
We could see an orbital launch of SpaceX’s Starship this year - headalgorithm
https://www.universetoday.com/146472/once-starship-prototypes-are-done-exploding-we-could-see-an-orbital-launch-this-year/
======
squarefoot
Not sure if I understand what's wrong with this. "Once starship prototypes
stop exploding" sounds to me just like "once experimental software stops
crashing". Well, experiments are there to find problems and correct them; we
cannot predict or emulate what we don't know; if I was an engineer I would
absolutely _want_ a prototype starship to tell me there's something wrong,
even by exploding, before real people jumps in for a real flight.

~~~
kortex
Exactly. This is precisely the time for "move fast, break things". They have
comfy traffic with their Falcon like, and can (and should) be going full-
Kerbal with Starship as long as they can afford to. Especially with all the
new techniques they are experimenting with.

------
bryanlarsen
They haven't even decided what they're going to build Starship out of yet.
Current prototypes were built of 301 Stainless Steel, they're currently
switching to 304L, and they've indicated that they'll probably end up using a
fully custom alloy.

But I still believe in the headline. They're building a new prototype every 2
weeks, and they currently have 3 prototypes stacked. This in an industry which
usually takes years to build a single prototype. Their velocity is insane.

~~~
yellowapple
Jesus. If they can put together two prototypes a month, I can only imagine how
many finished versions they might be able to churn out once they're in general
production.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The goal is to manufacture one a week. They expect to be able to fly each one
100 times without any refurbishment, and indefinitely with refurbishment. The
other goal is to be able to fly each Starship 3 times per day!

------
no1youknowz
What makes me most excited about Starship. Is not the first iteration. Of
course, I will be ecstatic when it finally goes into space. But I cannot wait
for version 2!

Version 2 [0] has a diameter of 18m and an astonishing payload.

Whilst V1 will change space launches forever. I think that V2 will become the
most versatile of space vehicles. The capacity so large that it would be able
to launch a copy of the ISS by itself. [1].

I think V2 will usher in new capabilities of manufacturing in space, space
mining on asteroids and off worlds, interstellar way stations (planet hopping
across the solar system) and the ability to launch a global coverage of
Starlinks in 1 launch instead of 24 falcon 9 launches [2].

So yes, while V1 changes the game and puts SpaceX at the forefront of space
and rockets. Once they turn their attention on V2 and that launches.
Absolutely everything changes and true infrastructures can then be built and
once an infrastructure to the end of the solar system occurs. We can only
imagine what humanity looks like.

[0]:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/cwurkj/update...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/cwurkj/updated_18m_superheavy_vs_9m_superheavystarship/)

[1]:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/cy4lno/18m_st...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/cy4lno/18m_starship_i_predict_a_first_launch_launch/)

[2]: [https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-to-start-offering-
starlin...](https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-to-start-offering-starlink-
broadband-services-in-2020)

------
geokon
Does anyone have a good summary of Starship and what the goal is? I still
don't quite understand why they didn't just iterate on the Falcon design and
what necessitates a "full stack" clean slate approach. Why do they need to
develop new engine for instance? Like.. why couldn't they develop new engine
and upgrade the Falcons with them? Once Starship is working consistently, will
the Falcons become obsolete b/c Starships will become much more reusable?

~~~
babesh
Their goal is establishing a Mars colony (1,000,000 humans). That necessitates
a fully reusable rocket that can get humans to Mars and back. That means being
able to enter Mars atmosphere at high speed and landing on Mars. That also
means using a fuel that they can manufacture on Mars to return to Earth.

\- Falcon doesn't have a reusable second stage. Starship's second stage is
reusable. Starship should be more cost efficient because of this.

\- Falcon doesn't have the capacity to carry enough humans and cargo to Mars.
It is a trip that can take upwards of half a year. Starship can supposedly
carry 100 people and 100 tons of cargo. Falcon with Crew Dragon can only carry
7 people a few days.

\- Starship is designed to be able to enter Mars atmosphere. Its skin is
stainless steel and some heat shielding. The stainless steel can survive much
higher temperatures which means less heat shielding. Falcon is aluminum and
would require more heat shielding.

\- Falcon has fuel tanks for its Merlin engines that use rocket fuel (RP-1?)
and oxygen. The tanks are a specific size for the burn ratios. The rocket fuel
can't be readily made on Mars and its mass makes it infeasible to carry enough
fuel for a return. Starship's engines (Raptor) use methane and oxygen. Methane
can be readily made on Mars. Changing Falcon from Merlin to Raptor engines
would mean redesigning the tanks to have different sizes.

Given all this, it makes more sense to design a new rocket than trying to
redesign the existing one.

~~~
imglorp
I like to point out that a Boring Co. tunnel boring machine will fit inside a
Starship. 14 feet vs 30 feet.

Coincidence?

~~~
babesh
Oh. I guess they are living underground.

~~~
baking
And traveling via hyper-loops because the whole vacuum tube collapse thing
won't be an issue.

~~~
imglorp
And you get some radiation protection. And you can process the chewed up
tailings for ice.

------
rotexo
I wonder if putting up a space sunshade (the cloud of lenses version:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade))
would be feasible with starship/superheavy. If so, that strikes me as a way
more important project than Mars colonization. I would prefer the sunshade to
chemical solar geoengineering (dispersing sulfate aerosols), because it seems
like putting objects in space would be more easily reversible. And it seems
like some form of solar engineering will be an absolute necessity (projections
of wet-bulb temperatures killing millions of humans at a time sometime this
century scare the bejeebus out of me).

------
PaulHoule
I think that's hasty.

Starship is not an SSTO and is not expected to reach orbit on its own.

To do an orbital flight they'll need to also develop Super Heavy. That's not
too crazy because Super Heavy is a stretched Starship, but it will take some
time.

~~~
the8472
My understanding is that without payload it is SSTO. Which is mostly useless,
but might be good enough for a test flight. And even if not, musk said that
starship is the hard part, if they got that one working then adding the
booster would be essentially a second starship without nose cone and an
interstage instead.

~~~
simonh
A reasonably optimised Starship can theoretically reach orbit, but it wouldn't
have any fuel left to come back down and land, so that isn't happening. Anyway
these early prototypes are probably a bit over-engineered and heavy to manage
that.

This all means that when Hans talks about an orbital flight in 6+ months, he
must be talking about flying it with Super Heavy.

------
at_a_remove
Something about the title reminds me of a line in Buffy, about a high school
football team: "If we can focus, keep discipline, and not have quite as many
mysterious deaths, Sunnydale is gonna _rule!_ "

------
craftinator
Man I'd love to see the data they are gathering for failure analysis. I
imagine there have to be thousands of sensors in place for identifying
decompression pathways, convection peaks, pressure differentials, all of it.
Would be really nifty if they just dropped that data for crowd analysis! Oh,
one can dream...

------
blakesterz
"Once Starship Prototypes are Done Exploding..."

I don't really follow along much I was surprised to read so many had exploded.
What I didn't see was how do we know when they've stopped exploding? I guess I
mean, how many successes would be enough to say "well these are done exploding
now"? This year is 1/2 done, are they really able to say that these are safe
in just 6 months?

~~~
fabian2k
It's not a matter of safety right now, they are exploding before they get to
fly. I think at least two burst during pressure tests, and the last one
exploded during a test because the fuel connection to the rocket leaked or
broke in some way.

The stuff breaking right now isn't really representative of the final product,
it's more like problems in ramping up the manufacturing. And the nice thing
about reusable rockets is that you can test them much more thoroughly than if
you throw them away after each flight.

~~~
Already__Taken
As long as we don't keep seeing the tank seems burst then it's all just an
integration phase now I think? Engine: Check, Fuel tanks: check?

~~~
baking
No tank has failed a pressure test since SN1.

