SpaceX (general discussion)

NeilChapman said:
Whopper said:
NeilChapman said:
Whopper said:
Well, it has been an open secret for quite some time now that Gwynne Shotwell has been the one actually keeping SpaceX running. She has been doing the bulk of the work behind the scenes while Musk gets the publicity.
Click to expand...
I thought he was the chief design engineer? Is that not so?
Click to expand...
Musk's greatest ability was his publicity skills in garnering public attention and exciting investors rather than any design or engineering work.

He owns SpaceX and likes to inject his ideas ever now and then, but it is Shotwell managing departments, communicating with suppliers and customers, and doing damage control when Musk exaggerates optimistic deadlines and promised performance numbers.

(For context, I suspected something was up ever since I heard about his feud with Jeremy Clarkson.)
Click to expand...

That's interesting. What brought you to the conclusion that he is not the primary design engineer?
Click to expand...
The guy either owns or has the majority share of, what, four companies now? How does he have the time to design rockets from all of that, especially since he posts on Twitter all the time? I've never encountered a busy engineer who uses social media that often.

Musk went to UPenn for economics, later getting a BA in physics. Meanwhile, Shotwell has a BSc in mechanical engineering. This is also ignoring the contributions of Thomas Fueller and Chris Thompson, both of whom having years of experience in the aerospace industry. Musk was the hype guy with the funds.

The world of aerospace is no stranger to flamboyant characters who often exaggerate their contributions (eg. Howard Hughes).
 
Twitter now works. Every one here can't have failed to notice how quickly pages are loading now. Before, any post with a Twitter link induced heavy lagg.

I also never heard Musk claiming for himself any innovation from his companies.

I don't understand this debate. Musk do Musk things. He is a proud and passionate owner. Shotwell is a CEO (and a competent one). It's not because you have disfunctional bragging CEO's elsewhere that the scheme here is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Whopper said:
NeilChapman said:

That's interesting. What brought you to the conclusion that he is not the primary design engineer?
Click to expand...
The guy either owns or has the majority share of, what, four companies now? How does he have the time to design rockets from all of that, especially since he posts on Twitter all the time? I've never encountered a busy engineer who uses social media that often.

Musk went to UPenn for economics, later getting a BA in physics. Meanwhile, Shotwell has a BSc in mechanical engineering. This is also ignoring the contributions of Thomas Fueller and Chris Thompson, both of whom having years of experience in the aerospace industry. Musk was the hype guy with the funds.

The world of aerospace is no stranger to flamboyant characters who often exaggerate their contributions (eg. Howard Hughes).
Click to expand...
Your explanation as to why he cannot be the chief design engineer include ...

1. He owns four companies.
2. How can he own four companies and design rockets and post on Twitter?
3. You've never met an engineer that uses social media that often.
4. From UPenn he has a BA in Physics and a BS from Wharton.
5. He hired very talented people.
6. Howard Hughes exaggerated his contribution.

I don't find the data points convincing.

Thanks for your response.
 
Whopper said:
NeilChapman said:
Whopper said:
NeilChapman said:
Whopper said:
Well, it has been an open secret for quite some time now that Gwynne Shotwell has been the one actually keeping SpaceX running. She has been doing the bulk of the work behind the scenes while Musk gets the publicity.
Click to expand...
I thought he was the chief design engineer? Is that not so?
Click to expand...
Musk's greatest ability was his publicity skills in garnering public attention and exciting investors rather than any design or engineering work.

He owns SpaceX and likes to inject his ideas ever now and then, but it is Shotwell managing departments, communicating with suppliers and customers, and doing damage control when Musk exaggerates optimistic deadlines and promised performance numbers.

(For context, I suspected something was up ever since I heard about his feud with Jeremy Clarkson.)
Click to expand...

That's interesting. What brought you to the conclusion that he is not the primary design engineer?
Click to expand...
The guy either owns or has the majority share of, what, four companies now? How does he have the time to design rockets from all of that, especially since he posts on Twitter all the time? I've never encountered a busy engineer who uses social media that often.

