I know engineering is about expediency, and price, but I’m still bummed that we aren’t getting ships with landing gear in this or likely the next generation of rockets either.
Seems that the heavier the rocket the more ground clearance to need to self-land, and so you can’t scale up the dragon’s landing system. I don’t think there’s anywhere near enough weight to shave off of the next rocket or enough specific impulse to add to bring the size back down.
Er, no. Nothing like it. Grabbed from your bed in the middle of the night, bundled downstairs to watch (grainy) and hear (crackly) weird things on a black-and-white TV, while adults, including strangers, whooped and shouted drunkenly. I understood the Apollo 11 thing only in the days after, through news reports. The live event was as impenetrable to me as a dream. Then again, I was half-asleep and five years old.
Slight underperformance in the engines resulted in the the booster not reaching where it was supposed to be and the GNC systems automatically aborted to the gulf for safety.
Apparently the booster signaled it didn't have enough fuel to risk it. Either because it consumed more then expected on the way up, or a measurement error potentially.
At the last moment the exhaust turned green. That's consistent with the fuel running out, the engines running oxygen rich, and subsequently "engine rich". So I would put my money on actually running out vs a measurement error.
That's basically what Musk said, yes: that they need to work on both engine performance and performance consistency. He said they'd be cutting off the main engines one second sooner to provide more margin for boost-back.
Amazing that a one-second difference can matter, but those things go through tons of fuel every one of those seconds!
landing footage shows exactly why they didn't attempt the tower catch - the final braking burn was engine rich (green tint), it didn't blow up, but there was a respectable chance of it just crashing into the tower running on less than fumes
The goal, as I understand it, is to return the booster with as little fuel as possible at time of catch -- and not run short.
The booster footage indicated to me that its engines turned off, and then the body of the booster imploded, before it touched the ground and then became the expected fireball.
I'm definitely not a rocket scientist, but this series of events leads me to believe that the fuel was absolutely exhausted.
Their risk tolerance would probably be greater if both towers were fully operational. But any damage to the only functional tower during booster catch = an automatic abort to the ship catch one day later, and the ship catch is what was really interesting at this point of development.
It's difficult to underline how huge this is. This marks the first time in the history of rocketry that the upper stage of a rocket has returned home from orbit to a safe, upright landing.
(And to preempt the obvious objection: yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough, but it didn't do upright landings, its external tank was not reusable and even the Shuttle itself was effectively rebuilt from scratch at exorbitant cost each time.)
It's sad to see a lot of media missing the point, eg as I type this BBC is reporting this as "SpaceX successfully catches part of Starship rocket on its return to Earth".
Edit: corrected to note that the SRBs were reusable, but the ET was not.
Notably, they were reusable! Sure, they had to refurbish them, same with the shuttle’s main engines. The only thing they threw away was the external tank which didn’t have any engines.
Whatever you call it, the Shuttle Orbiter wasn’t a complete stage in any case. It needed the external tank, which was never recovered.
SpaceX has now demonstrated all the pieces of a fully reusable launcher. Next comes putting them all together in the same flight, and hopefully demonstrating that the flights can become frequent and cheap. There’s no guarantee of that, but it’s looking good.
> yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough
Why wouldn't it count? It is not the first time in the history of rocketry that the part that is not the boosters returns home intact.
Sure, you can say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it lands upright", but you could also say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it is not white".
If you want to say how huge this is, tell me how different it is from landing the boosters. Because from the outside it sure as hell looks very similar.
The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight. (SRBs are recovered, the ET is not.) However, the Orbiter is completely incapable of flight without the other three, so it's not a rocket stage on its own, just part of one.
As for why it's harder to catch Starship than Super Heavy, where do I begin:
* Super Heavy is suborbital, its maximum velocity is far, far less than Starship.
* Super Heavy returns upright. The Starship does the famous but aerodynamically very complex "belly flop" to reduce speed.
* Super Heavy only has two static fins to guide it. Starship has four actively controlled fins that need to survive the extreme forces of launch and re-entry.
> The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight and burn up in the atmosphere.
Thanks, the insights about Super Heavy vs Starship are interesting.
About how "huge" it is, I understand that it is economically huge: Musk will get even richer.
I would be interested in knowing how "huge" it is in terms of engineering. Like, my understanding is that they needed to invent new maths to go to the moon in the 60s. Does SpaceX compare with that, or is it "just" what you can do with a lot of money and powerful computers?
Genuinely interested, even though rocket fans will hate me for not knowing the answer and daring asking. Bring the downvotes!
Do you want more cool stuff like James Webb in orbit? Fully reusable huge rockets like Starship is how you get them there.
Also, remember how JWST had to do that incredibly complex and fiddly in-orbit expansion and alignment to fit together the mirror after launch? If Starship had been available at the time, this would have been far easier, since Starship has twice the diameter (four times the area) of the Ariane rocket they used to launch it.
Besides that I really really wished it wouldn't be Elon Musk, i'm looking forward to cheaper stuff so its easier to send science stuff up. Don't get me wrong at all.
But it feels like hyperbole.
Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it?
Or do you see it more like a milestone seeing?
And for me, it still feels like if Elon Musk tries his Dataenter 'idea' and really sneds up everyday a Starship, we will lose a lot of control as normal humans whats going on in space and what will happen to our atmosphere.
