Wrong take away. Jesse, I thought you were more intuitive vs biased. Today, 4 flight test vehicles can provide more test data than 4 ground test vehicles of yesteryear but without the expensive ground test facilities. So they will close to equal footing by after the 6th flight.
To The Moon with .... the Space Shuttle ?!
- Thread starter Michel Van
- Start date
Supported claims. You have nothing to back that "all are wasted time and effort"
Starship has considerable payload to orbit,as it is (more than any existing vehicle), just not they need.
(??Jesse??
)I'm afraid it's you with the wrong take-away since those expensive ground faculties have continued use, whereas the "flight tests" do not. In fact it's actually less data from a flight test as an initial start than ground work. (Kind of obvious that SpaceX agrees since they do more building and ground testing than they have done flight tests) Granted there are some things that can only truly be found in flight testing but on average it's far less than proper design time and ground work. SpaceX USED to agree as that's how they designed and built the Falcon 9 (and all those poh-poh "ground facilities" they are still using but you seem to feel are a waste)
4 flight tests have ended in various and different forms of failure that still have not corrected some major problems and issues that, again, would have been found in a proper design environment. (Not being able to carry any significant payload to orbit with the current planned design would I think have been a big one.) Which brings us to...
While I agree that Elon Musk statements more often than not can't be trusted I've seen enough evidence (and seen the math) that proves he was actually telling the truth on this one. Even adding very generous "margins" for payload handling and such the current "Starship" is incapable of reaching orbit with "maybe" the payload of a Falcon 9 but again that's very generous. Musk says it can't at all, and I actually believe him here.
It's questionable if the current "Starship" can actually reach orbit, mostly from the needed propellant for the maneuver coming from the already low propellant needed for landing. The main question is the continuing problems with propellant flow in the vehicle and engine restart which has yet to be demonstrated. It certainly can't launch a viable payload and be reusable, then again so far none of them have been able to be reused even if they'd managed to recover them.
Musk (and again this I believe since it's likely true) says that it will take a stretched MkII Starship to reach orbit with a credible payload, (about the same as a Falcon 9, far less than the Falcon Heavy) and will take an addition design to a MkIII standard (stretched and probably an expanded diameter with more engines on both stages) to reach the "goal" of 100 metric tons.
This was and is official SpaceX stuff right from his "all-hands" call at Boca Chica.
So ya, they've wasted time, effort and (mostly NASA) money on a vehicle that does not perform as planned, isn't reusable and is not as cheap as planned. And they did most of it by "flying" (and continually failing) test articles that had obvious and plain issues that would have been found prior to flight with a more detailed and well planned program.
In other words, something that looks more like how they designed the Falcon 9.
Randy
My name is Jeff, but he has called me Jessie before--he probably thought you were me under a different handle.(??Jesse??
Randy
I actually admire Musk's willingness to sacrifice vehicles--I just thought that the road to RLVs would be:
1.)Build an Energiya-type SLS with Buran type shuttle-2 (strap-ons are Zenit like EELVS)--everything modular.
2.)When the orbiter isn't flying, place large scale hypersonic craft in its place--Faget straight-wing, wave riders, lifting body's, disks, etc. Released by 747 orbiter ferry for low speed tests-released by SD-HLLVs for high-speed tests.
3.)Whichever of those tests the best, that becomes Shuttle-3
4.)Phase out expendables...with Energiya flying big station modules and a few probes before being retired itself.
That's the path I thought RLVs would take--winged...tested in large scale...by governments...in a painfully expensive, slow manner.
If you had told me a Moon-bound shuttle would look like Lunar Starship, and that the best all round satellite launcher (Falcon) would also take off and land on its tail--I would have said you watched too much Rocky Jones--that nothing would ever look like 1950's notions of spacecraft.
But here we are.
Last edited:
Jesse is spell correct for Jeesh(??Jesse??
I'm afraid it's you with the wrong take-away since those expensive ground faculties have continued use, whereas the "flight tests" do not. In fact it's actually less data from a flight test as an initial start than ground work. (Kind of obvious that SpaceX agrees since they do more building and ground testing than they have done flight tests) Granted there are some things that can only truly be found in flight testing but on average it's far less than proper design time and ground work. SpaceX USED to agree as that's how they designed and built the Falcon 9 (and all those poh-poh "ground facilities" they are still using but you seem to feel are a waste)
4 flight tests have ended in various and different forms of failure that still have not corrected some major problems and issues that, again, would have been found in a proper design environment. (Not being able to carry any significant payload to orbit with the current planned design would I think have been a big one.) Which brings us to...
Wrong again.
Wrong about the test stands. Saturn S-II and S-IVB stands were no reused. The Dynamic test stand was only used for Saturn V and Shuttle over the last 60 years, otherwise just burning maintenance money. Test stands for full up Starship or stages are unnecessary.
Starship does not have sensor limitations for vehicle testing during flight. Spacex with their receivers is not limiting the data sent. So more relevant is provided
Not true.
1 The failure of the flip could not have been found out in ground testing
2. LOX dump fire would not have been found in ground testing
3. Debateable whether filter clogging would have been found during ground testing.
4. TPS burn through was found only through flight testing.
It is not "credible" but required payload
Because you make me say Jeesh more than anybody
1. Why? Still too expensive. More expensive than NASA shuttle
2. Why bother, most are unworkable except lifting bodies. The Shuttle II would have looked like Shuttle I.
Similar threads
-
Candidate Space Shuttle Orbiters Wind Tunnel Studies 1969 NASA Langley Research- Started by sferrin
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
