Whatever anyone may think of Mr Musk, what SpaceX are attempting to do with Starship is a true step forward in space exploration.

Launch scheduled for 14:28 BST, 20 minites from now as I post this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-65330571

It launched, it flew, it failed to separate and then blew up.

But given Musk had said that anything other than having it blow up on the pad would be a success, that counted as a successful test flight.

Roll on the next one!

"Starship experienced 'rapid, unscheduled disassembly'"

Well said, lol! I'm in aerospace so this is highly relevant to my interests

Mad props to the flight engineers for keeping her flying as long as she did.
(and the engineering crews who build a machine capable of taking that punishment and still flying)

There will be very few people in history who can say "Today I backflipped the world's most powerful rocket a couple of times"

It's amazing how far space flight has come. From Peenemde to Space X. We've made it to space, then the moon now onward to Mars and beyond!

I went to high school and remember how much this film sticks with me on dreams and the impossible
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZezvNWgi4M

I was speechless when it cleared the tower, a total complete RUD at the launch mount was a possible outcome that was stuck in my head, and as it turns out it seriously almost happened.

The biggest lesson learned is not so much of the ship, but more to do with the orbital pad as lots of concrete debris came back up and immediately took out 3 raptors and damaged more to eventually fail along the way as the flight progressed, hence the chunks of the booster we saw coming off and the flashes seen were all related to those damaged raptors. But the fact that the booster charged on and withstood the force of the additional raptors exploding is incredibly impressive and a real testament to the engineering put into those things. Technically in some cases just one raptor doing a RUD (basically exploding) in the engine bay could take everything else out with it and that could have happened including right there on the launch mount.

But it didn't, that fucking thing flew despite being in a very injured state.

As for the stage separation, that's a whole different problem but they will have it sorted out for next time.

As for the launch mount it's self, it's totally destroyed down below and that re-enforced concrete was instantly destroyed very much like a hot knife going through butter, their gonna have to go to a flame diverter next and sadly that just cannot be done overnight, 2 or 3 months minimum and that's only if they get on it right a away and concentrate heavily on that.

I've been to StarBase and the launch facility a couple years ago there in Boca Chica, the place is a sight to see. Seeing a Starship in person makes you realize that pictures doesn't do it justice, the size of it will boggle your mind.

Soooooooo, look, space exploration as an act of imagination is very cool and fun. But I would strongly urge everyone not to get overexcited about this.

First and foremost, if you let someone define failure as success, then of course they're going to succeed. Elon Musk can't run a car company or a social media company or a drilling company or, indeed, his own life. I sure as hell don't trust him to run a space program. So if this is something you care about, it's probably bad news that he's involved.

Second, even if you're willing to assume that Musk will succeed in doing the hardest thing he's ever attempted when he's failed at stuff that was way easier, the reality is that we're nowhere near, like, space colonies or whatever. I would be very surprised if we even attempted a Mars settlement within my lifetime. If we attempted it and it succeeded, I'd be absolutely blown away. Last time I checked, even the optimists will admit that the science is just not there.

And then third, not to be *that* guy, but it's probably worth thinking about why we're even doing any of this. I mean, I know why Musk is doing it: this is a bottomless money pit that allows him to fund his lifestyle at the taxpayers' expense. Apparently we've given SpaceX fifteen b i l l i o n dollars so far, and obviously that number is only going to go up. So, again, I can see why Musk is into the idea: he gets oodles of money for failing to put rockets into space. (And if he somehow does actually get to Mars, he gets to rule it with an iron fist. This is real; it's literally in his Terms of Service.) But that's pretty obviously not a good reason for the rest of us to play along.

So to go back to the question: what *is* the reason we're doing this? Like, let me skip over the getting-there phase, because the getting-there phase is not the end goal (duh). Let me just assume for the sake of conversation that we made it. We have the moon bases and the Mars colony (which, also for the sake of conversation, let's assume has relatively normal governance and not an Elon Musk dictatorship) and whatever else. Then what? What does that scenario do for us? I've thought about this kind of a lot, and I honestly have never found a really compelling answer - and that's *before* I start factoring in the costs.

*if* the colonies manage to become self-sufficient, then we as a species cease to be as at risk from climate change on this planet as we are just now. Though there's obviously an enormous gulf between "a colony on Mars supported by regular supplies from Earth" and "a colony on Mars that is entirely self-sufficient in food, water, raw materials, and manufacturing capability."

I believe that is actually what SpaceX are aiming to do, make humans an interplanetary species. Which, whatever anyone thinks of Mr Musk - people I know refer to him sarcastically as "The God-King of Mars" - is a laudable aim.

Yeah. Like, that gulf is probably bigger than the gulf between where we are now and having Earth-supported colonies on Mars. It is, indeed, a very very very big gulf.


So then forgive me for asking the obvious question, but: if that's the goal we're trying to achieve, why not just do that? Like, why not spend all this money on clean energy and retrofitting homes to be more energy-efficient and paying engineers to develop new technologies that could deal with global warming directly? Those problems are solvable now. To me, at least, it feels very strange to redirect resources away from those solutions in order to fund a backup plan that might take, like, hundreds of years to work at all (if it ever works). That goes double for this particular backup plan, given that rocket launches are, y'know, a contributor to global warming (see e.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021EF002612).


Forgive me for asking what might seem like a rude question, but why do you believe that? Also, again, if space colonization is good or desirable only insofar as it gives us a failsafe in case of catastrophic global warming, then to me that feels more like an okay goal or a not-bad goal; "laudable" seems a bit strong. I could think of probably ten more worthwhile goals just off the top of my head (one of which, to reiterate, is to just stop catastrophic global warming from ever happening in the first place).

Not much to say other than they're really gonna need to build a flame trench and/or fit a sound supression system before launching that thing again

Well now Musk is talking about doing this steel plate cooling method idea but that requires not only a massive amount of water tank storage but a serious pumping station too. In all honesty I really don't have much confidence in anything other than the flame diverter trench method when it comes to dispersing the energy of 33 angry raptors. After all they straight up dug a 20 foot hole in seconds, oh not to mention that was after they already defeated the many feet of re-enforced concrete.

The ship is looking really good, but as far as the actual launch infrastructure of Stage 0 goes, yeah not so much so they have some serious shit to get worked out.

As for failure to separate, the debris damage right at the start may actually have everything to do with it after all (which earlier I mentioned it was a separate issue) because near the engine bay is where the hydraulic pumps also reside for the release locks up top of Super Heavy, so state 2 was pretty much doomed from the start.

But this is why the approach of build test fail repeat until success really works, those who say one failure means its all over have no idea what they are talking about and anybody who thinks that is wrong, just look back at how many Falcon 9's they crashed and RUD-ed before they successfully landed one for example.

Someday in a matter of years from now, this thing will be working like fine tuned machine, but until then, a lot of work remains ahead.

And FYI one of my friends is one of the many engineers developing Starship, we're in close touch and this is how I learned of the crater's depth being 20ft.

Exactly, no argument there.


Because nothing remotely effective is actually going to be done about climate change. The steps needed are politically unpalatable, and even if someone, somewhere did try and impose them, their people would rise in revolt. It's already game over, all we're doing now is enjoying the death-ride. The most effective thing anyone can do re climate change is not have kids, and hope to be safely dead before the actual fall of civilisation hits. Estimates as to when that'll happen vary from "2030" to "some time this century". Given I'm only 55 I kind of hope for a bit later. I really feel for younger people and those with children though. Living through what's coming will not be remotely pleasant, and most who see it won't survive it.


I think they've actually said so? Colonies on Mars, etc. It's probably way too late but you can't blame someone for trying.

Well, now *that's* an interesting thing to say. I think I probably agree with you that we're not doing very much right now, and I certainly think it's plausible that we might just never do anything and, like, die. But which steps did you have in mind? I'm not entirely sure that a solution would be so totally unpalatable, but then again your idea of a solution might be very different from mine.