I am not a cynic, but a realist. It is easy to do things when you put a ton of money towards the effort so I find this nothing special. Maybe when I was a child these things would fascinate me, but they are just engineering.
So, what would amaze me? Ending homelessness in the United States. Because that takes more than money. I would like to swap the "passion" or engineering for the "compassion" of ending suffering. Very easy to shape and change material things, very hard to change the heart.
The people you want to share your excitement might be suffering under the same separation of wealth that made this landing possible. (Yet there is little talk that they failed to catch the booster and it exploded).
You don't need private people/companies or more taxes for that. US has enough resources to do it already. Maybe you should go ask your politicians, better yet, ask your friends/neighbors/yourself if you are ready to take the drastic steps necessary to solve that.
ofc a comment like that would get downvoted by investors and technologists, but yes i agree, if you have enough imagination and money, almost anything in engineering is eventually possible. that same imagination and money is rarely spent on making the experience of living beings who are suffering nicer. but we dont live in a 1D world and all people need a win, engineering nerds included.
That ship has sailed since the first rockets were used to launch bombs and incendiaries somewhere in China, a long time ago. Hammers can be used to build and to kill. Knives cut wood as well as flesh. Humans are belligerent primates whether we want it or not, changing that isn't something even all humanities faculties in the world can manage nor any ideologue intent on creating the New Soviet Man or Übermensch or transhumanist. Fortunately there tend to be more people intent on doing 'good' things with technology than 'bad', where 'good' can also include defending against those doing 'bad' things even though that is a thin line to walk.
In orbit refueling is likely next year. The goal is to have two shots at a moon landing in 2028.
And a nuclear ion rocket scheduled for 2028 as well.
The current NASA administrator is doing a good job getting rid of all the things keeping NASA from doing things. (And at least after Artemis II, both parties in congress seemed to be on his side.)
All I want are bigger and more cleverly located space telescopes, a couple of more probes and orbiters around other planets and asteroids, and I want those Mars samples that Percy has been pooping over the Mars surface returned to Earth and studied in a lab. And maybe a probe to Alpha Centauri or exo-planet viewers that use the Sun’s gravitational lensing in the next 5 or 6 decades.
I think the concept for the Alpha Centauri probes uses solar sails and externally fired lasers[1]. The exo-planet viewer concept also proposes solar sails.
What actually is the point of all this? I'm not trying to be a snarky contrarian, I've never had any interest whatsoever in space, star trek, "what's out there?", so I genuinely don't get it.
I'm not trashing people's interests, obviously I am the odd man out in not giving a damn, I just don't see what we're trying to achieve when there are so many issues we can't even figure out on earth.
If you don’t get it, nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise.
The people who “had an interest” in pursuing the unknown built the entire modern world that you exist in, since so many things have some connection back to the space program, including ironically the very device you’re using to express your opinion. So it’s probably worth paying them a little respect.
This is the most powerful rocket ever constructed. It has the largest possible payload. The James Webb is tiny compared to what is possible. No other rocket can do that. End of. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
Just to be clear: James Webb was build and designed with nanometer aligned optical system, has to be cooled down while being at L2, can't be serviced and repaired and it was only enough money there to build it once and took 5 years of building and 25 years of planning.
Perhaps you don't have any clue that earth and it's inhabitants are very, very likely to be the only one, - - or, of the very few planets in our known universe, with such a sequence of events over millions if not billions of years that allow us to be living beings, evolving - - while out in space is a vacuum, intense radiation, no oxygen, no food or water for many hundreds if not thousands of light years distance away. Incredibly few of our species grasps this fact and actually appreciates it ...
These people are completely useless. They would never come out of the cave or the forest. They'd sit in the village they were born in forever never knowing what is beyond the horizon. Never tasting the fruits of the universe forever content with only what they can see only to be wiped out by a random virus or errant rock from the sky. I am so so thankful for the engineers, scientists, and literally every junior dev at SpaceX right now.
Well considering we gave SpaceX a contract to get us to the moon and for that to happen it needs to do something ridiculous like 20+ in orbit refueling yeah it's a pretty important thing to criticize.
I mean, you need to get money from somewhere to fund your dreams.
If it's datacenters in space then let be it. They are pretty cool as well. It seems a lot of people don't like them on Earth.
That remains to be determined. The math with blackbody radiation cooling borderline works. So they may be cool, but whether it is enough ...
But I don't think we will see success before the craziness down here has settled down and they don't face the political headwinds they currently do. And I don't think that they can compete with ground based per unit cost no matter what kind of black magic they do.
He's actively holding the program back at this point. Top engineers in this industry are increasingly reluctant to join a company with a such a toxic culture and public reputation tainted by musk.
Launch itself isn't super profitable and doesn't have a very big TAM, especially if you carefully treat the TAM as a present value and discount future cash flows. Also, at least by my personal guesswork, Starlink alone shouldn't get close to a $1 trillion valuation. It seems like the current valuation is based on people's guesses about the likelihood that space data centers pan out in a big way.
> Why is Space-X undervalued because they can catch a rocketship?
The market values SpaceX over multiple areas of the business and their future plans and it isn't just this event which they have proven to accomplish.
> You do understand that a company needs to have a business case equivilient to its valuation right?
