SpaceX Starship reaches for the stars. Complete success

[drudge X]

Apparently it's cheaper to just not do the science at all, which is why Trump is cancelling 40 projects but still shelling out billions to Musk for no benefit.

For the third time, because the private industries are more efficient and getting things done faster cheaper. No benefits? Again, how many chargers were built by the Biden administration after $8 billion wasted?

 

[drudge X]

Comparing typing on a laptop to developing a rocket? Wow, you are way out of you league.,

Face it dembot, you've once again been exposed.

He doesn't know that the laws of motion must be applied when building a rocket.

 

[hadit]

We know lots about Starship. They post updates and technical information all the time.

From which you imagine it's not useful. Like I said, you're in the position of the people watching the first cars get stuck on muddy horse tracks, breaking down, stinking and making a lot of noise, proclaiming that they'll never be useful. Those early ones just paved the way (see what I did there?) for more advanced models and material science made better tires and smoother roads, making modern car travel possible. Starship is like the precursor to the Model T. Of course there will be problems with it. Only fools demand that it work perfectly the first time out and return from orbit carrying tons of gold bullion.

That doesn't make dead planets magically hospitable. You watch too much TV.

You're thinking too narrowly again. We don't have to live on the surface of planets. We can live in hollowed out asteroids or simply in spaceships. Again, open your mind to the possibilities.

You're still focused on consumer products. I'm talking about actual science.

Actual science ultimately produces better consumer products. You can't separate the two, and insisting on scientific purity is like pitting Sheldon Cooper against Leonard Hofstetter.

We want to know more about the universe. If we want to know more about the universe, the biggest bang for our buck isn't in manned spaceflight.

We also want to know where man can live when he's ready to leave earth.

It's horrendously expensive let alone dangerous.

Which is why you start with unmanned exploration. No one's opposed to that, but you don't neglect manned flight while you're doing it. We can do more than one thing at a time, unlike the narrow thinkers out there.

Manned spaceflight eats up a ton of money we could be using to advanced science, but it's wasted on vanity projects.

Which can then be used to fund further advances in science.

 

[struth]

He doesn't know that the laws of motion must be applied when building a rocket.

Marener is always out of his league

Science escapes him…he’s gonna start attacking Newton next and saying he was no scientist

 

[drudge X]

Marener is always out of his league

Science escapes him…he’s gonna start attacking Newton next and saying he was no scientist

I wouldn't be shocked or saying the laws of motion are embedded white supremacy.

Engineering and science tend to go hand in hand. Can't work on one without the other.

 

[Marener]

From which you imagine it's not useful. Like I said, you're in the position of the people watching the first cars get stuck on muddy horse tracks, breaking down, stinking and making a lot of noise, proclaiming that they'll never be useful. Those early ones just paved the way (see what I did there?) for more advanced models and material science made better tires and smoother roads, making modern car travel possible. Starship is like the precursor to the Model T. Of course there will be problems with it. Only fools demand that it work perfectly the first time out and return from orbit carrying tons of gold bullion.

It’s just not a good mission architecture. It isn’t as revolutionary as you think. Ultimately it’s just another rocket.

About feasibility of SpaceX's human exploration Mars mission scenario with Starship - Scientific Reports

After decades where human spaceflight missions have been reserved to low Earth orbit, recent years have seen mission proposals and even implemented plans, e.g. with the mission Artemis I, for returning to the lunar surface. SpaceX has published over various media (e.g., its official website...

www.nature.com

Too little payload with too much mass and too little thrust.

 

[Marener]

You're thinking too narrowly again. We don't have to live on the surface of planets. We can live in hollowed out asteroids or simply in spaceships. Again, open your mind to the possibilities.

We can’t survive in any of these environments without constant support from earth.

You watch too much TV

 

[Marener]

We also want to know where man can live when he's ready to leave earth.

It’s like saying we are trying to find out what type of concrete whales can live on.

They can’t. They evolved in the ocean to live in the ocean.

 

[drudge X]

It’s just not a good mission architecture. It isn’t as revolutionary as you think. Ultimately it’s just another rocket.

About feasibility of SpaceX's human exploration Mars mission scenario with Starship - Scientific Reports

After decades where human spaceflight missions have been reserved to low Earth orbit, recent years have seen mission proposals and even implemented plans, e.g. with the mission Artemis I, for returning to the lunar surface. SpaceX has published over various media (e.g., its official website...

www.nature.com

Too little payload with too much mass and too little thrust.

China will stop at nothing to claim the moon and here you are wanting more red tape NASA to lead the way. I wouldn't be shocked if China says the country is ready to go the moon next year.

 

[struth]

It’s like saying we are trying to find out what type of concrete whales can live on.

They can’t. They evolved in the ocean to live in the ocean.

Actually they can, in fact there are some beluga whales living in Chicago at the Shedd

 

[drudge X]

It’s like saying we are trying to find out what type of concrete whales can live on.

They can’t. They evolved in the ocean to live in the ocean.

Only a fool would say that. You seemed not to understand possibilities vs. no possibility. By the way, whale evolution didn't start in the ocean.

 

[struth]

Only a fool would say that. You seemed not to understand possibilities vs. no possibility.

We have already established he has no human spirit.

 

[Marener]

China will stop at nothing to claim the moon and here you are wanting more red tape NASA to lead the way. I wouldn't be shocked if China says the country is ready to go the moon next year.

If you want to go to the moon, we need to start over. It’s not going to happen with this monstrosity.

 

[Marener]

Only a fool would say that. You seemed not to understand possibilities vs. no possibility. By the way, whale evolution didn't start in the ocean.

A realist would say that. Mars sucks.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

For the third time, because the private industries are more efficient and getting things done faster cheaper.

How can some process be described as "more efficient" when there's a profit component getting syphoned off?

If we can do the same process but not syphon off money ("profit") to investors then surely that is more efficient?

No benefits? Again, how many chargers were built by the Biden administration after $8 billion wasted?

 

[hadit]

We can’t survive in any of these environments without constant support from earth.

You watch too much TV

Correction, we can't with current technology, and we won't develop the necessary technology without manned space exploration. Again, your thinking is far too narrow and clouded with TDS to be useful.

 

[hadit]

How can some process be described as "more efficient" when there's a profit component getting syphoned off?

Because there's incentive to keep costs as low as possible. That's not the case in government work, where more money is just a phone call to a Congresscritter away.

 

[struth]

How can some process be described as "more efficient" when there's a profit component getting syphoned off?

If we can do the same process but not syphon off money ("profit") to investors then surely that is more efficient?

Oh wow..and you call yourself Sherlock!

It’s more efficient because the goal is profit

Losing money isn’t profitable…

 

[Marener]

Correction, we can't with current technology, and we won't develop the necessary technology without manned space exploration. Again, your thinking is far too narrow and clouded with TDS to be useful.

Not with any technology.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Because there's incentive to keep costs as low as possible. That's not the case in government work, where more money is just a phone call to a Congresscritter away.

Eliminating profits to investors will reduce costs.