[deleted]
Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
191–200 of 899 posts
Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
#192Some highlights: Booster splashdown at about T+7:30, Ship engine cutoff at 151 km: https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1798700946983358535 Starship splashdown in Indian Ocean, mostly intact, with landing burn just before splashdown; landing burn: https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1798715665916014715 Full flight profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_integrated_fli...
Also at T+57:20 or so, watching the front flap start to come apart:
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1798098040588480826
Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there won't be as many customers purchasing 150-200 tons of lift, but that's the point of "rideshares". All that really matters with space launches is the cost per kg and if it's capable of lifting multiple payloads into multiple orbits, it'll have 10-15 customers per lift, not one. The current model has a kind of pez-dispenser but for chucking out multiple payloads. There are purchasers for the full lift capaci…
If you think about this, it doesn't make a lot of sense because different satellites are going to sit in very different orbits. Geosynchronous satellites are an obvious case where satellites will collect into a limited number of orbits but they vary on what point of the Earth they sit over. Also getting to geostationary orbit takes a lot more fuel so the rocket has less room for payload than, say, low EArth orbit. I'…
> I'm not sure one rocket can launch a geostationary satellite above the Americas and above Europe in the same mission.
Easily. Moving within an orbit is a matter of fine adjustment. For example, any stationkeeping that expands the orbit slightly will cause the satellite to "fall back" over time. Geostationary satellites are the best orbit for this, since every satellite in such an orbit essentially shares it with all others, differing only in position along the orbit.
Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t re-enter if you never leave. If Falcon 9 “survives re-entry” then so do minivans. Falcon 9 is an impressive and revolutionary vehicle. We don’t need to overstate the capabilities.
The Falcon 9 first stage goes past the Karman line and does a reentry burn. It’s not reentering from orbit , but it is from space .
So does New Shepard. If crossing the Karman line is your definition of re-entry then the Falcon 9 isn’t unique.
What Starship is doing is completely different from what Falcon 9 is doing. Falcon 9 is not the only other sub-orbital booster to propulsively land. Starship isn’t the only other spacecraft to survive hypersonic re-entry. It’s not even unique in being reusable.
Starship and Falcon 9 are incredible achievements. It’s simply not necessary to lie about their capabilities.
Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything Mars is pure BS. Just anything and everything. The one way trip to mars is orders of magnitude more complicated than moon. Keeping people from being riddled with cancer in 6months trip is not trivial. Landing and then what you plan a flag and die?
> Landing and then what you plan a flag and die? Pretty much, why do you think columbus set off? And he didn't even know if he'd actually find anything. I don't understand your attitude and people like you, human beings have been explorers forever, and seem to value exploring even over survival potentially. I'd say it's pretty obviously evolutionarily coded into us. Maybe not you, but into many people.
I think it is the indelible human nature, to go the furthest we can because it's there. At first I didn't agree with going to Mars, but if you think of it as the furthest place we know we can land on, and explore, then it makes sense. If we can safely land, and return from Mars, then it makes going even further a possibility.
Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
#196So I'm excited to see this tech develop but I wonder how much of a market there really is for super-heavy lifters. I can't wait to see a future version where they land the various stages rather than just dumping them into the sea. The first Falcon Heavy launch was super impressive. SpaceX already has the Falcon Heavy and there have only been a handful of launches, primarily military. I guess the argument is it'll ope…
Ever seen the incredible classic Moonraker? Larger satellites, larger rockets, it's about more at a lower cost. Bigger trucks, bigger ships, bigger lifters.
Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s feasible - but nobody did, and nobody has. I get the dislike - his politics are pretty reprehensible - but it’s hard to argue with the results his businesses generally achieve. What he brings to the table apart from money is an absolutely bull-headed madcap drive to make the infeasible into reality in the face of a chorus of naysayers, and that, I respect.
I'm not arguing against the results his businesses achieve, I'm arguing against the incessant drive for hero worship which ascribes those successes to him and him alone. >What he brings to the table apart from money is an absolutely bull-headed madcap drive to make the infeasible into reality in the face of a chorus of naysayers, and that, I respect. This is exactly my point. Elon didn't make the infeasible into real…
It’s indeed his success primarily, it’s thanks to him primarily. And for that there’s a huge amount of praise that he has earned.
But it’s not due to him alone, but also due to the people that he managed to attract, hire and keep. Due to the people he passed the responsibility onto, and just as much due to the processes and philosophy he put in place. Alone having the people doesn’t guarantee success on this scale, you need the magic stuff, and the vision.
Nobody else did what he has done today with Starship or in the past with enough other things. And when it comes to costs and capabilities of Starship, nobody is even close. Not even close.
Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the humans who did the most for humankind. Being called names. Shame.
George Washington did a lot of important good, while being a slaveowner. Galileo was notorious for being a douche. The world is complex. I'm a huge SpaceX fan, and a big critic of Musk's handling of Twitter. It's OK to hold these opinions simultaneously.
Odd, I think Musk is doing quite well with 'Twitter'. It is a very good thing that the ideological censorship which the Ancienne Regime at Twitter was guilty of has been lifted, especially in the light of the oncoming elections in Europe/the US and the current mess in Brazil etc. It is clear as daylight that those who are ideologically aligned with the previous regime at Twitter are annoyed that their playground has been opened to 'the other side' but this is one of the few areas where diversity really matters: diversity of opinion. You don't have to like what the opposition says but you should allow them to speak, no matter whether you're on the 'progressive' or 'conservative' or 'libertarian' or whatever other side you can think of.
Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Landing and then what you plan a flag and die? Pretty much, why do you think columbus set off? And he didn't even know if he'd actually find anything. I don't understand your attitude and people like you, human beings have been explorers forever, and seem to value exploring even over survival potentially. I'd say it's pretty obviously evolutionarily coded into us. Maybe not you, but into many people.
Columbus very very much didn't plan to die (though he very much would have if he didn't get lucky that there was a whole new continent there). His plan was to land in India, which he thought he would reach around the time he actually reached the new continent, because he had a completely wrong idea of how large the globe actually was (he alone had this wrong idea; the actual circumference of the globe was pretty well…
We will probably perform a human mission and return samples before a robot goes and picks up the Perseverance samples.
We’ve been mars-capable since Apollo. It’s a matter of will, which is a political function of cost, which is falling rapidly.
Re: Super Heavy has splashed down in The Gulf of Mexico
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything Mars is pure BS. Just anything and everything. The one way trip to mars is orders of magnitude more complicated than moon. Keeping people from being riddled with cancer in 6months trip is not trivial. Landing and then what you plan a flag and die?
"Keeping people from being riddled with cancer in 6months trip is not trivial." It's pretty trivial. Put mass in between you and space. It's already been researched to death and we have many years worth of data about the subject.
> It's pretty trivial. Put mass in between you and space.
Seems like you quite confident. So go on. Expand on that a bit... its trivial after all.
You will teleport all that mass to ELO? Or use tracker beam to capture asteroid and space mine it to smelt shielding.
I am super curious how you solve it trivially.
edit: You downvote but dont explain this trivial solution. Am I asking too much? Calling someone out to explain something is offensive or something?