NPR

They caught it!..

Wow wow wow...One of the most incredible feats of engineering, maybe the most incredible I have seen in my life...and it's just the start.

Wish Elon wasn't such a dick when it comes to Ukraine and politics.

tc27 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 4:24 pm Wow wow wow...One of the most incredible feats of engineering, maybe the most incredible I have seen in my life...and it's just the start.

Wish Elon wasn't such a dick when it comes to Ukraine and politics.

It's technically very impressive, but is it worthwhile ?

SpaceX has got billions from the US Taxpayer for a specific purpose; to send astronauts to the moon again; that's it !

The first fucking thing I heard on the broadcast was how the rocket was designed for travel to Mars !!!!!!

There are a number of significant technological advances here, but they're all undercut by the fascist douche bag controlling the company diverting the project away from the actual mission to his bullshit fever dream.

I noticed that this time I didn't see any camera cuts to the interior of the spaceship, as last time these showed that they lofted zero kg of payload to orbit; not a one !

So what good is being able to recover a booster if you add tonnes of weight to the booster to do so, but that booster can't fucking get a kilo of actual useful payload up to LEO ? Ditto the 2nd stage, which is supposed to have a 100t of cargo, but in actuality was tanks dry, & only had enough so they could soft land it. Whats the fucking point ?

This leads to the question of this mystical, "refueling" rocket, that not even NASA has seen a design for, let alone the tiny detail of SpaceX not having an approved human rated capsule to go to the moon, unlike, you know Blue Origin !

SpaceX is just more dick waving from a guy who's dick must be only visible with an electron microscope if he feels this need to compensate.

The comparisons with Bond villains seem to end in Moonraker, where Bond talks about the villain creating a, "floating stud farm", that sounds about the level of what Space Karens ambitions are.

Musk is a twat but I don't think your criticism is valid:

1. Space are providing the lunar lander which will be a specialised starship. It needs multiple orbital refuelling trips from reusable 'tanker' starship. This is essentially the same for the Mars Starship designs..so making it work fits both mission profiles.

2. Yes the starship is empty, these are test launches. There's no question wether superheavy and starship can launch the intended tonnage to orbit.

3. Blue Origin have delivered fuck all apart from flying stockbrokers on sub orbital hops on the dildo rocket. The less said about the jobs programme SLS the better.

If I was picking flaws it would be wether a reusable heatsheild is really possible without Space shuttle type refurbishment between flights.

tc27 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:20 pm Musk is a twat but I don't think your criticism is valid:

1. Space are providing the lunar lander which will be a specialised starship. It needs multiple orbital refuelling trips from reusable 'tanker' starship. This is essentially the same for the Mars Starship designs..so making it work fits both mission profiles.

So you agree; they aren't providing a spacecraft for what they tendered; they're using taxpayers money to fund his fever dream, & don't give a shit that it is utterly unsuitable for the moon mission they took the money for !

I don't remember Apollo needing 20x other rockets to refuel it before it left LEO to land on the moon ?

They did it all with one Saturn V, & one flight !

2. Yes the starship is empty, these are test launches. There's no question wether superheavy and starship can launch the intended tonnage to orbit.

3. Blue Origin have delivered fuck all apart from flying stockbrokers on sub orbital hops on the dildo rocket. The less said about the jobs programme SLS the better.

But for every kilo you put in orbit, you need fuel; if you're tanks dry putting zero kilos in orbit, you don't have a starship, you have a rocket that can't even give a stockbrokers an orbital hop !

The Space Karen has repeatedly promised that starship will put 100t in orbit, & every part of this design is predicated on this promise, & now we know this is bullshit, so the design is bullshit, & they'll have to go back to the drawing board because what's the point of repeated "test" launches if what you're launching isn't what you'll actually use to get ~100t into orbit ?

After the last test launch there miraculously appeared two new versions of starship, that the height & diameter of was hazy, because the bottom line was that the Engineers obviously knew they needed bigger launchers to actually put something into orbit.

If I was picking flaws it would be wether a reusable heatsheild is really possible without Space shuttle type refurbishment between flights.

Or indeed why the fuck you would bring an empty payload bay back to ground instead of just having a crew capsule come back, but this again goes back to the fantasy that he can run shuttles between the Earth & Mars

I wonder what the percentage of parts that are actually re-usable on the returned booster, & in what time frame.

tc27 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:20 pm

If I was picking flaws it would be wether a reusable heatsheild is really possible without Space shuttle type refurbishment between flights.

They are doing refurbs aren't they? Just it'll be quicker and cheaper, it's not shaped like a plane, it's made of better materials, the tiles aren't squares, and the tiles aren't individually located, they're pretty much the same tiles all over now

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:55 pm

tc27 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:20 pm

If I was picking flaws it would be wether a reusable heatsheild is really possible without Space shuttle type refurbishment between flights.

They are doing refurbs aren't they? Just it'll be quicker and cheaper, it's not shaped like a plane, it's made of better materials, the tiles aren't squares, and the tiles aren't individually located, they're pretty much the same tiles all over now

As you say; "Are They ?"

It's the whole problem with outsourcing something like this to a private company, & not specifically about using private companies, which is often better than let NASA fuck about, but letting them contract for a project, & not making them do so under the same conditions as a public agency.

If this was a NASA project, every screw changed would be documented, & the hours it took, & how much it cost; & it'd all be publicly discoverable ! None of this is true with this crowd, because it's SpaceX, & their owner is a scoff law who doesn't give a shit.

I'd be great if we could separate the owner from the company, but the owner sticks his agenda into the process all the fucking time, so you can't; you end up having to start by thinking about the dickhead running the company, & then work out how he'll fuck up the project.

fishfoodie wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 9:23 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:55 pm

tc27 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:20 pm

If I was picking flaws it would be wether a reusable heatsheild is really possible without Space shuttle type refurbishment between flights.

They are doing refurbs aren't they? Just it'll be quicker and cheaper, it's not shaped like a plane, it's made of better materials, the tiles aren't squares, and the tiles aren't individually located, they're pretty much the same tiles all over now

As you say; "Are They ?"

It's the whole problem with outsourcing something like this to a private company, & not specifically about using private companies, which is often better than let NASA fuck about, but letting them contract for a project, & not making them do so under the same conditions as a public agency.

If this was a NASA project, every screw changed would be documented, & the hours it took, & how much it cost; & it'd all be publicly discoverable ! None of this is true with this crowd, because it's SpaceX, & their owner is a scoff law who doesn't give a shit.

I'd be great if we could separate the owner from the company, but the owner sticks his agenda into the process all the fucking time, so you can't; you end up having to start by thinking about the dickhead running the company, & then work out how he'll fuck up the project.

Certainly on the heat shield they are. Or at least I've read details on how this heatshield is much easier, quicker and cheaper to refurb than the NASA spaceships, and for a number of design reasons. And it'd be odd to design it to be easier whilst also intending to not do it

Now whether that means after very flight, or just as infrequently as they think they can get away with, channeling their inner Titan submersible, that I don't know.

So you agree; they aren't providing a spacecraft for what they tendered; they're using taxpayers money to fund his fever dream, & don't give a shit that it is utterly unsuitable for the moon mission they took the money for !

SpaceX aren't using NASA money to fund Starship development. They are on a fixed cost contract to deliver the lunar Starship using a design mostly based on the Starship they are developing privately.

I don't remember Apollo needing 20x other rockets to refuel it before it left LEO to land on the moon ?

They did it all with one Saturn V, & one flight !

NASA doesn't want to repeat Apollo, it wants a far larger and more capable lander on the moon. Every design tendered required multiple launches to assemble and fuel the lander based on NASAs specifications.

Again Spacex/lander really isn't the problem with Artemis, its the ridiculous concepts of the lunar gateway and the jobs programme legacy rockets/capsules NASA wants to sue to launch the astronauts in,

But for every kilo you put in orbit, you need fuel; if you're tanks dry putting zero kilos in orbit, you don't have a starship, you have a rocket that can't even give a stockbrokers an orbital hop !

The Space Karen has repeatedly promised that starship will put 100t in orbit, & every part of this design is predicated on this promise, & now we know this is bullshit, so the design is bullshit, & they'll have to go back to the drawing board because what's the point of repeated "test" launches if what you're launching isn't what you'll actually use to get ~100t into orbit

After the last test launch there miraculously appeared two new versions of starship, that the height & diameter of was hazy, because the bottom line was that the Engineers obviously knew they needed bigger launchers to actually put something into orbit.

SpaceX are working through and proving concepts with every launch, it would not totally surprise me to see one of the next launches carrying a cargo (maybe Starlink) but I think you declaration of Starship as a failure because its not carried a cargo on its second successful sub orbital test flight as a little premature.

Or indeed why the fuck you would bring an empty payload bay back to ground instead of just having a crew capsule come back, but this again goes back to the fantasy that he can run shuttles between the Earth & Mars

I wonder what the percentage of parts that are actually re-usable on the returned booster, & in what time frame.

