I assumed the comment was satirising one common form of misguided critique of SpaceX's "hardware-rich" approach to this development programme. But yes, now I'm not so sure.
Though I believe that it was the Gulf of Mexico that received (large chunks of) B14.
Whereas the Indian Ocean has probably some small bits of S35 debris. (Unless it fully vapourised on re-entry? You've also got me wondering whether any of the materials merely melt, and then re-solidify as solid lumps, either in the lower atmosphere or after hitting the ocean.)
And while I'm being pedantic, @threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works, the table above says "Soft water landing" for the booster, which isn't how I'd describe the plan they had for it.
Where do you get the information from that he deleted videos?
Well here's one example of the accusation ("deleted videos where he said spacex would never be able to re-fly a 1st stage"). Two replies seem to endorse it (e.g. "I recall him saying something like that") and another seems to be fairly familiar with his output and to endorse the general point ("later tried to delete and cover up"). One of the replies links to a different video, which I haven't looked at.
Note that the first ever booster re-use was around March 2017 so we're probably talking about a deletion that happened no later than April 2017. And I'd expect he'd not be so stupid as to wait that long; he'd have probably deleted any such videos as soon as SpaceX announced that they'd found a willing customer (and insurance company), at the latest. So probably by late 2016 or early 2017.
Other stuff I just found ...
Seems he had some argument with another unreliable You Tube 'personality' called Sargon who made a response video back in May 2017. That video is unavailable now but apparently it was still available in 2022 and convinced one person who had until then been unconvinced, that Thunder Foot "apparently just made up shit about someone which was completely false".
I've just looked at one of his more recent "BUSTED!!" videos (July 2021, about Starlink) and I didn't notice any outright falsehoods, so perhaps he's being more circumspect these days. Also, he hasn't deleted that one, even though it's pretty embarrassing for him. So credit where it's due.
That said, the simplest example I've come across of an apparently uncorrected falsehood from him is also from 2021: https://x.com/thunderf00t/status/1364020482572492801 It's hardly a big deal, but he clearly knew that his followers believed the claim to be false, so it seems that at best he was lazy in not bothering to go back and read the 3 replies that proved they were correct.
Some general "debunkings" of more of his SpaceX claims:
If it’s true he deleted a video he’s obviously not going to reUpload.
You could at least find out what his response might be. If he outright lies, someone might come forward and 'testify' to that fact.
You made a claim, the burden of proof is on you
No, I asked a question.
I'm increasingly confident that Thunderfoot is indeed the guy about whom I've heard that allegation, but since I don't have proof, it has to remain as a question
The missing piece here is that Lueders was sidelined by the administration, and only left NASA after that. I guess we can all agree that this was punishment for her awarding the contract to SpaceX, and the only question is whether she deserved that punishment.
I don't know. I don't even know if the claims are true. But having an idea of your maximum price, and only telling any bidders what that is if they are a little bit over, doesn't seem to me like the kind of thing that would be an uncommon occurrence in government procurement.
My weak guess is that, prior to this year at least, SpaceX has been operating at a vastly lower level than Old Space in terms of dubious business practices, and the baby steps they took in that direction were expertly countered by the masters of the art, and that's why we're even talking about this level of detail in the only (?) contract that SpaceX contentiously won, and not the dozens they contentiously lost.
but their goals seem easy in comparison, especially if you consider the tech we have now vs the 60’s
I'd say their goals seem much harder in an absolute sense, but perhaps roughly the same in comparison to the technology level.
They really do seem to be trying to create a Mars colonisation ship. Capable of transporting large amounts of mass for less money than it costs to transport small amounts of mass with existing rockets.
My response to Destin is that Starship is clearly not optimal for another 'flags and footprints' mission to the Moon, but is such a paradigm shift that even if doing such a mission as a 'side project', it could still very easily be better than all the alternatives. And if, like me, you care more about a permanent presence on the Moon, the case for Starship becomes even stronger.
Good point. I wasn't really thinking what i meant by "the critical path". I was probably assuming the path to a vehicle & system working (at least qualitatively) as designed - including full reusability.