I know this is sort of a glib thing to say (given that, if civilization ends, money won't be worth anything), but how much do you want to bet that civilization doesn't collapse by 2030? Or, indeed, in your lifetime? I know I post a lot of "such-and-such good thing won't happen in your lifetime" stuff on this board, but I believe the same thing about catastrophes, too. I'm pretty confident that Mad Max won't happen for at least another couple hundred years.

But anyway, though, there's another thing: if you do honestly believe that there's going to be a total collapse of human civilization (whatever that would mean) by 2100, then you must surely also believe that we have no chance of Mars saving us, right? Like, again, I think we both understand that we're super fucking far away from having *any* Mars colony, let alone one that's well and truly self-sufficient. As such, any Mars stuff is going to need Earth society to be around for the foreseeable future. So if Earth collapses by 2100, then any Mars hopes surely collapse right along with it, right?


For some definition of "they," I guess. In particular, *Elon Musk* talks about that stuff, but Elon Musk is a pathologically lying clod and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He said that self-driving cars were two years away in 2014 (and then 2015, and then 2016, and then...). He said he wanted Twitter because of mumble mumble free speech and then started banning journalists. He said he'd build a "hyperloop" and then actually built a one-lane tunnel for cars. I mean, should I go on? He said he wanted a pause on AI development and then formed an AI startup. He said COVID would be over by April 2020. He called that rescue guy a pedophile for absolutely no reason. I really can keep going if you want.

Basically, those aren't the words and actions of someone who truly believes in doing the right thing. So, to me, when Musk says that he wants to do something for a good reason, my first thought is that he's lying about his motivations and my second thought is that he's lying about his capabilities. I listen to him talk and all I hear is, "Please keep giving me money, because my money is the only sign that I'm worth anything as a person."

And, like, I know that you've said that you're using Mars as a kind of glimmer of hope in what you see as an otherwise hopeless future, and I'm not trying to take that away from you. (Honestly, I'm not.) If anything, I guess what I'm saying is that it's better to confront that hopelessness instead of being so frightened of it that we're willing to entrust ourselves to someone as manifestly untrustworthy as Musk. You can call me delusional if you like, but I believe we have a much, much better chance of saving ourselves than we do of being saved by him.

I kinda wish it had at least got into orbit before it blew up. Then the debri would have destroyed everything up there ending space exploration forever (that would be the perfect legacy for him)

Maybe then his next crazy venture would be something much cooler and cheaper like curing world hunger or planting trees

There's quite a lot that would need to be done but the big ones would be:
Massive curttailment of private motoring.
Almost total ban on flying.
Effective restrictions on any form of "useless" trade - manufacturing of plastic tat that gets shipped half-way round the world only to end up chucked in the trash within a month.
Major global shift to veggie or even vegan food, and reduction in meat farming.
And this is the big one - A massive global roll-out of full access to contraception and free on-demand abortion, for women, everywhere, in order to massively drop the birth rate and start to get the global population back down to a sustainable level where everyone can live an advanced (read "western") lifestyle.

The underlying problem is there are too many people. We only get away with the current population level because vast numbers of people are condemned to spend their entire lives in abject grinding poverty and depravation while a relatively few of us have advanced lifestyles. This is grossly unfair and cruel, and also what is driving the ever-increasing demand for resources and energy as more and more people climb out of that poverty. The sustainable population where everyone on earth can have a decent, secure life, is somewhere between 1 and 2 billion. We're curerently heading for 9 billion, though that is predicted to be the peak - but at present rates the drop isn't going to come soon enough. The best way to reduce birth rates is to expand women's rights, particularly reproductive rights. Which sadly, huge and entrenched elements, esp on the right, will fight tooth and nail against.


I don't think it will be as early as 2030, though I do think by then it will be becoming more obvious what is coming. And I'm hoping not in my remaining lifetime. Right now I'm waiting to see what 2024 brings. Climate scientists are concerned that what seems to be happening is things are going in steps, rather than a steady slope, and because of a developing El Nino, it's thought that 24 will be another extreme record breaker.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65339934

Here in the UK, last year, temperature records were smashed - not just crept past, but in some case smashed through by 5 full degrees centigrade, which used to be unheard of - and while 23 may be milder it's possible 24 will be savage.

Humans can't survive when the "wet-bulb" temperature - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature - goes over 35 degrees, as we lose the ability to cool by sweating, and fairly quickly die of heat stroke. It used to be thought that WBT over 35 wasn't possible on Earth, but in recent years, in the hottest countries, it's happened several times.

As you can imagine, it wouldn't take that many step-change increments of 5 degrees in the dry-bulb temperature before the wet-bulb starts to reach the danger zone.


Oh agreed, getting to fully self-sustaining, can continue without Earth, colonies on Mars will probably take 300 years at least. So the chances are minimal. But at the same point it's a potentially laudable goal if we somehow do manage to mitigate climate change.


I'm no Musk fanboy, I'm ambivalent about him. Lots of people seem to either want to worship him, or yeet him into the sea. I'm honestly not bothered, and I do like space and space research, I was 5 when the last human moon landing happened. So following SpaceX's exploits is interesting to me.

There's also the possibility that part of the solution to climate change may well involve orbital sunshades to cool the poles, given that's where the worst, and the most damaging, warming is happening. In which case, reliable heavy-lift rockets will almost certainly be needed. So there may be some advantage to what Musk is doing even if not directly related to what some of my FB f/list refer to as his ambition to be "the God King Of Mars".

Things will become much clearer as this decade continues. By the date of a theoretical UMD 30 in 2028, we'll have a much clearer idea of where we are actually going.

Okay, cool - so I'm gonna reorder these into my idea of how politically unpalatable they'd be, just for the sake of my own clarity of mind.

1. "No useless trash" should be an easy rule for the people to get behind. Aside from spiral-eyed economists and the usual performative contrarians on the right, I don't think anyone in the wealthy world would bother to oppose this. Presumably some of the poorer nations would protest, because that's where this stuff gets made, but we haven't exactly demonstrated a huge amount of concern about their opinions so far and probably we would not start doing so here.
2. People would probably be pretty cranky about flying, but also flying sucks and it doesn't seem like anybody actually enjoys doing it (except maybe for people who have private jets, but fuck those people). I think this would be doable if we just gave people a legitimate alternative, which you folks in Europe already have. (And, indeed, some European countries are already starting to curtail air travel, so clearly it's politically possible.)
**Notably, Elon Musk is one of those people who are actively fucking up any chance of developing a real alternative here in the states. He's an oligarch and a car guy, both of which are inconsistent with the main alternative to air travel (namely, low-cost high-speed rail). It's in his vested interests to convince everyone that Mars is more realistic than trains. My position is that it's in our vested interests to do the opposite.
3. Banning cars would be a very big job, especially here in the states where people love their cars more than they love god. But, again, if we build alternatives first, I think it's well within the realm of possibility. Like flying, car ownership sucks. Cars are stupidly expensive, driving is dangerous and stressful, traffic is loud and miserable, and parking is a trial. If people have a better alternative, my guess is that they'll start drifting away from driving on their own.
**Again, Musk literally sells cars. If you give him the choice between eliminating cars and eliminating global warming, he's choosing to save cars every time. As for me, I would rather watch him go broke and save the world.
4. I agree that it'll be very, very hard to get people to stop eating so much meat. This is much more cultural than even driving, and I don't know how to change the culture except to do so slowly. Hopefully we can get away with doing it slowly.
5. I also agree with you that reproductive choice is a great idea and that it's an enormous political challenge (even in supposedly "enlightened" places). But I'm not actually sure that it's, like, the key element. More on this below.


Again, just to reiterate, I totally agree with you about women's rights and reproductive freedom and all that. What I'm about to say is in no way intended to diminish that message.

That said, I don't think that we really have a good sense of what a sustainable population level would look like, because the way we're living now wouldn't be sustainable with a population of any size (...large enough to sustain the way we're living now, anyway). Oh, sure, there's a chance we could have delayed the crisis by some number of centuries by curtailing population growth. But maybe those of us in the wealthy world would've just used that as an excuse to produce and consume even more. Like, as it is 330 million Americans are already responsible for twice as much carbon as 1.4 billion Indians. As far as I can tell, the pursuit of wealth would have justified any arbitrarily high carbon output. So in an alternate world with half as many people, my guess is that they'll just keep raising their so-called "standard of living" until their rich countries put out carbon-per-capita numbers that were twice as high as the ones we currently have, and then they'll have the same conversation we're having now. So, to me, population control is a delaying tactic, not a real solution (even if it's good to pursue for reasons of, like, basic human rights).

In other words, in my mind the problem is capitalism (i.e., overproduction, overwork, waste, destruction of public goods and services, "standard of living" means GDP means the numbers on the charts go up, etc.). Capitalism is not sustainable and can never be, whether we try it with lots of people, with relatively fewer people, on Earth, on Mars, or whatever. The only questions are how capitalism falls and when, and in my opinion this Mars shit is part of the ending in which capitalism falls as slowly as possible and does as much damage as possible along the way. So I'd like to avoid that.


Sorry for sort of just hitting the highlights here. I don't mean to be blithe about this; the stuff you're talking about is very serious. I just think there's a giant chasm between "very serious" and "end of civilization." To be blunt, what you're talking about is poor people suffering and dying. Fucked-up oceans? At least in the near term, rich people will buy their way out of the problem and poor people will suffer and die. Heat records? Rich people are already buying their way out of the problem while poor people are suffering and dying. Lethal temperatures? Well, whaddya know, mostly that's happening in poorer countries.

Again, all of that stuff is still very fucking bad. If at all possible, we should do something about it. But if we're talking about the end of civilization, that ain't it. We've been faced with the problem of poor people suffering and dying for quite a long time now, and we've responded by building societies that function despite the constant suffering and needless death of poor people. So, in a way, society is actually disturbingly well-prepared for this initial phase of global warming.


So, okay - I could respond to this by pointing out the perversity of allowing someone like Musk to be at all connected to a never-before-tried geoengineering project. Again, first and foremost, he's just a dolt. He ruins nearly everything he touches and the vast majority of his projects are glaring failures. I'm sure by now you've heard about how SpaceX didn't bother with a flame trench because Musk "thought they wouldn't need it" and/or it was too onerous to build. We absolutely cannot afford that type of thinking when it comes to geoengineering, because by definition geoengineering is something that can ruin the whole planet if it goes the way that Musk's decisions tend to go, i.e., wrong.

But really the problem comes back to capital and capitalism. Even is Musk himself were a saint and a genius (which he's reeeeeeeeally not), we'd still have the same basic, underlying problem in our way of living. And so the question is, are we making the problem better or worse by empowering someone in his position? The answer, I think pretty obviously, is that we're making it worse. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the Apollo program was a public effort and not a private one. So even if we get to the point where nothing else except Mars matters, we would still have the choice of whether to export the problem (i.e., capitalism) or not. My personal opinion is that it'd be tremendously foolish to "solve" Earth's precariousness by boosting the system that created the precariousness in the first place. To do so well in advance of any actual need - i.e., right now, when Mars is both not the immediate solution and also not even a real solution - feels not just foolish but downright self-destructive.

Don't know how I missed this one. I regard the first flight as a success and have every confidence the next one will be even more so. Been there and touched it. Hope to visit again soon for the next flight in July.

The thing that has recently impressed me most is how they get the rocket stages to come back and land upright on the pad. That's progress. I don't see much point in colonising Mars but do think there will be huge scientific benefit from people exploring it.