SpaceX (general discussion)

Possible early test with future launch attempt also de-risking on orbit refueling? That sounds like a lot of risks to take for any prototyping effort.
 
siegecrossbow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, sort of, but it's hard.

What makes it difficult is that most modern rocket engines use some kind of regenerative and film cooling, using their own propellants as coolant. The problem with being able to consume multiple different fuels is that the amount of fuel you need to use for cooling depends greatly on how good of a coolant it is. If you want your engine to be efficient, you cannot overcool it, meaning you'd have to design your cooling system to be adjustable based on what you are feeding it. The most complex part of any rocket engine is the plumbing, and this would make the plumbing a lot more complex, so it's probably never worth it.

The few engines than can adjust what they burn are triprop engines, and use hydrogen (which is the best coolant there is) to always do all the cooling, and then just potentially add some third fuel to increase thrust for sections of the flight where more thrust at the expense of specific impulse is worth it.
 
sferrin said:
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.
Click to expand...
We are looking at the craft that’s going to make orbit.

I think the idea is to also simulate a landing a landing profile while in orbit for as long as possible…see how much heating the vanilla version can take. Without fin-weight he could pack more Starlinks up there in future versions of this.

Maybe the steel has a different mix and he is testing?
 
can it be that SpaceX put Starship24 final rest in Rocket garden and will take Starship26 for orbital launch ?

it would make some sense, 26 has design improvement, despite missing wings and heat-shield.
giving valuable data on Launcher Performance for the one orbit flight while burn up near Hawaii.
 
For all of Elon's faults, what keeps things going is his insane (for the industry) willingness to take risks.

If he had died suddenly in the early 2010s, SpaceX would still be flying slightly evolved Falcon 9 v1.0s as nobody would take the risks and costs involved in stretching Falcon 9 into F9R Full Thrust.

We've been waiting for SMART reuse with ULA for how many years now?
 
Falcon enhancements deserve a book alone. Early liquids came in more shapes-but here, a Zenit sized rocket evolved almost invisibly-with Thor-Delta 3 being the opposite this side of the Atlantic.
 
RyanC said:
For all of Elon's faults, what keeps things going is his insane (for the industry) willingness to take risks.

If he had died suddenly in the early 2010s, SpaceX would still be flying slightly evolved Falcon 9 v1.0s as nobody would take the risks and costs involved in stretching Falcon 9 into F9R Full Thrust.

We've been waiting for SMART reuse with ULA for how many years now?
Click to expand...
I'd like to elaborate more on this. I cribbed a lot of what I'm about to post from some posts on NasaSpaceflight.com that I made back in 2021:

If Elon had lost control of SpaceX in the early 2010s and SpaceX under new ownership had coasted on the Falcon 9 v1.0 with minor upgrades (slight stretching); they'd be facing serious problems in the 2020s as established launch providers improved their own offerings and did cost reduction measures.

For example, F9v1.0 is a good LEO delivery vehicle, but it comes way short in the GTO market segment (1,400~ kg against 4,300~ kg for Atlas V 401 and 4,500 kg for Proton-M; much less 6,350 kg for Proton-M Phase IV).

The huge bet that Elon did on propulsive boost-back first stage recovery, and the massive performance increases that Falcon 9 required to make it work paid off in spades:

1.) Falcon 9 FT's performance in reusable ASDS landing mode has basically killed Proton from the commercial market and given ULA a serious run for their money in launching government payloads.

2.) Because of reusability, SpaceX can rack up the profit margin on reusable Falcon 9 launches, and then offer a cheap expendable mission to cut into the pricey and prestigious GTO / Beyond LEO market for Vulcan VC2.

(Yes, I know VC2 can carry about 1000 kg more payload to GTO than F9 FT expendable, but because SpaceX can seriously compete in that weight class segment, they force the market to respond, rather than ceding it entirely).

3.) Because of the impressive launch rate brought by boost-back reuse; SpaceX can brute force their way to valuable planetary mission/nuclear certification from NASA through simply launching over and over, as opposed to launching infrequently and producing 100 metric tonnes of analyses for certification.

All this gives SpaceX a nice steady cash flow for the first half of the 2020s; despite the emergence of Blue Origin's New Glenn and ULA's Vulcan, as well as foreign "Falcon 9" clones in China and Russia that are on the drawing boards.

It also hasn't hurt that SpaceX's likely competitors have:

1.) Imploded. The entire Russian Space Sector is a chaotic mass. How long have we been waiting for Angara?

2.) Played it conservatively. ULA's Vulcan from looking at the specs is a nice "Falcon 9 v1.1 killer", bringing costs down to be competitive, despite the costs of the "Dial a Rocket" strategy with add on solids. Unfortunately for ULA, SpaceX's intense drive for self-improvement has turned Vulcan from a serious threat on the marketplace to one that can be managed.

3.) Gradatim Ferociter. Bezos and Blue have wasted an enormous opportunity. There was potential here for a kill shot -- so to speak on both ULA and SpaceX -- with the performance of New Glenn; but by taking so long to bring New Glenn to market, Starship has become viable; lessening the impact of New Glenn.

