The significance of the Starship

4/22/2023: Starship update #6

There's a tweet from Musk that says he has a plan in the works already, and will be ready to launch in one or two months. That seems like "Elon time". It may take a bit longer than he anticipates. The FAA is required to do an investigation, and the government doesn't move quite so fast.

It will be awhile, I suspect.

Meanwhile, what else to say about it? In terms of his architecture to get to the Moon and Mars, I think it's flawed. In particular with respect to the Moon. There are going to be many refueling trips from the ground to the the Starship lunar version while it is in low Earth orbit ( LEO). Why so many? For a rocket with twice the thrust of the Saturn V, why do you need so many refueling trips?

The Saturn V system shed mass as it went along. The less mass you carry around with you, the less fuel you need to get to the next destination along the way. The Starship is carrying a LOT of mass with it. In order to get from LEO to Lunar Orbit, there will have to be a burn. Perhaps there is a better plan than that, but that is what the Saturn V used. There was a burn to get a lunar orbit, then it released a lunar module. The lunar module itself was divided into an upper module and lower one. The lower module powered it down to the surface, and the upper module got it back up in lunar orbit for the return trip. Each time, it shed something it no longer needed, and reduced the propellant mass needed for the next stage of the mission. That's how the Saturn V did it. But not the Starship. They will land the entire thing, and that's going to take a lot of propellant to speed it up and slow it down.

The lunar Starship is already going to be expendable. That means it is already going to be a different bird than the regular Starship. An optimized version could be designed that will get the job done with a lot fewer launches.

But Musk may have different plans. We'll see how those work. Unless the plan is a lot like the one that worked during the Apollo program, there may be a problem.

originally posted on May 7, 2021

It looks like Elon Musk's latest invention will work. One part of it works, at least. The next parts are untested, but the belly flop maneuver will work. But it's not going to be enough.

In my opinion, it is one thing to land a mostly empty Starship on a prepared surface. It is quite another to land it on a place that you have never seen before, such as Mars or even the Moon.

The Starship has a really aggressive maneuver there with that belly flop. Perhaps that is the main reason that it failed so many times before it succeeded. You've got fuel to consider. The belly flop maneuver is on mostly EMPTY tanks. If you go to the Moon, and you want to come back ( I'd think), then you have to land with plenty of fuel still on board.

You'd also have to land on the unprepared surface. The Starship is tall. It can tip over easily. That would not be good if you are on Mars or the Moon.

The Starship's real significance lies not in that it can get to the Moon or Mars. It is in the fact that it can get to LEO cheaply. It is a first step, not a final step. There has to be many steps besides this one.

Maybe it can be modified to land on the Moon. That's a thought.

The way it was done during the Apollo Era was to shed weight as you go. Unneeded pieces that were discarded allowed for less mass that had to be brought back. Less mass can become quite dramatic, and the opposite is also true. Less mass means less fuel. It all translates into much less mass that has to be launched.

If you try to land that big thing on the Moon, you are going to need a LOT of fuel to get there and back. One refueling would probably not be enough. An empty Starship weighs about the same as the Space Shuttle. You need to think about that one.

Refueling has not been demonstrated in space yet. So there you are. It's a possibility if you can get to space cheaply. But the concept isn't completed yet. Lots more needs to be done.

If you can put a lot of stuff into space, you may be able to build an infrastructure up there. That would include the Moon and Mars. Also the places in between. The infrastructure is the next step. The Starship can get it there. That's the signficance.

Boca Chica, Texas --- 33 engine attempted static fire, but 31 fired instead

4-22-23, Update #5, post launch discussion

Some videos are popping up on the YouTube now. More information is available to ascertain what there is to be ascertained. Some worries about the launch platform ( Stage 0) have been confirmed. The platform has almost been destroyed. It was down to rebar?!? Holy close shave, Batman! If that thing had have collapsed with 10 million pounds of propellant onboard? Phew! A huge disaster may have been just seconds away.

Looking back, more static fires should have been performed. That should have included those with full power for the amount of time that it would take to clear the tower. Clearly, this was not done. There was just this one static fire. I am of the opinion that this launch was pushing the envelope just a little too far for comfort.

There are those who say otherwise. But look at it this way. If the static fires had been done, error modes could have been found sooner, and time would have been saved. I'm not that impressed with the opposing argument.

Those who call it a disaster are probably overstating it a bit. But it was a near disaster. No doubt about it in my mind after seeing some pics of that launch mount.

It was near mal practice to launch that thing. But people were ragging on the FAA. The FAA should have been a bit more alert.

SpaceX launched about as quickly as it was able. The spin was that the FAA was holding them back. Well, after this, it was a good thing that they did--if they did. If this was much worse, there would have been a much more serious mishap.

Feb 9, 2023

Less than an hour ago, Spacex did a static fire attempt for their Superheavy booster for the Starship rocket being readied for launch soon.

It was to be a full 33 engine attempt, but two engines did not fire up.

Likely, the results will be studied, and another attempt will take place. This one lasted less than 10 seconds.





31 engine static fire

Starship launch failure

Update Starship launch 4, 4.21.23

Further examination of the videos shows that the rocket started malfunction just before stage separation. This may be a clue as to what went wrong.

One theory has it that the rocket hull was damaged. Let's say that could cause the mechanism for separation to fail. How would the rocket hull on the booster be damaged? Perhaps a weak point in the hull buckled under stresses from the failed engines? In the case of failed engines, those engines that can gimbal ( move around), would adjust to the unbalanced thrust from the lack of thrust coming from direction that it would normally have been expected.

With that in mind, note that most of the engines that are out are on the outer ring, and bunched together. That could mean a LOT of thrust to be compensated for. Could it be that thrust inbalances exposed a weakness in the hull?

The upper stage was found to have a weakness in the hull, which was fixed. This was while it was being tested for the landing maneuver back in 2021. If one stage of the rocket had a weakness, then perhaps the upper also had a weakness.

This theory was bandied about yesterday in my readings. Thought I'd pass it along.

Update, 4.20.23

Launch mount damage.   Not good.

Some observations of the Starship launch failure today

The following clips are from a single video. It shows various stages of the launch progress before failure.

Shortly after clearing tower several engines are out

Below is a clip @ 1:39 in, and prior to malfunction:

2:24 into launch

At the 3 minute mark of clip, the rocket is shown in malfunctioning mode:

Failure mode

Here's another angle that shows something of a hiccup shortly after clearing the tower:



There are reports of damage due to flying debris on launch site. By now, there are plenty of videos of this that can be seen. A question is with all of the debris, could the debris have been a factor in the failure of the engines? Also, there is some speculation that with the engine failures, the rocket may have gotten some structural failure which led to the failure to separate, and thus preventing the Starship from continuing its flight.

Apollo 11 Saturn V launch (HD)

Updated on 4-21-23; Originally posted on 4-17-13

Elon Musk's new Starship is much more powerful than a Saturn V rocket that sent astronauts to the moon and back. If the Saturn V needed a flame trench and a water drench, then we might see why Musk's rocket needs something more than what it has now. If not those things, then something better than nothing.

Can it be done? Not without a major redesign. All Musk did from the last time this happened was to change out the concrete. If that is all he will do, then he won't be able to launch with the cadence that he envisions. A rebuild of the launch platform will take weeks, if not months. He wants to launch several times a day. In order to achieve anything like that, he will need a launch platform that will hold up much better than this one did.

The original post shows a video of the Saturn V rocket's power, and it shows how all that energy was handled by the launch facility. The video shown is in slow motion. ( very slow motion) Even with the measures taken with Saturn V launches, a bit of work would have been necessary to launch again.

Musk is a long, long way from his goals. This would be true unless this outcome was anticipated, and he already has a new plan. That wouldn't be likely.

Narration which explains what is happening.  Video is in slow-motion.

The new SLS rocket will rival the Saturn V in its lifting capacity.  If the liquid fuel option is chosen, as opposed to solid rocket boosters, the F1 vintage rocket engines ( an updated version) may make a triumphant return.


Apollo 11 Saturn V Launch (HD) Camera E-8 from Spacecraft Films on Vimeo.

Starship test 4/20/23

*** Update to Starship test launch

A big day that may go down in history. But enough with the puffery. Not everything worked as planned. The rocket launched, cleared the tower, and went down range for a considerable distance. But not far enough to make a separation and boost back burn. It was exploded as a safety measure. High fives all around for what some may consider a failure.

Failure is how you define it. The main goal was to keep the thing from blowing up before it cleared the tower. After that, it was all a bonus. There is some news of launch pad damage. So that is being evaluated. It may be quite a bit of damage. We'll see.

If the pad damage caused a flame out of some of the engines, then this could have been a major disaster. Fortunately, that didn't happen. If the FAA really wanted to be dicks, they could have demanded more testing and some other safety measures. To tell you the truth, I'm not so sure that SpaceX should get everything they want all the time. This doesn't mean that the FAA is a bunch of nice guys, nor pushovers. They could still be dicks. Shoot, they may have been rooting for a failure. Our government seems to operate that way these days.

Back when there was a static fire, there were some engines out. This happened again, but in the air. Not enough engines were lost that could have kept it on the ground, nor could it have fallen to the ground. There was enough thrust to get it off the pad. A lucky break. There should have been more testing to find out why there was a flame out on the static fire. Only one preceded this test. I figured that they would do another, and then evaluate it until they got all 33 firing as they are supposed to. Any anomaly should be traced out until a fix can be made.

Basically, SpaceX got away with it this time. In the future, they may not be as lucky.

I'm trying not to be too critical. It is a good day. But there were some problems.

SpaceX Starship launches 

Stage separation failure at 2 minutes plus into flight.

More details later.

Getting red-pilled is too painful for many

 Update on 4/19/23:

Is that why they are called snowflakes?

A snowflake can't take the heat.  The difference these days is that they'll throw you out of the kitchen.

__________________

Original post on Jun 29, 2022

The Matrix analogy has made it to the popular culture. Or, if not popular culture, then to the alternate culture. The alternate culture is the analogy to the characters in the movie who are fighting the Matrix.

It's not machines that are being fought. But there's no soul to this organization, and so it might as well be a machine.

In the red pill scene, the character called Morpheus asks the character being red-pilled, which is Neo, if he believe in fate. Neo replies that he doesn't. He wants to have some control over his life. The analogy is so uncanny that it really does fit the world in which we now live. Yet these people who created it probably do not think of themselves as part of the soul-less machine that has taken over people's lives. In psychological terms, it appears to be projection. The "woke" types think that they are living in the real world. The world as it is, is the soul-less machine-like organization that is oppressing them.

Who is right, then? It is an easy call if you don't believe that men can have babies. The people who push such notions are pushing the fantasy world of the Matrix. But if you believe any of this fantasy, or if you are tempted to find any of it compelling, then maybe it isn't an easy call.

In the movie, the people are not free. They are being oppressed by the machine, who keeps them in bondage so that they can be exploited. How then is it really any different than what is being done today? Aren't the people being lied to, and given a false reality to believe? Why should it be so hard to escape this "Matrix"? The people are not being physically restrained---yet...

In the movie, the people are being held in physical bondage. That doesn't exist yet, but those who are pushing these fantasies are seeking physical control over the people. That's what gun control is all about. Are the fantasies that seductive that it is too hard to escape from them?

I don't see the attraction for these fantasies. But that's me. I prefer to live in the real world. Perhaps those who are attracted to these fantasies prefer the fantasies. To "red-pill" them is next to impossible. They'll take the blue pill every time.

Flaca Speech - The Alamo - John Wayne as David Crockett

Updated:

Apr 18, 2023

Like Reagan said, not a choice between left and right.  It's a choice between right and wrong.

John Wayne isn't talking about elections.  Soon people may see the futility of crooked elections.

Sep 17, 2019

9.17.19:

What's right and what's wrong?  It used to be understood by all, but not anymore.  

One of the things going on in DC is about gun-control.  It is the most newsworthy item out there.  The reason is the upcoming 2020 election.  If the GOP caves in, as is their usual thing, they will lose.  Maybe they will lose big.  The gun-control issue is the Achilles Heel for Trump and the GOP.  No other issue is more of a third rail for him than this one.  He may as well drop out of the running for President if he signs on to what the Democrats want.

Is it right or wrong to oppose gun-control?  Of course people die in these attacks, but you'll never end all violence.  If you don't want to hear about violence, then shut down the news media!  It is a sure bet that people won't hear about it anymore if the media cannot report it.  The only reason the politicians are even discussing this bill is that the media has made gun confiscation as one of their crusades.

If you shut down the news media and confiscate all guns, there is a sure bet that reports about gun violence will drop drastically or maybe even disappear entirely.  But are these the right things to do?

I am in favor of keeping all of our freedoms.  But it wouldn't bother me as much to shut down some of these news media outlets.  It wouldn't bother me to red flag all people who I disagree with politically.  But it wouldn't necessarily be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.  On that grounds it would be wrong.  If you think the Constitution is wrong, there is a way to change that legally.

We have to come together on some common ground, or fall apart.  If the Constitution isn't any good anymore, there's a way to change that.  Otherwise, what the hell are we talking about?



10.11.13:

There may be no evidence that this speech was ever made by Crockett.  I suspect it was a speech by none other than John Wayne himself.  That's why its a good movie even if it doesn't adhere to the actual history of that event.  It was great art, but it wasn't exactly historically accurate.

The GOP needs to see this speech.  And then act upon it.  Do the right thing even if you get clobbered for it.

In fact, Sam Houston did say something like that--- I think it went like this:  "Do right, and face the consequences."

Ideas for space that I like

4.18.23: Last updated on Jan 24, 2014 The Safe 400 reactor has been upgraded to the kilo power system. Here is a list of ideas for space travel that I've written about on this blog and that I like.  This list may change over time as I learn more.  The list is in no particular order.

• Airship to Orbit  ----  Why I like it.  Even if it doesn't work, it can help reach orbit provided that it can be made to carry sufficient mass at sufficient velocity.  What I like most is the attention to mass.  The mass of this method should be the least amongst all methods of getting to space.  Looks like it would definitely work on Mars ( that's a big deal ).
• Space sailing  ---  Why I like it:  Once again, here is a method of space travel that requires little if any reaction mass.
• Focus Fusion ( as space drive )  Why I like it:  Very high ISP.  Could enable exploration and settlement of the entire solar system.  Perhaps may even be useful for travel to nearest stars.
• Beamed power for propulsion  Why I like it   If Nuclear Thermal Engines cannot be used to get to orbit, perhaps this method will be acceptable.
• Nuclear Thermal Engines  Why I like it  Better ISP than chemical rockets.  Radioactivity issue could be handled if a commitment were made to deal with that issue.
• Safe-400 ( space nuclear reactor ) Why I like it  Good things can come in small packages.  It only weighs about 1100 lbs.  You're going to need power in space, and this little reactor can deliver it.
• A Moonstalk and a Mars Stalk Why I like it  Will allow access to the surface with no mass penalty.
• Gas Guns  Why I like it  Will enable delivery of mass from the surface of the Moon or Mars with no mass penalty.  From the Moon, it wouldn't even require heating of the gas.
• AX-5 Spacesuit  Why I like it  I like the concept of a hard cover on the suit.  It does allow for 95% of normal movement, so it isn't too restrictive.  It probably won't happen this way, but if it could be made livable for a long period of time, it would be a big help.
• Skylon  Why I like it  SSTO and reuse, what's not to like?
• Falcon 9  Why I like it  It will be fully reusable and with a fast turnaround, unless something goes wrong.

Honorable mentions  Stratolaunch, Dream Chaser, Virgin Galactic, XCOR.  I sure hope that I haven't forgotten anybody.

These are all I can remember for now.  If I can think of any others, I will add them to the list.

Update: Last of a series done in reverse chronological order.  The reason for doing it this way was that the reasoning for what I claim to be true isn't necessarily easily found on the blog.  It so happens that it was chronological this time, but it won't necessarily be that way in the future.  The blog format doesn't easily allow for this.  This way, you can see how the reasoning is built up over a series of posts.  To see even deeper, use the category-sub category listings at the bottom of each post.

The previous post in the series is here.

Political Contributions To Our Saviors

Update Apr 17 2023

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The GOP fundraises off the fear that they create. It's a protection racket. Democrats do the same. Instead of giving money or votes give them NOTHING. Doing right should be its own reward.


Original post: Apr 28, 2011

I suppose the title of this post is a bit sarcastic. I was hoping for a little competence, though. Silly me. I asked this Russell guy to help me in return for a small donation and I got zilch. Even worse, I get a solicitation from Bolton for some campaign dough.

I mean, how dumb can you get? What the Republicans need is not money, but some brains and some guts. From where I am standing, they don't have either.

At least save your money and don't send me this stuff. If you get a notice from me of this fact, which I gave Russell, then pass the word. Not only did Russell not pass the word, he took the money and ran, just like I feared that he would. This is why they won't win. No brains. No guts.

Taking the red pill

Updated on 4.17.23

There was report that the use of the term "Red pill" will get you in bad odor with the new master class in DC.   

What are they so afraid of?



Original post on 3.8.23

Everyone has heard the expression of getting "red-pilled". Those who take the blue pill want to stay in the dream world that the powers-that-be want to keep people in. As long as they are in the dream world, they won't ever know the truth, and will be forever under the control of the tyrants.

Allow me to segue into a deeper discussion. After all, what is real? That very question is asked by the character Morpheñus in that film. It seems that this kind of discussion can be another which would cause people's eyes to glaze over. Perhaps you can say that there are those who don't want you to see with your own eyes, but would rather project a world that they want you to see. That is what the film used as a plot device.

But this happens in the real world with propaganda. Typically, the leadership of an unfree country will not allow free expression of ideas. There is rampant censorship. Such should not be possible in the USA, but it is on display today in the halls of government. There is an increasing drive to censor those who say things that are not considered to be true. But what is true and not true? How will this be determined? In a free society, it is from the bottom up, not the top down. The leadership is not allowed to determine what is said and not said. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law". But certain politicians are now saying quite openly what cannot be said, and this isn't legally possible, if the Constitution is to be obeyed. Senators Schumer and McConnell have had their say, and that time is over. Now it is the opposition's turn.

There is a way to determine truth in a court room. Such isn't perfect, nothing conceived by man is perfect, but it gives the best opportunity to get as close to truth as humanly possible. It is an adversarial system. For any controversy, both sides get to tell their side of the story. An impartial jury hears the case, and there's a judge to keep the proceeding within the bounds of the law. When the Congress forbids the discussion of information, it is preventing the adversarial system that the courts employ. They'd prefer their own interpretation, which has to be taken as truth. Should a one-sided system be trusted? In the court of public opinion, doesn't the opposition have the right to present their side of the controversy? If it cannot, then how is this country a free country?

Seeing is believing, it has been said. If one is dedicated to the truth, then what harm could there be in viewing anything on a video? There can only be harm if only one side is permitted to show what that side wants to be seen. If the other side has no say, what assurance does anyone have that all the facts are being shown? The Democrats and their allies on the GOP have had their say. The other side now has a chance to speak, but these people object. That alone should raise suspicions about their commitment to the Constitution and rule of law.

Their objection on the basis of security does not appear to apply. That was their rationale for keeping the tapes secret. If nothing else is proven, they have haven't proven that these tapes caused any harm to security. In fact, their claims of security appear to have been cast aside. Now the dispute is over actual content. If the full discussion proceeds, their favorite interpretation will suffer a fatal blow. The Democrats know this, and this is why they object. It is a lot easier to win a game when only one side is allowed to play.

One could stride deeper into this. There is plenty of room for discussion on the basis of such topics as epistemology-- the study of knowledge. How does anyone know what they know?

It has been my opinion from the start that this was no insurrection. As you peel away the onion of obfuscation, and get to the core of the matter, it should be asked how this peaceful demonstration got out of hand. If it is asked, it is my opinion that we'll find that there were interested parties who wanted there to be a disturbance so it could be used to discredit the political opposition. The disturbance was misrepresented as an insurrection, and no evidence to the contrary was allowed to be discussed. This is very suspicious. This is the kind of thing that could be observed in the former Soviet Union and Hitler's People's Courts.

How do I know this? The shortest way of saying it is that you have to connect the dots. It can be shown over and over again that these people do not care about the truth. This case is no different. The thing that they are really afraid of is that people will know the truth, and the truth will truly set the USA free again. Like the Matrix in the film, the powers-that-be cannot have the entire population red-pilled. That will be the end of their power, and perhaps the end of them as well.

Yellow Stain Blues

Re-posted :

Today:

This one is more like the original incident wrt to Tennessee.

From 3-24-23

Re-posted without comment

From 6-13-19

Strawberries, anyone?

Yep.  The Captain Queeg crew is looking for the non-existent key in order to solve the mystery of the missing strawberries.

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.