But now that I think about it, probably the thing that matters most to SpaceX is launching at least one ship during the next Mars transfer window, in order to test their Martian EDL approach. (The critical path to making life multi-planetary?) And for that I guess booster reuse is much(?) more important than ship reuse. Or to put it another way, currently for Starship, Mars EDL is the main goal, and Earth EDL only matters to the extent it helps with that goal.
I should've realized this without your question, because after Flight 4 I decided that it was now likely they would be ready by early 2027 - even if they did struggle with reusability. (I think even after Flight 3 we had grounds to reach this conclusion.)
So I now say that this decision is probably not a mistake.
N.B. When I say I think they'll be ready by early 2027, I mean from an engineering PoV. I'm excluding politics and such. What if a NASA science team decides they don't want Starship to contaminate Mars, and Trump doesn't feel like helping Musk overturn that decision?
I still remember the press conference before the first F9 booster reuse. The customer CEO(?) was saying that his team was comfortable, and I think even that the insurance company was comfortable too. So I was fairly confident it would work.
In this case, there's no customer or insurance company giving any high level push-back on any concerns.
One possibility I wonder about is that Musk and/or other senior SpaceX ppl might be wanting to 'double down' on how this is a bold & risk-taking programme, for psychological reasons, in defiance of all the naysayers after the Flights 7 & 8 situation. And thus ignoring the 'critical path' argument, and the fact that the only good risks to take are calculated risks.
Do you think the cost of booster production could be a factor in their decision?
Unsure about this topic in general. My guess is that the raw materials and COTS components are relatively cheap, and that most of the costs are labour. So one uncertainty lies in whether the people would be employed at Starbase regardless of whether they had to build an extra booster or not. And just in general, when we hear dollar figures bandied around, what proportion of those are the true 'marginal'(?) cost.
But ultimately I think yes, now you mention it, cost would've been a significant factor in the decision.
Along with maybe production rate? Maybe they can easily shift existing people & factory space from boosters, to ships. And so the full 'critical path' argument needs to take into account how booster reuse could potentially increase the ship production rate.
Well I certainly wouldn't want to launch on an F9 booster on its first flight![1] And NASA recently gave a clear sign that they share that logic to at least some extent.[2] So I'm definitely open to that possibility, for Super Heavy, and maybe SpaceX already believes it.
But as an outsider my guess is that, if nothing else, the 'unknown unknowns' should give us significant concern on the first attempt. I'm guessing a 20% probability that the booster reuse significantly hampers Flight 9.
[1] - Nor on its 2nd actually. My theory is that there could be manufacturing defects in/around the reusability hardware that don't get stressed until after the main stress of the first flight, which the second flight then uncovers. E.g. a landing leg attachment fitted imperfectly causes a crack in the rocket body during the 1st landing, and the crack causes a RUD at max Q during the 2nd flight.
In other words the first section of the bathtub curve might not be as steep as we'd like.
[2] - I think within the last year there was a problem during transport of a brand new F9 booster, and NASA said they were glad to subsequently give it a test flight on a Starlink mission before it was used for a NASA mission.
When next launch? (Flight 8) NET April, “4 to 6 weeks” after Flight 8. (Elon)
When previous launch? (Flight 7)? Booster 15 and Ship 34 launched on 2025-03-06.
I think the numbers in the parentheses need incrementing.
SpaceX has spent several weeks refurbishing, testing, and preparing Booster 14 for its next flight, which is planned to be on Starship’s next flight, Flight 9. The company also announced that 29 out of the 33 engines on the booster are flight-proven,
I wonder if this decision is a mistake. Seems like ship development is on the critical path, and booster development is very much not.
If the estimated increase in risk from the reusing Super Heavy for the first time is substantial, it might be better to delay that until some more progress has been made with Starship.
Indeed.
I assumed the comment was satirising one common form of misguided critique of SpaceX's "hardware-rich" approach to this development programme. But yes, now I'm not so sure.