Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


300 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would think that reduced performance due to the smaller nozzle means that you can carry (much) less payload mass. I mean, what's "performance" in the context of rockets if not payload mass and/ or how far you can throw it?
  2. I didn't watch the video, but on the surface it sounds cringefully close to the ol' "why are we spending money on space when we have problems on Earth" argument
  3. If you fracture tempered glass, it propagates through the whole pane and shatters it into many pieces, so I don't think that's the explanation
  4. This is just absolutely insane. I would guess the whole thing would just brake apart even thinking about trying such a maneuver, especially so low in the atmosphere. But then, I saw the thing do exactly those cartwheels with my own eyes (on livestream), and it indeed didn't break apart. My guess would have been wrong.
  5. I completely agree. I was more a refuting the notion that SpaceX is prioritizing making money over human lives. Even assuming that SpaceX's ONLY goal is making money, the safety of its customers and reliability of its rockets is a necessary prerequisite.
  6. I'm no businessman, but even I know that killing your customers, especially en masse, is not a good business model. Nor is blowing up their payloads. I'm sure there are some brains at SpaceX that know this as well. This is probably why the Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in operation, despite not even carrying people most of the time. I'm guessing that the reason you don't hear about how safe Starship should or will be, is because this is such an obvious point that talking and focusing on it too much would only make it suspect. Kind of like if somebody tried to sell you a "vegan tomato". Not to mention that at this stage in development, it would be a bit of a case of putting the cart before the horse.
  7. They probably skimmed it off the entry burn of the booster. There's plenty there, at the expense of a hotter and riskier reentry, which they might be willing to try.
  8. Interesting that so many amateur videos of this launch, even cell phone ones, look better than the official SpaceX broadcast. Those ground shots are so much more interesting than watching the booster cameras.
  9. I would guess not. I understand that ground effect is due to increased pressure of air when close to a surface (because the air is more constrained). Increased air pressure is good for wings, but not for rockets. Also, if ground effect did something, I would guess this would be mentioned when describing TWR, as arguably it is most important immediately on takeoff.
  10. Not sure what you're proposing here. That someone who has an understanding, drive, and passion for "A" to just drop it and focus on "B" instead? Whether he gives a damn about it or not? I mean, even if "B" was more important than "A", which in this case is very arguable, I still don't think that expecting people to do a good job at something they don't have a passion for is reasonable or realistic.
  11. I've been watching many replays lately because I missed the live show. But, then it's more of a background watch than something that I focus on. The suspense just isn't there once you know that it succeeded
  12. I'm guessing they're more interested in getting and hooking new viewers onto the broadcast, SpaceX, and space in general, than in satisfying the ones who are already interested. So, in that regard, repeating the same basic stuff over and over does make sense.
  13. I didn't really understand the part where Elon said they're having problems keeping the combustion chamber from melting. Like...what? That seems kind of critical. How do you have an apparently working and even flying engine where the combustion chamber melts? And then, how do you start mass-producing it before fixing this seemingly not-so-small issue?
  14. You forgot to add the mass of the launch tower and the fuel tanks and the access road. So you see, the real payload to orbit is actually deep in the negatives. It's why we're having all these Starlink satellites falling down, and this is just the beginning.
  15. How does that even work? Don't they have...I don't know, radios or something nowadays?
  • Create New...