[ad_1]
You might think that luck has finally run out of SpaceX as yet another failed Starship Test exploded again this week with an ambitious heavy rocket exploding again.
However, this level of failure during the development process is not in reality uncommon. Especially if you’re testing new space technology as a big rocket, according to Wendy Whitman Cobb, a space policy expert at the Advanced Air and Space Study school. However, spacecraft testing differs significantly from the slow, stable development pace expected in the space sector.
“The reason many people perceive this as unusual is because this is not the typical way we historically tested rockets,” says Whitman Cobb.
Historically speaking, space agencies such as NASA and Legacy Aerospace Companies have not tested the United Launch Alliance (ULA) spending time developing rockets, and are confident in their successful results. Even today, it is with major NASA projects such as the development of Space Launch Systems (SLS). “They take as long as they need to make sure the rocket works and the launch is successful,” says Whitmancob.
“This is not the typical way to historically test rockets.”
SpaceX chose a different path that frequently tests, fails, and repeats. The process was at the heart of its success, allowing the company to rapidly perform developments like the reusable Falcon 9 rockets at a rapid pace. But it also means frequent and very public failures. This caused complaints about local environmental damage around the launch site, matching the heads with regulatory bodies. There are also important concerns about the political ties between the Trump administration and his CEO Elon Musk. Undemocratic influence On federal regulations for SpaceX’s work.
However, even within the context of SpaceX’s fast break approach, the development of the spacecraft appeared to be chaotic. Compared to the development of the Falcon 9 rocket, there were many failures, but there were clear forward passes from the common failures to increasingly fewer obstacles over time, but Starship has a more uneven record.
Previous developments were more progressive, first showing that the rocket was healthy before moving towards more complex issues such as boosters and first-stage reusability. The company did not even try to save the Falcon 9 booster and reuse it until several years of testing.
Spaceships aren’t like that. “They’re trying to do everything at once on a spaceship,” says Whitman Cobb. The company is trying to debut an entirely new rocket with a new engine, allowing it to be reused at once. “That’s a really, really difficult engineering challenge.”
“They are trying to do everything at once on a spaceship.”
The Raptor engines that power the spacecraft are very tough engineering nuts, and there are many of them, so 33 of them each cluster together, all of which are clustered together. Re-illuminating the engine has been successful on some of the previous spacecraft test flights, but was also a point of failure.
So why is SpaceX pushing so fast? That’s because the mask focuses on the laser as it reaches Mars. And while it is theoretically possible to send missions to Mars using existing rockets like the Falcon 9, the vast amount of equipment, consumables and people needed for a Mars mission has a very large mass. To make Mars missions remotely affordable, you need to be able to travel many masses in one launch. So you need a much larger rocket like a spacecraft or NASA’s SLS.
NASA has previously hedged bets by developing its own heavy launch rockets and supporting the development of spacecraft. However, recent cuts in funding have seen an increasing possibility that SLS will become Axed. SAPEX shows that it exists as the only player in the town to promote NASA’s Mars program.
However, there is still much to do to guide the spacecraft to a place where there is even a serious plan for the crew’s mission.
“There’s no way they’re putting people down right now.”
The spacecraft testing against Mars will be tested by crew to continue in 2028 by 2026, and as he said he’s aiming for this week, “I think it’s totally paranoid,” says Whitman Cobb. SpaceX notes that it does not appear to be taking into account issues such as adding life support to the starry sky, or creating specific plans for Mars habitat, launch pads and infrastructure.
“I don’t think SpaceX will put money in places where it has its mouth,” says Whitman Cobb. “If they’re making a launch window next year, it’s going to be irregular. There’s no way they’re putting people on the spot right now, and I seriously doubt if they’re going to make it.”
That doesn’t mean, of course, that the spacecraft will never reach Mars. “I believe SpaceX will design a way out of it. I think their engineering is good enough to make the spacecraft work,” says Whitman Cobb. However, getting a free rocket on Mars within the next decade is much more realistic than next year.
But putting people on rockets is a completely different matter. “If they’re trying to build a large human settlement, that’s decades,” says Whitman Cobb. “I don’t know to live to see it.”