Alcun Atirutan BBS

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy

đź‘ľ Artemis I

reporters: NASA’s huge waste of money “exceeded all expectations and all systems functioned perfectly” in completely pointless and unimpressive Earth-Moon L2 Distant Retrograde Halo Orbit mission that wasted a hundred trillion taxpayer dollars

Starship catastrophic launch failure

reporters: SpaceX breaks spaceflight records by not exploding their Starship for four whole minutes, “almost” passes major milestone of stage separation, revolutionizing spaceflight as we know it. “Literally ten times as good as the Saturn V” says experts. Here is our interview with elon musk who did not sponsor this article

Kazriko kazriko
@requiem I bet the cost of those programs are several orders of magnitude different by the time they're done. The Starship will be a whole lot cheaper because they're willing to test, test, test, on novel designs rather than sticking with proven systems, and overdesigning everything. I'd be surprised if the Starship costs even 50 billion by the end, let alone 100 trillion. Artemis also is going to ultimately give us a disposable rocket with barely any reusable components, while Starship should be extensively reusable.

Kazriko kazriko
@requiem (Of course, both of those costs are exaggerated.)

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy
@kazriko @requiem where do you people even come from everytime someone dissents against elon musk

errante@rot.gives errante@rot.gives
@winter @kazriko well, musk (the odor) is typically supposed to attract animals to its location, no?

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy
@errante @kazriko I hope someone's paying them at least, it'd be pretty sad if they were spending their free time simping for the richest person ever

errante@rot.gives errante@rot.gives
@winter @kazriko i wish i got sorosbucks

Kazriko kazriko
@winter @requiem I really don't care about Musk at all. I pretty much hate all of his companies and his opinions on things, but I'm a fan of space flight, and the way to do it is through re-usability, rather than bespoke 4.1 billion dollar launch platforms that are tossed every time.

Kazriko kazriko
@winter (As for how I find it? I follow people on every end of the spectrum, and people just randomly reboost things that are silly.)

requiem 🏴 requiem@hackers.town

@kazriko starship won’t give “us” anything, it’s private property.

@winter

Kazriko kazriko
@requiem @winter Us as in humanity, all of the airplanes that we ride around in to travel around the country and between countries are private property as well, and yet they give us the ability to get to Japan the next day.

requiem 🏴 requiem@hackers.town

@kazriko ah,

So the rich, got it.

@winter

Kazriko kazriko
@requiem @winter Falcon 9 is private property, and yet it gives NASA the capabilities to get humans to the space station at much lower prices than before. Besides, with a commercialized reusable rocket, we're more likely as civilians to be able to get to space, than with 4.1 billion NASA rockets that are public property, but still built by private companies.

Kazriko kazriko
@requiem @winter Normally when someone says "the rich" they are implying something that costs $50k or more, rather than being able to go around the planet for $1.5k, or go to the other end of the country for $200.

requiem 🏴 requiem@hackers.town

@kazriko Sorry, that was a bit curt.

But what I mean is that when NASA goes to space it is at least theoretically owned by the (American) public, when private companies do it it is theirs, not ours.

Musk is building rockets so he and other billionaires can bail on this planet before they destroy it. They are building rockets which blow-up and scatter garbage on threatened ecosystems and joking about it. They are failing to do now what NASA did 50 years ago using slide rules.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s not impressive, and not valuable to humanity.

@winter

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy
@kazriko @requiem the Falcon 9 isn't remotely comparable to the Starship, it's an actual good launch vehicle that was developed in a sensible way and only has had a normal number of launch failures.

Kazriko kazriko
@winter @requiem If you look at its early days, it also had quite a few launch failures, it was also significantly less aggressive. Falcon 9 had numerous failures in their landing system for example before they got it right. Starship is both trying to make a viable full cycle engine, and trying to make the largest, highest thrust rocket ever made, but also trying to get the landing system that requires higher precision than the Falcon with a larger rocket down at the same time. It's not the least bit of a surprise that it's going to take it more trial and error before it is finished. They are following the same method they used for the Falcon though, with their destructive tests on Landing until they get it right.

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy
@kazriko @requiem it had 2 launch failures in 13 years. one in flight one on pad.

Kazriko kazriko
@requiem @winter This seems like more of a rant against Musk than against Starship. Again, I don't care at all for the guy, all I want to see is results.

Nasa did not make a rocket this large 50 years ago with slide rules. Nasa did not make a full cycle engine 50 years ago with slide rules, Nasa did not make a rocket that could land back at its tower 50 years ago with slide rules. These are all novel things that they're experimenting with here. Russia did try to make a full cycle engine and failed, and Russia tried to make rockets this powerful and failed.

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy
@kazriko @requiem Raptor 1 has 1.81MN thrust (unclear what altitude). RS-25 (Space Shuttle, SLS) has 1.86MN at sea level, 2.2MN in vacuum

Kazriko kazriko
@winter @requiem You're forgetting all of their experiments with Falcon 1 getting the engine design down, The stuff that they're experimenting on with Starship and Superheavy are more akin to their first Falcon 1 launches trying to get the engine design down, and again, this is a much more aggressive and novel engine design than the fairly pedestrian engine that the falcon designs use. You also have to remember all of the landing failures before they had a success. They were planning on doing Soft landing attempts in the water with the booster in this case.

Kazriko kazriko
@winter @requiem And were there 27 RS-25's on the shuttle or SLS? That's what would be required to equate the thrust of the Superheavy booster, and this is what I'm talking about, total thrust of the rocket.

requiem 🏴 requiem@hackers.town

@kazriko all that novel stuff hasn’t made it out of LEO yet (unless you count that car he flung into space, maybe that go somewhere).

@winter

Kazriko kazriko
@winter @requiem (It makes sense that they wouldn't put 27 RS-27s on a disposable rocket, especially when they cost 146 million each, compared to Raptor 2's 250k each.)

Kazriko kazriko
@requiem @winter Still early days on that, SH is too early, and Falcon 9 is a medium lift, it was revolutionary when it was made for its low cost and reusability, but it's fairly pedestrian beyond that. SH will be where they actually move ahead when it's complete.

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy
@kazriko @requiem đź‘ľ and I'm addressing the engine itself. it's impressive sure, a full flow staged combustion engine, it's the most successful attempt at one yet, but musk thinks he can do literally anything with this engine that primarily suited to first stage launch. last I checked it can't throttle down under 40%. their own Merlin is a vastly superior landing engine and didn't have anywhere near this kind of problems in testing (because they developed and tested it in normal ways and not in all-up tests that are definitely going to fail, cost the entire vehicle and usually the launchpad, and pollute a threatened ecosystem

Kazriko kazriko
@winter @requiem The merlin using Kerosene is far more polluting though than Methane. In the long run, it will be less polluting than the SLS. After all, every SLS launched will drop debris into the ocean, while once they get the design down, no more SH boosters will do the same.

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy

@kazriko @requiem SLS uses hydrolox, the most environmentally friendly fuel there is. the SRBs are another story, but it isn’t finished with development either and they intend to use full Hydrogen and Oxygen with liquid boosters. the exhaust gas from a Starship launch pollutes Earth much more than dropping some metal in the ocean. if he’s really about innovative new technology, why the obsession with burning methane in this day and age of the climate crisis?

Kazriko kazriko
@winter @requiem SLS may have an advantage on fuel cleanness, but the costs of building a new one, such as the pollution released while mining the minerals required to build it, and smelting them probably exceeds the pollution released by a SH launch.

I believe though that part of it is that it's easier to produce methane from solar power and CO2 in the martian atmosphere than it would be to produce other fuels there.
replies
0
announces
0
likes
0

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy

@kazriko @requiem NASA also isn’t talking about doing what, 17 refueling launches of a super heavy lift vehicle for one single Lunar mission? the environmental cost of producing the SLS doesn’t even begin to compare to the kind of launch schedule musk is talking up. if they could ever possibly achieve that fast of turnaround time on reusable launch vehicles which is very doubtful.

Kazriko kazriko
@winter @requiem Eh, we'll see. I guess you'll never see more than one or two SLS launches per year because of how ridiculously expensive it is.

Winternet twinterlune Red winter@social.translunar.academy
@kazriko @requiem that's a government problem, not an engineering problem

requiem 🏴 requiem@hackers.town

@winter @kazriko damn, I don’t even remember where this started…