Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

228 Excellent

About Lukaszenko

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. What about that whole Tesla "sustainable transport and energy" thing? And the solar energy thing? They certainly don't seem like the "screw earth" types of ventures.
  2. It's indeed ugly and it looks old-school and like they patched it together with a hammer; it's certainly not winning any beauty contests and perhaps it never will. I'll definitely agree that sending anything to space; many-billion dollar probes on many-hundred-million-dollar sweet-looking rockets in your examples, is indeed special. I'll argue however, that sending whatevertf you want, whenevertf you want, for a tiny fraction of the price is even more so. Butt-ugly as it may be, Starship is at the very least showing that this is within reach. Besides, if SpaceX really wants t
  3. It's exactly this. Yes, it is incredibly wasteful, but of fuel, which if everything else works out is of little concern. As long as there's plenty of performance left over for launching the Starship (there should be) and it allows for rapid reusability (it should), then so be it. The math is pretty straightforward: if sacrificing 50% of a launch's payload capacity allows you to have 100000% more launches, then it's stupid not to do it (I pulled these numbers out of my ass, but that's the jist of the argument). Keep in mind that Falcon 9 already does this on missions where there's mar
  4. It's also easier to be a SpaceX fan because they made a crazy-ass promise (cheap/ easy access to space), and each success they have is a step closer to delivering on this. You can actually visually see a step-by-step growth and progression towards this goal, you can can extrapolate that it will probably happen, and it's exciting. Starliner is great and all. But, if they succeed, whenevertf that will be, then we'll....have another capsule. You know, like we did in the 60s. Not nearly as exciting.
  5. Agreed. They should definitely make it at least as Space Shuttle, or better yet SLS. But 10x more expensive, because advanced. Make it so so expensive so as to bankrupt entire nations before the tooling is delivered, because it's a rocket dammit! And, every component should be designed to be one-time-use only, as a true rocket should be. They should make the access road to the pad out of single-crystal inconel. Why? Because rocket. And scrap it after one use as well, for good measure. Down with Gwyneth! Down with Musk! SpaceFace545 for president of SpaceX!
  6. Yeah indeed this is getting tedious reading the same argument about why it won't work, over and over. It's an interesting argument, point taken, but we ultimately don't know and the answer is still a giant "maybe", no matter how much we keep on beating this dead horse. On one side we have kerbiloid from the internet, on the other we have SpaceX and to an extent NASA. I'd be willing to bet money that SpaceX has a better idea about this than keribiloid. I'd be willing to bet billions, in fact. Of course, I'm talking out of my ass since I don't have billions. However, some people d
  7. Me neither, but I'm referring to the flaw in this logic: "I wouldn't change that, especially not during an human flight, not after it worked 100+ times"
  8. If you find a risk and just keep rolling the dice because you didn't lose 100 times, you're just asking for something to go wrong. Off the top of my head, I can think of ALL the NASA crew losses as an example.
  9. Probably now is the time to buy ICBMs from Russia
  10. Good explanation, but it leaves more questions than answers. For example, how did they find out about this "hole" if they lost the booster? Did they know about it BEFORE the launch?
  11. It's not just about throwing away boosters, it's about having a reliable and robust recovery of rockets, especially if they eventually plan to expand this into a reliable and robust recovery of 100+ people.
  12. Could be. But, the very things that allow them to perform their aerodynamic function also helps them perform their new structural function: they are thick and they are large. They are also made of titanium to contend with the heat. Even if I'm completely talking out of my ass, strengthening them up in order to take the loads would surely be less costly mass-wise than adding a bunch of legs.
  13. I'm guessing much sooner with the catch system. What's the point of perfecting landing on legs when you can start landing on the catcher? Why not test all the things in parallel, if possible?
  14. What's wrong with Falcon 9- type legs? Or, at least legs on the outside. Seems like it would solve a lot of problems. Why are they insisting on legs on the inside?
  15. What do half of these things mean?? Tri-vent, recondenser, TFR... I have an idea for the other things, but not sure it's a good idea
  • Create New...