191–200 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could also do two launches within a single launch window.
Didn't they do this in that movie armageddon? Hopefully space-x doesn't know something we don't.
Watching the two heavy boosters landing on neighbouring pads was similar - except real. It was that shot that made me think “the future is here”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
considering this is over 50 years after Saturn V, I don't feel this is such a huge feat.
2001 predicted we'd be permanently living in the moon with orbital space hotels two decades ago, and no one ever thought they were being unreasonable if we kept the same momentum as the 60s, so yes it's sad. But we have to take things for what they are and what spacex is doing is definitely progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Saturn V would be three people to the moon and back. Starship is 100 people more or less around GTO. Multiple starships are needed to go to Mars. It's a pretty ridiculous comparison.
Isn’t excluding comparisons that include refuelling, when contrasting a refuel-able and a non refuel-able vehicle, somewhat ridiculous? Starship is refuel-able , that’s one of its capabilities. Nobody on these vehicles going to Mars will care about you sitting there complaining that is doesn’t count.
(Apparently the aircraft launched from an aircraft carrier aren't really airplanes, either!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are exactly three other countries with the supply chain, manpower, funding, and infrastructure to build large scale commercial access to space. Not a single one of them are members of NATO. Space X doesn't really have many options.
You may be forgetting a bunch of other countries that do space together, and as a group they have "the supply chain, manpower, funding, and infrastructure to build large scale commercial access to space", and are members of NATO. That said, I haven't seen as much interest in commercial space launch vehicles over here as I'd like to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've already done it[0], and it was a complete success until a propellant pressure issue resulted in lower than needed thrust, and a hard impact on the pad. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qwLHlVjRyw
On landing video, I see only 2 engines turn on instead of 3 - why is that? Was one engine malfunctioning, or was it the result of low pressure?
Falcon 9 does the same, relighting 3 engines (out of 9 total) for the boostback burn, 3 for the entry burn and then just 1 for landing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question, how will tankers get into space? If most of the ship's size is already dedicated to fuel that's burnt, that seems to leave little left for fuel payload. I also assume fuel payload would be much heavier than other types of payload, requiring more ship fuel to launch it, further taking up space. It seems like for every full refill you could provide in space it'd take an additional 3-4 ships just to ge…
About that yes, but remember that a fully loaded starship in orbit can land on any solid surface in the solar system and return to earth (except for Venus) Starship’s usable volume is over 100 times that of an Apollo lunar lander.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On landing video, I see only 2 engines turn on instead of 3 - why is that? Was one engine malfunctioning, or was it the result of low pressure?
The rocket weighs quite a bit less at the end, having used most of its fuel, so only two engines are needed to land. The engines cannot be throttled down more than ~50% (as all rocket engines), so a third one would add too much thrust. Falcon 9 does the same, relighting 3 engines (out of 9 total) for the boostback burn, 3 for the entry burn and then just 1 for landing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of standalone LES activation ever in the history of human spaceflight had been successful in saving all occupants' lives. Space Shuttle failed twice on the other hand, each time killing all aboard, and in neither cases of it its integral abort systems/abort modes did help at all. So in theory the lack of capsule-only LES do not necessarily mean safer rocket, in the history and in the statistics it does.
Statistics say you shouldn’t call your reusable ship a word beginning with ‘C’ In 1963 a LES killed someone, in 1983 it saved lives.
Which manned abort in 1963 is that specifically? Why are you trying to skew discussion into some direction?
Note: LES stands for Launch Escape System, usually a small solid rocket that activates in case of a failure during ascent to take the manned capsule away from exploding rocket under it, perhaps equivalent to airbags in a car.