SpaceX Starship

[CascadeClone]

This is exactly why NASA has stagnated. Too averse the risk that is going to be present anytime you push the envelope.

Yeah I said it earlier in this thread. If this was a NASA launch, the whole program would be shut down for 3 years while Congress grandstanded, fired all the leadership, and changed all the priorities. That can be more costly than blowing up 100 tons of stainless steel.

 

[CascadeClone]

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but if there’s one major conspiracy I would buy into it’s the faked moon landing.

I met Buzz Aldrin once. He is definitely real.

The Chinese and Indians both have sent probes to the moon and confirmed the landing sites. Plus the Sovs monitored the whole thing; if anything was faked, they would have surely let everyone know about it.

My guess is the whole faked moon landing thing is a Sov funded psy-op, living eternally on the interwebs.

 

[clonedude]

They are a LONG ways away from ever putting humans in that thing.

 

[ScottyP]

The rocket, or the engine? "simplifying" the engine would involve starting from scratch with an all new engine design. They're constantly updating the engines though. I'm sure they'll get there.

My comment was made mostly in jest about the engine (I should have been more precise). They designed it this way for a reason, especially the reusability aspect. Like others have mentioned, it is a little difficult to understand that we were able to accomplish so much back in the sixties with lower technology and now we are struggling to launch a rocket.

 

[Turn2]

That was like 2023 Twitter and 2023 Tesla rolled into one minute.

 

[Bader]

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but if there’s one major conspiracy I would buy into it’s the faked moon landing.

Have you met humans? Everyone at mission control was in on it and never said anything to anyone?

Or were a room full of the smartest engineers the US had to offer duped by some 60s era Rube Goldberg machine faking sensor data? Neither of these things are possible.

 

[VeloClone]

 

[Turn2]

Sorry Elmo, my test craft lasted three years.

LightSail 2 spacecraft ends its solar-sailing mission in a blaze of glory

The crowd-funded craft burned up in Earth's atmosphere on Nov. 17.

www.space.com

 

[wxman1]

Holy FOD Batman. Would be interesting to see what the damage done to the launch area was. Seems as though they did not account for what it could do to the ground and potentially to the vehicle. Remember there is a reason water is sprayed under the rockets in Florida.

 

[isutrevman]

My comment was made mostly in jest about the engine (I should have been more precise). They designed it this way for a reason, especially the reusability aspect. Like others have mentioned, it is a little difficult to understand that we were able to accomplish so much back in the sixties with lower technology and now we are struggling to launch a rocket.

I just don't think it's a good comparison. What they did in the 60's was amazing, but they spent an insane amount of $$ to pull it off. Cost basically wasn't a concern. I think we could have gone back to the moon whenever we wanted if cost was no issue.

What SpaceX is attempting to do is make a rocket that can go to the moon or Mars and be 100% re-usable. It'd be like trying to make the Saturn V completely re-usable, but it's even larger and more powerful.

Getting to space is still extremely difficult. I would argue rocket technology hasn't actually changed that much, The computer systems guiding everything has, but the propulsion method is still the exact same, so there are limitations there. You have a fuel source + oxygen burning to create a high pressure exhaust that is expelled through a nozzle resulting in thrust. I think there is only so much we can do until some physicist comes up with a new way to propel a heavy mass in space.

How many entities in the world can launch a significant amount of mass into orbit? A dozen? The entire continent of Europe working together can't pull it off yet.

 

[jaj040]

It was somewhat in jest, partially because I somewhat work in the industry and they are not well liked for their business practices. Add in the Elon/SpaceX fanboys and it can be nausiating. They are doing some absolutley amazing ****. BUT you have to read through the PR BS and realize reality.

They got extremely valuable data but ultimately today was a failure much like the epic belly flop and the one that blew up on the pad. This stuff is extremely hard but today fell short of expectations.

Failure is pretty harsh. It was a true test flight, real pushing the envelope type stuff. No payload on board and a booster and ship that are essentially outdated due to the speed at which they are developed. New engines, new craft, new ground infrastructure etc.

All of the build up to this launch has been done in the open with SpaceX allowing people to setup live streams across the street. Their "failures" are out in the open for everyone to see. I don't know of their reputation in the industry and don't care for how Musk behaves, I just love the engineering behind the space industry and this project is the most out in the open.

 

[Turn2]

I just don't think it's a good comparison. What they did in the 60's was amazing, but they spent an insane amount of $$ to pull it off. Cost basically wasn't a concern. I think we could have gone back to the moon whenever we wanted if cost was no issue.

What SpaceX is attempting to do is make a rocket that can go to the moon or Mars and be 100% re-usable. It'd be like trying to make the Saturn V completely re-usable, but it's even larger and more powerful.

Getting to space is still extremely difficult. I would argue rocket technology hasn't actually changed that much, The computer systems guiding everything has, but the propulsion method is still the exact same, so there are limitations there. You have a fuel source + oxygen burning to create a high pressure exhaust that is expelled through a nozzle resulting in thrust. I think there is only so much we can do until some physicist comes up with a new way to propel a heavy mass in space.

How many entities in the world can launch a significant amount of mass into orbit? A dozen? The entire continent of Europe working together can't pull it off yet.

We need to realize that MASS is always going to be a limiting factor and Occupy Mars is a foolhardy venture. Sure, it would be great to put feet on Mars someday, but we'll learn a helluva lot more and go a helluva lot farther with a helluva lot less by utilizing probes.

Tiny Spacecraft Tested As Part of Breakthrough Starshot Plan For Interstellar Travel

It's called Wafercraft, and it's just survived its first test flight.

www.discovermagazine.com

This wild interstellar picogram probe idea could carry engineered microbes to other stars

The microbes could build equipment once they landed on a planet, according to the wild concept.

www.space.com

 

[Cyclonepride]

Bad place to park that van lol

 

[Cyballzz]

I met Buzz Aldrin once. He is definitely real.

The Chinese and Indians both have sent probes to the moon and confirmed the landing sites. Plus the Sovs monitored the whole thing; if anything was faked, they would have surely let everyone know about it.

My guess is the whole faked moon landing thing is a Sov funded psy-op, living eternally on the interwebs.

This is the part that blows up any fake moon landing conspiracy the Russians knew everything we were doing and would have jumped at the chance to embarrass the United States.

 

[isutrevman]

We need to realize that MASS is always going to be a limiting factor and Occupy Mars is a foolhardy venture. Sure, it would be great to put feet on Mars someday, but we'll learn a helluva lot more and go a helluva lot farther with a helluva lot less by utilizing probes.

Tiny Spacecraft Tested As Part of Breakthrough Starshot Plan For Interstellar Travel

It's called Wafercraft, and it's just survived its first test flight.

www.discovermagazine.com

This wild interstellar picogram probe idea could carry engineered microbes to other stars

The microbes could build equipment once they landed on a planet, according to the wild concept.

www.space.com

At some point humans have to leave the planet if we're going to survive as a species. I'm not saying Starship or putting people on Mars is necessarily the answer to that, but it needs to happen eventually. Humans want/need to explore and expand or we'll go extinct either by natural causes or our own.

 

[Turn2]

At some point humans have to leave the planet if we're going to survive as a species. I'm not saying Starship or putting people on Mars is necessarily the answer to that, but it needs to happen eventually. Humans want/need to explore and expand or we'll go extinct either by natural causes or our own.

If we can't even live sustainably on this planet, the one we're adapted to, we deserve to be victims of Darwinism.

 

[isutrevman]

Failure is pretty harsh. It was a true test flight, real pushing the envelope type stuff. No payload on board and a booster and ship that are essentially outdated due to the speed at which they are developed. New engines, new craft, new ground infrastructure etc.

All of the build up to this launch has been done in the open with SpaceX allowing people to setup live streams across the street. Their "failures" are out in the open for everyone to see. I don't know of their reputation in the industry and don't care for how Musk behaves, I just love the engineering behind the space industry and this project is the most out in the open.

I think it's fair for people to call it a "failure" as it didn't complete the full mission. However, anyone calling it a failure should provide the full context by describing as an "expected" failure. I think it would have been a surprise to SpaceX if the entire mission was completely without any issues. This "failure" also doesn't really set Starship back. Does it push back the date of when Starship is ready to carry satellites and eventually people into space? Probably not.

 

[isutrevman]

If we can't even live sustainably on this planet, the one we're adapted to, we deserve to be victims of Darwinism.

We can live sustainably and also be wiped out by elements out of our control. I'd prefer humans to evolve to be an interplanetary species. Leaving Earth is the ONLY way to protect the long-term survival of humans. It doesn't guarantee it, but living only on Earth guarantees the extinction.

 

[Turn2]

We can live sustainably and also be wiped out by elements out of out control. I'd prefer humans to evolve to be an interplanetary species. Leaving Earth is the ONLY way to protect the long-term survival of humans. It doesn't guarantee it, but living only on Earth guarantees the extinction.

The thought of Mormon missionaries trying to convert aliens makes this thought somewhat intriguing. Any fans of The Expanse may know what I’m referring to. Long live the Nauvoo!

 

[ClonesFTW]

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but if there’s one major conspiracy I would buy into it’s the faked moon landing.

Gotta be careful with that type of post on 4/20, this thread could take a quick right turn.