Lukaszenko
-
Posts
365 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Lukaszenko
-
-
18 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:
“Angry Astronaut” is not so enthused on the upgraded Raptor 3 as are other SpaceX fans. He notes what SpaceX should be focused on is improving Raptor reliability and reusability. On the SH/SS fight, a quarter of the engines failed with one and likely two actually exploding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KYztCHTXaM
Bob Clark
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
-
53 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
Bullet-resistant glass stops bullets by fracturing in layers. So each successive bullet physically and visibly erodes the glass.
In this instance they had tempered glass that was capable of resisting the steel ball completely. So in theory you could throw a steel ball at it 10 or 50 or 100 times, because there's no cumulative damage. However, the sledgehammer strike to the door mechanism evidently fractured the glass below the visible pane, which weakened it dramatically, allowing the ball to break it on the first throw.
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
-
16 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:
This article is almost two years old now and has obsolete information.
There is no pusher stage separation mechanism. There is, however, a separation mechanism -- latches holding the booster and the starship together. When it's time to separate, those latches open.
That article talks about a "small but significant" flick. Apparently it's much more than that:
Just before MECO, Superheavy gimbals hard left and places the entire stack into a flat spin, and the spin continues under full gimbal for almost 270 degrees before MECO and separation are commanded simultaneously. Once separation occurs, both vehicles continue to rotate and drift apart. Starship rotates for almost another 90 degrees before igniting its engines and straightening out, while Superheavy does another 270 degrees before starting the boostback. It's a really very aggressive maneuver.
My working theory is that due to thrust shortfall, the attempted separation happened lower in the atmosphere than planned, resulting in significant aerodynamic torque on the stack during the flat spin, which in turn placed too much shear force on the latches for them to open properly. Separation and MECO happen simultaneously, but MECO is not commanded until latch release is confirmed, and so in this case latch release never happened and so the booster kept pushing through the flat spin because it didn't know what else to do.
The other possibility is that the latches were just fine, but because of the higher drag, the rotation rate never got high enough for the computer to command separation at all.
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.
-
48 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:
The lack of launch abort options was a serious concern about the Space Shuttle, one that ultimately did come home to rest when there was a launch failure that killed the crew.
It's a legitimate concern for Starship ever becoming crew-rated.
As best I can tell, Starship is being designed with the constraint that it could be used for landing and launch operations on Mars. What is acceptable risk on Mars (because you have no other options) is not necessarily acceptable risk on Earth.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:
What I mean is if you cared most of all about reducing launch costs and secondarily about securing long-term government contracts and tertiarily about about cornering the orbital delivery market and then, maybe, somewhere down the checklist you worried about human occupants reliably surviving reentry starship is exactly what you would design. There’s no launch abort system. There’s no plan for failed belly flop or engines exploding on ascent. I mean folks asked early on when all those goofy animations rolled with starships landing on mars “where’s the radiation shielding” and dude was like “we’ll point the engines at the the sun.” Its just so frustrating to see so much intelligence directed at making money and such an obviously stupid and cavalier attitude taken towards safety and actual people’s lives.
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.
-
38 minutes ago, Beccab said:
Out of necessity, probably. Not sure where they got the additional performance, the inclination seems similar to many before this launch to me
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.
-
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.
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
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?