Jump to content

Lukaszenko

Members
  • Posts

    357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lukaszenko

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. How does that even work? Don't they have...I don't know, radios or something nowadays?
  8. Perhaps the structural steel hull has some other functions than merely holding onto tiles?
  9. 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).
  10. 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!
  11. Why would lifting capacity reduce with height?
  12. Look how light those things are. They just pick them up with a couple fingers like it's a dinner plate
  13. 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
  14. 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".
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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 to drop some panties, they can always add some bling-bling and window-dressing to the Starhip later. They'll certainly have the margin for it.
  20. 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 margin left over.
  21. 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.
  22. 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!
  23. 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 do, and that's exactly what they did with it.
  24. 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"
×
×
  • Create New...