Starship Orbital Test Flight - 4/20 Launch

[charliemagpie]

Did you get your checkmark already as well? I was thinking about it so I can listen at least.

No, I don't have a blue checkmark, I am a lurker more than user.

I am not up to how everything works, but as per google, you don't even need to be a twitter subscriber to listen to Spaces.

In this case, it seems Spaces can now be restricted to subscribers only.

Apart from hello.. the only post in Musks subscriber section is this notification. not sure if the subscription is worth keeping lol

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

A great history read, though I’m unsure of the import to modern claims to territories (or voids outside the bounds of Earth?

There are modern treaties on this that govern, parties to which include over 110 countries (including all capable of space travel).

Of course someone could ignore these laws, with the same effect as here on Earth.

One more item that I remembered from talking to my royal principality friend and forgot to write in the previous post; the Geneva convention states that after a declaration of war a Territory not occupied by the enemy is an independent state. Given how hard it is to get Mars in the first place, I'd like to see someone who is not SpaceX try to occupy Mars.

Besides new countries and borders are formed all the time, and some territories have been in dispute for centuries (like between France and Spain) despite international treaties.

 

[JBee]

Any unenforceable law isn’t a law at all.

Exactly my point, and a court won't even bother pursuing any order of that kind and just throw it out.

As @CyberGus alluded to: no sense in talking as if things “in space” can’t be enforced, if that “thing” has left something of value back on Earth.

If instead you’re just taking a position that ratified treaties governed by the UN have no force, then we just disagree on a first principle, and not much use getting into details.

I’d note that since those treties’ signing in 1967 no country we’re aware of has ever housed nuclear warheads in space, despite being fully capable of doing so.

I suppose you could argue that’s mere coincidental altruism of Earthly politics.

In which case I’d refer you back to the point RE nothing exists solely in space.

Silly discussion

I heard that the US abandoned the nuclear treaties a while back In the news, and blamed doing so on the Russians?

The main reason for nukes not being viable in space is not a treaty, but that hypersonic submarine or ground launched missile versions are far superior, have Stealth, and can be deployed everywhere at low cost with virtually no upkeep in comparison to a orbital network that is completely exposed.

But back to the treaties to understand their relevance a bit better: I do not have a problem with agreements on earth binding certain behaviour, to the degree that they are useful, rather my point was that all such agreements are subject to interpretation, and until the point in time an order is made, and is enforcable in the jurisdiction it has, it is often not worth the paper its written on. (I learnt this the hard way a few decades ago) This applies to an international court as well.

So in the case of Mars as a colony, I think that without SpaceX funding itself, through its other operations, and Starlink as a cash cow, there is only two countries I can think of with the appetite and ability to fund the cost of even just a simple manned mission to Mars. That is China and the USA.

Now China will do it for appearances alone, but in particular that they do not fall behind, and miss any other associated opportunity along the way. They also have their own considerable expertise and have a knack for adopting systems that work from others, and doing so at any cost by shear politcal will.

The USA on the other hand is completely different, most of the cream of the space industry already works for SpaceX, not NASA etc. To boot there is nigh no political appetite for a Mars budget given the current circumstances.

In fact, given that China is also making a Starship clone, it is in the US best interest to let SpaceX to develop and execute the Mars colony on their own budget and time, on the basis it needs to stay ahead of any other actor in that arena. That's 10s if not 100s billions of dollars they don't need to find in a budget and justify. Let alone that SpaceX's rapid reiteration (fail, rinse, repeat till it works) process is completely incompatible with senate scrutiny.

So given the above, that there are only two actors of an "international" treaty that SpaceX has to contend with, are those that also have the capability and willingness to pursue them, then it would be fairly prudent to label the treaties purely as bilateral in nature, despite all the wannabe nations included.

Besides what could any other nation do about either of these states actions? So yes an international treaty for space is not enforceable by all nations here on earth, neither would most nations of said treaty have the capacity to enforce it in space, let alone be willing to sacrifice themselves politically to do so, or face embargos from the two greatest trading partners in the world.

But now consider that EM has his foot in both camps, and it has been stated by numerous friends that he has only one goal with all his endeavours: colonise Mars. I'm not saying he will switch camps, but China cloning Starship is already providing a redundancy to his overarching goals of going to Mars, and it is not costing him a cent.

This reminds me of the same strategy that has now worked on legacy ICE manufacturers: first develop superior technology that people want to have to improve their lives and then let the rest of the market adopt the technology, because of demand, and do the rest. Easy peasy.