This slide posted by Jeff Foust on Twitter from a NASA LSP briefing shows nicely how the Falcon family can cover almost all projected near future use cases -- as I mentioned before; this coverage means that the early to mid 2020's are a "safe" period for SpaceX, rather than a "threatened" period.

IN CLOSING, CONSIDER:

If SpaceX fails at the rapid reuse goal for Starship, they can just descope the entire project to Super Heavy Lift (Semi-Reusable); in effect a giant version of Falcon 9 with a reusable booster and expendable upper; capable of pushing >250 tonnes to LEO for a marginal cost of maybe $150 million.

That alone kills SLS and opens up entire economic opportunities -- for example, if 250 tonnes are going to orbit each flight at a cost of $600/kg; it only costs someone $300,000 to put a 500 kg satellite into orbit if they sign onto a Superheavy Expendable rideshare.

This is another example of SpaceX's forward thinking securing their economic future. Yes; they're spending a lot of money on Starship/Superheavy -- and yes, some concepts such as the heat shield they have in mind may not work; but the entire system is cheap enough that they can descope to get an immediate minimum viable product (MVP) that's a massive improvement over their current top of the line product; Falcon Heavy.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting on ULA to demonstrate SMART reuse; despite NASA actually dunking a engine in water and then refiring it decades ago...
 

Attachments

  • C3 NASA LSP.jpg
    C3 NASA LSP.jpg
    235.7 KB · Views: 29
RyanC said:
RyanC said:
For all of Elon's faults, what keeps things going is his insane (for the industry) willingness to take risks.

If he had died suddenly in the early 2010s, SpaceX would still be flying slightly evolved Falcon 9 v1.0s as nobody would take the risks and costs involved in stretching Falcon 9 into F9R Full Thrust.

We've been waiting for SMART reuse with ULA for how many years now?
Click to expand...
I'd like to elaborate more on this. I cribbed a lot of what I'm about to post from some posts on NasaSpaceflight.com that I made back in 2021:

If Elon had lost control of SpaceX in the early 2010s and SpaceX under new ownership had coasted on the Falcon 9 v1.0 with minor upgrades (slight stretching); they'd be facing serious problems in the 2020s as established launch providers improved their own offerings and did cost reduction measures.

For example, F9v1.0 is a good LEO delivery vehicle, but it comes way short in the GTO market segment (1,400~ kg against 4,300~ kg for Atlas V 401 and 4,500 kg for Proton-M; much less 6,350 kg for Proton-M Phase IV).

The huge bet that Elon did on propulsive boost-back first stage recovery, and the massive performance increases that Falcon 9 required to make it work paid off in spades:

1.) Falcon 9 FT's performance in reusable ASDS landing mode has basically killed Proton from the commercial market and given ULA a serious run for their money in launching government payloads.

2.) Because of reusability, SpaceX can rack up the profit margin on reusable Falcon 9 launches, and then offer a cheap expendable mission to cut into the pricey and prestigious GTO / Beyond LEO market for Vulcan VC2.

(Yes, I know VC2 can carry about 1000 kg more payload to GTO than F9 FT expendable, but because SpaceX can seriously compete in that weight class segment, they force the market to respond, rather than ceding it entirely).

3.) Because of the impressive launch rate brought by boost-back reuse; SpaceX can brute force their way to valuable planetary mission/nuclear certification from NASA through simply launching over and over, as opposed to launching infrequently and producing 100 metric tonnes of analyses for certification.

All this gives SpaceX a nice steady cash flow for the first half of the 2020s; despite the emergence of Blue Origin's New Glenn and ULA's Vulcan, as well as foreign "Falcon 9" clones in China and Russia that are on the drawing boards.

It also hasn't hurt that SpaceX's likely competitors have:

1.) Imploded. The entire Russian Space Sector is a chaotic mass. How long have we been waiting for Angara?

2.) Played it conservatively. ULA's Vulcan from looking at the specs is a nice "Falcon 9 v1.1 killer", bringing costs down to be competitive, despite the costs of the "Dial a Rocket" strategy with add on solids. Unfortunately for ULA, SpaceX's intense drive for self-improvement has turned Vulcan from a serious threat on the marketplace to one that can be managed.

3.) Gradatim Ferociter. Bezos and Blue have wasted an enormous opportunity. There was potential here for a kill shot -- so to speak on both ULA and SpaceX -- with the performance of New Glenn; but by taking so long to bring New Glenn to market, Starship has become viable; lessening the impact of New Glenn.

This slide posted by Jeff Foust on Twitter from a NASA LSP briefing shows nicely how the Falcon family can cover almost all projected near future use cases -- as I mentioned before; this coverage means that the early to mid 2020's are a "safe" period for SpaceX, rather than a "threatened" period.

IN CLOSING, CONSIDER:

If SpaceX fails at the rapid reuse goal for Starship, they can just descope the entire project to Super Heavy Lift (Semi-Reusable); in effect a giant version of Falcon 9 with a reusable booster and expendable upper; capable of pushing >250 tonnes to LEO for a marginal cost of maybe $150 million.

That alone kills SLS and opens up entire economic opportunities -- for example, if 250 tonnes are going to orbit each flight at a cost of $600/kg; it only costs someone $300,000 to put a 500 kg satellite into orbit if they sign onto a Superheavy Expendable rideshare.

This is another example of SpaceX's forward thinking securing their economic future. Yes; they're spending a lot of money on Starship/Superheavy -- and yes, some concepts such as the heat shield they have in mind may not work; but the entire system is cheap enough that they can descope to get an immediate minimum viable product (MVP) that's a massive improvement over their current top of the line product; Falcon Heavy.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting on ULA to demonstrate SMART reuse; despite NASA actually dunking a engine in water and then refiring it decades ago...
Click to expand...
And that's not even taking into account Starlink and now Starshield.
 
And that's not even taking into account Starlink and now Starshield.

Regarding that -- I posted something along these lines in the NSF thread:

SpaceX's moves over the last half-decade have positioned them nicely for the era in which space launch becomes commoditized:

A.) The entire HLS contract with NASA over Lunar Starship -- basically, Elon gets the US Government to fund an entire market for SpaceX of vacuum-rated landers/hoppers that can be used all over the solar system.

B.) Starlink -- when it's completed, it'll give SpaceX an independent revenue stream that's not dependent on government or commercial launch contracts; or NASA contract awards. Plus, it has "kickstarted" SpaceX's internal teams into ones capable of delivering large numbers of complex spacecraft on a reliable schedule.

C.) Raptor -- once it's development is completed; SpX has an engine they can scale up or down as needed to support a whole family of spacecraft, from large cyclers to vacuum hoppers all on a common Methalox infrastructure, which can be spread across the solar system -- imagine a lone robot starship being sent to say, Titan to set up a small ISRU facility there, enabling future methalox powered spacecraft to explore that region of the solar system without having to have all their fuel shipped six years in advance, or carried with them.

D.) The development of SpaceX suits for Commercial Crew. They could have contracted out to David Clark or Oceaneering to have suits made; but they did that all in house. Now they have teams capable of designing space suits for whatever needs SpaceX will have in the future; or for others.

SpaceX is now in the unusual position of where for $750K or less of internal funds ($500K per sat launch cost + $250K satellite cost), they can launch a 260 kg satellite into LEO; with rides uphill leaving every two weeks.

I would bet you $100 that right now, Space X has a private "Raiders of the Lost Ark" Division set up to evaluate all sorts of crazy stuff for "breakthrough technologies", ranging from "can we commercialise VASMIR" to "EM Drive".

I would also bet you $25 that SpaceX has actually flown some of these potential technologies in orbit, either on Starlink satellites themselves, or on Starlink-only Falcon 9 Upper Stages (the advantages of having your own internal payloads is that you can do risks with them that no paying customer would dare allow).

Spending almost a million dollars to prove/disprove something your Advanced Projects Division came up with may sound like a lot, but it's quicker to just pay the $1M and fly it and find out if it's real or not in six months, rather than taking 5 to 6 years in precise ground testing (TU Dresden and the EM Drive) to validate it.

The ability + capability of cheaply testing concepts in space on SpaceX internally funded flights (allowing higher risk than normal) is going to be an increasingly important factor in SpaceX's R&D programs going into the 2020s.
 
"The Bullet" looks to be not only the first LEO Starship-but maybe BEO as well? A burn-to-depletion stunt easier? Lunar crash where LRO can see it flash by...shades of Melies as one in the eye of NASA? It is a bullet after all...
 
Last edited:
RyanC said:
I would bet you $100 that right now, Space X has a private "Raiders of the Lost Ark" Division set up to evaluate all sorts of crazy stuff for "breakthrough technologies", ranging from "can we commercialise VASMIR" to "EM Drive".

I would also bet you $25 that SpaceX has actually flown some of these potential technologies in orbit, either on Starlink satellites themselves, or on Starlink-only Falcon 9 Upper Stages (the advantages of having your own internal payloads is that you can do risks with them that no paying customer would dare allow).
Click to expand...
Most “funding“ for innovations in space were a trickle down effect from black budgets spread across Defence contractors such as Boeing, Northrop and Lockheed.

Shuttle tiles were created by Lockheed. IVS suits were worn in the SR-71 predating space. Planes were pushed to the edge of space.

The earliest orbital space flights were sent with cameras for reconnaissance.

Im just highlighting where the real work is being done and where the budgets are coming from. Space X isnt remotly on the same level of just the well know defense contractors. Musk like the others were given a ton of DOD backing. It’s pretty shortsighted to glaze past 60+ years of innovation across iconic companies that have build things the public probably will never know but sometimes we’re lucky enough to get a small part of the puzzle that will be used publically.

Falcon 9 is used to launch the x-37 (owned by the DoD and operated by the space force) into orbit while its classified missions speculated to be involving advanced propulsion testing has been underway for years. That tech developed decades before. Space x is doing nothing more than sending up the real work.

Respectfully. You may be giving someone more credit than they deserve in a much larger picture. SpaceX isnt changing the world. They are the ferry for complex military and defense projects. And maybe every 20 years we have a large breakthrough passed down into the public sector from black budgets.
 
My dearest Hansblix (cute germanolics though!), getting to orbit is the hard part - please check your very basic physics, if you will. Once you're whirling around mother earth, you're pretty much scot-free to do do whatever you want with your fancy optics and whatnot . As an aerospace engineer who has spent years on the getting to LEO issue, I am truly offended by your offhand nonchalant attitude towards space launch, not respectfully. Your fancy shmancy "payloads" wouldn't be able to do their job without a launch system to put them in their proper place, I think the colloquial expression is putting the cart before the horse, no? SpaceX *IS* changing the world, and I say that as definitely not being a Musk fan.
 
Last edited:
@RyanC : very, very interesting analysis.

NASA picking SpaceX for HLS will also have a lot of interesting ramifications in the future. Random thoughts

A- I use to joke that SpaceX - aiming for Mars - somewhat "contracted" the Moon to NASA - and got some of their budget flowing toward them as a result.

B- Yet NASA can't complain either, as picking Starship for HLS de facto put them onboard SpaceX vehicles (and Mars) plans. "One ticket for Mars, please !"

C - Also a rather interesting potential "backup" to SLS-Orion for long term Artemis manned missions ... we all know what's wrong with these two, don't we ?

D- I do hope that sooner or later (2030 or beyond ?) NASA will be able to drop SLS-Orion as its main "Earth surface to Moon" crewed transportation system; and replace them with some kind of Starship, either a HLS derivative or a Mars-ship derivative.

Pardon the crude drawing, but that's how I see it.

win-win.png
 
Last edited:
My Dear Hansblix:

IVS suits were worn in the SR-71 predating space.

I think you are misconstruing the development of pressure suits which began in the late 1930s and reached operational status briefly in the 1950s in the USAF before dropping out of favor.

Respectfully. You may be giving someone more credit than they deserve in a much larger picture. SpaceX isnt changing the world. They are the ferry for complex military and defense projects. And maybe every 20 years we have a large breakthrough passed down into the public sector from black budgets.

Someone on Nasaspaceflight.com pointed out that much of what SpaceX has done was not super ground breaking -- everything was within known TRLs.

Merlin for example, is a semi-descendant of the NASA FASTRAC project.

Boost-back recovery was proposed countless times before (I'm not going to search NTRS for every possible Boost Back scheme).

So what's the difference between SpaceX and everyone else (Boeing, ULA, Lockheed Martin)?

Elongated Muskrat.

While Gwynne Shotwell is the one who keeps the company running in day to day ops and dealing with customers, Musk is essentially SpaceX's own Howard Hughes/Kelly Johnson who keeps SpaceX moving into the future at a pace nobody in the industry can match.

Nearly ten years ago (2016) SpaceX built pretty much the largest carbon fiber tank ever and proof tested it for "BFR"...then abandoned it for stainless steel.

Nobody else in the industry would have done that.

The sunk cost(s) involved in designing carbon-fiber/composite BFR, along with manufacturing the test tank would have brought out the beancounters who would have said:

"No, we've got too much invested in composites," with perhaps a side dish of "the contract says composites!" (shades of what doomed VentureStar).

Likewise StarLink.

"So, you want to build the world's largest satellite constellation....with a custom satellite of our own design? Who's paying?"

"What?"

"We are? We don't even have a DOD/NASA contract?"

At this point, everyone in the "legacy" business would have fired Musk for endangering the share price of $NAME$ company; or at least shot down his proposal(s) and it would have become the latest in a long line of dirty paper published at AIAA conferences.

But since Musk owns SpaceX, he's unfireable and can do these crazy off the wall projects with ROI's that extend 10 years into the future and for Musk, the most important thing is:

"No amount of money ever bought a second of time."
Howard Stark, Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Elon Musk is now 51.

NASA is planning their Dragonfly mission to arrive at Titan sometime in 2036. At that point; Musk will be 65.

To put things in perspective, Wernher von Braun was 56 to 60 years old between 1968 and 1972 when he was doing his "piece de resistance" with the Saturn Launch Vehicle program.

You can see why Elon is driving SpaceX so hard, burning out tons of young engineers in the process, because he needs to have SpaceX in a position where it HAS to keep doing big things or else it dies.

Why?

Because Elon knows that once he's too old to actually be part of the day-to-day operations of SpaceX, the corporate culture of SpaceX will start MBAizing and become more and more risk adverse -- you only need to look at how Boeing treated the XS-1.
 

Attachments

  • Tank.jpg
    Tank.jpg
    126.7 KB · Views: 15
  • Tank2.jpg
    Tank2.jpg
    97.4 KB · Views: 15
Musk isn't necessarily a genius, but his commitment to perhaps uneconomical goals is unfortunately one of the things that moves spaceX forward.

He's certainly not looking out for shareholders, that's for sure...
 
NASAspaceflight member Robotbeat (Robotbitch would be more appropriate moniker) is the biggest abrasive asshole SpaceX fanboy in the entire known universe.

NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers

NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

But since he has one NASAspaceflight moderator - Lar - in his pocket, he has seemingly a free reign to behave like a giant prick, dickhead and asshole altogether. Since his posts are never removed or corrected - why should he bother ?
Sweet geez.

Fanboys. One of the worst waste product of SpaceX rise to the heavens. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a septic tank in space nowadays.
 
bye bye to Phobos and Deimos platforms
SpaceX sold the two oil rigs
Reason according Gwynne Shotwell in Interview
Were that Phobos and Deimos were not right platforms for Starship launches
But SpaceX will continue to get sea Platforms to launch Starship

They broke new Record by refurbish SLS-40 in 5 days for new launch


Source:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKH8X5_S_0
 
RyanC said:
My Dear Hansblix:

IVS suits were worn in the SR-71 predating space.

I think you are misconstruing the development of pressure suits which began in the late 1930s and reached operational status briefly in the 1950s in the USAF before dropping out of favor.

Respectfully. You may be giving someone more credit than they deserve in a much larger picture. SpaceX isnt changing the world. They are the ferry for complex military and defense projects. And maybe every 20 years we have a large breakthrough passed down into the public sector from black budgets.

Someone on Nasaspaceflight.com pointed out that much of what SpaceX has done was not super ground breaking -- everything was within known TRLs.

Merlin for example, is a semi-descendant of the NASA FASTRAC project.

Boost-back recovery was proposed countless times before (I'm not going to search NTRS for every possible Boost Back scheme).

So what's the difference between SpaceX and everyone else (Boeing, ULA, Lockheed Martin)?

Elongated Muskrat.

While Gwynne Shotwell is the one who keeps the company running in day to day ops and dealing with customers, Musk is essentially SpaceX's own Howard Hughes/Kelly Johnson who keeps SpaceX moving into the future at a pace nobody in the industry can match.

Nearly ten years ago (2016) SpaceX built pretty much the largest carbon fiber tank ever and proof tested it for "BFR"...then abandoned it for stainless steel.

Nobody else in the industry would have done that.

The sunk cost(s) involved in designing carbon-fiber/composite BFR, along with manufacturing the test tank would have brought out the beancounters who would have said:

"No, we've got too much invested in composites," with perhaps a side dish of "the contract says composites!" (shades of what doomed VentureStar).

Likewise StarLink.

"So, you want to build the world's largest satellite constellation....with a custom satellite of our own design? Who's paying?"

"What?"

"We are? We don't even have a DOD/NASA contract?"

At this point, everyone in the "legacy" business would have fired Musk for endangering the share price of $NAME$ company; or at least shot down his proposal(s) and it would have become the latest in a long line of dirty paper published at AIAA conferences.

But since Musk owns SpaceX, he's unfireable and can do these crazy off the wall projects with ROI's that extend 10 years into the future and for Musk, the most important thing is:

"No amount of money ever bought a second of time."
Howard Stark, Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Elon Musk is now 51.

NASA is planning their Dragonfly mission to arrive at Titan sometime in 2036. At that point; Musk will be 65.

To put things in perspective, Wernher von Braun was 56 to 60 years old between 1968 and 1972 when he was doing his "piece de resistance" with the Saturn Launch Vehicle program.

You can see why Elon is driving SpaceX so hard, burning out tons of young engineers in the process, because he needs to have SpaceX in a position where it HAS to keep doing big things or else it dies.

Why?

Because Elon knows that once he's too old to actually be part of the day-to-day operations of SpaceX, the corporate culture of SpaceX will start MBAizing and become more and more risk adverse -- you only need to look at how Boeing treated the XS-1.
Click to expand...
Very well said and thought out with an objective view. I appreciate the time you took to explain that and understanding what I meant in regards to not changing the world. I certainly I have a better understanding.

I think to most people, through design and PR, he is thought of as an engineering genius and savant. I don‘t believe that to be the case.

He is a billionaire willing to take risks. It seems the shoulders of giants he is standing on are never given enough credit for the tremendous innovations that without, he wouldn’t be able to do what he is currently.

The x-33 being a great example of where the wind was blowing, why the delta clipper had interest lost in its concept with funding and the issues with the x-33 and early composites in the 90s with tanks.

It’s odd to see so much work done decades before yet SpaceX is talked about as groundbreaking life altering tech.

I almost wonder if it’s even fair to compare Von Braun to Musk? One has a doctoral degrees in engineering and physics and the other has an MBA from Wharton.
 
Last edited:
Very well said and thought out with an objective view. I appreciate the time you took to explain that and certainly I have a better understanding. I think to most people, through design and PR, he is thought of as an engineering genius and savant. I don‘t be,I eve thst yo be the case.

