Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lukaszenko

  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?
  16. Perhaps the structural steel hull has some other functions than merely holding onto tiles?
  17. I'm not sure this is entire true. You only need a fraction of the delta-v to bring stuff down as you need to bring stuff up (hundreds of m/s, as opposed to thousands). So if, for instance, we bring up an empty starship, we could conceivably bring down more mass than is possible to ever bring up (assuming the rest of the ship is designed to do so).
  18. I'd bet on or close to launchpad, and I'd bet lots of money. Not because I think it will explode there, but because that would be the worst outcome. I often like to bet on the worst outcome, because then if it comes to be, at least some good comes out of it!
  19. Why would lifting capacity reduce with height?
  20. Look how light those things are. They just pick them up with a couple fingers like it's a dinner plate
  21. Considering the disruptiveness of Musk and his companies, frankly I'd expect the guy to be long dead (especially if I had a proclivity to conspiracy theories). Instead, this is the list of transgressions that we are presented with? The dude must be an angel
  22. I'm really struggling to wrap my mind around the sarcasm. I mean, everybody wants many things. I want that sweet pair of sneakers, but do I want it bad enough to spend 70 bucks? Meh. How many people I heard say "Ooooh that's so cool I always wanted to learn French!" Awesome. "I always wanted to go skydiving!" Cool. "I always wanted to be a professional football player!" Nice. I'd guess less people don't want these things than do. However, the ones that actually invest the time, money, or effort to even try to attain them deserve at least a bit of respect more than the ones that merely "want" them. For a guy to "want" to go to Mars, and then to actually sit down and learn everything there is (and isn't) to be known about rockets, spend billions to design them and build them, and then overturn the global concept of what it means to go to space in an effort to achieve this? Yes, I would say that's pretty special. I mean "special" in a purely statistical sense. For a guy to actually be the type of person who has the emotional and intellectual means, to get the financial means, to even semi-seriously consider these things in the first place? I'd venture to say that's also pretty special. For a guy to do and be a combination of both? Well that has to be, statistically, even more special. And yes, by definition in the context of getting to Mars, even "important".
  23. Maybe it's easy or maybe it's hard. I don't know, and I don't think it matters. The dirt gives it character, it's a badge of honor. It's not dirty because it's neglected, it's dirty because the damn thing has been to space. It has a right to be dirty.
  24. Because many of your posts are dismissing SpaceX's ability to do basically anything, sometimes (as in this case) solving the most simple of engineering problems. Yeah, how or whether they can catch the thing will be interesting to see. But, questioning their ability to essentially calculate how much steel is needed to carry a known load is frankly annoying to even consider, much less compose a thorough response to. This thread is meant to discuss how SpaceX plans to achieve(d) their crazy-ass claims, but in order to do that constructively we have to give them a little benefit-of-doubt. Wasting time on discussing their competence in moving an engine a few meters across the ground, when they've been routinely flying them to orbit (and back) for over a decade, is just not why most of us are here.
  25. I don't think we can be sure, we're not rocket scientists - but I'm pretty sure one or two of the guys at Boca Chica are.
  • Create New...