Lukaszenko
-
Posts
359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
Posts posted by Lukaszenko
-
-
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.
-
On 7/8/2022 at 6:20 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:
Is there a 'ground effect' for a rocket that would make a practice 'hoover' over water different from what they'd see at the pad?
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.
-
8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:
Yeah, I mean don't get me wrong, starship is really, really cool and the potential is absolutely game changing. And I love what Tesla did. The global lithium production problem is hard but what are you going to do... no matter the chemistry Li is a damned good candidate and you need a lot of it and the environmental consequences of extraction are not great but better than total biospheric collapse? The real problem is macroscopic, robust and resilient grid scale storage for renewables across a range of environments and climates, including efficient residential heating and AC, industrial thermal efficiency, doubling down on converting mass timber into a global construction carbon sink... I mean are we even trying here?
We've got all these supposedly brilliant billionaires and they're all focused on max wealth extraction and vanity projects and Im sorry but there's a real problem to be solved here and its how do we as a people get along and not kill each other for increasingly scarce resources over the next 100 years? Because with without that there's no one making rockets, or fuel, or chips, let alone food or housing and this whole stupid idea of an interplanetary species is BS snake oil because we will be a non-planetary species.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.
-
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
-
Just now, cubinator said:
The SpaceX commentaries are ok, but I wish it wasn't exactly the same every time. I could give the presentation...They could try to have some special focus on a particular aspect of the flight or vehicle each time, or just quiet down and let us listen to the vent lines for a while...
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.
-
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?
-
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:
How much in the bay?
....
For Starship the cargo mass is ~150 * 0.25 ~= 40 t, i.e. two Protons or probably one Falcon Heavy.
...
So, 300 should be the total Starship mass, including fuel.
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.
-
How does that even work? Don't they have...I don't know, radios or something nowadays?
-
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
Then the steel hull is overthickened.
Otherwise if it can go without the tiles, why these efforts about tiling.
Perhaps the structural steel hull has some other functions than merely holding onto tiles?
-
5 hours ago, Lisias said:
If I'm going to need 20 extra tons of fuel on landing, this means that I will have 20 tons less cargo capacity available on the ship - both for ascent and descent, being this the whole point of my argument: you can't bring down the same weight your vehicle can send up.
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).
-
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!
-
53 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
Frankencrane has a lift capacity of 1300 tonnes, but I'm not sure how much that reduces at a hook height of 140 meters.
Why would lifting capacity reduce with height?
-
3 hours ago, Elthy said:
That video gives a nice sense of the size of that thing. I allways assumed the tiles were way smaller, about the size of a hand.
Look how light those things are. They just pick them up with a couple fingers like it's a dinner plate
-
13 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:
He completely avoided federal income taxes in 2018, I doubt he’s paid much since
Completely made up his rags to riches story, in fact his father owned a emerald mine
Freaked out and called a man a pedophile for not using his mini submarine
Tesla is one of the most dangerous working conditions in the US
won't let his workers unionize cause he’s too cheap to pay them living wages or give them benefits
Was very dominant and abusive to his first wife
Just to name a few from the top of my head. I am not saying this because he is rich, it’s because Elon Musk is truly an awful person.
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
-
40 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:
Oh, yeah, he's the only one who ever wanted people to go to Mars. Guess I forgot how important he is.
I'll give him credit for spending a lot of his own money on this (although I kind of don't think anyone should have that much money in the first place).
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".
-
3 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:
Why don't they wash the booster? Or would that black stuff not come off? Is it discolored paint, or just soot?
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.
-
1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:
So all of y’all just said that spacex is able to do it and that’s the reply I have gotten on most of my criticism but that doesn’t prove anything.
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.
-
12 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:
cause its a rocket engine on a goosneck. But i guess there really isnt any difference.
I don't have expiernce or much knowledge about how concrete or construction but we shouldnt be building rockets like buildings, right?
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.
-
22 hours ago, .50calBMG said:
Please delete.
-
On 5/7/2021 at 6:58 PM, SpaceFace545 said:
Like spaceman said, spacex's goal is to leave earth. Starship isn't being built to be a launcher, it is to go to mars. Even dragon was developed initially as a mars lander. Spacex is run by a man obsessed with mars and he could care less about earth. They haven't done anything for this planet and its people and I doubt they ever will.
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.
-
7 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:
I really just don't like it. It just seems kinda oversaturated and not really that special. I don't know if other people have this same feeling but I do. I love watching launches from ULA or Ariane space because every launch is something special, wether it is some DOD satellite that can read the newspaper on my driveway or the super advanced probes from NASA and ESA. But with commercial launches its just repetitive, you know?
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.
-
17 minutes ago, Majk said:
- Will the booster simply cancel all horizontal velocity it got, gain a comparable amount of horizontal velocity in the opposite direction to come back to the launch site? Again, this sounds incredibly wasteful, even one could argue that by staging the payload, the dry mass decreases significantly, thus improving delta-v of the booster.
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.
-
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.
-
18 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:
So why does spacex build starship like that. Like seriously it's being built like a silo. Why don't they use actual rocket building or aerospace techniques such as using milled isogrid "skin" or better materials such as aluminum and titanium (steel is good but not the best). Now don't give me excuses like "steels cheaper" or "making a rocket like a grain silo is cheaper" and "its just a prototype". Money aside this is marketed as the most advanced spacecraft ever built yet my farmer cousin can make the same thing. This sounds kinda harsh but just why build something the cheapest way possible?
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!
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
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.