 

[JBee]

It’s probably been posted, but did you see how the launch obliterated the launch tower foundation. It completely took out a grade beam that must have been 20’ wide 30’ deep and 100’ long. That’s nuts.

I am sure the structural engineering manual doesn’t deal much with vast quantities of rocket fuel hitting the structure at 3000 meters per second. I am surprised that they failed to account for that. Looks like at least $2M in damage to the tower.

Yeah the damage was a lot more substantial than they thought. When I saw the sand plume on launch my first comment was that is huge and is going to leave a hole. I was still coming to terms with what exactly was happening to their special concrete mix in the process, it seems like the thrust is like a water jet cutter on a huge scale.

But one interesting thing I learnt just yesterday, seeing I missed it previously, is that the outer ring of Raptor engines can only be started on the launch pad itself, meaning they can't be restarted in flight. Only the inside ones can be restarted. It seems highly likely that the outside engines that failed, failed because of all the debris it threw up while it was being held down by clamps on launch, so after it left the pad it couldn't restart them.

Also it appears that the hydraulic system was lost in flight, meaning the gimballing center motors was impaired in its control authority. That left them with just differential thrust (as I predicted was the case in my first post) meaning they had to reduce overall thrust to maintain control and not tip it over and off course.

Subsequently the next few engine failures sealed the deal in that it could no longer maintain the necessary acceleration to reach an altitude where seperation would be viable, using the remaining fuel it had.

Some are saying that the large venting we saw before it blew up was actually the flight termination system blowing a few holes in the tanks, but it failed to ignite the tanks and it took a literal minute before the tanks did ignite. If so it's obviously not good enough as a termination system if it was at a lower altitude.

Overall, I think the next version without hydraulic gimbals and using individual electric actuators instead, along with a proper launch pad, probably with water deluge on top of the planned cooled steel plate, and a proper FTS will result in a much better launch system overall, and likely a successful second launch of the booster and leading to a seperation.

Now how well the Starship fairs inserting itself into a regressive orbit and then trying to belly flop back through the atmosphere is another thing entirely. But I think that phase is less complicated than getting stage 0 and 1 working properly on launch and as such their simulation are less likely to have the same amount of error as seen in this launch.

 

[Crissa]

I heard that the US abandoned the nuclear treaties a while back In the news, and blamed doing so on the Russians?

Depends on the treaty. The US continued funding after Russia walked off, Trump later dropped one of the treaties but we're still acting as if it's in force.

There's a bunch of them.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

I heard that the US abandoned the nuclear treaties a while back In the news, and blamed doing so on the Russians?

not the same space treaties we’re discussing, which governs the topic of nukes in space

Exactly my point, and a court won't even bother pursuing any order of that kind and just throw it out.

order if what kind? Pursuing a spacecraft in space that’s claiming territories? Of course not.

They simply ask the U.S. (the signatory), which needs no order or jurisdictional lever. The U.S., in turn, pursues the private U.S. company and its assets/personnel down here on terra firma uno, for violating one of the U.S.’s treaties.

But back to the treaties to understand their relevance a bit better: I do not have a problem with agreements on earth binding certain behaviour, to the degree that they are useful, rather my point was that all such agreements are subject to interpretation, and until the point in time an order is made, and is enforcable in the jurisdiction it has, it is often not worth the paper its written on. (I learnt this the hard way a few decades ago) This applies to an international court as well.

I don’t think you’re understanding the fact pattern here. We’re not discussing the U.S. violating an international treaty. I thought we’re discussing a U.S. (corporate) citizen violating a treaty by claiming territories in space.

The U.S. (like other countries) have laws that say citizens (including corporate citizens) cannot violate U.S. treaties. Can impose both civil and criminal penalties, and the U.S. essentially has the right to interpret its own treaties how it wishes.

Requires no international order or jurisdictional analysis.

If in this case (hypothetically) SpaceX “claims” the moon, then the U.S. government simply takes all corporate assets of Space X and throws anyone they deem responsible in jail.

SpaceX guys on the moon say, “ha! You can’t get at us!!”

And the quip is heard by no one, because back on earth, no one at SpaceX is left listening.

Moon becomes the de facto first prison in space (life sentences only).

And now the U.S. owns SpaceX for free.

Best of all, no one needed to reference maritime law (which is inapplicable to both this hypothetical, and space).

 

[JBee]

If instead you’re just taking a position that ratified treaties governed by the UN have no force, then we just disagree on a first principle, and not much use getting into details.

