I’m just going to steal these directly from HumanMars(dot)net — and I’m desperately anxious to see this in real life.
The shape reflected here represents our best estimate of what Starship will look like. The company’s descriptions are settling down into a system with fewer announced changes, which implies that they are moving from design engineering to production engineering as we speak.
Click on these for bigger versions:
21 replies on “These are the best renders I’ve seen so far”
Airstream to the Stars!
I want in on setting up the first KOA on the Moon.
Trying not to be a spoil sport, but as a former drawing teacher… these are called renderings. Nice catch, though! It is possible, however, that renderings is all they ever could be as I seriously doubt that stage rockets are now the concept to go anywhere out of our atmosphere….
Agreed in the art world and in 2d graphics such as Photoshop, but in the 3d computer graphics world that ship has sailed. They are called “renders” to distinguish them from the underlying 3-d model and to acknowledge the lighting, texturing, posing, depth-cuing, and algorithms such as bump mapping that are used to produce the desired scene. The term “rendering” is used only as a verb anymore.
These are of a system that is currently being built. Musk adds the one element that will make it practical, and that NASA has shied away from forever: fuel depots outside the gravity well. The intent is to outfit the passenger Starship with enough life support and radiation protection to go anywhere from Venus to the asteroid belt.
With gas stations in LEO and lunar orbit (and eventually near Mars) this is entirely feasible.
As far as using the term render vs rendering it must be more platform specific or something and not necessarily just 2D vs 3D because I just opened up Autodesk Fusion 360 to see what it called them and it called the individual pictures renderings not renders. Now the program does use just render some but it does it in instances where render makes grammatical sense. To me as an engineering student render just makes no grammatical sense in that scenario where rendering does and is what I have heard used by others. Theres other words to describe the 3D model itself so I don’t see why rendering can’t be used.
I think either is fine. I come from the universe where the model is the physical model that eventually is used to actually build the object, and a 2d ‘view’ of it is a ‘render’. Artists (like my daughter) use 3d modeling only to the extent that it creates a background to use as a foundation for a given desired “painting”. The two industries have jargon that is, over time, separating.
My old version of Autodesk Inventor used the phrase “render” for the output of its rendering engine for a given pose. The philosophical question must be asked: is the process distinguishable from its output?
I’m not wedded to either jargon, actually.
Here is my problem, Steve. I use a CAD program to design houses that I want built but even if I add to the 3D version, I don’t consider it art. Ever. I am afraid I am very old school, taught drawing to architectural students, studied via Beaux Arts method in France during grad school so to me the digital stuff just isn’t art to me. For me, it is about right brain-left brain. When I think rendering, I imagine a classmate with either pastels covering her hands and cheeks or prismacolor pencil stubs lining my desk. Good news is since I fall into the archaic model, you clearly don’t have to agree. LOL
But you agree! “Render” is used with CAD modeling, and “Rendering” is used for art! What’s a shame is that they are based on the same word, but English is fond of that error.
A trained eye can instantly tell the difference between something that was painted (with pixels OR brush) and something that was rendered. Having written the software algorithms that do that, it’s really easy for me to see it.
Using a 3D modeling and algorithms can be art, but most of the time isn’t.
By the way, using actual media such as oils or pencils or whatnot is becoming rare. There are good painting programs that, used with a digitizing stylus pad, or on a touchscreen, do an excellent job of reproducing the same look with the same hand motions. Of course, the result is data, not something with ridges and valleys that looks different in different lighting — but, it’s art, it just doesn’t smell the same.
Congratulations on getting to study art in France. That must have been a lot of fun.
I appreciate the education as I consider myself to be an old…. whatever… and have moved on to doing “real things” like making sure there is food for people around me rather than making their places “pretty” with renderings for architectural/landscape architectural construction. I suggest, however, that Cole Hefner has it right in that it is clearer to call it renderings and my take is that the “update” is simply a move back to prehistory much like not teaching cursive writing. Grammar, too, is a thing of the past. There isn’t a day that goes by when i hear someone speak, on the radio, on an internet “source”, that I don’t find myself shouting ME! If you are saying that “Tom and I are going somewhere”… fine. I am going somewhere. But if you are saying “Tom bought a present for Jim and I”, you are a grammar idiot…. Tom didn’t bring a present for I… he brought it for ME.
Ok. I still think it is rendering. LOL. But, of course, I do it without a computer to create the “model” but with my brain and eye-hand coordination. It is called skill. It may or may not be considered art. That is a whole different discussion.
But I do contend that few examples of using a computer result in art, by my definition.
Art requires an artist, whatever the media.
Oh, and I am known as a “grammar Nazi”…
Hmmmm. Author as opposed to Member. Very Interesting.
Use the Boolean AND function: author AND member. 😉
Meant to get back to you weeks ago with information about this debate. Here is an entire conversation about renders of various SpaceX products, and the word “renderings” is only found one place.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47144.0
“Rendering” in computer graphics is the process of producing a “render”.
From Wikipedia:
“Rendering or image synthesis is the automatic process of generating a photorealistic or non-photorealistic image from a 2D or 3D model (or models in what collectively could be called a scene file) by means of computer programs. Also, the results of displaying such a model can be called a render.”
If the source of your image is a 3D computer model, any representation of that model is a “render”. Renders are usually as photorealistic as possible. If the source is a pile of architectural drawings and you create a painting through the liberal use of artistic talent, it is a “rendering”.
Just commenting because I adore Justa’s screen name! <3
I remain very curious about the as-yet-almost-completely-unspecified passenger space. There are huge practical challenges to solve in such an endeavor, and somehow I don’t think “everyone will just float around in a big, open area” will cut it. First things first, of course: propulsion! But I’m dying to see some more concrete indication of what Elon and SpaceX have in mind for the interior.
Remember, there are three versions of this, Cargo, Tanker, and People. Everything I’ve seen indicate that about the forward 30-35% of the length is open for whatever (roughly the area in the above graphics that includes windows). I doubt they’re spending much time worrying about it yet. Cargo is first, so they can launch Starlink and make money.
I have seen some tentative designs for the interior. Basically, they are classic 1950s sci-fi with floors perpendicular to the long axis. Each row of windows above reveals one level. Only the very front has a large open space.
Indeed, it’s the passenger version I’m thinking of, as introduced in rough concept at Elon’s September 2016 presentation. I’m sure they’ve continued to think about it, with understandably less urgency than the “Hopper” test unit and cargo version of Starship. I’m going to be very interested to see what they come up with, in large part because nothing comparable has ever really been attempted except in science fiction. The ISS interior is maybe the closest thing one can imagine, and Starship’s interior might not end up looking anything like that. Applying constraints to the problem is going to be where the rubber meets the road, as always in engineering. But apart from the engineering issues, there are the psychological factors: Just what kind of tin can would people sign up to go to Mars in? How do you design a human habitation space for such a long weightless journey? Going to be very interesting to see.
https://youtu.be/H7Uyfqi_TE8?t=2475
Tons and tons of very interesting things. If I were on the beginning end instead of past the end of my engineering career, I know who I’d want to work for.
Shields!!!!!
LOLOL! Make it so.