aTmAg said:

---

Saturn V officially started development in 61, and the first launch was 67. And that is without all the ridiculous regulations Space X has had to deal with.

---

Again, this was the topic:

LaunchesGoodButTakesQuestionable said:

---

Just a reminder that starship really is only 5 years into development proper. If this was any rocket pre about 2011 we would be getting maybe pictures of tooling and pad construction.

---

Except for the Saturn V


The X post nortex97 posted says it's taken 5 years to develop Starship. That's not actually true. 5 years ago was when we first saw Starhopper. Obviously design and development work had to come first, just like it did with the Saturn V. If we include the whole project, it was first announced in 2012. Not sure when they really started to fund the project though, but it's taken longer than the Saturn V. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Starship will be a much more capable rocket.

aTmAg said:

---

(And at only $5B-$10B cost.. which is ridiculously cheap compared to $266B in modern dollars for Saturn V)

---

This is also a different subject. Enjoy...

PJYoung said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

---

That's got to be a composite right?

---

Here's the shot

View from atop the tower at liftoff pic.twitter.com/qbXqbXAO8A

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) November 20, 2023

---

Has there been any onboard camera footage? Usually they have that, and I would think that for this test they would have 100 cameras embedded across both the booster and the starship.

aTmAg said:

---

Has there been any onboard camera footage? Usually they have that, and I would think that for this test they would have 100 cameras embedded across both the booster and the starship.

---

I expect they will release some of that this week.

TexAgs91 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Saturn V officially started development in 61, and the first launch was 67. And that is without all the ridiculous regulations Space X has had to deal with.

---

Again, this was the topic:

LaunchesGoodButTakesQuestionable said:

---

Just a reminder that starship really is only 5 years into development proper. If this was any rocket pre about 2011 we would be getting maybe pictures of tooling and pad construction.

---

Except for the Saturn V


The X post nortex97 posted says it's taken 5 years to develop Starship. That's not actually true. 5 years ago was when we first saw Starhopper. Obviously design and development work had to come first, just like it did with the Saturn V. If we include the whole project, it was first announced in 2012. Not sure when they really started to fund the project though, but it's taken longer than the Saturn V. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Starship will be a much more capable rocket.

aTmAg said:

---

(And at only $5B-$10B cost.. which is ridiculously cheap compared to $266B in modern dollars for Saturn V)

---

This is also a different subject. Enjoy...

---

Actually it's the other way. They started Starship for real after the first crewed Falcon 9 in 2019. Prior to that, Demo-1 was their #1 priority. Starhopper was merely to test the Raptor engine, not Starship. If we were to count engine development then we'd have to move the Saturn V start date to 1955 when the F-1 first started development.

Not to mention, that most of Starship's development has been revolving around 100% reusability. If they knew they were gonna just throw it away every time, then they'd have been done long ago.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Here is an amazing video discussing how an astronomer from the Florida Keys (wish they would say which of the Keys) captured S25 going by and was able to show that it had broken in half.





btw, they also mentioned by the end of the video, the telescope was pointing to 220 degrees, 48 degrees azimuth.

---

I plotted from the middle of the Keys where this would have put Starship if it was at 149 km altitude.



How was this still visible from the Starbase area?

TexAgs91 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Here is an amazing video discussing how an astronomer from the Florida Keys (wish they would say which of the Keys) captured S25 going by and was able to show that it had broken in half.





btw, they also mentioned by the end of the video, the telescope was pointing to 220 degrees, 48 degrees azimuth.

---

I plotted from the middle of the Keys where this would have put Starship if it was at 149 km altitude.



How was this still visible from the Starbase area?

---

It should have been visible. The short version is it was high enough and they had a good telescope. The long version is the angular distance from Boca Chica to Havana is 13.67 degrees of arc and the angular distance to Starship at 150 km of altitude at Havana was 12.32 degrees of arc. I used Havana just because its roughly in the correct direction and distance wise its close enough

Mathguy64 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Here is an amazing video discussing how an astronomer from the Florida Keys (wish they would say which of the Keys) captured S25 going by and was able to show that it had broken in half.





btw, they also mentioned by the end of the video, the telescope was pointing to 220 degrees, 48 degrees azimuth.