I’d note that since those treaties’ signing in 1967 no country we’re aware of has ever housed nuclear warheads in space, despite being fully capable of doing so.

not the same space treaties we’re discussing, which governs the topic of nukes in space

You brought up the nuclear treaties I didn't. According to that wiki article the space territory treaty was only ratified in 2013 so it took them some 44 years?

To be clear I am not arguing that there would not be any terrestrial ramifications for non-compliance whatsoever. Rather I am asking 1) who can do something about it and 2) who would want to do something about it?

My first point was simply that any treaty is subject to the same issues as are laws, that things change, people change, technology changes and world conditions change. Accordingly laws and treaties will change as well. Do you think a treaty from 1967 had enough foresight to include our current state of affairs, and the changes we expect to occur within the next 50 years with a mars colony? The treaty still allows conventional weapons and military bases, so what is the good of them in the "peaceful use" of space, if not to defend security?

In that context the next point I was trying to make in my last post above is that even "IF" a treaty like that would be enforceable, then "who" would do it, and "how"?

I concluded that the only ones with enough "space capability" for extraterrestrial enforcement would be USA or China, but that the USA, and it's politicians and tacticians, would not stop SpaceX because it is in their favour that EM pays for a Mars colony from his own private funds. (SpaceX is largest private company in USA atm)

Further if the USA allowed SpaceX to continue, possibly with the plan of a Government takeover after it was established, then that would still provoke China to do the same at their own cost, essentially establishing a race to Mars, which works to EMs favour, in that that is exactly what he wants for humanity anyway.

Ultimately, no other country would dare question either country of their ambition or legality, treaty or not, in that they are the two largest trading countries and markets in the world, and also have the largest military powers to keep their sovereignty whole. Hence my analogy of the south pole tribal leader.

I don’t think you’re understanding the fact pattern here. We’re not discussing the U.S. violating an international treaty. I thought we’re discussing a U.S. (corporate) citizen violating a treaty by claiming territories in space.

The U.S. (like other countries) have laws that say citizens (including corporate citizens) cannot violate U.S. treaties. Can impose both civil and criminal penalties, and the U.S. essentially has the right to interpret its own treaties how it wishes.

Requires no international order or jurisdictional analysis.

If in this case (hypothetically) SpaceX “claims” the moon, then the U.S. government simply takes all corporate assets of Space X and throws anyone they deem responsible in jail.

Although this is not the direction I was arguing, it does bring up the same issues.

I honestly don't think the USA gov will stop a SpaceX colony, simply because the USA will want a Mars colony, even more so if somebody builds and pays for the infrastructure there, and the transportation needed to get there. At very latest, the USA would have to support SpaceX in the endeavour once China makes enough progress with it's Starship clone. The legalities of a USA corporation or person being compliant are only secondary issues here, in that if the USA supports Spacex, or any other entity they deem fit, nobody will argue the treaty against them anyway.

That is the situation now, but in 10-20 years, or even 50 years, the age demographic will be so different that you will likely see some African or Indian competitor as well.

The situation in the short term also brings up another question, and that is what are EM's political ambitions, in that who would he like to have in the big house, that would support his occupy Mars mission? Then ask how best he should go about ensuring that such a person comes to power. Buy twitter maybe? I'm sure he is hedging his bets. Once again I'm not suggesting EM necessarily goes against any country or treaty, rather I am just exploring who would do what in this situation.

But lets continue with the territorial rights of a Mars colony built by SpaceX for conversations sake. If SpaceX builds and operates the colony, and pays for it, and the USA lets them, then what other country, or even private person would have the right to use the settlement there?

Does the "exclusion of the right to claim any extraterrestrial body" by international treaty mean that nobody is allowed to go there and build a colony at all? Or does it mean that the colony has to accept all visitors from any terrestrial country that is a part of the treaty? Can they force SpaceX to accommodate them when they arrive in their own vehicle and knock on a Martian Starbase airlock door? How do the logistics of that work, with who supplies air, water and food for visitors? What does "not claim it as their territory" even mean, if no one else has, or likely will ever have, the same capability to colonise Mars?

Isn't it by default SpacesX's territory, simply by them occupying the planet, and that nobody else can?

This sounds very familiar to the requirements of creating colonies under historic admiralty law, even though they done a great job at completely ignoring the rights of indigenous people.
Dear Martians be forewarned!

Now imagine if SpaceX mars colony exists. How are they meant to govern themselves, under who's jurisdiction, if no claim to territory is allowed by treaty?

So, even here on earth there are rules to the creation of a nation, and they apply to places that currently are, or cease to be, a apart of another nation, or new unclaimed land.

To be eligible you must:

1) Have a defined territory
2) A permanent population
3) Your own government
4) You must be capable of interacting with other states

If you are eligible, you can then declare independence, you know, like the USA did.
It's only after that, that you look for recognition by other nations to gain legitimacy, based on which support you can ask for admission to a join a club like the UN. Until somebody else occupies your territory, you are actually in all forms independent.

These rules are still very active to this day, look at former Yugoslavia, UdSSR and even the restructuring in the middle east, Africa, South America etc or even eastern Europe. It's not something that only happened 100's of years ago, when we still had to milk rats to make Kumis while we sailed the seven seas.

So if that is true for people on earth, by what justification should that not be allowed for the people of Mars?

BTW have you not watched Expanse?

There is one more point I'd like to raise here, and that is what is the real difference in use between land you own, and land that is also in your country? Is it not only the things you are allowed or not allowed to do on that land?

For example: on my own rural land I can write my own rules to a certain degree: I can speed down my 3km driveway at 200MPH, I can park anywhere I want, I can shoot, uproot, pillage or plunder the vegetation, produce my own power and water, make my own food and raise animals, I can breath the fresh ocean air etc. But because I live in a "country" as well with my land, I am still expected to conform to the building rules, the tax rules, council bin rules, get along with my neighbours, register my dog etc.

So for me the main difference of being in my own individual country, on my own land, would be what I would be allowed to do whatever I want, but also at the same time it would give me the extra responsibility to collect my own rubbish, make sure my house doesn't leak or collapse, pay for my own roads and infrastructure, build a barbwire fence to keep my neighbours out of my territory and business, with Gatling gun turrets, and make sure I let my German Shepherd guard dogs procreate to keep my borders safe.

The point is that you purchase certain rights when you purchase land, that excludes the rights of others on that land. Having your own country is similar, just that you have more rights to yourself, but also more things you have to fight for. In the case of Mars, I think IF you can make it there, you should at least be afforded the right to self govern as an independent state.

PS Does the treaty exclude a local Martian state to be formed by it's population? I couldn't find anything.

 

[CyberGus]

All that have not watched "The Expanse" need to stream all 6 seasons immediately.

 

[CyberGus]

BTW in response to your comment regarding Martian terms in the Starlink contract; no contract is "legally binding" until the court orders it to be so, and has jurisdiction to do so. You can think of contracts more as "legal suggestions" to which the court must ensure the law applies, before making judgement orders either way. In reality there are millions of contracts drafted by lawyers, some correct some completely bogus, but most never see a court room for validation by the court. It would be impossible for the courts to validate every contract simply because there is not enough courts.

Most all Apple software licenses include a clause prohibiting their use in the development of nuclear weapons.

That's probably just as well, nukes are already overpriced

 

[cvalue13]

In that context the next point I was trying to make in my last post above is that even "IF" a treaty like that would be enforceable, then "who" would do it, and "how"?

All asked and answered, counsellor.

I’m mostly picking up a misunderstanding of the fact pattern here, and little familiarity with international or intra-national jurisdiction and process.

This all relates back to someone else saying that if SpaceX formed a Martian colony and claimed independence, nothing could be done to them.

Point is merely that back here on earth, it would be illegal, and easily and swiftly penalized - not by doing anything on Mars, but instead by doing things to the portion of the company back here on earth.

Those folks on Mars could keep cheering anyway, only if they needed nothing more in terms of support from the company back on earth.

Pretty simple

 

[JBee]

All asked and answered, counsellor.

I’m mostly picking up a misunderstanding of the fact pattern here, and little familiarity with international or intra-national jurisdiction and process.

This all relates back to someone else saying that if SpaceX formed a Martian colony and claimed independence, nothing could be done to them.

Point is merely that back here on earth, it would be illegal, and easily and swiftly penalized - not by doing anything on Mars, but instead by doing things to the portion of the company back here on earth.

Those folks on Mars could keep cheering anyway, only if they needed nothing more in terms of support from the company back on earth.

Pretty simple

Yeah ok I can see that, but I still do wonder if there is a treaty that covers the establishment of their own local nation by the colony population on Mars.

Wouldn't they just be a non-earth nation, so not a territory claimed by a nation under the treaty?

SpaceX I am sure employs multi-nationals, and even if they didn't, people could technically change allegiance to a Martian nation instead, leaving the treaty untested.

I wonder is SpaceX has a Martian legal team we can ask...

 

[charliemagpie]

Just declare war against Earth

Then hold an Earth referendum for self-determination for Martians.

 

[cvalue13]

Yeah ok I can see that, but I still do wonder if there is a treaty that covers the establishment of their own local nation by the colony population on Mars.

the ones I referenced

Wouldn't they just be a non-earth nation, so not a territory claimed by a nation under the treaty?

If SpaceX drives a boat to the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and ‘claim’ that ocean is. Ow SpaceX’s - they are not a “non-terrestrial nation[in] a territory [not] claimed by a nation”

it’s also by treaties that the open seas (excluding terrestrial waters) are agreed by nations to not be owned by and not be claimable by any nation - much less private company/citizens.

The laws treat space just the same.

the outcomes would be the same

“cool, guys, hang out in your boat in the middle of the pacific acting like you own the pacific as long as you wish - hope you don’t run out of water! But PS, I’d suggest you don’t, like, fire guns at passing boats or anything, bc then it’ll get sort of awkward for you … but especially for the rest of the SpaceX company still back here in the US.”

 

[anionic1]

Yeah the damage was a lot more substantial than they thought. When I saw the sand plume on launch my first comment was that is huge and is going to leave a hole. I was still coming to terms with what exactly was happening to their special concrete mix in the process, it seems like the thrust is like a water jet cutter on a huge scale.

But one interesting thing I learnt just yesterday, seeing I missed it previously, is that the outer ring of Raptor engines can only be started on the launch pad itself, meaning they can't be restarted in flight. Only the inside ones can be restarted. It seems highly likely that the outside engines that failed, failed because of all the debris it threw up while it was being held down by clamps on launch, so after it left the pad it couldn't restart them.

Also it appears that the hydraulic system was lost in flight, meaning the gimballing center motors was impaired in its control authority. That left them with just differential thrust (as I predicted was the case in my first post) meaning they had to reduce overall thrust to maintain control and not tip it over and off course.

Subsequently the next few engine failures sealed the deal in that it could no longer maintain the necessary acceleration to reach an altitude where seperation would be viable, using the remaining fuel it had.

Some are saying that the large venting we saw before it blew up was actually the flight termination system blowing a few holes in the tanks, but it failed to ignite the tanks and it took a literal minute before the tanks did ignite. If so it's obviously not good enough as a termination system if it was at a lower altitude.

Overall, I think the next version without hydraulic gimbals and using individual electric actuators instead, along with a proper launch pad, probably with water deluge on top of the planned cooled steel plate, and a proper FTS will result in a much better launch system overall, and likely a successful second launch of the booster and leading to a seperation.

Now how well the Starship fairs inserting itself into a regressive orbit and then trying to belly flop back through the atmosphere is another thing entirely. But I think that phase is less complicated than getting stage 0 and 1 working properly on launch and as such their simulation are less likely to have the same amount of error as seen in this launch.

You are my hero. You probably just summarized an entire afternoon of research.

Thank you,

 

[JBee]

the ones I referenced




If SpaceX drives a boat to the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and ‘claim’ that ocean is. Ow SpaceX’s - they are not a “non-terrestrial nation[in] a territory [not] claimed by a nation”

it’s also by treaties that the open seas (excluding terrestrial waters) are agreed by nations to not be owned by and not be claimable by any nation - much less private company/citizens.

The laws treat space just the same.

the outcomes would be the same

“cool, guys, hang out in your boat in the middle of the pacific acting like you own the pacific as long as you wish - hope you don’t run out of water! But PS, I’d suggest you don’t, like, fire guns at passing boats or anything, bc then it’ll get sort of awkward for you … but especially for the rest of the SpaceX company still back here in the US.”

Um which treaty did you reference in particular? I read the wiki page but found no reference to an independent Martian state being excluded. I didn't see a link in your posts either I just checked.

I'm not sure what point you are still trying to make regarding the consequences for the SpaceX corporation back on earth. I know that the US could make it hard for them to colonise but I don't they ever will if they are in a race with China. Or are you saying that the US must uphold the treaty even if it is not in their best interests?

Otherwise let me rephrase the question: lets say a Martian settlement exists with a population of 10,000 people or more. By what rule of law and under what government can they function, under the current constraints of these treaties?

If it can't be under US sovereignty, or the Martians own, then by whom?

Are there any provisions for permanent extraterrestrial human settlements in the treaty?

Sponsored