451–455 of 455 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Needs tend to develop once the means are there. 200 years ago, there was no need to use electricity. 100 years ago, there was no need to use a programming language. 30 years ago, there was no need for gigabit wireless Internet.
This feels like tautological reasoning. Since you said, "tend" - are there any counter examples that you can think of?
We have the means to build pyramids or moa statues (Easter Island-style) much more quickly and efficiently that the ancients did, but we don't feel the need anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're comparing SLS to a fantasy rocket. Incorrect. I also compared SLS to both (a) Falcon 9 and (b) Falcon Heavy. Both of which dramatically outperform it in regular commercial flight. Whereas SLS has had exactly one test flight. And of course Starship exists. It has flown 5 times, which is 4 times more than SLS. And has landed both parts at least once, which is infinitely many times more than SLS ever will. So w…
SLS has flown to the moon and back. Starship hasn't yet flown to orbit.
Full rapid reusability is not.
SpaceX is focusing on the unsolved problem, and making significant progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally reasonable question. This is the first rocket ever that will (assuming further success) land in its entirety back on the launch pad, refuel, and go back to orbit the same day. Imagine that every time an airliner landed its cockpit was destroyed and you had to build a new one. A fully reusable airplane would be a transformational improvement. That's the level of achievement we're talking about here.
Is there such a need for a heavy launch rocket to launch routinely?
Besides, Elon is the first to go after supervillain territory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. > StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. We have plenty of rockets capable of getting to orbit. And given that satellite…
> Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. Saturn V was completely destroyed by each launch with only the payload surviving. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison when you compare # launches. Those 10-15 launches of StarShip will be a lot cheaper than a single Saturn V launch because at the end you still have all the StarShips you launched and all you used was some methane an…
Minus the maintenance for the wear-and-tear of expending (ahem) astronomical amounts of energy to propel the largest rocket ever built into space and then return through atmospheric re-entry ten or more times. Just because you have built a machine that might, at scale, be more economical than an expendable rocket does not mean that the economics will actually materialize such that it ever makes sense to realize that scale, especially if you dectuple your expected operating costs.