My dearest Hansblix:

I think the best thing to "calibrate" your understanding of Musk is that while he's not a super genius; he's actually pretty smart and is willing to dig deep into technical matters in a way that your typical C-Suite executive at a corporation isn't.

Your typical executive simply looks at the summary and goes "well, this looks good, I'll go with whatever these guys say".

Musk looks at the lower level technical reports that underpin the summary and goes and buttonholes the people responsible for those reports to pick their brains.

Good case in point is Tesla vs GM in 2019/2020.

Tesla developed an all new cylindrical battery form factor (4680) while GM decided to go for pouch cells in their new Ultium EV family.

Now it's 2023 and rumors are that GM is switching from pouch cells to Cylindrical for Ultium (?) which may delay the Ultium introduction for a bit.

Why? Not much is known; other than rumors on blogs about the fallout between GM and LG; but if you dig around it appears to be related to battery thermal management -- a lot of money/time is spent on keeping thermal runaway propagation (TRP) from happening.

Basically, a cell in a battery catches fire and it causes the entire battery to catch fire and it won't stop until it's all done.

Because everything is now software controlled; it appears that the biggest way for GM/LG to mitigate the risk of TRP happening in Ultium EVs is to limit the charging rate to likewise limit thermal buildup.

This means that GM Ultium EVs would be able to get 400+ mile ranges out of a very dense pouch battery; but due to the fire risk, they can't recharge several hundred miles in about 15 minutes.

Meanwhile, Tesla with their cylindrical cells; has a much better hold on thermal management, and can support much higher charging rates without worrying about the battery catching fire.

Musk's time at Tesla is filled with some crazy ideas (the door handles and the dashboard layout of the Model 3) and the brand moves so fast that spare parts availability is an issue; but he's zeroed in on the key thing limiting adoption of EVs -- the battery has to be solid, it has to support charging rates of at least several hundred miles in 15 minutes, and the charging network has to WORK.

Everyone else (GM, etc) wants someone else (Electricify America) to do all the work and spend the money building a charger network; only for EV owners to find out that charging on the highway away from home is...challenging due to Electricify America taking federal subsidies and running.
 
It's interesting seeing people eager to downplay Musk's contribution to things.

"It’s odd to see so much work done decades before yet SpaceX is talked about as groundbreaking life altering tech."

Who did cost-effective reusability before SpaceX? Who is on track to do full reusability before SpaceX? Who has put giant scale orbital constellations in space that could compete with the traditional telcos before SpaceX?

I don't think anybody would argue that he's a Tesla or Edison. What he excels at though is the application of technology, his business acumen, and his willingness to take risk. Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink are all the market leaders in their respective industries. That isn't happenstance.
 
Last edited:
NASA gave some interesting information
March 11 to March 18 they reserve the Martin WB-57F to cover a rocket launch in Texas

Martin WB-57F is modify reconnaissance version of B-57 and is used for various high-altitude mission for NASA
Like monitoring rocket launches or return of space capsules from the sky.
 
Starship Orbital launch attempt should be in March.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628091943241515012
View: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1628091943241515012


Gary Henry, senior advisor for national security space solutions at SpaceX, says at a Space Mobility panel that both the Starship booster and pad are in "good shape" after static fire test earlier this month. The test was the "last box to check" before the first orbital launch.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628092269872947201
View: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1628092269872947201


He adds the company still needs an FAA launch license but expects that in the "very near future." Tells the audience to expect some "must-see TV" sometime in March.
Click to expand...
 
Flyaway said:
Starship Orbital launch attempt should be in March.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628091943241515012
View: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1628091943241515012


Gary Henry, senior advisor for national security space solutions at SpaceX, says at a Space Mobility panel that both the Starship booster and pad are in "good shape" after static fire test earlier this month. The test was the "last box to check" before the first orbital launch.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628092269872947201
View: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1628092269872947201


He adds the company still needs an FAA launch license but expects that in the "very near future." Tells the audience to expect some "must-see TV" sometime in March.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I wish SpaceX every success at the launch attempt.
 
chimeric oncogene said:
sferrin said:
I don't think anybody would argue that he's a Tesla or Edison.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Edison also quite good at the business, PR and lawyering game as well?
Musk is certainly no Tesla (hah!), but he might just qualify for an Edison lookalike contest.
Click to expand...
A lot of Edison's success, as you note, was due to the people that worked for him - he wasn't the whole of any one design or product. He was the conductor or more appropriately, the concertmaster of the process and as a result, it is his name that is remembered. Musk is the same in the endeavors he has undertaken from Paypal on up until now.

Have a friend whose son interviewed with SpaceX and with Sandia Labs - the pay was better at Sandia Labs but the level of excitement and being part of something that was applied cutting edge, with a little bleeding edge mixed in, at Space X was enormous. I would compare it to the '60s race to the Moon in terms of a defined goal and applying whatever $$$ and energy to see to it that it happens much sooner than later.

Read just about any book by those who were part of the Mercury to Saturn days by people involved and how it ruined marriages, health and who knows what else, but they stayed involved and wanted to be part of the final product. NASA today, not necessarily the individuals involved, lost much of that energy when the Saturn program closed down and funding for the next step and beyond was throttled down to the point little could be done. Plus it is after all a government agency with bureaucracy built in, bleeding away a lot of energy that doesn't go towards the mission goals. Musk is willing to "fail" as he sees it as a way to learn - it isn't really a failure as it would be defined by NASA or really, Congress, if it were to go "boom" on the pad. No way NASA would have been able to "fail" the way SpaceX did working towards sticking a Starship landing. Now they're going to catch it with the chopsticks....

RyanC laid it out well - he as a strong business acumen and a long term business view, knowing where to leverage business and contracts for long term gain supporting his business goals, in a similar way to Boeing with the government funded KC-135 to help bring the 707 to fruition, along with plenty of added assistance from the B-47 and B-52 programs.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Last edited:
IMOHO Musk isn't "willing to fail" . He has simply understood the meaning of iterative design (/spiral design) and included the test on hardware part in the design loop. Something logical for something that reaches routinely beyond routine Sciences (a lot of variables driving rocket design can be only experimental - think for example at the Karman boundary layer thickness equation).

So Musk has innovated in the sense that he went beyond what everyone else were doing.

At Tesla, to my knowledge, they don't have the same design to fail (obviously) but a similar culture to always refine their product and go on sale with a product below perfection level.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
IMOHO Musk isn't "willing to fail" .
Click to expand...
He's said, specifically, that he's willing to fail. For the first flight of Starship he said he'd consider it a success if they didn't destroy the launch pad. :D (Obviously that could have been toungue-in-cheek but consider how many test vehicles they blew up trying to land after the flip.)
 
sferrin said:
TomcatViP said:
IMOHO Musk isn't "willing to fail" .
Click to expand...
He's said, specifically, that he's willing to fail. For the first flight of Starship he said he'd consider it a success if they didn't destroy the launch pad. :D (Obviously that could have been toungue-in-cheek but consider how many test vehicles they blew up trying to land after the flip.)
Click to expand...

What will happen next if Starship fails to launch or worse blows up on the launch pad? I personally want Starship to succeed on the first attempt but you never know with rockets and Astronautics in general.
 
FighterJock said:
What will happen next if Starship fails to launch or worse blows up on the launch pad? I personally want Starship to succeed on the first attempt but you never know with rockets and Astronautics in general.
Click to expand...
worst case scenario Superheavy explodes on Stage Zero during lift off,
it will damage the launch installations severe !
While FAA, NTSB, NASA, NSFF investigate the cause,
Musk simply let repair the launch installations, and move Starship operation to KSC (NASA in Panic mode).
SpaceX will analyse the data make own conclusion and modify the Superheavy Design,
Scrap the already finish Booster and build new better Boosters either in Texas or Florida.
 
Michel Van said:
FighterJock said:
What will happen next if Starship fails to launch or worse blows up on the launch pad? I personally want Starship to succeed on the first attempt but you never know with rockets and Astronautics in general.
Click to expand...
worst case scenario Superheavy explodes on Stage Zero during lift off,
it will damage the launch installations severe !
While FAA, NTSB, NASA, NSFF investigate the cause,
Musk simply let repair the launch installations, and move Starship operation to KSC (NASA in Panic mode).
SpaceX will analyse the data make own conclusion and modify the Superheavy Design,
Scrap the already finish Booster and build new better Boosters either in Texas or Florida.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was worrying about Michel Van, but let's see what happens on launch day it will certainly be interesting to watch I for one will be watching it. Fingers and toes crossed that all goes well.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1628763486850363395
View: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1628763486850363395


Moderator @wapodavenport asks about plans for second Polaris mission to reboost Hubble.

Isaacman: not much I can share beyond what was announced regarding NASA/SpaceX study. "Tons" of progress on it, and a lot of enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1628764250607951874
View: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1628764250607951874


Third Polaris flight is planned to be first crewed Starship mission. Isaacman says he doesn't know how long it will be before Starship is ready to carry people, but when it is "we'll be ready."
Click to expand...
 
Polaris Dawn is now NET July 2023.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628773710961188866
View: https://twitter.com/polarisprogram/status/1628773710961188866


We announced the Polaris Program and its first mission one year ago this month. Recap of the Polaris Dawn crew’s training to-date as we look ahead to the mission’s launch, now targeted for no earlier than summer 2023 →
Click to expand...

polarisprogram.com

The First Year of Polaris & Launch Date Update for Polaris Dawn - Polaris Program

One year ago this month, we announced the Polaris Program and its first mission, Polaris Dawn. The crew, consisting of Jared Isaacman, Kidd Poteet, Sarah Gillis, and Anna Menon, has spent the last year training for their mission, which will spend up to five days in orbit. With an already-strong...
polarisprogram.com polarisprogram.com

FEBRUARY 23, 2023
The First Year of Polaris & Launch Date Update for Polaris Dawn

One year ago this month, we announced the Polaris Program and its first mission, Polaris Dawn. The crew, consisting of Jared Isaacman, Kidd Poteet, Sarah Gillis, and Anna Menon, has spent the last year training for their mission, which will spend up to five days in orbit.

With an already-strong synergy forged during the Inspiration4 mission in 2021, the crew’s last year of training has strengthened their bond even further as they prepare to undertake several groundbreaking objectives:

— Endeavoring to reach the highest Earth orbit ever flown, with a targeted apogee of 1,400 kilometers above Earth;
— Attempting the first commercial extravehicular activity (EVA) with SpaceX-designed EVA spacesuits;
— Conducting extensive scientific research designed to advance both human health on Earth and our understanding of human health during future long-duration spaceflights; and
— Testing Starlink laser-based communications in space, providing valuable data for future space communications system necessary for missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

Their training throughout the course of 2022 and into 2023 has included mission simulations and academic work at SpaceX headquarters in California, mountain climbing in Ecuador, scuba diving off of Catalina Island, medical skills training, fighter jet flights, centrifuge spins, time in an altitude chamber, a zero-gravity flight, a decompression sickness study at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, and the U.S. Air Force Academy’s AM-490 skydiving course in Colorado.

In addition to ensuring they are familiar with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft, this extensive training regimen has provided the crew with valuable experience in making rapid, high-stakes decisions in high-consequence environments, ensuring they are mentally and physically prepared for spaceflight.

Climbing the Cotopaxi stratovolcano in Ecuador presented an opportunity for the crew to develop mental resilience by facing physical strain, challenging weather conditions, and elevations as high as 19,374 feet above sea level. This allowed the crew to build upon their endurance and mental toughness, both necessary qualities for the space environment.

Fighter jet training allowed for crew resource management, teamwork, and checklist procedures applied in high-consequence environment. This skillset translates into the spaceflight context, where the crew must be prepared to react swiftly to a wide range of nominal or off-nominal scenarios that could arise during their mission.

The crew’s scuba diving and participation in a decompression sickness study provided further insights into conducting the mission’s spacewalk. Communication methods used during these events are comparable to those required during a spacewalk, emphasizing the importance of clear and concise conveying of information between crew members and teams back on Earth.

Overall, this comprehensive training program fosters camaraderie and team cohesion among the crew, essential elements of any spaceflight mission, especially one as ambitious as Polaris Dawn. Understanding each other’s strengths and weaknesses allows the crew to operate effectively, efficiently, and safely on Earth, and ultimately, in space.

The group has also visited St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Tennessee, meeting doctors, researchers, and patients, while throughout the last year working to raise funds and awareness for the hospital to ensure no child dies in the dawn of life. Additionally, by providing Starlink to 100 schools in Chile and Brazil with Starlink, the Polaris team is striving to increase internet connectivity to communities around the world, which can improve education and telemedicine efforts in communities in need of greater connection to such resources.

With an extensive suite of roughly 38 science research experiments from 23 institutions planned for the Polaris Dawn mission, the crew has also spent significant time preparing to conduct that research on-orbit. Our program is excited to partner with a wide range of universities and scientific entities to push the boundaries of what science can be conducted during a five-day space mission, such as implementation of new cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) procedures for use in the Dragon spacecraft, wearing of contact lenses to monitor changes in the shape and pressure of the eye, and usage of an ultrasound devices and other wearable technologies to measure the crew’s physiology and biometrics during launch and after splashdown. The findings from these experiments will help us understand more about the human body in space ahead of future long-duration human spaceflight missions.

With continued work in progress to ensure a safe launch and return while achieving the mission’s ambitious goals, including the first-ever commercial spacewalk and first usage of SpaceX’s EVA spacesuit, we are now targeting no earlier than summer 2023 for the launch of Polaris Dawn.

Our program’s North Star is to push the boundaries of what’s possible in spaceflight and inspire individuals to look up to the stars, with an ever-present focus on tackling difficult challenges on Earth. With Polaris Dawn on the horizon and future Polaris missions set to follow, we are excited to follow those goals toward a greater future on Earth and in space.
Click to expand...
 
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
TomcatViP said:
IMOHO Musk isn't "willing to fail" .
Click to expand...
He's said, specifically, that he's willing to fail. For the first flight of Starship he said he'd consider it a success if they didn't destroy the launch pad. :D (Obviously that could have been toungue-in-cheek but consider how many test vehicles they blew up trying to land after the flip.)
Click to expand...

What will happen next if Starship fails to launch or worse blows up on the launch pad? I personally want Starship to succeed on the first attempt but you never know with rockets and Astronautics in general.
Click to expand...
What will happen? If the past is any prologue, SpaceX will learn, improve, try again, and very likely triumph eventually. I certainly hope and wish they will succeed in the first try, but if not, they'll keep going anyway.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom