Jump to content

Lukaszenko

Members
  • Posts

    357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lukaszenko

  1. 2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

    Seriously, this fanboism is getting out of hand. These aren't football teams. These are companies with different products with different requirements and different goals. It's like claiming that Coca Cola is better than General Motors because they were the first to make Sprite.

    Ultimately, who gives a hoot about who was first to do this or that? The more companies we have doing stuff in space, the better.

    And to anyone who says that one is "less impressive" that the other, lets see your credentials in rocket building first.

    So let's examine this. What would happen if Coca Cola claimed that they are better than General Motors because they were the first to make Sprite? You wouldn’t want to jump in and call foul? Because that’s exactly what happened here, and why this discussion is even taking place. Nobody was saying one is better than the other until BO themselves tried to say it.

    So it’s not a question of fanboism, it’s a question of A trying to make themselves look better at the expense of B, despite half-assing whatever it was that B was doing.

    BO basically jumped out of the sidelines in front of a marathon runner, and started celebrating that they crossed the finish line first. Even if I hate the marathon runner, I’ll probably still come to his defense. And probably so would you.

    And why do I need rocket building credentials to see that an orbital launch system is more impressive than a suborbital one? You’re seriously claiming they are on the same level?

  2. 10 hours ago, razark said:

    Blue Origin is crappy, because they built something that didn't go into orbit, and wasn't supposed to.

    SpaceX is good because they built something that didn't go into orbit, and wasn't supposed to.

     

    Blue Origin launched a rocket.
    SpaceX launched a rocket.

    BO got their rocket into space.
    SpaceX got their rocket into space.

    BO did not get their rocket into orbit.
    SX did not get their rocket into orbit.*

    BO landed their rocket vertically using propulsion.
    SX landed their rocket vertically using propulsion.

     

    BO did this before SX.  Even if it was less impressive, done for different reasons, and aimed at a different goal, BO still did it first.  The first flight of the Wright Flyer was a lot less impressive than the first flight of the Concorde, but the Wright Flyer came before the Concorde.

     

    Bonus points:
    BO launched their rocket more than once.
    SX did not launch their rocket more than once.

    *Yeah, whatever.  The part SX recovered did not go into orbit.  The payload it carried did, and when SpaceX recovers that, they can have their bonus points, too.

    Yes, they were first at flying the Wright Flyer. 

    But the fact that they were working on the Wright Flyer at the same time as SpaceX was working on the Concorde, and flew it only a couple months before the Concorde, is precisely what makes their "first" so much less impressive.

  3. It keeps being brought up in these discussions that the Falcon 9 1st stage is suborbital, but I fail to see the relevance of this. Seriously…who cares? It is part of a system used to launch something into orbit. As such, it is not meant to nor will it ever work by itself. It’s like comparing a slingshot to an AK47...they’re both just about as effective by themselves. It’s only in combination with their bullets that their differences really start to show.  The point is that the most expensive scrapped part of launching something into orbit, is being recovered (and eventually reused). Whether this part itself goes into orbit, to the moon and back, leaves the atmosphere, or never even so much as leaves the ground is a red herring.

  4. I don't think whether it's an actual mission or a test is all that relevant here. What is relevant, is that one rocket puts a payload in orbit, and the other doesn't. That difference is so huge that it's quite literally astronomical.

    Once you're in orbit, you're half-way to anywhere. But, you have to get to orbit. Not close, not almost there, not even 99% there, because anything less than a stable orbit, and you're coming back. And New Shepherd is nowhere near significantly close to orbit to be even worth discussing.

    Yet.

  5. 15 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

    Id be willing to say we will NEVER get clear video from the barge. From a drone yes. But from the barge? No. Itll always break up on landing. Radiowaves don't do well with the rocket sound.

    It can't be that impossible where I would say "never". If we can have video from almost directly below a rocket launch, or even from the inside of a Tokamak, I'm sure we can have one of a rocket landing.

    For that matter, why do we even need radio waves?

     

  6. Everybody else keep seating on edge when watching these things, thinking that this time it will blow up for sure?

    And then every small spark, flame, smoke, detail means "yup, it's gone...damn."

    I still like watching airplanes taking off/ landing, but it just doesn't have the edge-of-your-seat excitement of a SpaceX rocket launch. I wonder if the risk is half the reason, especially since I can't help thinking that so much is riding on a SpaceX rocket (beside the actual payload).

  7. What does that mean "payload to Pluto"? As in, land on Pluto? Send there on a Hohmann? By way of 40 gravity assists? 

    Because New Horizons did none of those, and I think when we're talking differences of decades (or even centuries?) they need to be a bit more specific.  

  8. I can understand that the sun moves differently. Perhaps it's higher in the sky and perhaps you have to turn a different direction if you were following it. But I'm curious how this all plays out in real life. I mean, firstly, the sun moves slowly, and hardly anybody ever pays attention to how exactly it moves. Are the effects of your position on the earth enough to make you suddenly realize, or think that "holy ish, the sun is moving the other way!"?

  9. So a colleague came back from Australia (I live in Netherlands), and after my obligatory "does the water flush the other way?" joke, he said that while he didn't pay attention, he did notice that "the sun moves the other way". He insisted that he means "west to east". At first I dismissed him as crazy, but depending on who I ask they say that indeed the sun should appear to move the other way....or at least move in such a way that it seems like it's moving the other way. Or something...I don't even know. But the question is, is there any way to make sense out of the comment that in Australia, the sun moves "the other way"? I welcome discussion, but personal experience would also be nice.

  10. As was mentioned, most of the energy goes into moving the exhaust (which is moving FAST) as opposed to the actual spacecraft. Since energy is exponentially related to speed, to throw the exhaust out the back 2x fast takes 4x as much energy, and yet your spacecraft only accelerates 2x faster.  And if you think that's inefficient, take a look at a photonic rocket: 300 MW per Newton of thrust. 

  11. On 5/3/2016 at 5:55 AM, Rakaydos said:

    Mainly because that would involve pumping fuel/oxidiser "uphill", under however many Gs the rocket is pulling before separation. The booster tanks would have to be drained from a point higher than the core tanks are pumped into, and the full core tanks have the maximum amount of pressure being applied to resist being pumped into.

    Is there any difference between pumping "uphill" and pumping to the bottom, but against the pressure of the "hill"? 

  12. I also played an earlier version in Ironman mode, and I concur that it gives you more enjoyment from the game. Makes you be VERY careful about how (or if) you aerobrake and how much extra fuel you bring, makes you more meticulous when it comes to testing, especially manned, and gives you reason to build in escape systems....all just like in real space programs. Lately though there was too much dancing around with all the shifting variables in the game, so I reverted to quicksave/ load mode.

    Even in Ironman though I recommend saving often, in the very likely case that you lose the mission because of a bug. 

×
×
  • Create New...