---

I plotted from the middle of the Keys where this would have put Starship if it was at 149 km altitude.



How was this still visible from the Starbase area?

---

It should have been visible. The short version is it was high enough and they had a good telescope. The long version is the angular distance from Boca Chica to Havana is 13.67 degrees of arc and the angular distance to Starship at 150 km of altitude at Havana was 12.32 degrees of arc. I used Havana just because its roughly in the correct direction and distance wise its close enough

---

Break out the slide rules... I challenge thee to a nerd war

The distance to the endpoint I drew on the map above is this:

Which is 1542 km, which is also the arc length

Doing some trig...

Arc length = theta*R, so theta = .242
R is the radius of the Earth (6371km) and A is the altitude you can see at the given distance.



A=191 km

So if Starship was 1542 km away, it would have to be at an altitude of 191 km to be seen at the horizon.

Apologies to Chevy Chase

Ag with kids said:

---

Look at this guy...

Thinks the earth is flat.

---

nortex97 said:

---

. . .
Someone on twitter had an interesting comment though; imagine for all the other commercial launch providers with products/planned products, if Starship works even just as much as F9 does in another 5 years (100 launches a year or so), how will they be remotely competitive?

---

Most won't, although there will be institutional demand from the space powers wanting to use their homegrown entities. That will keep the favored local launchers in business.

Also it seems like there was a small niche market for launchers that would place satellites in or close to their specific orbits, and SpaceX wasn't catering to that market, but my recollection could be off.

More rocket pron

Mathguy64 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Here is an amazing video discussing how an astronomer from the Florida Keys (wish they would say which of the Keys) captured S25 going by and was able to show that it had broken in half.





btw, they also mentioned by the end of the video, the telescope was pointing to 220 degrees, 48 degrees azimuth.

---

I plotted from the middle of the Keys where this would have put Starship if it was at 149 km altitude.



How was this still visible from the Starbase area?

---

It should have been visible. The short version is it was high enough and they had a good telescope. The long version is the angular distance from Boca Chica to Havana is 13.67 degrees of arc and the angular distance to Starship at 150 km of altitude at Havana was 12.32 degrees of arc. I used Havana just because its roughly in the correct direction and distance wise its close enough

---

This might be the MOST User Name fits in the history of not only TexAgs, but the rest of Al Gores Internet.

bmks270 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

I think a lot of people knew the pad would be destroyed on test flight one but Elon ignored them. Elon makes bad decisions occasionally.

---

Why was it a bad decision? The data they gain from watching it blow up and getting to that level is far more valuable than not launching it.

---

It created delays making it slower, and the repairs cost more money in the long run. It creates extra work and burnout for employees. It also is terrible PR and damages relationships with locals, and with regulators. You can rationalize it, but it was objectively a bad decision.

"Slow is fast and fast is slow"

---

Glad Schriever didn't live by this mantra.

PJYoung said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

---

That's got to be a composite right?

---

Here's the shot

View from atop the tower at liftoff pic.twitter.com/qbXqbXAO8A

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) November 20, 2023

---

I would like to amend my earlier comment related to the still shot.

This video... This is truly first rate rocket porn

Almost like talking to a Boeing or Williams Brothers employee

TexAgs91 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Here is an amazing video discussing how an astronomer from the Florida Keys (wish they would say which of the Keys) captured S25 going by and was able to show that it had broken in half.





btw, they also mentioned by the end of the video, the telescope was pointing to 220 degrees, 48 degrees azimuth.

---

I plotted from the middle of the Keys where this would have put Starship if it was at 149 km altitude.



How was this still visible from the Starbase area?

---

It should have been visible. The short version is it was high enough and they had a good telescope. The long version is the angular distance from Boca Chica to Havana is 13.67 degrees of arc and the angular distance to Starship at 150 km of altitude at Havana was 12.32 degrees of arc. I used Havana just because its roughly in the correct direction and distance wise its close enough

---

Break out the slide rules... I challenge thee to a nerd war

The distance to the endpoint I drew on the map above is this:

Which is 1542 km, which is also the arc length

Doing some trig...

Arc length = theta*R, so theta = .242
R is the radius of the Earth (6371km) and A is the altitude you can see at the given distance.



A=191 km

So if Starship was 1542 km away, it would have to be at an altitude of 191 km to be seen at the horizon.

