Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Topsyye t1_j9kdqcx wrote

It’ll be awesome when this launch happens , feels like it’s taken so long

84

TheawesomeQ t1_j9kr0nq wrote

I thought they'd do this launch a year ago

28

Topsyye t1_j9l2fzx wrote

Yeah me too, pretty clear they still had a lot of problems to sort out but they say “soon tm” now

15

SpicyFlaps t1_j9mneoy wrote

You can predictably triple any timeline Elon says

Edit: Who would downvote this truth bomb?! Simps

6

Bigjoemonger t1_j9okit7 wrote

Yeah but that tripled time is still faster than anybody else.

Read some of the reviews for working at spacex from former employees. Talking about being worked around the clock.

Elon has stated before if they're going to be successful in their goals then they need to work like there's an asteroid headed towards earth and the only way to stop it is this rocket.

It took NASA over a decade to build SLS which was basically just recycled Apollo. SpaceX is designing an entirely new launch system.

10

[deleted] t1_j9opnj0 wrote

[deleted]

2

robertojh_200 t1_j9orw1n wrote

That’s not detached. That’s the reality of rocket science. Delays are baked into the DNA of the process. At the very moment that he made his comments, they probably were a few months away, but then something broke, or the numbers stopped adding up, or something exploded. SpaceX is still the fastest moving launch company in the world even with the delays.

6

DrunkensteinsMonster t1_j9ot3wy wrote

No. It is detached. Look at the sum of work over the last two years, most of it was always planned. He was saying they were a couple months away when they had scarcely fired any engines on super heavy. He claimed they were a couple months away before they even stacked it, which they had to do with a crane, because the launch tower wasn’t even done yet. That’s coming up on two years ago.

−1

Spider_pig448 t1_j9of5i2 wrote

It has, but it's also easy for forget that it's revolutionary in multiple ways so the long development time seems reasonable

8

Topsyye t1_j9ogskv wrote

Definitely moving faster than SLS

9

HeyImGilly t1_j9kgh57 wrote

Hope that $20/kg becomes a reality in my lifetime.

82

NerfSchlerfen t1_j9o6r04 wrote

Cost-competitive with a space elevator. It'd change everything.

1

JeffFromSchool t1_j9om8h2 wrote

How can you be cost competitive with something that only exists as a far-fetched concept that absolutely no R&D has ever been done on?

That's about as useful as comparing the cost of an F-22 to an X-Wing

4

robertojh_200 t1_j9ormwi wrote

Because we know the physics of how an elevator will work and what sort of mass they could carry for how much energy. The actual development is the far future part but there’s been plenty of research.

5

JeffFromSchool t1_j9osfb2 wrote

The physics doesn't have anything to do with finances. Until some actual engineering is done, there is no projected cost for this. There is no prototype design, or even a realistic concept design.

You don't know how often parts are going to need to be replaced, or how much it will cost to build initially, you don't even know what parts are going into it!

4

cshotton t1_j9ozeoc wrote

With so many unknowns, you seem quite certain in your criticism.

2

NoFittingName t1_j9p701s wrote

Their criticism is exactly that: there are so many unknowns that a comparison is useless.

6

JeffFromSchool t1_j9p6xfc wrote

The only thing I'm certain of is that you can't be certain of the costs enough to be comparative.

With so many unknowns, how on earth can you say "damn, starship is cost competitive with space elevators"?

2

NerfSchlerfen t1_j9qdaij wrote

I'll rephrase. Cost competitive with our best estimate for a space elevator as we currently conceive it.

2

Niwi_ t1_j9or9rh wrote

Considering the arms lobby my money is on the X-Wing

1

5seat t1_j9l1nam wrote

I feel like all they're waiting on (other than the FAA license) is the installation of the water deluge system; and that might actually be the last thing needed to secure the license. Having followed this program since it was a shoddily-welded prototype in a dirt field, it's going to really be something to see a full stack test flight at last!

41

Maker_Making_Things t1_j9mrjkf wrote

Definitely not waiting on the deluge system as that is going to require massive amounts of ground work. They're currently installing protective panels around the outside of the orbital launch mount

10

Underhill42 t1_j9nhw9y wrote

I don't know - they've been racing ahead with the installation of plumbing, buffer tanks, etc... they might be aiming to get it done in the the next month.