Musk went to UPenn for economics, later getting a BA in physics. Meanwhile, Shotwell has a BSc in mechanical engineering. This is also ignoring the contributions of Thomas Fueller and Chris Thompson, both of whom having years of experience in the aerospace industry. Musk was the hype guy with the funds.

The world of aerospace is no stranger to flamboyant characters who often exaggerate their contributions (eg. Howard Hughes).
Click to expand...
You couldn't have chosen a better username.
 
TomcatViP said:
Twitter now works. Every one here can't have failed to notice how quickly pages are loading now. Before, any post with a Twitter link induced heavy lagg.

I also never heard Musk claiming for himself any innovation from his companies.

I don't understand this debate. Musk do Musk things. He is a proud and passionate owner. Shotwell is a CEO (and a competent one). It's not because you have disfunctional bragging CEO's elsewhere that the scheme here is wrong.
Click to expand...
There will never be a shortage of haters.
 
NeilChapman said:
Your explanation as to why he cannot be the chief design engineer include ...

1. He owns four companies.
2. How can he own four companies and design rockets and post on Twitter?
3. You've never met an engineer that uses social media that often.
4. From UPenn he has a BA in Physics and a BS from Wharton.
5. He hired very talented people.
6. Howard Hughes exaggerated his contribution.

I don't find the data points convincing.

Thanks for your response.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Elon Musk got his start with X.com/PayPal. While he has a background in finance and some in programming, he doesn't seem to have as strong of a background in engineering. Engineering is difficult and tedious work, as my friends in the industry can attest to, and since Musk has all of these responsiblities on his plate, meeting with shareholders and so on, I don't see him designing rockets with this schedule.

I also don't think Musk is that involved in the design process of actual rockets outside of outlining parameters and aesthetics, and we do know the names of engineers who are involved in the designing process. For example, we know that Lars Blackmore was the head engineer for the Falcon 9 and previously worked at JPL. I think all of this is analogous to Steve Jobs, who had the power of approving and cancelling projects but didn't design the Apple II or iPhone himself. Like Jobs, Musk is good at creating publicity.

TomcatViP said:
Twitter now works. Every one here can't have failed to notice how quickly pages are loading now. Before, any post with a Twitter link induced heavy lagg.

I also never heard Musk claiming for himself any innovation from his companies.

I don't understand this debate. Musk do Musk things. He is a proud and passionate owner. Shotwell is a CEO (and a competent one). It's not because you have disfunctional bragging CEO's elsewhere that the scheme here is wrong.
Click to expand...
To avoid going off topic further, I can tell you that what Musk is doing with Twitter doesn't make sense from a business or programming perspective.

sferrin said:
There will never be a shortage of haters.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because giving everyone the same amount of scrutiny, especially when they got their start in a place like Sillicon Valley, counts as hate.

sferrin said:
You couldn't have chosen a better username.
Click to expand...
Come on, maaaan.
 
Whopper said:
While he has a background in finance and some in programming, he doesn't seem to have as strong of a background in engineering.
Click to expand...
20-something years in a rocket/satellite company (starting from literally himself as an employee no.1) shall count for something tho
 
Whopper said:
NeilChapman said:
Your explanation as to why he cannot be the chief design engineer include ...

1. He owns four companies.
2. How can he own four companies and design rockets and post on Twitter?
3. You've never met an engineer that uses social media that often.
4. From UPenn he has a BA in Physics and a BS from Wharton.
5. He hired very talented people.
6. Howard Hughes exaggerated his contribution.

I don't find the data points convincing.

Thanks for your response.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Elon Musk got his start with X.com/PayPal. While he has a background in finance and some in programming, he doesn't seem to have as strong of a background in engineering. Engineering is difficult and tedious work, as my friends in the industry can attest to, and since Musk has all of these responsiblities on his plate, meeting with shareholders and so on, I don't see him designing rockets with this schedule.

I also don't think Musk is that involved in the design process of actual rockets outside of outlining parameters and aesthetics, and we do know the names of engineers who are involved in the designing process. For example, we know that Lars Blackmore was the head engineer for the Falcon 9 and previously worked at JPL. I think all of this is analogous to Steve Jobs, who had the power of approving and cancelling projects but didn't design the Apple II or iPhone himself. Like Jobs, Musk is good at creating publicity.

TomcatViP said:
Twitter now works. Every one here can't have failed to notice how quickly pages are loading now. Before, any post with a Twitter link induced heavy lagg.

I also never heard Musk claiming for himself any innovation from his companies.

I don't understand this debate. Musk do Musk things. He is a proud and passionate owner. Shotwell is a CEO (and a competent one). It's not because you have disfunctional bragging CEO's elsewhere that the scheme here is wrong.
Click to expand...
To avoid going off topic further, I can tell you that what Musk is doing with Twitter doesn't make sense from a business or programming perspective.

sferrin said:
There will never be a shortage of haters.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because giving everyone the same amount of scrutiny, especially when they got their start in a place like Sillicon Valley, counts as hate.

sferrin said:
You couldn't have chosen a better username.
Click to expand...
Come on, maaaan.
Click to expand...

Fun fact, NASA technically never made any rockets. That doesn't mean they are not knowledgeable does it?
 
I saw a still image at another site where there was a gap in the curtain of fire...meaning the center cluster was off and the two shut down directly opposite each other-center of frame? {The still from Behind the Black.} Ah-looks like a pad leg from the video.
 
Am I missing something here? A "full duration" static fire burn is the engines running for their full boost duration, yes? For Falcon 9 that's 155-160 seconds. This burn runs for 5-6 seconds tops.
 
jeffb said:
Am I missing something here? A "full duration" static fire burn is the engines running for their full boost duration, yes? For Falcon 9 that's 155-160 seconds. This burn runs for 5-6 seconds tops.
Click to expand...
In this context, they mean the test ran for the full duration it had been planned to run and did not shut down early. Given that this was the first full-stage firing, an early shutdown was a distinct possibility. 1st stage hot fires of SpaceX hardware don't run "full launch duration" on the pad in general, and specifically in this case they would run out of water for the deluge system if they tried.
 
What could you get out of SuperHeavy if it were tri-propellant?

Say he keeps the inner Raptors for booster return, but used simpler versions of this on the exterior ring:
arstechnica.com

New F-1B rocket engine upgrades Apollo-era design with 1.8M lbs of thrust

Dynetics and Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne rebuild the F-1 for the "Pyrios" booster.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

Maybe think of them as liquid-versions of SRBs…burning kerosene with the same LOX the inner Raptors use. Could turbopumps stay with SuperHeavy? If mass fractions can indeed be improved with these new pulse detonation engines…could all this make a stretch SuperHeavy into an SSTO…maybe doing an Atlas Saturn V-B and the Raptors get a lighter core back—would that work?

The F-1s would be made in enough numbers with Musk buying Dynetics and putting them in mass production.

The ring engines take longer to rebuild, but would ease the load on the inner Raptors and he would have enough F-1s to keep flight ops up….and the kerosene means he doesn’t have to keep as much cold.

Maybe Starship also becomes tri-propellant. Methalox and hydrazine/LOX.

Dynetics—not Twitter—is what Elon really needed.

What say you?
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
What could you get out of SuperHeavy if it were tri-propellant?

Say he keeps the inner Raptors for booster return, but used simpler versions of this on the exterior ring:
arstechnica.com

New F-1B rocket engine upgrades Apollo-era design with 1.8M lbs of thrust

Dynetics and Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne rebuild the F-1 for the "Pyrios" booster.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

Maybe think of them as liquid-versions of SRBs…burning kerosene with the same LOX the inner Raptors use. Could turbopumps stay with SuperHeavy? If mass fractions can indeed be improved with these new pulse detonation engines…could all this make a stretch SuperHeavy into an SSTO…maybe doing an Atlas Saturn V-B and the Raptors get a lighter core back—would that work?

