SpaceX Rocket...Explodes

[martybegan]

Except the problem here is that SpaceX has accepted over $1 billion from NASA to complete Starship and make an ultimate version to launch people.

That is Government money, and they are going to have to explain that to the Government.

And the thing is, I knew this was going to happen. It is literally like they took the design for the crappiest heavy launch rocket ever built, and made it even crappier.

Still SpaceX is the one at risk.

The falcon rockets went through the same issues early on and work great now, and they weren't the massive leap forward starship is.

I guess Musk haters gonna hate.

 

[Marener]

Still SpaceX is the one at risk.

The falcon rockets went through the same issues early on and work great now, and they weren't the massive leap forward starship is.

I guess Musk haters gonna hate.

Starship being a massive leap forward is what makes it so risky.

It’s a rocket no one really needs, so even if it does work, there’s not really a market for it.

I really shudder to think of what SpaceX’s burn rate is.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Well, that didn't last long. More of Elon's money going up in smoke. Good thing there wasn't a crew on the way to the moon.

I do like the "rapid disassembly" explanation. That's a new one.

SpaceX's uncrewed Starship explodes on launch attempt

SpaceX's Starship, the most powerful rocket ever constructed, exploded midair shortly after it launched in Texas. No one was on board the rocket today.

www.cnn.com

More “ We love Elon because Tesla!” to “We hate Elon because Twitter!” From the upside down leftists.

 

[martybegan]

Starship being a massive leap forward is what makes it so risky.

It’s a rocket no one really needs, so even if it does work, there’s not really a market for it.

I really shudder to think of what SpaceX’s burn rate is.

If we want to get back to the moon and to mars and beyond, it's what we need.

Massive lift capacity and will be re-usable.

 

[Marener]

If we want to get back to the moon and to mars and beyond, it's what we need.

Massive lift capacity and will be re-usable.

The starship is totally impractical for landing on the moon and will not be reusable for that purpose if it ever does get into orbit which is probably many years away if ever.

A smaller special purpose lunar lander is the far cheaper and more realistic approach.

 

[22lcidw]

The starship is totally impractical for landing on the moon and will not be reusable for that purpose if it ever does get into orbit which is probably many years away if ever.

A smaller special purpose lunar lander is the far cheaper and more realistic approach.

The Starship can land on the moon. NASA developed the Space Launch System over a period of years and way over budget. It was supposed to cost 300 million dollars a launch. Low enough in price to take a crew into low earth orbit. They found out after a few years of development it was going to be more. So, Space X and Boeing were given money for low earth capsules. Boeing is now three years behind. The first 4 missions of the Space Launch System is over 4 billion dollars each. The price should come down. It will never come down to 300 million dollars a launch though. The Starship if it can be made to work is a gamechanger. We cannot compete with the Chinese with the old way of government involved with all of its corruption, payoffs, archaic rules and equity standards. We will spend outrageous amounts of money for a minimum of return. The Space Launch System is near all throw away except the Orion Space Capsule.

 

[Mushroom]

Massive lift capacity and will be re-usable.

We already have a massive lift rocket, and it works.

Reusable was discarded by NASA decades ago, because it cost 2-3 times more than single use rockets.

And if one looks, SpaceX and Elron have made all kinds of claims over this reuse. But know what they are actually very quiet on? How long it takes and the actual cost of refurbishing one for reuse. It is all well and good to make promises, but all we have are claims and nothing to back those claims up with.

They claim they spent over $1 billion on engineering and design costs, and that reuse will save them around $15 million. That means they will have to be able to reuse them at least 67 times just to recover their R&D investment alone. And they still have not said the cost to actually reuse one, which will be an even larger factor in this. As that $15 million savings claim is just that, a claim. If it costs them in reality more than expected to reuse them and the savings drops to $10 million, that means over 100 launches. If they only save $5 million, 150 launches.

This is why I do not take much faith in the promises and claims of serial fraudsters. And yes, I have noticed that the actual hard costs still have not been given. Only years of claims of savings.

 

[Marener]

The Starship can land on the moon. NASA developed the Space Launch System over a period of years and way over budget. It was supposed to cost 300 million dollars a launch. Low enough in price to take a crew into low earth orbit. They found out after a few years of development it was going to be more. So, Space X and Boeing were given money for low earth capsules. Boeing is now three years behind. The first 4 missions of the Space Launch System is over 4 billion dollars each. The price should come down. It will never come down to 300 million dollars a launch though. The Starship if it can be made to work is a gamechanger. We cannot compete with the Chinese with the old way of government involved with all of its corruption, payoffs, archaic rules and equity standards. We will spend outrageous amounts of money for a minimum of return. The Space Launch System is near all throw away except the Orion Space Capsule.

Starship can’t get to the moon, at least not yet. It can’t even get into orbit. Once in orbits, it need half a dozen more launches to refuel in a process no one has worked out before and has never been tried. Even then, it flies to the moon unmanned as the crew will come from an Orion capsule launched by SLS, which is what it was actually designed for. Starship wasn’t designed to land on the moon and can’t use its engines as they don’t have the deep throttle capability and the thrust to weight ratio is too high for the moon, which makes sense because they designed it to land on Mars. So they need to add new engines which are totally unknown at this time. Even if they do land on the moon, we have a handful of astronauts who have to descend 100 feet just to get onto the surface.

Starship is just so incredibly impractical for this mission. We need to stop with the blind faith and think logically.

