SpaceX Starship missions 3

"Perhaps we should be asking California and its NGO's why they're forcing Space X to launch from less ideal sites than Vandenberg? Sites that put low income humans at risk?"

SpaceX launches the Falcon boosters on a regular basis from both Canaveral and Vandenberg, not sure what you mean about being forced out. Can you supply a reference to NGOs limiting launches? I'm not aware of any NGO having authority, it's the FAA that controls such. Vandenberg was set up to launch polar and retrograde orbiting space-going rockets, but more importantly was a launch site for ICBM missile tests with targeting to Kwajalein atoll, it was never intended to be an east-bound launch site. Eastbound launches from Canaveral, as Wil points out, are fairly straightforward, as there is plenty of clear ocean downrange, no "threading the needle" required.

NASA did want SpaceX to upgrade the launch pad facilities at Canaveral in order to handle the higher thrust output of the Starship engines (it has higher total thrust, roughly 2x and possibly growing to 3x, than the Saturn V booster)...the deluge system and flame trenches would've needed to be increased in size/capacity to keep from needing major refurbishment after every launch. Rather than pay that bill up front, Mr. Rokit Expurt Musk decided to buy property in Texas and launch from there, with no developed facilities to speak of. Recall how well his first attempts, without any kind of deluge system or flame trench, went. The OP of this thread kept saying they weren't needed, and he and Musk were both proven wrong by flight after flight with engines failing at ignition or shortly after - rocket exhaust plumes are incredibly dynamic and were discovered by the Boring guy to be really good at excavating Texas caliche clay. I'd bet he spent a lot more fixing stupid problems (rearranging the propellant tanks from vertical to horizontal to minimize their debris impact cross section was certainly not cheap) than the NASA upgrade estimate would have been.

But, this whole scheme does seem to promote the stated goal of SpaceX - "Building a More Exciting Future" - since rocket explosions and misfires are certainly exciting.

Sorry, the Coastal Commission is a rogue government agency, not a NGO. However, the NGO Sierra Club has a lot of influence over the CCC. Here is an example:


And if you don't believe that Sierra Club is a NGO, here they are being significantly funded by the government.

The OP of this thread kept saying they weren't needed...

Click to expand...

I did?

Starship is destacked from the booster, with work already going on underneath.

Looks like another one exploded. The width of the debris field re-entering is large. These must be very energetic explosions. Are there any other examples of spacecraft blowing apart so spectacularly while in or nearly in orbit?

TugboatEng said:

Looks like another one exploded. The width of the debris field re-entering is large. These must be very energetic explosions. Are there any other examples of spacecraft blowing apart so spectacularly while in or nearly in orbit?

Click to expand...

Other than Columbia's breakup on re-entry, I can't think of another one that happened at great altitude.
Definitely not a good result. I don't see anything to suggest that this failure is very much different than the previous one.

I have vague memories of multiple Chinese and NorthK rockets exploding at altitude. Likely some Soviet ones. And definitely there were US ones in the '50s and '60s in the early days of rocketry.

Well that is a really terribly written article. It consists only of assumptions.

Agreed - the editorial comments detract from the tech descriptions/explanations.

Anyone here from SpaceX...

They are doing something absolutely wild no one has had the balls to try. They are strapping rockets to industrial fluid tanks and trying to put them in orbit...

Adjusted for inflation:
1:US nuclear Arsenal 10 Trillion
2:WWII 5 trillion.
3: Iraq Afghanistan 5 trillion.
****Current year Department of Health and Human Services 1.7 Trillion****
4: F35 1.7 trillion
5: Vietnam: 1 trillion.
****Current Year US military budget 850 Billion***
6: interstate highway system 459 billion
***Last year Department of Education 268 Billion*** (this year 103 B)
7: B-21 Raider 203 billion
8: Apollo: 160 billion
9: ISS 150 Billion
10: Ford-Class Aircraft carriers. 120 billion
11: Artemis 93 billion
12: B2 Bomber 85 billion
****Current year Department of Agriculture 30.1 Billion***
13: Manhattan project: 30 billion
***Current Year NASA funding 25.5 Billion***
14: Boston Big dig 21.5 Billion
15: Panama Canal 15.2 Billion
16: JWST 10 Billion
17: Starship 5 billion *
18:Starliner 4.8 billion
19: BONG 2.5 Billion *
20: Hoover Dam 1 billion **

*Of the items on the list... only two of them Starship and BONG are privately funded. They have contracts, but they have to launch.
**(interesting side note: only one has ever been fully repaid... Hoover dam)... well except 1 which may be why we still exist... yet the main reason we probably wont.

BONG... fantastic JOB. To be fair they didn't have a perfect first launch, but they got into ORBIT... which is STUNNINGLY HARD.
Starship is over 3x the size of BONG... and will help ensure the future of the only consciousness, the only life we know of in the entire universe.

Oh by the way the raptor 3 is the most advanced rocket engine ever... for now. They are leading the pack... at a fraction of the cost of other projects.

The Chinese are competing with SpaceX... AN ENTIRE COUNTRY, THE US BIGGEST FEAR... is competing with a US company with the Long March 9.

Good Job SpaceX starship team. Keep it up. This rocket will change our entire civilization. This is on par with fire... and we are alive to see it.

RoarkS, what does BONG stand for? Blue Origin?

How does developing a rocket "help ensure the future of the only consciousness, the only life we know of in the entire universe"?

Blue Origin New Glenn.

Talk to the dinosaurs re: Chicxulub

"Well that is a really terribly written article. It consists only of assumptions."

No, there are some quoted facts - like Starship being more expensive per ton to orbit vs. Apollo. Refute the facts? No, a Tubgoat engineer can only make troll comments.

Did the author forget to adjust for inflation? A Saturn 5 launch cost $1.4 billion ($185 million at the time). The Starship launches are currently around $90 million each and projected to be between $10 and 20 million when the program matures. The total program cost is expected to be up to $10 billion.

The author has an agenda and it's not spreading the truth.

Yeesh, imagine getting lectured by a tugboat engineer on economics.