The F-1s would be made in enough numbers with Musk buying Dynetics and putting them in mass production.

The ring engines take longer to rebuild, but would ease the load on the inner Raptors and he would have enough F-1s to keep flight ops up….and the kerosene means he doesn’t have to keep as much cold.

Maybe Starship also becomes tri-propellant. Methalox and hydrazine/LOX.

Dynetics—not Twitter—is what Elon really needed.

What say you?
Click to expand...
1. Why bother?
2. Easier to make methane on Mars than RP-1
3. F-1Bs aren't reusable.
4. Schedule.
5. F-1s are huge compared to Raptor 2s. Saturn V was 10% larger in diameter than Super Heavy and even to fit 5 they had to add the four fairings.
 
On 3…that might change. It might be that to keep part count down..it doesn’t have to be…I would think their thrust might make the more vital inner Raptors not have to work as hard—and give them longer life.

Elon has shown a willingness to adapt. Here is another chance to do so. I hope some folks here are good enough to run some numbers…this might make Elon’s life easier…and ULA has been a poor partner to Dynetics. They deserve better.

They may have ideas to make SuperHeavy better in other ways…and Elon more willing and able to accommodate than Tory’s bunch that keeps Dynetics at arms length.

Like SpaceX, those guys are do-ers.

If only Elon had bought them instead of Twitter.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of F-1....Perhaps they could aerospike them for the outer ring.

I am 100% with you on Dynetics: that's what Elon should buy now.
 
publiusr said:
On 3…that might change. It might be that to keep part count down..it doesn’t have to be…I would think their thrust might make the more vital inner Raptors not have to work as hard—and give them longer life.

Elon has shown a willingness to adapt. Here is another chance to do so. I hope some folks here are good enough to run some numbers…this might make Elon’s life easier…and ULA has been a poor partner to Dynetics. They deserve better.

They may have ideas to make SuperHeavy better in other ways…and Elon more willing and able to accommodate than Tory’s bunch that keeps Dynetics at arms length.

Like SpaceX, those guys are do-ers.

If only Elon had bought them instead of Twitter.
Click to expand...
Raptor 2 is the superior solution for all the reasons I listed above. Why on Earth would he change? What specific benefit would there be to outweigh all the problems of switching?
 
Last edited:
Is it possible for a rocket engine to run on different types of propellant? The ability to use whatever is available seems like a useful perk.
 
Something going on at Starbase

Starship 26 moved form mid bay to launch site and put on Suborbital pad A
but 26 has no heat-shield or wings. either is part of Artemis lander or disposal version of Starship
FoxUdQbXEAEbU9H

source
twitter and
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh40m6N1Ozo
 
Maybe part of SpaceXs orbital refueling program? (I'd have went with expendable but there doesn't appear to be any fairing or door to allow payload deployment.)
 
sferrin said:
Maybe part of SpaceXs orbital refueling program?
Click to expand...
it make sense if Tanker is expendable with 250 metric tons payload you get 100 ton more propellants into Starship tanks.
What Reduce the number of launches for refuel, so long the production cost are low.
 
On-orbit refueling was raised as a major objective in the last US Space force communication. Doing something like that now would be a major political bonus to respond to recent Chinese overflight drift program.
Imagine SpaceX announcing they put 250+t of fuel on orbit on behalf of the rapid launch program...
 
TomcatViP said:
On-orbit refueling was raised as a major objective in the last US Space force communication. Doing something like that now would be a major political bonus to respond to recent Chinese overflight drift program.
Imagine SpaceX announcing they put 250+t of fuel on orbit on behalf of the rapid launch program...
Click to expand...
It's a REQUIREMENT for Artemis to land on the moon.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom