How the U.S. government came to rely on the tech billionaireā€”and is now struggling to rein him in.

  • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    Pretty sure they did ages ago, that was kinda the point of the space shuttel program. And thats just the most notable attempt, the DC-X is another example. Reusable rockets are just kinda inefficient for a lot of shit.

    • Intralexical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      The DC-X/Delta Clipper was really cool, but the Space Shuttle was a design-by-committee safety and maintenance disaster. VentureStar didnā€™t go much better either, though that was mostly Lockheed.

      NASAā€™s had the tech, the expertise, and the will for a while, but the political process was never going to give them permission to do anything more than slow-moving rehashes and incremental evolutions of old technology.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Reread what I typed, reusablle rockets have their place but they can become rather inefficient or even outright wasteful depending on the circumstances. Remember it takes about a lot of energy to land something coming down from orbit, that means more fuel, more fuel means more weight. And sometimes it better to put that fuel and weight into putting more shit into orbit.

        • Intralexical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Remember it takes about a lot of energy to land something coming down from orbit, that means more fuel, more fuel means more weight. And sometimes it better to put that fuel and weight into putting more shit into orbit.

          ā€¦That sounds like bull, and quick back-of-the-envelope arithmetic shows thereā€™s probably no way itā€™s true in the general sense.

          Falcon 9 LEO payload, expended: 22.8t
          Payload, recovered: 17.4t
          Structural material: Various aero-grade aluminium alloys.
          First stage dry mass: 25.6t
          Propellant mass (LOX+RP-1): 395.7t
          Second stage dry mass: 3.9t
          Propellant mass: 92.67t
          
          COā‚‚ emissions to produce aluminium: 2tĀ·COā‚‚/tĀ·Al to 20+tĀ·COā‚‚/tĀ·Al
          (Depending on whether fossil fuels are usedā€” Al is very energy-intensive. MINIMUM. Does not include mining, alumina, alloying, machining, etc.)
          
          COā‚‚ emissions to burn LOX+RP-1: ~0.8tĀ·COā‚‚/tĀ·Fuel
          

          The launch kinematics shouldnā€™t change too much otherwise, so assume the difference in payload approximately correlates to the fuel amount that must be savedā€” Oversimplifying and overly linear, I know. (Iā€™m not breaking out Tsiolkovsky for this. You do it, if you want.):

          (25.6t * (2t/t)) / ((22.8t - 17.4t) * (0.8t/t))

          In even the most conservative scenario, the carbon footprint of the extra fuel to land a Falcon 9 will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12X less than even just the raw material costs to replace the aluminium in it.

          If we assume a more typical US aluminium production process for a US company, resulting in 11tĀ·COā‚‚/tĀ·A instead of 2tĀ·COā‚‚/tĀ·A:

          (25.6t * (11t/t)) / ((22.8t - 17.4t) * (0.8t/t))

          ā€¦Then weā€™re looking at the carbon footprint of the fuel to reuse a rocket being 65X lower the carbon footprint of replacing it. This is still not even counting either the actual mining, preprocessing, and alloying of the aluminium ore nor the machining nor the rocket structure, so the real number will be even higher.

          ā€¦In fact, it looks like nearly half of all the carbon emissions from a rocket launch are likely to come from just manufacturing the rocket, not even the fuel it burns. Iā€™m honestly pretty surprised by this too; Youā€™d think, and Iā€™ve always personally assumed, that the big tank of carbon-based fuel and not the thin sheet of metal around it would release the most COā‚‚, but apparently not.

          ((25.6t + 3.9t) * (11t/t)) / ((395.7t + 92.67t) * (0.8t/t))

          I guess it makes sense when you remember that GHG costs for other types of vehicles are usually amortized over the useful lifespan of the vehicle in question.

          Reusable rockets are just kinda inefficient for a lot of shit.

          Remember it takes about a lot of energy to land something coming down from orbit,

          This entire premise is somewhere between false and dishonest or misinformed. It costs basically zero energy to land something coming down from orbit, compared to what youā€™ve already spent to send it up there in the first place, because all you have to do is lower your periapsis into the atmosphere and then fire a quick thrust burst for a couple seconds to land at the end once air drag has done all the hard work of bringing you down from hypersonic to subsonic terminal velocity. The Saturn V had to be millions of tonnes to get to the Moon, but the command module and capsule to get back was kinematically basically one step above an inert rock with a couple of whoopee cushions strapped to the back.

          Call out the shitty labour practices, security risks, and deeply problematic political and economic injustices. But donā€™t try to lie about physics.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            Firstly I wasnt even thinking about co2 emisions and was thinking almost exclusively in total mass movement. Secondly when I was refering to the amount of fuel required for slow down for landing I was more so thinking yet again in total mass. Almost all of my points on the matter had to do with the idea of alocating energy toward putting stuff in space.

            If you can realocate fuel toward moving stuff further into space for example. I doubt think the falcon is completely bad either, just that it has its niche. If memory serves me right its mostly doing things like putting satalites into orbit, thats a great use of a reuasble rocket.

            All I was stating is that such rockets can be kinda inefficient for certain jobs. To put it in nautical terms you wouldnt use a fishing trawler as heavy cargo ship.

            Perhaps this is showing my ignorance for arospace shit, IDK but as I understand it more fuel and less mass means you can get shit farther. Thats all I was really thinking.

            • Intralexical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              Firstly I wasnt even thinking about co2 emisions and was thinking almost exclusively in total mass movement. Secondly when I was refering to the amount of fuel required for slow down for landing I was more so thinking yet again in total mass. Almost all of my points on the matter had to do with the idea of alocating energy toward putting stuff in space.

              What do you think the GHG from the manufacturing comes from? Expendable rockets means youā€™re ā€œal[l]ocating energy toward putting stuff in spaceā€ much less efficiently because youā€™re spending (apparently) much more fuel and energy to replace the rocket.

              If you meant ā€œtotal mass and fuel in the rocketā€, then frankly thatā€™s an arbitrary and cherry-picked metric in this context. If youā€™re talking about the social impact and technological history of first NASA then SpaceX developing reusable rockets, then ā€œefficiencyā€ should include everything that theyā€™re paying for.

              I doubt think the falcon is completely bad either, just that it has its niche. If memory serves me right its mostly doing things like putting satalites into orbit, thats a great use of a reuasble rocket.

              ā€¦So its ā€œnicheā€ isā€¦ Literally the entire thing that space launch rockets are scientifically and economically useful for???

              Literally every space mission, outside of like upper atmospheric research sounding rocket launches (which arenā€™t really relevant to space launch), is ā€œputting satellites into orbitā€ (regardless of whether those artificial satellites house crew that theyā€™re then going to ferry Mars, or whether theyā€™re just there to relay your cat gifs).

              All I was stating is that such rockets can be kinda inefficient for certain jobs. To put it in nautical terms you wouldnt use a fishing trawler as heavy cargo ship.

              ā€œFor certain jobsā€ā€” Yeah, no, not really, at least unless you can name those ā€œcertain jobsā€.

              Sometimes a payload is too heavy for reusable mode but still okay for expendable mode. But thatā€™s not really being ā€œinefficientā€, just too small, and would be more efficiently solved with a bigger reusable rocket. And there are certification and supply chain concerns which mean that expendable systems like SLS and Ariane 6 still sorta have a place for now, but thatā€™s not really an efficiency issue either.

              But overall, from tiny cubesats to massive moon landings, reusable rockets are consistently and increasingly demonstrating significant efficiency advantages in all areas of spaceflight, because as it turns out, despite all of Chief Twitā€™s mistakes and harms, throwing away the rocket after you use it once was in fact just a sorta dumb way to do things in the first place.

              Perhaps this is showing my ignorance for arospace shit, IDK but as I understand it more fuel and less mass means you can get shit farther. Thats all I was really thinking.

              Yeahā€¦ I feel like youā€™re getting defensive because I might have come across as trying to dunk on youā€¦ Which isā€¦ Fair enough, I guess, and sorry if I came across that way.

              And I get not wanting to like anything that Muskā€™s tied his name to. But you presented yourself as an authorative/informed speaker on a technical subject, while making a claim that simply isnā€™t true.