Nope. That is not how this works nor how investors see it. It is about their total addressable market (TAM) which SpaceX can capture over everyone else. So here are some more further questions:
1) Who is paying SpaceX for the compute that they have?
2) How quick is SpaceX building their data centers to support their customers?
3) How many people use Starlink as their primary internet provider?
You understand that almost all of where SpaceX businesses can expand into those areas and grow into that valuation and higher?
> Our whole planet sends 1000-2000t of payload into space, most of it is now starlink.
Your point is?
So who else can catch and reuse a rocketship to frequently deploy satellites into space in a very short period of time? (Don't say Blue Origin.)
1) Anthropic because Elon Musk bought too much Compute and doesn't need it for his own AI proudct. In parallel Neoclouds are building up the same compute and its more like a negative sign that they got lucky
2) ? I don't understand what you mean. Are we now talking about Datacenters for others or the space thing?
3) probably below 8 million. 10 Million customer overall, plenty as an alternative or for camping etc.
Amazon Leo is an alternative. But for sure Space-X started a race to the bottom (china, blue origin and co) so they have to start moving and use their first mover advantage.
My point is, that Space-X is already responsible for the most amount of payload which gets send into space. We as a whole planet don't have that much payload and Space-X made it alot cheaper to send payload up.
So were is the 1 Trillion evaluation? Btw. its currently at 1.89T
Kind of crazy to reduce the hardware on ship so much and move so much complexity to the ground. This can really only happen in a situation where anybody can throw out any dumb idea, because if you suggested this 20 years ago people would think you are an idiot.
That's...the point. You can hire commercial welders to work on the ground side and build everything out once, cheaply.
The issue with the shuttle era was that they needed huge teams of specialized technicians to refurbish the insanely complex orbiter after every mission.
If we ever get sufficiently improved materials science for heat shields and engines there's still always a possibility of returning to the SSTO space plane concept. That would allow a more austere launch and recovery environment, but given current limitations this is the local maxima.
Reusable stages is very neat, but seems a little crazy to pay the tyranny of the rocket equation twice. I heard one person say that carrying fuel to land over the whole flight means it takes 23x more launches to get an equivalent payload to orbit.
Using modern technology, couldn't disposable first stages be produced much more cheaply than during the space race?
How much of modern manufacturing disposable booster's cost would be fuel vs metal?
OP, this is probably the source of the confusion. Some people are claiming that SpaceX will need 20+ refueling launches for human lunar landings. However, that's a very different claim than reusable rockets requiring 23x more launches just to carry the same amount of payload to Earth orbit.
It's not paying it twice. The rocket equation is about the ratio of the wet and dry mass, so for an expendable rocket you're always limited by the fact that there's an upper stage (and for the second stage the payload etc).
This is why SpaceX cares more about TWR for their engines than traditional rockets did. It goes from making a negligible difference to a huge component of how much fuel they need to keep for landing.
The 23x more launches figure comes from HLS (Nasa sponsored mission to the moon). They may well change the configuration of that anyway, but if you want to refuel in orbit, that's what it costs. It's hard to get fuel to orbit (or any sort of payload). Previous Moon missions haven't refueled anything, but they couldn't return anything heavy from the moon's surface, the vehicle got smaller and smaller as it went and many parts were left behind, so it's not comparable. You can be sure if it's cheaper to somehow do this mission with expendable boosters, they'll think about doing that.
On a normal mission just to earth orbit, there is one booster and one starship, and reusing the booster is more a question of why not save some money for a little more propellant use? The reususable booster doesn't contribute much extra weight, it uses little propellant for boostback and landing.
The booster also doesn't go all the way and you need a booster if you're going to reach orbit (due to that equation), so it doesn't take much to make it reusable. So all in all, why not make it reusable if you can? What would you save from using expendable ones?
If the fuel (+ oxidizer) ends up costing as much as 1% of the cost of launching a conventional single-use rocket then the people behind it will be very happy. That means that their rocket (+ cost of ground facilities + all the people prepping the rocket and monitoring the launch) is very cheap.
The fuel (+ oxidizer) is basically free compared to all the other costs.
It costs less, but it is not free. The stages need to be designed to come back and that adds weight. Additionally you need some fuel, it is not all air breaking.
And every bit of weight is really bad, because of the rocket equation.
Without internal figures no one can say what is ultimately financially better. Especially now that the development is a sunken cost.
It doesn't take the same amount of fuel to land as it does to lift.
Speaking as a Kerbal Space program playing, internet commentor, It's probably <1% of the fuel to briefly counteract terminal velocity as it is to lift off and reach space.
That 23x number is trivially refuted simply by looking at the fact that this flight delivered 52 tons of cargo to orbit. Could a similarly sized expendable rocket like the Saturn V deliver 1196 tons?
How is it twice? Braking on the way down doesn't take nearly as much fuel as lift off so the "tyranny of the rocket equation" should be paid only once.
"I heard one person say that carrying fuel to land over the whole flight means it takes 23x more launches to get an equivalent payload to orbit."
I don't think that this is the case when using the atmosphere to shed most of your velocity, which is what we do when landing on Earth. Propulsive braking would be another story, but you can avoid that on bodies that do have some atmosphere. In our proximity, only the Moon and Mercury would need propulsive braking, but Moon's gravity is low and Mercury is hard to visit anyway.