Because it was a sub orbital flight that was designed to crash into the Ocean, also starship is mostly just a empty steel tube at the moment as you would expect in a very early protype.

The returned booster will probably be scrapped for information as were the early Falcon. Space X has flown Flacon 9 boosters multiple times (I think 20 launches is the record).

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:55 pm

tc27 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:20 pm

If I was picking flaws it would be wether a reusable heatsheild is really possible without Space shuttle type refurbishment between flights.

They are doing refurbs aren't they? Just it'll be quicker and cheaper, it's not shaped like a plane, it's made of better materials, the tiles aren't squares, and the tiles aren't individually located, they're pretty much the same tiles all over now

You are right but some of the tiles are non standard and there are still issues with tiles falling off and wing flap joints.. I can see there being a difference in the standards for refurbing the heat shield between human rates and cargo/fuel SS

tc27 wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2024 12:12 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:55 pm

tc27 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:20 pm

If I was picking flaws it would be wether a reusable heatsheild is really possible without Space shuttle type refurbishment between flights.

They are doing refurbs aren't they? Just it'll be quicker and cheaper, it's not shaped like a plane, it's made of better materials, the tiles aren't squares, and the tiles aren't individually located, they're pretty much the same tiles all over now

You are right but some of the tiles are non standard and there are still issues with tiles falling off and wing flap joints.. I can see there being a difference in the standards for refurbing the heat shield between human rates and cargo/fuel SS

It'd be weird if there weren't flaws. I was only commenting based on details I'd heard there would be the need to maintain the heat shield, even if so goes the claim it's not the complex procedure Nasa had with their shuttles

Latest launch is 5 minutes away

Another Starship failure yesterday. That’s three in seven launches, none of which were orbital.

For comparison, Ariane 5 had three failures in its 117 launches.

It’s not looking like a human certified rocket at the moment.

And just like that, Blue Origin gain the billionaire space race lead in the heavy rocket category, amazing how much can change in the space of 3 days.

Insane_Homer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:44 am And just like that, Blue Origin gain the billionaire space race lead in the heavy rocket category, amazing how much can change in the space of 3 days.

Yep. One launch, satellites inserted to orbit. Compared to seven launches, no orbit achieved, three complete failures.

Wonder if Elon will adopt the same process for this as he did for Twitter - get rid of anyone who disagrees with him and remove all the worthwhile technical staff? The fanbois on twitter are in full on defensive mode atm.

Biffer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 12:20 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:44 am And just like that, Blue Origin gain the billionaire space race lead in the heavy rocket category, amazing how much can change in the space of 3 days.

Yep. One launch, satellites inserted to orbit. Compared to seven launches, no orbit achieved, three complete failures.

Wonder if Elon will adopt the same process for this as he did for Twitter - get rid of anyone who disagrees with him and remove all the worthwhile technical staff? The fanbois on twitter are in full on defensive mode atm.

but it worked fine when he paid that guy to make it in Kerbal SP for him

Space X's regular launch the other day went fine though, SpaceX Transporter-12, a Falcon9 rocket.

Mixed payload with multiple small satellites, 131 satellites on board. AAC Clyde Space, based in Glasgow, provided systems and products to more than 1 in 6 of the satellites on board. Spire Global, who do their manufacturing in Glasgow, launched six satellites. Alba Orbital from Glasgow launched another 7 satellites. And other things like Scottish control software were on board other payloads.

This stuff doesn't get covered, but it's UK high tech manufacturing.

Space Karen is going to get it in the neck from the FAA over this flight failure.

All of the Caribbean got to see the pretty fireworks; but the pretty lights was 100 tonnes of steel screaming thru the atmosphere at mach 20, & dozens of flights had to go into holding patterns across the region while ATC & the FAA tried to work out when it would be safe for them to continue on their flights.

Experts told him that Texas was a shit location to launch from because of all the land that would be overflown before the LEO, but as usual he ignored them, because he knew he could just ignore the laws in Texas & no one would stop him.

Ket fueled rage tweets incoming.

FAA have grounded SpaceX launches !

But of course the toothless arseholes are letting SpaceX investigate themselves

fishfoodie wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 10:11 pm FAA have grounded SpaceX launches !

But of course the toothless arseholes are letting SpaceX investigate themselves

It’s just starship that’s grounded. Conducting your own investigation is pretty standard I think, but that is then reviewed by the FAA and they’ll need some convincing to reactivate the launch license.

If only Space X had some friendly Government contact they could call upon to put in a good word for then!