SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Elon Musk tells SpaceX employees that its Starship rocket is the top priority now
SpaceX launched astronauts for the first time barely a week ago but CEO Elon Musk does not want the company resting on its laurels.
Instead, Musk urged SpaceX employees to accelerate progress on its next-generation Starship rocket "dramatically and immediately," writing Saturday in a company-wide email seen by CNBC.
"Please consider the top SpaceX priority (apart from anything that could reduce Dragon return risk) to be Starship," Musk wrote in the email.
[...] So far, the company's Starship development program in Boca Chica, Texas has suffered four dramatic setbacks. While SpaceX has made progress on each iteration, the most recent prototype exploded shortly after an engine test on May 29.
Also at Teslarati.
SpaceX's Starship Super Heavy booster needs a custom assembly tower
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has confirmed that Starship's Super Heavy rocket booster will get its own tower-like vehicle assembly building (VAB) – and work on the structure may have already begun.
While the only visible work SpaceX has thus far completed on its next-generation Starship launch vehicle is related to the more complex and unproven upper stage of the rocket, its Super Heavy first stage (booster) is just as critical. For SpaceX, Starship was the perfect starting point, itself following on the footsteps of a largely successful multi-year Raptor engine development program. Substantially smaller than Super Heavy and requiring 5-10 times fewer engines, Starship serves as a testbed for an almost entirely new suite of technologies and strategies SpaceX is employing to build massive rockets out of commodity steel.
[...] While Starship itself is not exactly small at ~50m (165 ft) tall and 9m (30ft) wide, the Super Heavy booster tasked with launching the ship on its way to orbit will easily be the largest individual rocket stage ever built. Currently expected to measure 70m (230 ft) tall, Super Heavy – just the first stage of the Starship launch vehicle – will already be as tall as an entire Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy and weigh roughly three times more than the latter triple-booster rocket when fully fueled. At liftoff, Super Heavy will produce more than triple the thrust of Falcon Heavy and double the thrust of Saturn V, the most powerful liquid-fueled rocket to reach orbit.
Thanks to the sheer size of the booster, SpaceX's existing Starship-sized vehicle/vertical assembly building (VAB) is far too small for Super Heavy and is even too short to fully stack a ~50m Starship. SpaceX's contractor of choice started assembling that VAB around January 15th and the facility was able to begin supporting its first Starship stacking and welding operations on March 2nd, just a month and a half later, with the structure fully completed by March 18th. As such, assuming the in-work foundation is as close to completion as it seems and SpaceX uses the same contractor for the next building, Super Heavy's VAB could be ready to build the first massive booster prototype as early as July or August. Things could take a bit longer given that Musk says the booster VAB will be 81m (265 ft) tall, nearly twice the height of Starship's VAB, but likely by no more than a few weeks.
Previously: Today WAS the Day -- Crew Demo 2 Launch Successful -- Heading to ISS [Updated]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2020, @09:31AM (5 children)
Dashing and daring,
Courageous and caring,
Faithful and friendly,
With stories to share.
All through the forest,
They sing out in chorus,
Marching along,
As their song fills the air.
Gummi Bears!!
Bouncing here and there and everywhere.
High adventure that's beyond compare.
They are the Gummi Bears.
Magic and mystery,
Are part of their history,
Along with the secret,
Of gummiberry juice.
Their legend is growing,
They take pride in knowing,
They'll fight for what's right,
In whatever they do.
Gummi Bears!!
Bouncing here and there and everywhere.
High adventure that's beyond compare.
They are the Gummi Bears.
They are the Gummi Bears!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2020, @12:15PM
Oh my, now you've done it.
Just when everybody thought it was hard work and attention to detail.
You have let out the secret of GB.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @02:19PM
I would have a greater level of confidence if they were baked by little elves in a hollow tree.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 10 2020, @03:43AM (2 children)
Okay, I have no idea if that's legit Spam or just a whoosh. Anyone want to clue me in if it's the latter?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2020, @06:25PM (1 child)
I don't know, but I loved the show as a kid and was glad to see it show up on Disney+. I am not the same Anonymous Coward as OP though.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 12 2020, @02:21PM
I didn't much care about the show but I liked the theme song pretty well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @02:29PM (19 children)
Now that SpaceX has gotten two astronauts in orbit, there are no remaining life critical phases of the mission that could possibly require attention to detail.
<no-sarcasm>
While I agree Starship is and should be a development priority, making a speech like this can send the wrong message and set the wrong tone. Oh, so now manned space fright is second (or lower) priority.
Why can't the message be that both things are important. That SpaceX can do multiple things while bringing its very best to each of them.
Having one item be top priority sends a message that other things are not top priority. It's the wrong tone. If the reality is that SpaceX is still going to be as dedicated to crew safety as it has (apparently) been so far, then why suggest otherwise by sending a "top priority" message about some other project that is not immediately critical to the nation.
Please don't read that to mean I don't wish SpaceX great success in the development of their Starship. But be more tactful in their message.
</no-sarcasm>
Failure is not an option -- it comes bundled with Microsoft products.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 1) by PaperNoodle on Tuesday June 09 2020, @02:40PM (6 children)
>so now manned space fright is second (or lower) priority.
I see it as saying that manned space flight should go beyond LEO and back to the Moon via Artemis and Starship as the lander.
Make space accessible and cheap so that flights/landings to the moon are as regular as flights to the ISS.
B3
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @04:08PM (5 children)
Whether Elon blesses that plan or not, it may simply be more practical to use starship to go to the moon first.
Use star ship heavy booster to build bigger private space stations, with a McDonalds and refueling station.
As much as Mars is exciting, wouldn't it be a bit more practical to build a moon base first? There are big differences between Moon and Mars. But in the early years of colonizing another object, the moon definitely has more practical lifeboat escape options.
No matter what, cheap access and regular flights are essential. Otherwise, we do the same as the last 50 years.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 2, Funny) by gmby on Tuesday June 09 2020, @04:53PM (1 child)
If you invite McDuckes into space; I'll slap you in the name of all humanity!
Bye
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @05:25PM
How would you expect the president to obtain his standard order:
2 x Big Mac
2 x Filet O'Fish (yuk! and double yuk!)
Shake
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by PaperNoodle on Tuesday June 09 2020, @05:11PM (1 child)
I would hope Elon blesses the plan and sees the practicality of NASA money to help develop Starship. SpaceX was one of 3 designs [nasa.gov] selected for the Lunar lander for Artemis.
B3
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @05:26PM
I hope so too. But alas the world is screwed up. I expect SLS will have to win. Because. The senator from Alabama.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday June 09 2020, @07:14PM
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-moon-starship-step-towards-mars/ [teslarati.com]
https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-starship-elon-musk-explains-rocket-to-the-moon [inverse.com]
SpaceX seems willing to make a variant for each use case. Cargo (uncrewed), fuel tanker, Mars (crewed), and now Moon (crewed). And they have received $135 million to begin work on a Moon-focused design.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday June 09 2020, @04:12PM (11 children)
His position seems pretty clear to me - risk-reduction for Crew Dragon is still a priority, but other than that, Dragon is a dead-end project. There's no long-term future for it, it's a stop-gap solution to secure funding from NASA until Starship is certified to take over.
Moreover, Crew Dragon is second-generation technology that's already undergone extensive design refinement and testing - if there's problems with the design that haven't become apparent yet, they may well not be worth fixing. I'm sure they'll be closely monitoring the capsule's performance looking for any anomalies while it's docked to the ISS, but other than that there's not really a whole lot they can realistically do. Other than wasting simulation and design analysis time on a dead-end project that will hopefully be retired within a few years.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @04:29PM (4 children)
I agree that what you say is pretty clear.
Also clear is that you don't want to keep changing a booster and capsule that is being used for human flight. At least, any changes, must be carefully controlled and conservative.
And, of course, blow up and later prove the reliability of radical new changes to your heart's content.
Yes, Starship is the focus of new development.
What I'm saying is that saying Starship is top priority, as a public statement, can send a wrong message that SpaceX does not care, or will take shortcuts, etc with crewed flight. While I'm sure that it not true, it can be read from that message. Because clearly anything NOT starship is lower priority -- which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation to take.
Maybe there was some better way to say that Starship is SpaceX's exciting new development it is working on, while still saying they continue to work hard on commercial launches and crewed launches.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday June 09 2020, @05:18PM (3 children)
I think one of the things that really liberates SpaceX to innovate is that they don't have to care at all what "the public" thinks - unlike NASA which is firmly under the thumb of politicians whose entire career is based on manipulating public perceptions. The public is not their customers, and their customers are unlikely to care how the public might misinterpret their statements (Besides which, how much of "the public" pays any attention to SpaceX announcements? Besides their fan/troll club.). Their flight record speaks for itself, and they're dramatically cheaper than any of the alternatives. I think I heard they're currently responsible for something like 80% of global launches? It's pretty much only nations bolstering their own space programs that are using anyone else. In that environment you barely even have to care what your customers think - they can fly with you, or they can pay far more for no better reliability.
Falcon 9 and Dragon are as mature as they're likely to get, barring the discovery of easily fixed problems. There may not even be many more of them ever built. Seems to me that publicly stating that your priority is your next-gen product is a pretty clear way of broadcasting to your existing and potential future customers that they should start planning around that product rather than the existing one - and is a pretty common kind of statement from just about any company. And considering that Starship is going to open the door for a vast range of new customers that don't currently have any suitable launch options (i.e. they need a much larger payload or cheaper launch to be viable), telling them "this is coming soon" is going to be a much more valuable statement than lying to your existing customers about how important the existing rocket is in their plans.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @05:33PM (2 children)
NASA money is useful to SpaceX. So SpaceX should give some consideration to "the politics" of what they say, and what kind of message it sends. I'm not trying to be too critical. Just that maybe they could have said it a bit better.
What I hope ultimately: that SpaceX eventually no longer needs NASA and can do whatever they think is best both commercially and for the good of humanity.
At some point the economics of SpaceX will make it harder and hopefully impossible to fund many, or hopefully even a single launch of SLS. Four engines at $140+ Million each, with SLS launch cost estimated to be $2+ Billion. Think of what SpaceX could do with that much money.
I agree that Falcon 9 and Dragon 2 are likely mature and need little to no new development. But many in the public don't get that. The "top priority" message gives some SpaceX critics, or NASA commercial space critics ammunition.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday June 09 2020, @06:05PM (1 child)
I'm not seeing how you could really improve on "Starship is our highest priority, other than Crew Dragon safety".
And it's not like NASA has a lot of options - they can go back to paying a lot more for passage on Russian rockets, or continue waiting to pay ridiculously more for the badly over budget and behind schedule SLS, hoping that Boeing, etc. don't continue to screw up and need years more development and testing before they're ready. Not to mention, Starliner is *also* part of the commercial crew program- there are zero NASA-based crew launch options in the pipeline.
At this point I think it's probably pretty obvious to everyone involved that the "commercial space critics" are far less interested in space than in pork. And that the political tide is turning against that outrageously overpriced pork. I seriously doubt that the arguably indelicate wording of a "public" announcement that will only be read by space enthusiasts is going to give anyone any ammunition worth caring about.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @06:43PM
I hope that is the case.
But political opponents can be nasty. Very nasty. Petty. Vindictive. And can try to marshal public resources against their perceived enemies.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 09 2020, @07:26PM (5 children)
NASA may use Crew Dragon for a long time. It's based on proven technology, has an abort system that can bypass the upper stage, and can do splashdowns.
https://everydayastronaut.com/starship-abort/ [everydayastronaut.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday June 09 2020, @07:51PM (4 children)
Maybe, assuming it continues to be worthwhile to SpaceX to support and operate an obsolete rocket for a single customer.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 09 2020, @08:25PM (3 children)
They announced Dragon XL pretty recently, intended for Artemis. I think SpaceX will continue churning out Falcon and Merlin for another 10 years or more if NASA wants it. Although they should obviously try to transition away from it.
Another interesting bit is that NASA has apparently approved of using "flight-proven" Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 for CREWED launches [teslarati.com]. This is huge news that could mean that less boosters and Dragon capsules need to be built to meet NASA's needs.
If Starlink becomes successful, the launch business could become a small slice of SpaceX's revenue. It also gives them an opportunity to engage in true anti-competitive practices. They could sell Starship launches at cost or less and undercut the entire planet's medium/superheavy and smallsat launch capabilities.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday June 09 2020, @10:44PM (2 children)
Perhaps so - though it's worth pointing out that Artemis is a near-term project. While Starship is still almost completely unproven technology that is vanishingly unlikely to be passenger-certified on a relevant timetable.
You might be right about another 10 years of Falcon support, but I rather doubt it will be longer than that. Keep in mind that the second that Starship proves itself, Falcon 9 not only becomes completely irrelevant to Musk's goal of colonizing Mars, but actually a hindrance, since keeping them in operation means continuing to operate production, refurbishment, and launch facilities that no longer contribute anything to their long-term goals. Cultivating good will with NASA is probably worth something - the question is how much. NASA will also have strong incentive to get Starship certified for crew missions since it would greatly increase their capacity while lowering costs. (I believe Musk has stated that Starship should be cheaper per launch almost immediately, and will eventually be cheaper to *build* than Falcon 9.)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 09 2020, @11:09PM (1 child)
I can think of an amusing solution. Sell/license Falcon 9 + Heavy + Merlin. Just give away all the trade secrets and responsibilities to ULA or another company, maybe shedding a few knowledgeable employees that can train a batch of engineers to understand what they're working with. But I'm not sure maintaining both Falcon and Starship is so much trouble, and if it is, SpaceX can just demand more money from NASA. If one side balks, it's off.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday June 09 2020, @11:21PM
Not, that'd never work - ULA would never be able to get away with charging ridiculous cost+ contracts, so what would be their motive? :-D
(Score: 3, Interesting) by progo on Tuesday June 09 2020, @02:48PM (8 children)
In 100 years of fiction, a "star ships" travel beyond one star system and into another. SpaceX's interplanetary transport system it's an awe-inspiring project and it deserves our respect, but I with they'd stop calling it a star ship.
(Score: 4, Funny) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday June 09 2020, @03:22PM
They aren't talking about the interstellar drive publicly yet.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday June 09 2020, @04:26PM (4 children)
I imagine you're similarly annoyed by Boeing's "Starliner" - which not only is *also*, not going to the stars, but is a few orders of magnitude too small to be called any kind of "-liner"?
Not to mention more terrestrial examples such as the Chevy Nova, which for all it's problems never once resulted in a planet-vaporizing explosion.
Names are marketing tools and tend to be, at best, hyperbolic. In the case of Starship I happen to think that hyperbole is even somewhat justified - we've had lots of rockets that let us begin to study space and utilize primitive orbital infrastructure, but Starship is the first ever built with the express goal of taking humanity beyond Earth to begin establishing permanent, sustainable outposts on other worlds. To take our first real steps toward the stars.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @04:31PM (3 children)
I wish SpaceX had chosen a better name that conveys meaning like that. Starship does not even sound original, let alone sounding misused or boastful.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Immerman on Tuesday June 09 2020, @04:52PM
Well, if you want to get technical it *is* intended to go to the stars: "planet" is derived from the Greek term meaning "wandering star"
And metaphorically it is intended to take us to the stars - having outposts on other planets is what will push us to develop the technology needed to get beyond our solar system. How long has research into nuclear rockets and high-power ion drives languished for lack of any application for them? Not to mention the intense closed-system recycling technology that will be needed to survive such a (probably multi-generational) journey. And will incidentally likely be very valuable here on Earth as we begin to ameliorate and eventually repair the damage we've done to the Earth.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday June 09 2020, @07:32PM (1 child)
They should perhaps have called it one-sided bacon strip?
I wonder how you'd cut a Mobius bacon strip out of a pork belly.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @09:40PM
Details! Details!
Shirley, the pig and the butcher can work out those minor technical details.
And while I'm on my wish list, I would like the bacon to be 4D please.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 4, Touché) by istartedi on Tuesday June 09 2020, @05:11PM (1 child)
Tell us what you think of an old dude who's been married twice and launches a sub-orbital ship under the banner of "Virgin Galactic". I'll pop the popcorn.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 09 2020, @05:52PM
The thing about Virgin Galactic (Founded 2004) and Blue Origin (Founded 2000) is that neither of their founders seem quite as serious as Elon Musk and his SpaceX (founded 2002). [from Wikipedia]
SpaceX employs 8,000 (as of Nov 2019).
Blue Origin employs 2,500 (as of 2019).
Virgin Galactic employs 721 (no date).
While Elon has risked everything and turned SpaceX into a successful commercial launch provider, and now human crew launch provider, the other two still can't do anything but sub orbital flights.
I don't have a lot of respect when a company's "space" business (at least at some point) was based on the premise of expensive sub orbital amusement park like joy rides for the super rich. Now SpaceX might do that one day. And they have promised a ride around the moon to one big investor. But that was after SpaceX had quite a string of successes at putting things into orbit.
While I don't mean much disrespect to either Virgin or Blue, I could get a lot more excited about their companies if they gave the impression of being serious. Put something in orbit.
And then there is the topic of reusability. Something everyone said was impossible. People laughed at Elon. Just as they laughed at Edison and his failing attempts to build his stupid, inexpensive, incandescent light bulb.
And there is SLS.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2020, @03:58PM (2 children)
i hope the "SN4" blew up because everything for normal operation worked but they just dialed everything up to 120% just to see where the limits are ... and not some random failure?
tbh, i am kindda just following the development "thru the bushes"; don't want to jinx it.
anyways, not to distract from the excellent overall integration, people seem to just see "the rocket" but forget(?) that with rockets it only works if you have a good engine.
the ww2 london bombings only worked because they had a "good engine".
i hope they can figure out "the rest of the ingridients" that go into a reliable rocket too but that new engine is amazing and i hope it won't go to waste (amazing starhopper video but one can totally forget the SCALE of the thing (it's HUGE!)).
(*) for everyone not spaceX
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday June 09 2020, @04:44PM
Last I heard it was due to a fail to re-seal properly while testing the quick-connect umbilical - something that will be absolutely essential for orbital refueling (which is what will allow Starship to reach the Moon, Mars, etc), but isn't directly related to flight-worthiness.
The engine ("Raptor") has seen almost 11 years of development at this point (though early designs were hydrogen rather than methane, and it's not clear how much design work carried over) and testing of various components since 2013, with I want to say somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred hours of full-engine test-firing at this point (or was that minutes? I'm not turning up a quick answer). I doubt it's perfect, and I know they're looking forward to more testing in a vertically-aligned test stand to better simulate flight characteristics, but at this point they've probably got most the big bugs out and are primarily looking to improve long-term durability and reduce the maintenance requirements.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Tuesday June 09 2020, @05:17PM
Explosion definitely not from dialing to 120%. I watched it live. The test pad was overcome with methane. Spark lit the methane. A big boom and a large fireball followed. It even snuffed out the flare down range from the shock-wave.
While not from dialing to 120%, it was still a learning experience.
These guys here have a camera pointed at the Boca Chica TX testing site. They stream from the test site and provide live commentary whenever something interesting might happen. SpaceX tests things all of the time. Much like F1 and NASCAR, I watch for the explosions, but if you like watching lots of venting this might also be the place for you -> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSUu1lih2RifWkKtDOJdsBA [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2020, @04:59PM
Yes it is long and wordy but Everyday Astronaut covers all details:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA69Oh3_obY [youtube.com]