It's not like they ever work on only one thing at a time, and those panels are going to have to be able to come off reasonably easily anyway for maintenance and upgrades of the protected components.

6

ElSapio t1_j9n09i5 wrote

Real glad I get to live to watch two massive rockets operating at once.

14

seanflyon t1_j9ngkjp wrote

Starship will be the third super heavy lift launch vehicle currently operational, once it is operational.

4

ElSapio t1_j9nkdsc wrote

Yeah that’s why I didn’t use that definition. Falcon Heavy is incredible but it’s not quite the same level presentation wise

10

reesea17 t1_j9onf7m wrote

I’ve been waiting for this for a loooong time. Will be excited to see them finally light this candle. Can only hope for a successful orbital insertion of the starship.

6

Decronym t1_j9nep56 wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ASAT|Anti-Satellite weapon| |BFR|Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition)| | |Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice| |FAA|Federal Aviation Administration| |ITAR|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|

^(6 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 8 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8598 for this sub, first seen 23rd Feb 2023, 05:24]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

5

[deleted] t1_j9n4fjy wrote

[deleted]

−4

jamjamason t1_j9ndook wrote

It was called BFR originally, but it's been Starship since 2018.

10

ChefExellence t1_j9o6t13 wrote

It's literally called starship. That's the name of the rocket as given to it by it's creators

4

kimmyjunguny t1_j9nxva4 wrote

its called starship, thats what spacex is calling it.

3

Deathbyhours t1_j9of41x wrote

Are you complaining because people aren’t capitalizing the name of the product? Granted, it isn’t a starship, but it is a Starship. Is that better?

3

mateogg t1_j9p4pk6 wrote

And this is exactly why I think it's a stupid name. The word already existed, and it had a definition, and this does not fit it. It's kind of like designing a new airplane and calling it Flying Car.

−1

Deathbyhours t1_j9p5s9q wrote

So you think Musk should have made up a word for it, like creativity-challenged automakers do?

It’s a marketing name. He is, much more than anything else, a salesman. He could have called it the Star Sphere, I suppose. Of course, that is also already a thing. Wombat? No, also already a thing.

You must find military aircraft names very frustrating.

1

mateogg t1_j9p8t20 wrote

Okay, I was taking "context matters" for granted, but apparently I shouldn't have.

"Falcon". Obviously that word already has a definition and a different one, so that fits my previous complaint. But the difference is that in that case there's no ambiguity. It's a perfectly fine name, I personally think it sounds great and goes well with the object. I love it. Now, if a new species of bat was discovered and it was named "Black Falcon" or something like that, I would say that's fucking stupid, because in that context the name becomes confusing.

Meanwhile Starship has connotations related to space travel that make it evoke false notions in that context, in the same way that calling something that is not spherical a "star sphere" would evoke a false notion because yeah, you call something a sphere, people will expect to see a sphere in pretty much any context.

Wombat. Weird ass name for it. Not very good, in my opinion. But no one will expect a wombat. It would create no ambiguity. But finding a new bear species and calling it "great wombat" would be weird. This kinda thing happens sometimes, and it's always pointed out that this or that name is actually a misnomer that sparks misconceptions. Usually, though, they happen by accident, because of lack of knowledge, people assume two animals are more closely related than they actually are, or that an animal behaves a certain way when it doesn't.

You say "starship" and people will think something very different to what this is, because context matters. This is either stupid and short-sighted or malicious and deceptive. Either way I don't like it.

−1

Deathbyhours t1_j9p9qc4 wrote

The star sphere is the name for the ancients’ earth-centric concept of the “realm of the stars,” a sphere with the earth at its midpoint, the night sky, the cosmos.

Personally, I think it would be a pretty cool name for a spaceship.

1

Maldikons t1_j9lmh51 wrote

Musk's shenanigans with Starlink/Ukraine has kinda sucked out all excitiment about SpaceX.

−51

SanDiegoSolarGuy t1_j9lvhnm wrote

That didn’t take long to show up

50

Washout22 t1_j9m5z65 wrote

People can't deal with 2 different thoughts.

I read post today about how tesla is a giant scam and is going to be the next Enron.

Like, what about all the stuff they make. It's not bad accounting. Lol

23

Bensemus t1_j9r9y3f wrote

It's not even two thoughts. They can't think at all when Musk is involved. SpaceX never turned off Starlink for Ukraine. They restricted Ukraine's ability to use Starlink terminals in the guidance systems of suicide drones. Regular internet access was never affected.

1

Washout22 t1_j9ractp wrote

Yep.

Same people forget that the USA promised never to expand nato to the Russian border under bush Sr.

Not that I support the Russian invasion, but this isn't exactly surprising.

Not like the USA didn't invade Iraq. Not that it's the same situation.

How dare a guy not want to encourage war.

1

sixpackabs592 t1_j9ls6x1 wrote

i get it but they specifically gave it to them for communications and humanitarian aid and they used it for their bomb drones, they still have it for coms as far as i can see they just did something to stop the drone control over starlink

34

rocketsocks t1_j9lzpe6 wrote

That's not the only shenanigans, that's just one example.

−17

OlympusMons94 t1_j9nbq1w wrote

Which shenanigans?

Following US export laws?

Wanting to be paid for services rendered?

Not servicing enemy-occupied territories?

Not being able to instantly keep up with rapid advances and the fog of war to add service to recently-deoccupied territories?

Or just Musk's naive and ignorant tweets about Crimea and referendums that have no more bearing on Starlink or anything else in the real world than him challenging Putin to a duel?

15

Draemeth t1_j9myzoe wrote

Just wait till you hear about what people have done with GPS!

6

Bensemus t1_j9rads6 wrote

The other one where ~2k dishes experience a temporary outage was due to a billing issue between Ukraine, the UK, and SpaceX. That issue was quickly resolved and those dishes were active again. That was 2k out of about 25k.

Or the issue where during an offence Ukraine lost comms through Starlink. that was due to them outrunning it. SpaceX is only activating Starlink in areas Ukraine is operating in. Makes sense SpaceX wouldn't have access to classified military operations so they were slower to act than Ukraine was advancing. That was also quickly fixed as SpaceX activated more cells.

0

bookers555 t1_j9mgf9q wrote

When Musk says something about SpaceX everyone hurries to remind everyone that Musk isn't SpaceX. When SpaceX says something, people complain because of some unrelated Musk thing.

Make up your mind already, r/space.

25

Bensemus t1_j9rajj0 wrote

It's not just r/space. It's all of reddit whenever Musk is mentioned. He's the source of everything wrong with his companies and never involved with what goes right.

With Twitter it's actually probably accurate but not for SpaceX or Tesla.

3

SadMacaroon9897 t1_j9n7m8r wrote

Schrodinger's Starlink: simultaneously a buggy POS that's much too expensive and fails if you look at it meanly...but also a robust communications network that is saving Ukraine and should be nationalized because Musk might turn it off.

21

Emble12 t1_j9na6bc wrote

You mean when Ukrainian soldiers broke the user agreement of Starlink by using it to guide bombs instead of communication?

8

dreamingwell t1_j9m2vnu wrote

Not totally defending SpaceX, but they have to consider what happens if Russia declares open fire their satellites. It would be complete devastation for the company and all of Humanity. So SpaceX has to drawn the line somewhere.

0

dirtydrew26 t1_j9mys1l wrote

Russia doesnt have the means to destroy a satellite constellation. They barely have enough guided missiles to shoot at Ukrainian civilians, let alone high precision missiles for sat kills, which they would need literal hundreds of.

10

DBDude t1_j9qn3xw wrote

They do have to worry about the US government. "You can export restricted satellite technology for communications" is not the same permission as "You can export restricted satellite technology to guide bombs." Dual-use tech is a fun area of ITAR regulations.

3

Draemeth t1_j9mz6rt wrote

It’s easier to consistently hit satellites than people, actually. Satellites have a fixed trajectory, a public location and can’t exactly hide. People are small, annoying, constantly moving, intelligent, underground, hidden, etc. I’d bet Russia could easily take out satellites, but so could a lot of countries

2

Anderopolis t1_j9qx7yw wrote

You are seriously overestimating the number of Russian ASAT ca0able missiles.

2