the gap between Kennedy’s speech at Rice (September 1962) and the *last* Apollo flight (December 1972)

Michael
@tralfagar.bsky.social

They're not getting Apollo's budget. Apollo cost about $260 billion in today's dollars. Starship is around $10 billion spent so far. Unless you're saying they should be getting even more money--in this case direct subsidies for R&D, not contracts--not sure what the point is