The Space Thread - Launches, Events, Live Streams, Governments, Corporations, drama in Spaaaaaaaaaaaace

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
draggs said:
there were dozens of rocket launch failures in the 1950s and early 60s US space program, it's called new technology. the raptor vacuum engine is also a new technology. please stop shitting up the thread because elon makes you mati
Click to expand...
Holy shit, I was responding to someone using an example. Yes, I know all about those failures. I am in the prelimary stages of writing a spaceflight historical piece of some form on the points leading to Artemis. Do I need to go into intricate detail about the steps taken to go from V2, to Mecury, to Juno, to Saturn 1, to 1b, to getting the vehicle that flew Apollo-7, and why Apollo-7 used a block 2 capsule. With the last, modified, block 1 capsule being used on Apollo-6? Now, I was someone who had been intrigued and following SpaceX for well over a decade. Hell, I remember watching CRS-7 live. You know, the big boom boom Dragon flight?

Now, we're at the point of being able to say that Starship succeeded. Oh wait, it exploded. L. No longer a partial explosion, landing failed (yes, it was at sea so a different profile). Both Superheavy and Starship failed.

You can go "ohhhh, look at the data collected"

But again,

 
WelperHelper99 said:
It did deploy its payloads before going bang, so no, not all was lost
Click to expand...
They were on a suborbital trajectory, with them being mock ups meant to demonstrate the pez dispenser, which is the only thing that Starship (so far) is looking good for, as they have not demonstrated actual prepollent transfer (besides being from one part of Starship to another). Nor has rendezvous, or orbit (not that hard from this point).
 
ConsentAccidentVictimNo98 said:
Now, we're at the point of being able to say that Starship succeeded. Oh wait, it exploded. L. No longer a partial explosion, landing failed (yes, it was at sea so a different profile). Both Superheavy and Starship failed.
Click to expand...
oh okay I thought that was intentional range safety to not pollute the gulf because it was carrying a return fuel load for testing purposes despite only doing a ship landing and they even said that it was intentional when it happened, but I guess I've been corrected again by the verified rocket expert

You keep bringing up Challenger, has it occurred to you that might have been avoided with... more flight testing?
 
ConsentAccidentVictimNo98 said:
They were on a suborbital trajectory, with them being mock ups meant to demonstrate the pez dispenser, which is the only thing that Starship (so far) is looking good for, as they have not demonstrated actual prepollent transfer (besides being from one part of Starship to another). Nor has rendezvous, or orbit (not that hard from this point).
Click to expand...
Are you some Russian commie bitter at America making strides in making a proper spaceship and not just a pod we shoot into space and use once? Sneed.
 
Gimmick Account said:
You keep bringing up Challenger, has it occurred to you that might have been avoided with... more flight testing?
Click to expand...
They did redesign the O-ring system to out gas less. Otherwise the main problem was launch fever and they didn't listen to Thiokol engineers that pleaded that it was too cold to launch for the boosters to not leak out.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
Are you some Russian commie bitter at America making strides in making a proper spaceship and not just a pod we shoot into space and use once? Sneed.
Click to expand...
He is either NASA's dumbest historian not to realize that Starship's propellant explodes when the vehicle hits the water, or he is engaging in bad faith to tank his post karma for some reason. Either way, everyone is better off ignoring him.
 
ConsentAccidentVictimNo98 said:
Holy shit, I was responding to someone using an example. Yes, I know all about those failures. I am in the prelimary stages of writing a spaceflight historical piece of some form on the points leading to Artemis. Do I need to go into intricate detail about the steps taken to go from V2, to Mecury, to Juno, to Saturn 1, to 1b, to getting the vehicle that flew Apollo-7, and why Apollo-7 used a block 2 capsule. With the last, modified, block 1 capsule being used on Apollo-6? Now, I was someone who had been intrigued and following SpaceX for well over a decade. Hell, I remember watching CRS-7 live. You know, the big boom boom Dragon flight?

Now, we're at the point of being able to say that Starship succeeded. Oh wait, it exploded. L. No longer a partial explosion, landing failed (yes, it was at sea so a different profile). Both Superheavy and Starship failed.

You can go "ohhhh, look at the data collected"

But again,

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yibNEcn-4yQ
Click to expand...
that's not a response to anything i said, and so
Agree to Disagree. Our community cannot stand divided. Do not derail threads with one-on-one conversations.
Click to expand...
 
WelperHelper99 said:
Are you some Russian commie bitter at America making strides in making a proper spaceship and not just a pod we shoot into space and use once? Sneed.
Click to expand...
Are you some horny fuck trying to get into GAG's pants?

Now that we've gotten the personal insults out of the way, no I am very much pro spaceflight. Like, really, really pro spaceflight. I just don't like the whole cult of personality aspect. I want large scale industrial launch vehicles, but the presentation around SpaceX is just a big yikes. Russia would fail in future space endeavours because well, it's Russia. The satellite launch market is likewise not really ready for massive launch vehicles. Most of SpaceX's cadence is with Starlink. Other satellites end up costing hundreds of millions, if not billions. This is the actual problem dealing with launch markets. We cannot guarantee that AI datacentres will work out, especially as the satellite model hasn't proven.

AI datacentres will likely involve a big dumb satellite chasis, meant to provide for large radiator arrays (heat disipation), but they are an uncertainty as to whether they'd succeed. Same with a lot of Starship associated programs. We're only at the stage of trying to get it to work. There are a lot of future really expensive efforts required and I have little confidence in Musk to pull it off. Especially with how he went "oooo Mars" for the last 25 years, and is now going "nah moon" because he got his guy in charge of NASA and that's what's cool in government.

Maybe I'm more of a historian, idk.
 
Can't ever enjoy a non-lolcow thread on this site because it always degrades into retards slap fighting over semantics.

Anyway, that over head drone shot of ship falling over was awesome.
 
The amount of reddit trannies who probably loved space travel until musk got involved but still watch it now while seething and posting retarded shit is at the very least >0
mlanguishi said:
Landing vid

HIKb_pOiRy9_SWxO.mp4
Click to expand...
This shit is so fucking cool. I'm sure landing on the moon felt epic but if they make it to mars with starship it will be so fucking cool. The level of video/teaser/trailer production from spacex feels better than most movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom