SpaceX (general discussion)

Statement by Elon Musk
The first Starships to Mars will launch in 2 years when the next Earth-Mars transfer window opens.
These will be uncrewed to test the reliability of landing intact on Mars.
If those landings go well, then the first crewed flights to Mars will be in 4 years.
Flight rate will grow exponentially from there, with the goal of building a self-sustaining city in about 20 years.
Being multiplanetary will vastly increase the probable lifespan of consciousness,
as we will no longer have all our eggs, literally and metabolically, on one planet.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1832550322293837833
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1832550322293837833
 
NMaude said:
It can be however if the rocket design is marinised (Sealed electronics, anti-corrosion coatings and so on).
Click to expand...

It's specifically bad for the metals on the insides of the engines. They go in the sea very hot, then get doused with seawater that has all kinds of stuff in it that is reactive when it hits 600C metal surfaces. And you cannot coat them with something protects them, because that would just get burned away.
 
From Musk last quoted tweet:
we will no longer have all our eggs, literally and metabolically, on one planet.
Click to expand...

Does he intends to fly chickens there or has he become that vulgar?
 
Last edited:
zjz said:
In my opinion, since the controlled descend is able to pin point land or crash to within a few metres is already a very much improved safety feature when compared to the risk of uncontrolled trajectory of other spent boosters .....
Click to expand...
No, it is the other way around. the spent boosters have the same basic trajectory and aren't going to deviate from it plus there is no propellant onboard. There is risk of losing control from a flyback
 
siegecrossbow said:
I wonder if it is possible to land directly in the sea. Is this bad for a reusable spacecraft due to potential for corrosion?
Click to expand...

Rocket Labs are doing this with Electron. As long as you fish it out quickly (and presumably flush with deionized water), it works.

It may not scale, though. Electron is easy to pull out of the water. Something like Starship would be much harder.
 
More generally, having the biggest launch and satellite systems under the control of one individual with no oversight is a little disconcerting regardless of who it is. Bezos at best represents a competing eccentric billionaire with no restraint, should New Glenn turn out to be competitive. Though at least relying on two different weirdos gives a fall back position.
 
abheiden said:
Yea sure 4 years to mars? Make it 14 and it will be a one way trip anyway.
The man Musk is overly optimistic and cannot see the purpose of this tweets.
Think its only frustrates his workers and not speed things up.
Click to expand...


A deadline brings complex projects into sharp relief. Deadlines provide the critical path for all levels of employee.

Faster, cheaper, better? Probably faster.
 
NeilChapman said:
A deadline brings complex projects into sharp relief. Deadlines provide the critical path for all levels of employee.

Faster, cheaper, better? Probably faster.
Click to expand...
One only has to look at Dragon vs Starliner to see the results of differing philosophies. One gets results. The other. . .not so much.
 
NMaude said:
Views of Elon Musk




Then there are his disable suggestions in regards to Ukraine and Taiwan for example:



As has been demonstrated what happened in Hong Kong the CCP has shown it can not be trusted to keep its' word even in binding legal agreements so Musk's suggestions here are laughable and shows that he's wilfully naive.

If you go down the list in the link it's quite clear that Musk has some very odd ideas. Then there's that case of a few years ago when those caves in Thailand were flooded trapping a high school team of soccer players and their coach where he called one of the British cave-divers who volunteered to help rescue the team a paedophile on Twitter which caused a massive uproar.

I used to have a lot of respect for the man but I don't anymore.
Click to expand...


EM is brilliant. We're lucky he's in the United States and has advanced rocket technology as a US company. ULA has been screwing the US taxpayer and the world, for decades. Europe and Russia have done nothing substantive at all.

There are people, as extraordinary is it may seem, that like bureaucratic stagnation, that thrive with inaction, that blossom in bloat. These are typically character types that didn't succeed in competitive sports, that are averse to failure, that generally have a victim mentality. These are the personalities I've found that are afraid of someone like Elon Musk. When they suggest he has too much power or leverage it's usually a projection of their own personal fear, mediocrity, and lack of their own trustworthiness.