That said, once you use the atmosphere to cushion what is basically a fall, the weight of the necessary heat shield comes to the equation too.
"The booster’s primary objective on Flight 15 will be executing a successful launch, ascent, stage separation, boostback burn, and return to the launch site for catch. This will be the first return and catch attempt for a Super Heavy V3 booster." [1]
I know engineering is about expediency, and price, but I’m still bummed that we aren’t getting ships with landing gear in this or likely the next generation of rockets either.
Seems that the heavier the rocket the more ground clearance to need to self-land, and so you can’t scale up the dragon’s landing system. I don’t think there’s anywhere near enough weight to shave off of the next rocket or enough specific impulse to add to bring the size back down.
Insane achievement! It is the dawn of a new era! One that has been 10+ years in the making.
If this makes even me want to go study engineering I know it will inspire millions of youngsters into making the future we all want. Bravo!
I like that they wrote "dont panic" on the fuselage above the s42 badge
And so few will get it
It’s a foundational book for many people.
The engineering of this is just bind boggling awesome. The culmination of so many fields, so many factors, to this. Congrats!!!
It is. It's a great achievement for Gwynne Shotwell.
So precise it was almost boring - incredible work. Kudos.
Watched it with my 5 year old daughter (3 year old son was sadly uninterested), and we were both cheering and high fiving. Very exciting.
I imagine this is what it was like to witness Apollo 11 55 years ago.
Er, no. Nothing like it. Grabbed from your bed in the middle of the night, bundled downstairs to watch (grainy) and hear (crackly) weird things on a black-and-white TV, while adults, including strangers, whooped and shouted drunkenly. I understood the Apollo 11 thing only in the days after, through news reports. The live event was as impenetrable to me as a dream. Then again, I was half-asleep and five years old.
Congratulations to the steely eyed missile men and women of SpaceX.
I wonder if John Aaron was watching. Or Gene Kranz. Both are still alive.
They surely would have been watching. Unless that wasn't an option :-)
This is absolutely incredible!! I can’t wrap my head around this.
Do we know why they didn't try to catch the booster?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2121648438144024943
booster was low on fuel, plus no mood of risking tower with boom, boosters are cheaper than towers.
Slight underperformance in the engines resulted in the the booster not reaching where it was supposed to be and the GNC systems automatically aborted to the gulf for safety.
Two reasons floating around. 1.)They lost communication with tower 2.)They ran out of fuel for safe land.
source: Scott Manley https://youtube.com/shorts/m2oGDCvDmdE?si=0AlX8sgHDihXCED6
Apparently the booster signaled it didn't have enough fuel to risk it. Either because it consumed more then expected on the way up, or a measurement error potentially.
At the last moment the exhaust turned green. That's consistent with the fuel running out, the engines running oxygen rich, and subsequently "engine rich". So I would put my money on actually running out vs a measurement error.
I heard somewhere the engine efficiency is still somewhat variable so they burned more fuel than anticipated.
That's basically what Musk said, yes: that they need to work on both engine performance and performance consistency. He said they'd be cutting off the main engines one second sooner to provide more margin for boost-back.
Amazing that a one-second difference can matter, but those things go through tons of fuel every one of those seconds!
"Slightly low on fuel."
If I understand correctly, the margin was tight enough not to take the risk of damaging the tower.
And if the landing footage is any indication, it sure looks like they would have made the catch anyway if they'd gone for it.
landing footage shows exactly why they didn't attempt the tower catch - the final braking burn was engine rich (green tint), it didn't blow up, but there was a respectable chance of it just crashing into the tower running on less than fumes
The goal, as I understand it, is to return the booster with as little fuel as possible at time of catch -- and not run short.
The booster footage indicated to me that its engines turned off, and then the body of the booster imploded, before it touched the ground and then became the expected fireball.
I'm definitely not a rocket scientist, but this series of events leads me to believe that the fuel was absolutely exhausted.
Their risk tolerance would probably be greater if both towers were fully operational. But any damage to the only functional tower during booster catch = an automatic abort to the ship catch one day later, and the ship catch is what was really interesting at this point of development.
Holy ship, it was picture perfect capture!
That was incredible to watch!
Huge congratulations to the team.
Ah man I just missed it. The live feed is just stock footage. Any links to the catch?
Last few minutes here:
https://x.com/spacex/status/2121316300702056595
https://youtu.be/jHlpfNSpBmw?t=3233
Damned impressive.
The heat shield looks very good. Excited to see how much work it will take to fly this again. I'm in awe. I like the future sometimes.
That was incredible impressive, what a feat of engineering!
The most amazing thing i've seen in a while.
We witnessed history today
Holy cow.
i wonder how much fuel was left over after landing? What is their safety margin in seconds of burn remaining?
Probably 2 to 3 seconds max? You pay a massive penalty for carrying any extra fuel.
Legendary ♥
It's difficult to underline how huge this is. This marks the first time in the history of rocketry that the upper stage of a rocket has returned home from orbit to a safe, upright landing.
(And to preempt the obvious objection: yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough, but it didn't do upright landings, its external tank was not reusable and even the Shuttle itself was effectively rebuilt from scratch at exorbitant cost each time.)
It's sad to see a lot of media missing the point, eg as I type this BBC is reporting this as "SpaceX successfully catches part of Starship rocket on its return to Earth".
Edit: corrected to note that the SRBs were reusable, but the ET was not.
> none of its boosters were reusable
Notably, they were reusable! Sure, they had to refurbish them, same with the shuttle’s main engines. The only thing they threw away was the external tank which didn’t have any engines.
> none of its boosters were reusable
The SRBs of the shuttle landed by parachute and were recovered from the water and reused
Don't forget the X37
Whatever you call it, the Shuttle Orbiter wasn’t a complete stage in any case. It needed the external tank, which was never recovered.
SpaceX has now demonstrated all the pieces of a fully reusable launcher. Next comes putting them all together in the same flight, and hopefully demonstrating that the flights can become frequent and cheap. There’s no guarantee of that, but it’s looking good.
> yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough
Why wouldn't it count? It is not the first time in the history of rocketry that the part that is not the boosters returns home intact.
Sure, you can say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it lands upright", but you could also say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it is not white".
If you want to say how huge this is, tell me how different it is from landing the boosters. Because from the outside it sure as hell looks very similar.
The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight. (SRBs are recovered, the ET is not.) However, the Orbiter is completely incapable of flight without the other three, so it's not a rocket stage on its own, just part of one.
As for why it's harder to catch Starship than Super Heavy, where do I begin:
* Super Heavy is suborbital, its maximum velocity is far, far less than Starship.
* Super Heavy returns upright. The Starship does the famous but aerodynamically very complex "belly flop" to reduce speed.
* Super Heavy only has two static fins to guide it. Starship has four actively controlled fins that need to survive the extreme forces of launch and re-entry.
> The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight and burn up in the atmosphere.
Nitpick- the SRBs were also recovered and reused
Right you are, corrected.
Thanks, the insights about Super Heavy vs Starship are interesting.
About how "huge" it is, I understand that it is economically huge: Musk will get even richer.
I would be interested in knowing how "huge" it is in terms of engineering. Like, my understanding is that they needed to invent new maths to go to the moon in the 60s. Does SpaceX compare with that, or is it "just" what you can do with a lot of money and powerful computers?
Genuinely interested, even though rocket fans will hate me for not knowing the answer and daring asking. Bring the downvotes!
The boosters didn’t orbit.
I think the space shuttle counts as a landed rocket orbiter, though.
You know what was huge? James Webb telescope.
Look its cool to see a catch like this, it doesn't necessarly feels that difficult tbh?
And I just don't get it? Is it cool to watch? yes, but whats the endgoal besides reducing costs for starlink and military stuff?
Do you want more cool stuff like James Webb in orbit? Fully reusable huge rockets like Starship is how you get them there.
Also, remember how JWST had to do that incredibly complex and fiddly in-orbit expansion and alignment to fit together the mirror after launch? If Starship had been available at the time, this would have been far easier, since Starship has twice the diameter (four times the area) of the Ariane rocket they used to launch it.
Can Starship get to L2?
Besides that I really really wished it wouldn't be Elon Musk, i'm looking forward to cheaper stuff so its easier to send science stuff up. Don't get me wrong at all.
But it feels like hyperbole.
Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it?
Or do you see it more like a milestone seeing?
And for me, it still feels like if Elon Musk tries his Dataenter 'idea' and really sneds up everyday a Starship, we will lose a lot of control as normal humans whats going on in space and what will happen to our atmosphere.
> Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it?
It only took the entire existence of humanity to reach this point.
I'm not willing to hand-wave that away as some kind of technologically-obvious conclusion.
> it doesn't necessarly feels that difficult tbh?
Are you for real?
?! We know how to send rockets up, we know how to send them back to earth. We know how to stabilize a rocket. I mean we fly them for ages?!
'that difficult'
Look at projects like James Webb telescope.
It's very impressive
Best thing ever built and it works!!!
How many years until the next milestones?
- in orbit refueling
- moon landing
- Mars rendez-vous
- Mars landing
- humans on Mars
Nah, the game is to put data centers in space. Plus the Space Force dreams.
It's important to be able to set aside cynicism, even if for a single hour, to enjoy technological achievements like this.
I am not a cynic, but a realist. It is easy to do things when you put a ton of money towards the effort so I find this nothing special. Maybe when I was a child these things would fascinate me, but they are just engineering.
So, what would amaze me? Ending homelessness in the United States. Because that takes more than money. I would like to swap the "passion" or engineering for the "compassion" of ending suffering. Very easy to shape and change material things, very hard to change the heart.
The people you want to share your excitement might be suffering under the same separation of wealth that made this landing possible. (Yet there is little talk that they failed to catch the booster and it exploded).
> Ending homelessness in the United States
You don't need private people/companies or more taxes for that. US has enough resources to do it already. Maybe you should go ask your politicians, better yet, ask your friends/neighbors/yourself if you are ready to take the drastic steps necessary to solve that.
Well to start off, I am homeless, so I can’t really ask myself for help with that.
But imagine engineering hearts so that we did not have to ask?
Semaglutide will likely help on the homelessness front, both directly and by helping us understand deep drives better in general.
Musk's Neuralink is ironically likely to help on the psychiatric disorder side.
Just Send More Money™ is not likely to help (as you recognize). Neither is "compassion".
ofc a comment like that would get downvoted by investors and technologists, but yes i agree, if you have enough imagination and money, almost anything in engineering is eventually possible. that same imagination and money is rarely spent on making the experience of living beings who are suffering nicer. but we dont live in a 1D world and all people need a win, engineering nerds included.
Is it? I mean, I’m loving this historic event but if someone wants to remember the stupid parts, what’s wrong with that?
It is important to recognize what technology will be used for and demand it won‘t be used for evil.
The implied claim being "datacenters are evil"?!
s/evil/a scam/
That ship has sailed since the V2 rocket.
That ship has sailed since the first rockets were used to launch bombs and incendiaries somewhere in China, a long time ago. Hammers can be used to build and to kill. Knives cut wood as well as flesh. Humans are belligerent primates whether we want it or not, changing that isn't something even all humanities faculties in the world can manage nor any ideologue intent on creating the New Soviet Man or Übermensch or transhumanist. Fortunately there tend to be more people intent on doing 'good' things with technology than 'bad', where 'good' can also include defending against those doing 'bad' things even though that is a thin line to walk.
Since the rock and the stick.
In orbit refueling is likely next year. The goal is to have two shots at a moon landing in 2028.
And a nuclear ion rocket scheduled for 2028 as well.
The current NASA administrator is doing a good job getting rid of all the things keeping NASA from doing things. (And at least after Artemis II, both parties in congress seemed to be on his side.)
Launches, Starlink, military provide cash. SpaceX needs to be profitable at least to some extent.
All I want are bigger and more cleverly located space telescopes, a couple of more probes and orbiters around other planets and asteroids, and I want those Mars samples that Percy has been pooping over the Mars surface returned to Earth and studied in a lab. And maybe a probe to Alpha Centauri or exo-planet viewers that use the Sun’s gravitational lensing in the next 5 or 6 decades.
We will need nuclear propulsion for a lot of that, but the good news is that it has already been built and demonstrated back in the 70s.
edit: Rate limited so adding link to interview the reply mentions here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujfF_SnxvZQ
And NASA is working on it again! Isaacman talked about it in a recent interview with Everyday Astronaut.
I think the concept for the Alpha Centauri probes uses solar sails and externally fired lasers[1]. The exo-planet viewer concept also proposes solar sails.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2069_Alpha_Centauri_mission
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_gravitational_lens
I don't know how long it will take, but I'll be here watching you seethe as they hit each one and you post another list.
yes exactly
“Full flow engines can’t be made!”
“Okay, they can, but the engines are too complex and expensive!”
“Okay, they can be made much simpler and cheaper, but they’re not powerful enough!”
“Okay, they’re powerful enough but the heat shield won’t work!”
“Okay, it works, but catching a rocket is impractical!”
“Okay, catching a rocket is practical, but…” <—- we are here.
Coming up next:
"They'll never be able to re-use the ship"
"They can re-use it, but it's not economical".
"They can re-use it economically but can't be fast enough"
"They can re-use it economically and fast back to back...but look at the amount of environmental damage!"
"They can't generate enough power to fix the damage"
"They generated enough power to undo environmental damages but ruined the sky"
...
What actually is the point of all this? I'm not trying to be a snarky contrarian, I've never had any interest whatsoever in space, star trek, "what's out there?", so I genuinely don't get it.
I'm not trashing people's interests, obviously I am the odd man out in not giving a damn, I just don't see what we're trying to achieve when there are so many issues we can't even figure out on earth.
If you don’t get it, nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise.
The people who “had an interest” in pursuing the unknown built the entire modern world that you exist in, since so many things have some connection back to the space program, including ironically the very device you’re using to express your opinion. So it’s probably worth paying them a little respect.
So we did the moon landing btw.
Shouldn't you be able to articulate a proper answer without any issues?
Is it an engineering feat? Yes.
But i would bet James Webb Telescope and Moon landing were a lot bigger?!
A single one of these Starship's payloads can deliver a telescope approximately 20-25x larger than the James Webb Telescope.
Okaaayyy? We still were able to send James Webb up without a Starship?
Soooo?!
Its cheaper okay, we can send up bigger things good but the comment stated
"So it’s probably worth paying them a little respect."
It sounds like i get down to my knee for Space-X and i still don't get it
This is the most powerful rocket ever constructed. It has the largest possible payload. The James Webb is tiny compared to what is possible. No other rocket can do that. End of. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
Ah I see a fanboy.
Okay I get it, discussion useless.
Just to be clear: James Webb was build and designed with nanometer aligned optical system, has to be cooled down while being at L2, can't be serviced and repaired and it was only enough money there to build it once and took 5 years of building and 25 years of planning.
A rocket is an engineering joke inc omparision.
Perhaps you don't have any clue that earth and it's inhabitants are very, very likely to be the only one, - - or, of the very few planets in our known universe, with such a sequence of events over millions if not billions of years that allow us to be living beings, evolving - - while out in space is a vacuum, intense radiation, no oxygen, no food or water for many hundreds if not thousands of light years distance away. Incredibly few of our species grasps this fact and actually appreciates it ...
These people are completely useless. They would never come out of the cave or the forest. They'd sit in the village they were born in forever never knowing what is beyond the horizon. Never tasting the fruits of the universe forever content with only what they can see only to be wiped out by a random virus or errant rock from the sky. I am so so thankful for the engineers, scientists, and literally every junior dev at SpaceX right now.
Well considering we gave SpaceX a contract to get us to the moon and for that to happen it needs to do something ridiculous like 20+ in orbit refueling yeah it's a pretty important thing to criticize.
What's the point of heating sand - we barely have enough food to feed our pre-industrial society.
That's your reaction to watching this? Pretty sad.
I mean, you need to get money from somewhere to fund your dreams. If it's datacenters in space then let be it. They are pretty cool as well. It seems a lot of people don't like them on Earth.
>They are pretty cool as well.
That remains to be determined. The math with blackbody radiation cooling borderline works. So they may be cool, but whether it is enough ...
But I don't think we will see success before the craziness down here has settled down and they don't face the political headwinds they currently do. And I don't think that they can compete with ground based per unit cost no matter what kind of black magic they do.
Those exploration dreams can only exist via the bankrolling of government contracts and riding bubbles.
Google is only able to fund Waymo, Quantum Computing, etc because of their questionably moral ads cash cow.
I hope they can make significant progress before the socialists take over. They were practically begging for launch permits under Biden.
Magical era. What a feat!
From Wernher von Braun to Elon Musk... It seems we're living in a Mel Brooks movie (with the funny parts removed).
Congrats to the engineers.
(But lose the bastard at the top, OK?)
He's actively holding the program back at this point. Top engineers in this industry are increasingly reluctant to join a company with a such a toxic culture and public reputation tainted by musk.
Feels good.
New tech tree unlocked for humanity.
This is exactly the most impressive feat of engineering I have ever seen.
Only catching both the booster and the rocket would top this one. But the rocket only being caught is still impressive regardless.
SpaceX below $1T is criminally undervalued.
SpaceX below $1T is criminally undervalued.
Launch itself isn't super profitable and doesn't have a very big TAM, especially if you carefully treat the TAM as a present value and discount future cash flows. Also, at least by my personal guesswork, Starlink alone shouldn't get close to a $1 trillion valuation. It seems like the current valuation is based on people's guesses about the likelihood that space data centers pan out in a big way.
Well, both booster and ship catches have been demonstrated now.
Did they catch both of them in this mission?
It was meant to be a dual catch of the booster and the rocketship and only the rocketship itself was caught.
Catching both of them in another mission would top this one.
... especially if they reuse either part.
Why is Space-X undervalued because they can catch a rocketship?
You do understand that a company needs to have a business case equivilient to its valuation right?
Going to Moon only costs money, going to Mars only costs money.
Our whole planet sends 1000-2000t of payload into space, most of it is now starlink.
> Why is Space-X undervalued because they can catch a rocketship?
The market values SpaceX over multiple areas of the business and their future plans and it isn't just this event which they have proven to accomplish.
> You do understand that a company needs to have a business case equivilient to its valuation right?
Nope. That is not how this works nor how investors see it. It is about their total addressable market (TAM) which SpaceX can capture over everyone else. So here are some more further questions:
1) Who is paying SpaceX for the compute that they have?
2) How quick is SpaceX building their data centers to support their customers?
3) How many people use Starlink as their primary internet provider?
You understand that almost all of where SpaceX businesses can expand into those areas and grow into that valuation and higher?
> Our whole planet sends 1000-2000t of payload into space, most of it is now starlink.
Your point is?
So who else can catch and reuse a rocketship to frequently deploy satellites into space in a very short period of time? (Don't say Blue Origin.)
Don't you think the US government is very likely to put restrictions on what other countries can use Spacex for?
1) Anthropic because Elon Musk bought too much Compute and doesn't need it for his own AI proudct. In parallel Neoclouds are building up the same compute and its more like a negative sign that they got lucky
2) ? I don't understand what you mean. Are we now talking about Datacenters for others or the space thing?
3) probably below 8 million. 10 Million customer overall, plenty as an alternative or for camping etc.
Amazon Leo is an alternative. But for sure Space-X started a race to the bottom (china, blue origin and co) so they have to start moving and use their first mover advantage.
My point is, that Space-X is already responsible for the most amount of payload which gets send into space. We as a whole planet don't have that much payload and Space-X made it alot cheaper to send payload up.
So were is the 1 Trillion evaluation? Btw. its currently at 1.89T
Damn, that looked smooth and glorious. This is how I'd like the future to be.
SpaceX made me watch engineering feats live on stream. I love it!
This achievement likely changes the course of life in this solar system.
What?
Why?
Are suddenly aliens on the moon or mars and now because its cheaper to send stuff there, its now suddenly economically worthwhile to do so?
perfect. hyperbole failure moment
Impressive how reliable they've made those engines!
Kind of crazy to reduce the hardware on ship so much and move so much complexity to the ground. This can really only happen in a situation where anybody can throw out any dumb idea, because if you suggested this 20 years ago people would think you are an idiot.
That's...the point. You can hire commercial welders to work on the ground side and build everything out once, cheaply.
The issue with the shuttle era was that they needed huge teams of specialized technicians to refurbish the insanely complex orbiter after every mission.
If we ever get sufficiently improved materials science for heat shields and engines there's still always a possibility of returning to the SSTO space plane concept. That would allow a more austere launch and recovery environment, but given current limitations this is the local maxima.
What do you mean? Reducing the complexity of the drive doesn't mean moving anything to ground?
Or do i miss something?
It's just mostly newtonian physics ... nice job but not that impressive. With the right investments we could have done this decades ago.
I want you to comment on the first commercial fusion reactor too, please
A+ hacker news comment
Reusable stages is very neat, but seems a little crazy to pay the tyranny of the rocket equation twice. I heard one person say that carrying fuel to land over the whole flight means it takes 23x more launches to get an equivalent payload to orbit.
Using modern technology, couldn't disposable first stages be produced much more cheaply than during the space race?
How much of modern manufacturing disposable booster's cost would be fuel vs metal?
I heard one person say that carrying fuel to land over the whole flight means it takes 23x more launches to get an equivalent payload to orbit.
I recommend talking with people who know more about spaceflight.
Starship HLS is estimated to require 22 refueling launches to support 1 moon mission.
OP, this is probably the source of the confusion. Some people are claiming that SpaceX will need 20+ refueling launches for human lunar landings. However, that's a very different claim than reusable rockets requiring 23x more launches just to carry the same amount of payload to Earth orbit.
Without knowing how much it would take in expendable configuration, that doesn’t imply that it takes 23 times as many launches
How is that even relevant? The Starship HLS launch won’t be landing the upper stage.
> I recommend talking with people who know more about spaceflight.
Yes, because asking on HN if such people would be willing to answer obviously gets you downvotes and comments like this.
It's not paying it twice. The rocket equation is about the ratio of the wet and dry mass, so for an expendable rocket you're always limited by the fact that there's an upper stage (and for the second stage the payload etc).
This is why SpaceX cares more about TWR for their engines than traditional rockets did. It goes from making a negligible difference to a huge component of how much fuel they need to keep for landing.
This seems a little confused.
The 23x more launches figure comes from HLS (Nasa sponsored mission to the moon). They may well change the configuration of that anyway, but if you want to refuel in orbit, that's what it costs. It's hard to get fuel to orbit (or any sort of payload). Previous Moon missions haven't refueled anything, but they couldn't return anything heavy from the moon's surface, the vehicle got smaller and smaller as it went and many parts were left behind, so it's not comparable. You can be sure if it's cheaper to somehow do this mission with expendable boosters, they'll think about doing that.
On a normal mission just to earth orbit, there is one booster and one starship, and reusing the booster is more a question of why not save some money for a little more propellant use? The reususable booster doesn't contribute much extra weight, it uses little propellant for boostback and landing.
The booster also doesn't go all the way and you need a booster if you're going to reach orbit (due to that equation), so it doesn't take much to make it reusable. So all in all, why not make it reusable if you can? What would you save from using expendable ones?
If the fuel (+ oxidizer) ends up costing as much as 1% of the cost of launching a conventional single-use rocket then the people behind it will be very happy. That means that their rocket (+ cost of ground facilities + all the people prepping the rocket and monitoring the launch) is very cheap.
The fuel (+ oxidizer) is basically free compared to all the other costs.
Fuel is so much cheaper than ships.
But you need more ship to carry that fuel, which is exactly what the tyranny of the rocket equation refers to.
Correct. Economics still work out pretty solidly in favor of reuse.
This claim doesn't make sense to me, you need most of the fuel to escape gravity. Coming back is almost free.
It costs less, but it is not free. The stages need to be designed to come back and that adds weight. Additionally you need some fuel, it is not all air breaking. And every bit of weight is really bad, because of the rocket equation.
Without internal figures no one can say what is ultimately financially better. Especially now that the development is a sunken cost.
Those numbers don't make sense.
It doesn't take the same amount of fuel to land as it does to lift.
Speaking as a Kerbal Space program playing, internet commentor, It's probably <1% of the fuel to briefly counteract terminal velocity as it is to lift off and reach space.
That 23x number is trivially refuted simply by looking at the fact that this flight delivered 52 tons of cargo to orbit. Could a similarly sized expendable rocket like the Saturn V deliver 1196 tons?
How is it twice? Braking on the way down doesn't take nearly as much fuel as lift off so the "tyranny of the rocket equation" should be paid only once.
"I heard one person say that carrying fuel to land over the whole flight means it takes 23x more launches to get an equivalent payload to orbit."
I don't think that this is the case when using the atmosphere to shed most of your velocity, which is what we do when landing on Earth. Propulsive braking would be another story, but you can avoid that on bodies that do have some atmosphere. In our proximity, only the Moon and Mercury would need propulsive braking, but Moon's gravity is low and Mercury is hard to visit anyway.
That said, once you use the atmosphere to cushion what is basically a fall, the weight of the necessary heat shield comes to the equation too.
That's like saying we shouldn't reuse airplanes after one flight because you'd have to fly it 23 times to have it pay for that reuse.
That's still 1000x cheaper than... building a new airplane every flight.
And anyway those numbers area about moon missions, not low earth orbit.
They use the atmosphere to brake, not fuel.
Do we just look past the failed primary booster objective? (I didn't write the brief)
Edit: Yes, ignore that bit.
Booster catch has been done as has booster re-flight. The only remaining part of the full functionality that has not been proven out is ship reuse.
I see.
"The booster’s primary objective on Flight 15 will be executing a successful launch, ascent, stage separation, boostback burn, and return to the launch site for catch. This will be the first return and catch attempt for a Super Heavy V3 booster." [1]
[1] https://www.spacex.com/launches/starship-flight-15
Please go back to reddit