Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ThatGuyWithALongUsername

  1. Until one of them inevitably blows up and they can turn around and modify a starship they've already built and continue testing instead of having to wait a few extra months to build another one.
  2. Well... Mk3, Mk4, or Mk5. He's mentioned all of them (?). So yeah, I'm guessing that's what's up with that. Also ramen that the even numbered Starships in Florida are kind of in competition with the Boca Chica odd numbered Starships. So Mk1 and Mk2 would both do 20km, if they succeed then Mk3 and Mk4 would make orbit, one of them would be first depending on the team. Mk5 if one of them blows up. But I'm still confused... they need the booster for orbit, right? Didn't Elon say they wouldn't build those until after Mk3 and Mk4 are complete? Wouldn't that provide a few solid mont
  3. Maybe the heat shield could double as a radiation shield? Or is it still better to use the tanks (engine facing sun during cruise?) Don't think that will really be needed though. Thing is, there IS enough room for extra shielding. It's not technically optimized for mass like you suggest, it's optimized for maximum payload thanks to refueling. Basically, it can take 100 to 150 tons to Mars no problem thanks to refueling. As for volume, the pressurized volume is larger than that of the entire international space station. I think you can fit some shielding in there and still have ample room
  4. Something somehow enabling FTL travel without any need for that maybe-impossible negative mass stuff. Or maybe something that creates negative mass somehow. I don't know. Or, alternatively, since this really sounds like it's drifting towards the Forum Games section: Only one? In that case, a force that can create more forces.
  5. I think Bigelow is actually doing this with their B330 for the moment. I don't it's a good idea- if I wanted a 2d, limited albeit high resolution image of space, I could just pull one up at home. I don't think that would be considered acceptable, it wouldn't look convincing enough. It would certainly kill off most possibilities of space tourism. Also it causes problems with my plan to send as many flat earthers into space as possible, they could still say it's CGI Jeff Bezos mentioned that once, oddly enough that's where I heard it first Isn't that penetrating the surface,
  6. What about windows? Sounds picky, but probably important for crew mental health.
  7. Ooh, you gave me an idea, how about this: Take a CREW variant and make the same modifications. Launch it into orbit. Hey, you can even go a bit past LEO with some tankers. Then send up crew, drain the tanks, and make the whole thing a giant "wet lab" space station. Plenty of room for long-term experiments.
  8. That's kinda what I was saying though about the riskiness and the Boeing comparison- I agree, we will have to see whether they're successful at this. And yeah I guess I did discredit the shuttle a bit, but just because it wasn't successful doesn't mean that something else can't be. With Shuttle, it *was* designed for this capability from the round up, but it didn't really get the chance to be developed with it available immediately, like Starship might. Or might not. And that might not really even be true. I guess it depends on how you look at it. Anyway, the point was supposed to be that
  9. Thanks for tolerating my perhaps overly optimistic rant. As for your comment: oh, ok (still kinda odd that it isn't mentioned on the mission diagram on the website, but I'm assuming someone ran the numbers)
  10. For some reason I went on a minor rant on Starship after reading through some of these. Yes, that is a link to a space blog in my signature, and yes, this probably should just go there, but no, I'm lazy and that thing's been dormant for like a year now. Well... here's what I think about all this. Warning, overall opinion on the system as a whole below: Starship, whether it will be successful or not, is unlike any other rocket in history. Thus such things like cost, reliability, and flight rate cannot be compared to any other rocket. The thing is, this is the first vehicle
  11. Obviously in a bit of a speculative way, of course, but clearly some thought was put into this- refueling should work in all these places.
  12. Yeah, I think 20-30 at best to Mars is more realistic, but maybe we're talking about the 18m one. This tweet, for example, *does* say "ultimately." Even though it has a picture of the 9m Starship,, that may be what they mean. Also, I've just realized... power generation hasn't been addressed all the way since the original 2016 ITS, as far as I know. What happened to the solar panels? Did they switch to fuel cells?
  13. Look a bit closer- there is a honeycomb texture, at least on a couple of the renderings: I think it's also fair enough to assume that there's enough detail on the heat shielding that this is how much shielding the ship is gonna have- no more, no less. And personally, I was happy with the renders. No, they didn't answer all my burning technical questions, and that was disappointing. But they looked so darn cool! And you could, for the first time, unlike any previous renderings, compare them with an actual thing that was right there! To me, the whole presentation just screa
  14. *like* Also, with the higher melting point of steel and the multiple bolts, it's entirely possible that even if a tile does get cracked in flight, it would stay bolted on and the stainless steel could take the heat. Also, willing to bet that there's some work being done towards making the inspection quicker- maybe even to the point of using fancy equipment to just do a "quick scan" of the entire heat shield, instead of manually inspecting every single tile up close, but I really, really don't know enough about how that might work- I'm just imagining that with all our co
  15. Not quite as long if you launch and refuel *from Mars.* Elon has talked about setting up fuel depots everywhere once, so that makes it sound like the outer solar system missions might not launch from Earth, but rather have supplies sent to Mars, refueled, and launched from there with crew missions also launching from Mars. IDK though, and I don't think it actually shortens the trip that much, but it could help, especially if you refuel in Mars orbit. He also mentioned destinations past Mars to be Ceres, Callisto, Ganymede and Titan, all of which, fairly particularly it
  16. I rewatched the 2018 presentation and on the first Q&A question I noticed that Wlon actually mentioned the 6 legs/ 2 fins design being built now but went with the other one instead for what really sounded like solely aesthetic purposes. Just an interesting note. Shows that this design- minus stainless steel- isn't new. Note you can clearly see the landing legs in this picture!
  17. No, that would be weird and gene editing hasn't advanced that far yet. *like for a bunch of posts I am too lazy to quote*
  18. So? What makes you think they won't just add those Raptors before going to orbit?
  19. Thanks, but I didn't find this, someone on the NSF forums did. And you CAN'T like the cute dog picture?! That is just evil!
  20. Oh, ok, so the sides are uneven- I definitely see it now, I just assumed the slope would be equal. So yeah, you're right. Should have read the forums a bit more. Meanwhile, I just found this on the NSF forums: What's that black thing on the side you ask? Well... this is quite possibly the most SpaceX thing I've seen in Starship yet: It's a Tesla model S/X battery. Two of them, actually. (comparison from exilon on NSF forums) They are literally powering their rocket... with a car battery. This is insane. In all the best ways.
  21. Oh, I see. But again, not sure this isn't just a chine.
  22. Wait, how does this tell us we're looking at the windward side? And for that matter, how do we know those are canard mounts and not just raceway protection or something?
  • Create New...