Yep, SpaceX is the corporate equivalent of a hegemon. But because of its focused leader, it is a benevolent hegemon. And a benevolent hegemon is someone that can be worked with.

The list you provided regarding EM'S "very odd ideas" is problematic on its face. But to suggest population implosion and the covid lockdowns as "very odd ideas" is staggering. I suggest we stick to the forum topic.
 
NeilChapman said:
ULA has been screwing the US taxpayer and the world, for decades.
Click to expand...
That is wrong is so many ways.
a. ULA hasn't been in existence for multiple "decades"
b. The "world" is not involve
c. It has been providing what the gov't demanded and procured. This limited what it could do.
d. This opinion is the result of lack of knowledge of the space launch industry history
 
NeilChapman said:
Yep, SpaceX is the corporate equivalent of a hegemon. But because of its focused leader, it is a benevolent hegemon. And a benevolent hegemon is someone that can be worked with.
Click to expand...
That would be wrong too. Messing with Starlink access in Ukraine is not benevolent.
 
Byeman said:
Shutting down access before a planned offensive push is
Click to expand...
At the time SpaceX, a non-governmental entity, was funding it. That put them on the hook for assisting in the attack of another nation. Any company with even two brain cells functioning would do the same. Now that the government (US unfortunately) is paying for it that liability goes away. Elon Musk is not personally obligated to help attack another country.
 
Byeman said:
Shutting down access before a planned offensive push is
Click to expand...

sferrin said:
At the time SpaceX, a non-governmental entity, was funding it. That put them on the hook for assisting in the attack of another nation. Any company with even two brain cells functioning would do the same. Now that the government (US unfortunately) is paying for it that liability goes away. Elon Musk is not personally obligated to help attack another country.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that access to Starlink in Crimea was already disabled due to sanctions. The Ukraine was asking for Starlink to be enabled in Crimea for a brief period to enable an attack. Musk/Starlink declined citing concerns over legal liability (US sanctions) and concerns that such actions would make their satellites and other assets justifiable targets for third parties.
No existing access or capability was "shut down".
 
As much as I have a deep distrust of Musk, his position on the use of his donated network in 2022 is understandable. I believe U.S. DoD subsequently contracted Starlink services for Ukraine to use inside all of occupied Ukraine, though I think DoD, or Musk, or both, restrict its use inside internationally recognized Russian borders (eg Kursk).
 
In regards to Starling what SpaceX needs to do is identify the Starling terminals the Russians are using and to cutoff their access from the network.
 
Well, while NATO is not at war, it would be unfair to request US companies to be at the forefront of the armed response while not even making money (remember that at the time of this episode Starlink was not billing the Ukrainians).
Imagine NAA's Kindelberger churning out P-51 for free.
 
Forest Green said:
That was my next question, obviously the Starship is intended to launch it but what kind of propulsion is actually being used for the journey itself?
Click to expand...

They can have an orbital nuclear tug carrying the ship for the main portion of the journey. With the current stigmatization of nuclear power I don’t think any government will allow nuclear launch from within the atmosphere.
 
siegecrossbow said:
They can have an orbital nuclear tug carrying the ship for the main portion of the journey. With the current stigmatization of nuclear power I don’t think any government will allow nuclear launch from within the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
If you don't start the reactor until it's in space, there aren't really any issues. Radioactive materials already get launched on satellites.
 
arstechnica.com

Bold private spaceflight begins early Tuesday, with a break in the weather

Weather had confounded the launch attempt for nearly two weeks.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

Polaris Dawn takes to the skies, setting the stage for a daring private spacewalk
Weather had confounded the launch attempt for nearly two weeks.

by Eric Berger - Sep 10, 2024 9:53am GMT

A Falcon 9 rocket streaked into the blackened the pre-dawn sky above Florida on Tuesday, carrying four people on the most ambitious private human spaceflight to date.
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
If you don't start the reactor until it's in space, there aren't really any issues. Radioactive materials already get launched on satellites.
Click to expand...

That’s my point. No one will allow you to launch an atomic rocket from surface big if you send the reactor into orbit there will be less blowback.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom