SpaceX playing soccer with COPVs and then bolting them on the vehicle doesn’t feel like a more comforting answer but I agree it’s one I didn’t list. Not sure I understand why people would be rattling around inside the vehicle after a single engine test and then not re-running the single engine for a regression test.

/shrug, still you’re right. Unreported damage post-installation would totally do this, it’s just not a root cause I’ve seen. Would speak to a breakdown in safety culture for my folks, not sure what the safety culture looks like on the Starship line.

I’ve seen that math and something like that could work. Elon turned off the spigot on falcon heavy launches to create a bigger market for Starship.

Blue’s lander aggregates in a manner similar to what you describe, as did NASA’s original government reference design.

The other thing you’re talking about is basically Gateway. You’re pitching (more or less) the NASA concept circa 2019. :)

Oh c’mon.

Cannot possibly spin “blew up randomly during test prep” as a positive outcome. They probably don’t know how not to build that specific one unless they happened to instrument the faulty prop system components - they know that it failed but likely not why or how to fix it.

All evidence points to Starship having a super-finicky MPS that fails on the regular… which probably means they’re chasing performance by removing mass from the MPS and tank structure… which means either this design doesn’t work (totally possible) or that the as-built performance falls short of what was promised.

If you want to stan for Musk, I guess everyone has a type and I’m not going to shame you over it… but blowing up during test prep is not a good news story.

Maybe. Regardless, problem either in design or build.

Designing under-reinforced tanks indicates that the design can’t make payload and they’re cutting too far into structure allocations to make up for it.

Rupture could also be poor materials (sign of Boeing-style disregard for standards and safety) or a bad weld (same plus maybe training issues on the line). Means they’re running bad QA/QC protocols if the faulty material/construction made it to flight.

Chasing performance at the cost of safety sounds right down Musk’s alley.

Honestly curious about that. Anyone around know what the impact is? May need to get a NASA scientist involved… oh, wait, they all are getting fired. /sigh

Hey methane is a viable fuel for lots of stuff, no shade - it’s got lots of benefits, way easier to manage than liquid hydrogen.

Now, if what you’re thinking about is nuclear… YES. We desperately need prop sources that aren’t locked to the rocket equation. Give me a hybrid NEP/SEP and I’ll try to colonize Mars.

Tough to really throw even partial blame for global warming on chemical propulsion launches. Funny thought, though. :)

Go fast and break stuff is a viable way to rapidly iterate inside a known box, which is really what spaceX did with dragon and falcon. NASA gave them a big head start - they more or less had an engine design, more or less knew how to build a gn&c (even for propulsive return), more or less knew how to build the sticks… just wasn’t efficient or cost-effective. Cutting bits off to see if the overall system still operates is kinda how the relationship between govt and industry is supposed to work.

Starship isn’t iterating inside a known box. It’s not a smarter cheaper version of existing tech, it’s a whole new thing that Elon just kinda spoke into existence. It must be fun to have that kind of money and power, but it doesn’t mean the idea will ever actually work - and this is where the deliberate, methodical process that NASA uses becomes more valuable.

What’ll be interesting is when SpaceX starts missing payment milestones. I think they’ve gotten some grace in the past. Not sure the current environment is as permissive. Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s part of why Elon wants to shift the goalposts to Mars - it’d give him more time to sort out some of the fundamental challenges with his concept.

Feeling very conflicted about this. Glad the folks are safe. Worried about the implications for Artemis III and the agency. Pretty sure every failure so far has been in the prop system, which is troubling given that the whole strategy for Starship requires extraordinary advancement in prop transfer technology.

Hard to deny a bit of schadenfreude for Elon taking it in the shorts again. Curious if his antics have had morale implications in SpaceX that are helping to generate misses.

A reminder for folks that starship is only viable if they can routinely execute autonomous in-space cryogenic fuel transfers. This explosion appears to be the result of a problem in human-executed on-Earth cryogenic fuel transfer.

The president proposed cutting Artemis after Artemis III. Congress hasn’t yet agreed, so there’s a lot more to go and it wouldn’t affect the Artemis II launch.

I could be talked into Europe. Not so sure about Beijing. Folks that might be willing to go to china (at least in my neck of the woods) get weeded out pretty quick.

It’d require an Apollo-level investment and I think Europe is gonna be focused on more prosaic concerns.

I don’t think a brain drain is avoidable and I don’t think it’s undesirable for the current administration. Keeping a strong civil servant workforce doesn’t seem like a priority.

I think honestly it’s not just the conflict of interest threat that warrants someone in public office divesting themselves. We’re seeing that it’s better for the companies too - keeps them insulated from the impact of unpopular decisions.