 

[martybegan]

The starship is totally impractical for landing on the moon and will not be reusable for that purpose if it ever does get into orbit which is probably many years away if ever.

A smaller special purpose lunar lander is the far cheaper and more realistic approach.

The Lunar missions are just warmups for Mars and beyond, which requires something of this size.

NASA was trying to parallel development of their own rockets, and Musk is ahead.

Hate the player, but don't hate the game.

 

[martybegan]

We already have a massive lift rocket, and it works.

Reusable was discarded by NASA decades ago, because it cost 2-3 times more than single use rockets.

And if one looks, SpaceX and Elron have made all kinds of claims over this reuse. But know what they are actually very quiet on? How long it takes and the actual cost of refurbishing one for reuse. It is all well and good to make promises, but all we have are claims and nothing to back those claims up with.

They claim they spent over $1 billion on engineering and design costs, and that reuse will save them around $15 million. That means they will have to be able to reuse them at least 67 times just to recover their R&D investment alone. And they still have not said the cost to actually reuse one, which will be an even larger factor in this. As that $15 million savings claim is just that, a claim. If it costs them in reality more than expected to reuse them and the savings drops to $10 million, that means over 100 launches. If they only save $5 million, 150 launches.

This is why I do not take much faith in the promises and claims of serial fraudsters. And yes, I have noticed that the actual hard costs still have not been given. Only years of claims of savings.

South African Man Bad.

/dismissed.

 

[martybegan]

Starship can’t get to the moon, at least not yet. It can’t even get into orbit. Once in orbits, it need half a dozen more launches to refuel in a process no one has worked out before and has never been tried. Even then, it flies to the moon unmanned as the crew will come from an Orion capsule launched by SLS, which is what it was actually designed for. Starship wasn’t designed to land on the moon and can’t use its engines as they don’t have the deep throttle capability and the thrust to weight ratio is too high for the moon, which makes sense because they designed it to land on Mars. So they need to add new engines which are totally unknown at this time. Even if they do land on the moon, we have a handful of astronauts who have to descend 100 feet just to get onto the surface.

Starship is just so incredibly impractical for this mission. We need to stop with the blind faith and think logically.

South African Man Bad.

 

[Mushroom]

Starship can’t get to the moon, at least not yet.

And don't forget that Elron promised to have us on Mars within 10 years.

In 2011.

I have absolutely no idea why so many people absolutely believe everything he says.

 

[Mushroom]

South African Man Bad.

 

[martybegan]

And don't forget that Elron promised to have us back on mars within 10 years.

In 2011.

I have absolutely no idea why so many people absolutely believe everything he says.

I have a good idea why lefty idiots like you now hate him.

 

[SaxonJackson]

I love when lowbrow, mouth-breathers try to out-think a genius who's actually producing something on a grand scale. Mistakes happen and they always will. I wonder what mistakes the members of the peanut gallery have made lately.

 

[Mushroom]

I have a good idea why lefty idiots like you now hate him.

God damn, I wish you all would make up your mind what side I am on politically.

The vast majority try to say I am some kind of Hard Core Conservative, that makes Ronald Reagan seem like FDR.

Then others like you scream I am a "Lefty".

Well, there is one thing I have learned over and over, and that is people that just try to thrown around random insults simply because somebody does not agree with them and with nothing to back it up, they are generally idiots and not worth the time to even attempt a serious and logical discussion with.

I have absolutely no idea why you are taking this political, I have not said a damned thing that is even close to political in nature. SO, do you care to actually discuss the facts, or is name calling and finger pointing your only way of disagreement?

But as an FYI, I view my own stance as "Militant Moderate". And it is not like I hide my location in here. But tell us, exactly how many "lefty idiots" claim they live in Jefferson? I bet if you searched 2 states, you might come up with a couple dozen.

 

[martybegan]

God damn, I wish you all would make up your mind what side I am on politically.

The vast majority try to say I am some kind of Hard Core Conservative, that makes Ronald Reagan seem like FDR.

Then others like you scream I am a "Lefty".

Well, there is one thing I have learned over and over, and that is people that just try to thrown around random insults simply because somebody does not agree with them and with nothing to back it up, they are generally idiots and not worth the time to even attempt a serious and logical discussion with.

I have absolutely no idea why you are taking this political, I have not said a damned thing that is even close to political in nature. SO, do you care to actually discuss the facts, or is name calling and finger pointing your only way of disagreement?

That you are attacking Musk for some reason unknown to me puts you on the current side of the left.

Binary political systems tend to trend that way.

 

[Marener]

The Lunar missions are just warmups for Mars and beyond, which requires something of this size.

NASA was trying to parallel development of their own rockets, and Musk is ahead.

Hate the player, but don't hate the game.

Is Musk ahead? SLS shot the Orion capsule around the moon 6 months ago. Starship is grounded after blowing up its own launchpad.

 

[Marener]

South African Man Bad.

Tech bro fanboys are pathetic. Stop with the idolizing and start using your brain.

 

[Marener]

And don't forget that Elron promised to have us on Mars within 10 years.

In 2011.

I have absolutely no idea why so many people absolutely believe everything he says.

There’s plenty of good things to say about what he’s done (none of them have been under budget or on schedule though), but he’s definitely not infallible.

I mean, he just lit $40 billion on fire because he got talked into buying Twitter by a bunch of fanboys.