Apologies to Chevy Chase

---

Here's a cleaned up version of the video. That was for about three minutes. At the speed it was going, that's about 2/3 the way across the Gulf. Although it would slow down as it re-enters the atmosphere.

Starship had a mass of around 1000 tons when it passed the Karman line, is this the heaviest man made object in space? pic.twitter.com/3EWTlAiGeR

— random (@r3a9an_k_) November 21, 2023

That's twice as massive as the ISS

Just saw they issued flight restrictions on the Southern tip of South Padre Island right after the launch. Does anyone have any ideas why?

I go drone fishing there all the time!

PJYoung said:

---

---

Korolev you magnificent *******, I read your book.

I understood that reference…

To the earlier arguments about speed of development.

I think the better comparison is not the Saturn V, but the Army Air Corps decision to push Boeing into building the B29. It went from paper to war in 4 years with the first full order before a prototype had left the ground. Many of the planes received much needed upgrades on Army flight lines and nearly every plane that left the assembly line flew straight to a facility for the current engineering upgrades.

BTW... Take the hour or so and watch this documentary.

Not to get a tangent here but I watched a very interesting show the other day on the history channel that dealt with how all the big industrialists in the 30s all moved their abilities and facilities into war production.

DuPont took GM into ammunition. Chrysler into making tanks and how they were given the ford V8 to power it.

Ford was tasked with making the B-24. They initially failed because the Army Air Corps kept changing the design and every change forced the assembly line to stop and retool. So they hit on the idea of offsite engineering facilities. They built the plane in one model and got it off the assembly line. From there it flew to a facility to upgrade it to new specs. That made it work. They said that often the test flight of each new plane was its flight to the upgrade facility.

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

---

That's got to be a composite right?

---

Here's the shot

View from atop the tower at liftoff pic.twitter.com/qbXqbXAO8A

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) November 20, 2023

---

---

Oh man... first I saw the photo. Then I saw the video. Now I see it in 360 in VR

That is awesome

One other image (model) that illustrates this well is this one used by @Erdayastronaut's Starship vs N1 video. (Edited a tad to be more focused). https://t.co/7vajod44TJ pic.twitter.com/5lDkLaqU28

— Jacob (@Jrcraft__) November 22, 2023

This is merely of course an aesthetic comparison (for a rocket that failed and used highly toxic fuels so I think that is part of the reason for the spacing), but still.

Nice video:

Why aren’t we taking full advantage of the planet we’re living on to launch rockets? If we launched rockets from mountains, they'd be closer to space where the air is thinner so we could use more vacuum optimized engines.

Or why don't we launch rockets from the equator? The… pic.twitter.com/lJI9ghFGrR

— Everyday Astronaut (@Erdayastronaut) November 21, 2023

They do seem to have the options at hand for the next (IFT3?) attempt;

Production Diagram #13 | 19th November, 2023 | "Anyways, here’s some more rockets."https://t.co/xqtucYYsLM

--
Updates since last diagram:
🟡S25 & B9 conduct Starship Flight 2.

🔵S26 conducts a preburner and a static fire.
🔵S26 moved to the Rocket Garden.
🔵S31 aft flap… pic.twitter.com/PXQCuUfxtS

— The Ringwatchers (@Ringwatchers) November 19, 2023

Beyond Gravity (formerly Ruag) says it's joining the reusable rocket party. The paradigm continues to shift ...https://t.co/KWz3tvceor

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) November 22, 2023

Interesting, as RUAG (now Beyond Gravity) I believe has produced much of the fairings for ULA/SpaceX/ESA etc.

European industry has been grappling for 10+ years with how to/whether to adapt to launcher reusability from a competitive standpoint, and this sounds like a positive step.

Tracking camera footage of Super Heavy MECO (most engines cut off) as 30 of the booster's 33 Raptor engines shut down in preparation for hot-staging pic.twitter.com/8SJ0z5OCZy

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) November 22, 2023

I'm guessing in some sort of private capacity though.

SpaceX plans to sell shares next month at $150 billion valuation, per NYP.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 22, 2023

Correct, just a liquidity event with new money coming in.

Pretty cool. I'm assuming that the "most" is by design and it wasn't just that a few of them got stuck on.