Why do you persist in treating the rich differently? They are just people. They aren’t a special class of people that are better or smarter. They just have more money.

Treat everyone the same, and this comes out as “why tax people”. Well, that’s a complicated question with a pretty clear answer that I don’t think is worth repeating.

Stop assuming they’re better than you. They aren’t.

Civil society requires the willing participation of the populace. It’s the best kind of society, but it’s only available to a culture that has decided not to be assholes.

I choose not to be an asshole. Even when it would be easy. Even when it would improve my life or mood or bank balance. I refuse to idolize people that are assholes. Even if they’re rich.

Even in the strictest of command economies, the opportunity to be an asshole exists. You can’t command your way into a scenario where the choice of villainy is simply unavailable. Every single one of us has to make the choice to turn away from the pull of assholery ourselves and to refuse to countenance it in others.

I still believe that we, as a species, have both the capability and the requirement to step back from that cliff. We’ve done it before. Mostly, I don’t want to live in the world your approach would create. I think the only people that would enjoy it are the folks you’ve given your free will away to.

I’ll argue! Most of this is simply wrong… but first I’m going to reject the premise of your argument.

You’re providing a false choice by suggesting that money can only be concentrated or diffused and that it can only be concentrated or diffused at the level of the single individual. You’ve placed two extremes on the table (a command economy driven by oligarchs vs a command economy driven by autocrats) and asked us to pick.

I pick neither. A command economy is not necessary to achieve reasonable societal goals, and it’s not necessary to flip the switch all the way into a 1950s Red Scare version of communism to be able to see where the economic model of unfettered capitalism breaks down.

The next problem is that you conflate the question of “how should the government collect taxes” with the question of “how should an economy operate”. Those are different questions with different answers, but the underlying principle is the same.

The government should prevent circumstances in which being an asshole is financially rewarded. The citizens should try to avoid being assholes. A civil society should correct the behavior of people that are being assholes using social pressures.

In the economic arena, that basically boils down to “not fucking over the little guy”. The government should seek to prevent circumstances where the little guy gets fucked over. The citizens should try not to fuck each other over. A civil society should shun those who violate that norm.

In the taxes arena, that basically boils down to “pay your fair share.” We all know what that looks like and feels like because we’ve had to divvy up the check after a long night of drinking. Folks with cash throw in some extra to cover their friends that might be struggling, a couple of people that are doing well might just “make the check right at the end of the night.” It works out. People know how to do this instinctively. People, by and large, know what their fair share is. Some just don’t want to pay.

In a situation where people consistently make the moral choice to not be an asshole, a lot of economic models can work. The breakdown isn’t in the economic model, it’s in the role of the civil society - society is not enforcing the “don’t be an asshole” rule. Instead, we’ve decided to idolize the assholes.

There’s not an economic model that works when everyone is trying to fuck over everyone else.

You’re focused on the wrong problem.

Dude that line of reasoning went out with Reagan, and the last time it worked was in the 1920s. You might want that to be how the rich behave, but mostly they just lock capital away and watch the numbers grow.

We don’t need an economy based on pandering to rich assholes in the hopes they give us money. We need an economy where everyone pays their fucking taxes. It’s that easy. If the very wealthy stopped hiding their money and coming up with impenetrable tax evasion schemes and just paid their taxes like everyone else, we wouldn’t have to raise them on anyone.

Betting White House networks are too locked down to game on. If Elon is gonna live under the stairs, he needs his leet gaming setup.

No. When you create something that gets used for propaganda, you have three choices - speak out, stay silent, or support it. None of those options are apolitical.

I think you’ll see a combination of 2 and 3 out of agency leadership. #3 whenever possible, #2 if supporting Trump’s statement would touch off internal protests.

I think the overriding objective right now is to protect the workforce and I think the leadership in place is willing to do what it takes to achieve that goal. I don’t know if the workforce is willing to see the kind of pandering that will likely require, and I’m not sure even a maximum pandering platform will work.

One way or the other I think the agency may be fucked.

Not sure this was a thing he decided to do. M2M and the Artemis campaign have been relatively protected so far, and that’s largely rumored to be Free’s doing. My sense is that he wouldn’t voluntarily leave his post.

Leaders like Jim are in the “Special Executive Service” (SES) and can be reassigned basically at the whim the government (Ref: us code). In the past, SES have been encouraged to depart by being reassigned to an undesirable post or a post geographically inconvenient for them and their families. In general, executives treated in this fashion take the hint.

Jim is a methodical and thoughtful engineer that cared about and protected both his people and the mission. I’d say he deserves better, but it’s probably healthier for him not to have to participate in the dismantling of the agency he loved.

Ad astra.

Interestingly as of this moment it does not appear to have happened. Not clear why.