SpaceX’s monstrous, dirt-cheap Starship may transform space travel

Post by TaylorAlexander » Fri, Feb 18, 2022, 8:00 AM UTC

cma wrote: post #216

JaimeThompson wrote: post #55

I think Gwynne Shotwell is the rather unsung hero keeping SpaceX running correctly day by day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell

This from her seemed dangerously like fraud: https://www.ted.com/talks/gwynne_shotwell_spacex_s_plan_to_f... Passenger service by 2028 on starship for between an economy and business class ticket. A couple years later they confirmed they were still going for the same timeline.

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, Feb 18, 2022, 8:08 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #10

kilroy123 wrote: post #6

If you're ever in the Houston area, I highly recommend going to see NASA Johnson Space Center. They have a full-size replica (?) Saturn V rocket on its side, you can see. You simply can't grasp how big these rockets are until you see it up close. It's like a tall building blasting off into space. They're humongous. I hope to one day see Starship up close in person as it takes off to space.

I found it depressing. Ships aren't built to stay in the harbor, and rockets aren't built to lie on their side rusting. They say we couldn't build another Saturn V if we tried. Apparently that old saw is true enough, at least for the original contractors.

Post by mlindner » Fri, Feb 18, 2022, 8:09 AM UTC

irjustin wrote: post #245

cma wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This from her seemed dangerously like fraud: https://www.ted.com/talks/gwynne_shotwell_spacex_s_plan_to_f... Passenger service by 2028 on starship for between an economy and business class ticket. A couple years later they confirmed they were still going for the same timeline.

> This from her seemed dangerously like fraud Pretty heavy statement. Which part is the fraud? The timeline or the ability? I think it's fair to say far-fetched, but the label fraud or even "sounding like fraud" sounds too heavy.

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, Feb 18, 2022, 8:16 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #256

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military wants a C-130 payload anywhere in the world in 1 hour. Military up the wazoo in contracts. Militarization of space is inevitable, they'll want bases up there. If the payload costs are true for starship, they'll put big ones up there. Starship will represent a total paradigm change in space superiority on economics alone. I'm surprised China and Russia aren't loudly complaining about this. It would enable…

> they'll want bases up there They'll be highly expensive and highly vulnerable targets. You can't armor a space station.

Post by masswerk » Fri, Feb 18, 2022, 8:25 AM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #305

irjustin wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This from her seemed dangerously like fraud Pretty heavy statement. Which part is the fraud? The timeline or the ability? I think it's fair to say far-fetched, but the label fraud or even "sounding like fraud" sounds too heavy.

The person thinks it's fraud because they watched videos by a propagandist who goes by the name "common sense skeptic" who makes videos that sound a lot like the people who make videos about flat earth. I say this as they quote all the same talking points of that person.