←back to thread

364 points metalman | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
2OEH8eoCRo0[dead post] ◴[] No.45033871[source]
[flagged]
sbuttgereit ◴[] No.45033968[source]
I think Scott Manley's position on the "still hasn't gotten to orbit" take is probably still the best and most accurate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8htMpR7mnaM&t=420s

replies(1): >>45034151 #
pclmulqdq ◴[] No.45034151[source]
What Scott is missing is that the only reason "it did not get to orbit" is of interest at all is that SpaceX keeps claiming they got to orbit with starship. I believe that the trajectories have all been suborbital by design, but it still pisses me off that they keep claiming they got to orbit.

The reason this matters is that if they get into an orbit in a short test, they need to exit that orbit with some sort of active system. So the statement "we got to orbit" implies a lot more technology development than the current flights actually show. I agree with Scott that Starship can easily enter LEO, but I am not so sure it can exit gracefully.

replies(3): >>45034304 #>>45034390 #>>45034410 #
kragen ◴[] No.45034410[source]
Is it really a lot more technology? If they were landing 100 km away I'd agree, but aren't they basically reaching the required orbital speed and reentering and landing under retrorocket control? I'm no expert on orbital dynamics, so I might be missing something important.
replies(2): >>45034495 #>>45042168 #
1. pclmulqdq ◴[] No.45042168[source]
A zero-G engine restart to break orbit is the technology. And yes, it is a lot more technology given how the engines work.
replies(1): >>45042234 #
2. kragen ◴[] No.45042234[source]
Oh! Thank you!