This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If they manage to grapple the booster consistently, then we can talk about “inaugurating a new era of space”. But one lucky catch does not an industry renaissance create. And tbh I’m not even convinced that catching the booster is actually that reusable. Sure, it LOOKS more reusable than a smouldering crater on the landing pad or a rusting wreck on the seabed, but is it really? Given how anal the FAA is about testing each sprocket and screw a trillion times, I’m dubious as to whether the inevitable damage caused by just the Working As Designed rocketry stuff of having 15 tonnes of liquid methane lit on fire inside it will allow (physically or legally) a booster to consistently fly for a second time.
I really want my consumer moon vacations, but I’ve been burned so many times before by spess hype that I’m kind of a doomer at this point.
SpaceX already routinely lands and relaunches rockets. The difference is that this one is much larger. SpaceX has a ton of experience with this.
I think it's wrong to call that a "lucky" catch, but at the same time - so where is the new era of space exploration? Wasn't Falcon 9 already supposed be rapidly reusable? You're not worried that they haven't bothered putting even dummy cargo on the upper stage? Or the fact that they were supposed to be half way to the moon by now?
How much did it cost to put 1 ton of cargo in orbit in 2005 and how much does it cost now?
I don't know how to compare these, when the books for one are public, and for the other are not.
And if it's so much cheaper, where is the new era of space exploration? Weren't we supposed to be well on our way back to the Moon by now? Do you think we'll get there any time soon?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-launched-into-outer-space
It seems you are perhaps some combination of uninformed and unreasonably impatient.
Artemis 3 is due to put people back on the moon
next yearscratch that, it's a shit show, next couple years.I appreciated the laugh, thank you.
Maybe, but I'm not the one that set the deadlines. You said yourself, we were scheduled for next year to go to the moon, and I won't even mention Elon's private Mars ambitions.
Admittedly that's a tough number for me to debate. I will notice that this is the number of launches, and not their cost, but I am aware of the implication that such a number would not be sustainable if the costs weren't appropriately low. That said, I would one day like to see an independently audited cost breakdown of these launches, because I do actually think what we're seeing is unsustainable, at least as far as the public-facing part of the company goes. For all I know SpaceX is a front for launching Black-Ops satellites without raising too much suspicion, and is appropriately awash with money.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are seeing what the early part of an era of exploration or expansion looks like.
Commercially-driven exploration starts by trying to focus on the most profitable quickest returns, which are often closer, to further expand the new technology. When the Europeans began to build ships capable of traversing the world, they did not, in fact, immediately use most of those ships to traverse the world- they used them primarily for more profitable ventures closer to home. However, it was the capacity to go further which enabled the outlier minority to do the things that got famous.
Technological era innovations have similar examples. Yes, the telegraph enabled long-distance communications... but most investments were within or between cities already relatively close together. Yes, electrification has massive implications for making rural regions more efficient and profitable, but most electrical wiring started and focused in the cities. Yes, the American automobile revolutionized how people viewed distance and the ability to move across state and even continental scale, but things like the Interstate System trailed far behind. It didn't make the technologies less revolutionary.
What is currently going on with SpaceX and the reusable rocket technologies is that it is still scaling to meet the latent demand for low-earth investments that were previously priced out of application. There is still considerable profit, and market share, to be made, and currently SpaceX is about the only one making it. SpaceX is in turn using those profits to both expand capacity and develop new capabilities. The Falcon series is what prototyped the technologies for the Falcon Heavy, and the Falcon Heavy for the Starship.
Starship, in turn, is the new emerging and still experimental technology combination that- if it can be made to work, which yesterday was a significant step towards- will unlock a significant amount of lift capacity potential for beyond LEO activities.
The lift capacity gate is what limits what you probably think of as exploration, because the ability to lift fuel and resources is what increases range into deeper space. If you want deep-space transit, you want to lift material into space, where it is cheaper / easier / more technologically feasible to package it up and start pushing from a space gathering point than to lift all pieces at once from earth. That means cost-efficiency of lifting stuff, not just the capacity of stuff you can lift.
For example, the Saturn 5 rocket of the Apollo program to the moon had a LEO lift capacity of 118 tons, and about $5.5k per kg. The Starship is expected to have a LEO lift capacity of 100-150 tons, with a forecasted cost of around $1.6k per kg... possibly falling to $0.15kg ($150/kg) over time due to to reusability reduce the cost per flight as you don't have to keep re-making the whole thing.
Not only is Starship offering capacity on par or better than some of the heaviest lift rockets in history, but with a cost profile that is -70%of the Saturn 5 on the near-term side to -98% less expensive per launch over time, while offering more launches because the components can be reused rather than having to be built per launch. If you built 5 saturn-5 rockets a year, you could only have 5 saturn-5 missions a year to move stuff into space. If you build 5 Spaceships a year, you can have 5 + [Sum of all still-mission capable rockets from all previous years] missions a year, which is to say a heck of a lot more missions over time.
More missions means more opportunities to get stuff into space, including eventually deeper range mission preparation material.
To bring this all back to the age of exploration comparison- imagine if Caravels had the characteristic of having to be sunk the first time they landed on any foreign shore. Now imagine what exploration looks like if Caravels can land, restock, and go out again. This is the technological implication difference of SpaceX's reusable rocket technology.
In turn, the first caravels were in the 13th century. Magellan wouldn't circumnavigate the world until the 1500s. The carracks that Columbus used to reach the Americas were developed more than a century prior.
So when you ask-
Then given that we are literally on the 5th test flight ever of a new degree of capability, historically speaking 50 years from now would be very soon, let alone 15 or 5.
That's all fine, but shouldn't we then leave declaring new eras of exploration to historians? With everything you've written, it sounds like something that won't become apparent for quite a while.
There's a few issues here. One is - wasn't Saturn 5 optimized for the flight to the moon? It could deliver 50 tons to the moon in a single shot. Starship might have good (forecasted) performance to LEO, but it simply cannot make it to the moon, and even according to best case scenario projections will need a dozen or so refueling launches to reach the moon.
The second problem I have is the "falling over time do tue reusability", why hasn't this happened with Falcon 9? I consider it's announced costs to be a bit sus in themselves, but even taking them at face value, you don't see them dropping over time.
Finally, the third problem is that it's a forecasted cost. Musk's entire MO is announcing some product promising insane performance, falling way short, but acting like he delivered because you can buy something that looks vaguely like the announced product. Wasn't self-driving supposed to be safer than a human driver 7 years ago? Wasn't the Cybertruck supposed to be nearly indestructible and cost as low as $40K? Wasn't the Roadster supposed to be in production in 2019, and offer some insane range like 600 miles? Wasn't the Semi supposed to beat Diesel trucks in terms of costs, be competitive with rail, and be guaranteed to not break for a million miles? Wasn't the Boring Company supposed to cut tunnel costs to a fraction of what they were? What makes you so sure he'll deliver on Starship any better than he did on any of those?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is quite obviously way cheaper. The only thing is that there's not too much left to explore in Earth orbit and there's little economic reason to go beyond.
You also shouldn't blame SpaceX for Artemis being completely regarded, it's just good old fashioned pork. Industry has no reason to go to the moon and government has no reason to go there cheaply or effectively.
More options
Context Copy link
We're going to be back to the moon in the next 3 years. I'll bet you on that.
Yay, I love bets! $50?
And just to be clear we're talking "back to the moon on Starship", or at the very least one of SpaceX' rockets, right?
Also: this will either need to be a" donate to charoty " type bet, or we'll need to find a convenient way to send money anonymously.
Sure let's do $50 for SpaceX to the moon in 3 years.
We also have another SpaceX bet running but I forgot lol. Are you keeping track of these?
I think it was "Starship makes it to orbit". Can't remember if it was 5 or 3 years, but have the posts saved somewhere.
While it's looking 50/50 on the first bet, I'm like 90% sure the moon thing isn't isn't happening, unless they pull a switcheroo and it turns out they can do it on Falcon Heavy or something. Starship, according to the official docs, will need something like a dozen refueling launches to go to the moon, and that's the optimistic scenario.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link