RealKerbal3x 5,763 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 450 feet is 137m. Definitely the launch tower Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ultimate Steve 8,587 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 Does "Event Starship Update" mean that there's gonna be a starship update soon or is that just a fan render thing Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tater 27,046 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 11 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Does "Event Starship Update" mean that there's gonna be a starship update soon or is that just a fan render thing It's a still from a previous year's update vid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RealKerbal3x 5,763 Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Does "Event Starship Update" mean that there's gonna be a starship update soon or is that just a fan render thing Looks like just a screenshot from the website. That tweet isn't an official SpaceX announcement anyway. Edited February 19 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tater 27,046 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Closures Mon, Tue, and Wed for SN10. It'll take more than a static fire to generate much interest for me with picture (video!) of actual Mars likely coming in the same time frame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tater 27,046 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) SH domes? (later, flatter ones?) New taco stands? Edited February 20 by tater Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RealKerbal3x 5,763 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 minutes ago, tater said: SH domes? Probably domes for the new orbital launch pad tank farm. Also, looks like they're prepping a ring stack for a full set of TPS tiles: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
StrandedonEarth 7,359 Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 That pic also gives a sense of just how tall the Superheavy launch mount legs are already. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cubinator 8,643 Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Third time's the charm? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flying dutchman 357 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 13 hours ago, cubinator said: Third time's the charm? i hope so, but feeling pessemistic about it.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tater 27,046 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Supposedly static fire today. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RealKerbal3x 5,763 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Flight is possible this week! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cuky 164 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Any of you guys seen this? I have seen part 2 as it was recommended by youtube to me today. It is mostly mocking comments that defended SpaceX. I still have to see part 1 though Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flying dutchman 357 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 *Grabs popcorn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mikegarrison 4,060 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Cuky said: Any of you guys seen this? I have seen part 2 as it was recommended by youtube to me today. It is mostly mocking comments that defended SpaceX. I still have to see part 1 though Most of the stuff he says is pretty obvious, actually. Starship P2P and hyperloop and the Boring Co. have been pretty well argued (and IMO mostly shown to be either impractical or -- in the case of the Boring Co. -- not revolutionary). We don't know what SpaceX's true costs are because they are a private company. We only know what they charge, and it's not in their interest to charge less than the market will allow them to charge. So whether they are making a ton of money per launch or whether they are losing money per launch, all we know for sure is that their launch prices appear to be a little bit (but not a lot) lower than other providers. Propulsive landings of suborbital boosters? Yeah, now proven. Propulsive landings (on earth) from orbital speed? Not proven. At-least-partially propulsive landings on Mars or the moon (though with non-reusable parts)? Proven. Edited February 22 by mikegarrison Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli 547 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 8 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said: *Grabs popcorn Got enough to share? Dis gonna be good! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clamp-o-Tron 1,044 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) Somebody made a response. I’m not sure what to expect out of this, as most of the claims in the original were just common sense. EDIT: partway through the first installment of the original, they make decent economic arguments but nothing special. They really display their lack of knowledge about rockets and the aerospace niche, and as @mikegarrison said, costs probably are intentionally kept (somewhat) high, because there isn’t a ride to LEO for larger than smallsat scale that can compete with F9 on cost. Edited February 22 by Clamp-o-Tron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tater 27,046 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 19 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: We don't know what SpaceX's true costs are because they are a private company. We only know what they charge, and it's not in their interest to charge less than the market will allow them to charge. So whether they are making a ton of money per launch or whether they are losing money per launch, all we know for sure is that their launch prices appear to be a little bit (but not a lot) lower than other providers. There was that vid (that got pulled) of one of the SpaceX engineers at a conference saying their cost was 28M (? from memory) on a reused F9 launch, all-in. Obviously they have no reason to have their launches cost any lower than "enough to win the bid," particularly as they get pretty much all the commercial launches as it is, and for government launches, they are doled out between the providers regardless of cost so that the government has options. Until there is a price competitor, there will be no drop in prices. Of course SpaceX passes any savings on to their Starlink project, and 60 sats for 28M is a good deal. Not sure what a commercial Soyuz costs for oneweb's 36 sats, but even 1M per would be pretty cheap (2X SpaceX cost). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CatastrophicFailure 16,813 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 9 hours ago, Flying dutchman said: *Grabs popcorn See, now, I halfway wanna cringe my way through crap like this yelling at the screen, but I don’t want to give such creators the benefit of the view clicks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flying dutchman 357 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 20 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: See, now, I halfway wanna cringe my way through crap like this yelling at the screen, but I don’t want to give such creators the benefit of the view clicks. I agree, didn't watch it either. a lot of those video's are made because the creator personally hates elon musk or electric cars.. I hear enough about that already, so when i want to watch something i want it to be unbiased, not something made to reinforce negative sentiments. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mikegarrison 4,060 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said: I agree, didn't watch it either. a lot of those video's are made because the creator personally hates elon musk or electric cars.. That particular guy mainly likes to debunk bogus science claims. example: Edited February 23 by mikegarrison Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RyanRising 467 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) I watched it because I think it would be irresponsible of me not to look at an opposing argument. But that argument seems a little lost in all the making fun of Elon Musk - which might be deserved, but seems out of place. In the rest of it, what he successfully explains is that SpaceX is cheaper, just not 10x cheaper than the Shuttle per kg. He also accuses SpaceX of price dumping due to a USSF contract for FH + extended fairing + vertical integration facility being somewhere around 310m instead of 60m for a Falcon 9, which I don’t think is well-considered. Especially because the vertical integration facility is referred to as “I think which means they want a crane to lift stuff onto the rocket.” A lot of the images and figures he uses are out of date, and a lot of the comparisons he makes aren’t on as equal footing as he tries to make them sound. If it’s meant to convince fans like me that SpaceX is just another launch provider doing nothing worth more attention than the rest of them, I’d say the videos are rather unsuccessful. I tried to ignore the sarcasm as much as possible while making that assessment, but I think it’s also worth mentioning that making fun of people who disagree with you isn’t the best way to convince them of your argument. He comes across as putting everyone who thinks what SpaceX is doing is worthwhile in the same group as those weird billionaire-worship people. He also sure likes to talk about Hyperloop, Boring Company, and Tesla batteries in a video ostensibly about SpaceX. Edited February 23 by RyanRising Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mikegarrison 4,060 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 1 minute ago, RyanRising said: But that argument seems a little lost in all the making fun of Elon Musk Yeah. Like I said, I've seen a few of this guy's videos. His whole schtick is being really sarcastic as he slices up claims he disagrees with. I didn't think what he said was necessarily wrong. His biggest stretch was guessing how much SpaceX's costs are. However, most of the guestimates I've seen are that SpaceX needs to get about 10 uses per booster before they really get payback for their reusability. Is that actually true? I don't know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RyanRising 467 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Yeah. Like I said, I've seen a few of this guy's videos. His whole schtick is being really sarcastic as he slices up claims he disagrees with. I didn't think what he said was necessarily wrong. His biggest stretch was guessing how much SpaceX's costs are. However, most of the guestimates I've seen are that SpaceX needs to get about 10 uses per booster before they really get payback for their reusability. Is that actually true? I don't know. I thought the 10 uses per booster was the figure given as what they wanted to be able to do without substantial refurbishment, not the minimum break-even point. Or do those numbers just happen to coincide? Edited February 23 by RyanRising Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.