Most active commenters
  • ekjhgkejhgk(6)

←back to thread

404 points voxleone | 15 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
reactordev ◴[] No.45655443[source]
Posture, no one can compete, not even NASA.
replies(2): >>45655530 #>>45655583 #
raverbashing ◴[] No.45655530[source]
Yeah who is going to deliver faster and more reliable than SpaceX? Boeing? LM?

Doubt

replies(2): >>45655624 #>>45655892 #
1. ekjhgkejhgk ◴[] No.45655892[source]
Not sure if you're being sarcastic. Have they managed to get starship to orbit yet?
replies(2): >>45655977 #>>45656301 #
2. delichon ◴[] No.45655977[source]
> Not sure if you're being sarcastic. Have they managed to get to orbit anything bigger than a banana?

Yes, about 4,000 metric tons. My IP packets are traveling through part of it now.

replies(2): >>45656240 #>>45656357 #
3. ekjhgkejhgk ◴[] No.45656240[source]
On starship?
replies(1): >>45656446 #
4. Culonavirus ◴[] No.45656301[source]
Several times (if we keep disingenuous "wheeeel akchually" technical gotchas out of this). The fact that they keep safety in mind is a good thing. Any starship that got to space could have easily reached orbit, but it didn't because spacex cares more about NOT uncontrollably deorbiting a giant hunk of steel than impressing a "redditor" who doesn't understand how orbital mechanics work.
replies(2): >>45656918 #>>45660533 #
5. Cthulhu_ ◴[] No.45656357[source]
As far as I know they only deployed some Starlink dummies so far.
6. delichon ◴[] No.45656446{3}[source]
You said "they". They are SpaceX. Their expertise is transferable to Starship.
replies(1): >>45656899 #
7. ekjhgkejhgk ◴[] No.45656899{4}[source]
Clearly not, because they've launched about 10 Starships and have failed to achieve orbit.
replies(2): >>45660891 #>>45661553 #
8. ekjhgkejhgk ◴[] No.45656918[source]
You're suggesting that they could and don't, I'm suggesting that they can't.

Apparently NASA is starting to have the same suspicions.

replies(1): >>45661824 #
9. m4rtink ◴[] No.45660533[source]
For comparison other organizations don't have an issue with leaving 20 ton rocket stages in orbit, leading to uncontrolled reenetry. :)

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a32451633/china-long-...

That's 20 tons of mostly aluminium - 100+ ton stainless steel Starship would be potentially much more dangerous, so it is good SpaceX cares. :)

10. ◴[] No.45660891{5}[source]
11. allenrb ◴[] No.45661553{5}[source]
If they had achieved orbit on any Starship flight test, it would have been a serious violation of their launch license & test criteria. Hint: they’ve never tried to orbit Starship.

Yes, they had expected to do more, sooner. So say that. What you’ve written here is nonsense.

Starship is trying to do more than anyone ever has. If all (ALL!) they’d wanted to do was build a giant rocket with a reusable booster and an expendable second stage, they’d already be done.

replies(1): >>45672791 #
12. peterfirefly ◴[] No.45661824{3}[source]
We know they can.
13. ekjhgkejhgk ◴[] No.45672791{6}[source]
> If all (ALL!) they’d wanted to do was build a giant rocket with a reusable booster and an expendable second stage, they’d already be done.

Maybe. But instead, in addition to building a giant rocket with a reusable booster and an expendable second stage, they also on want it to reach orbit, that's why it's not done yet. And likely will never be, because starship is severely underpowered.

replies(1): >>45682092 #
14. allenrb ◴[] No.45682092{7}[source]
I’m not even sure what to say to this. They’re barely short of orbit in terms of energy. Even if you believe that’s all they’ve got or will ever have, merely removing the recovery hardware and robustness from Ship gets them to orbit with payload.

Otoh, maybe best to just believe what you want to. That’s sort of what we do these days, isn’t it?

replies(1): >>45685052 #
15. ekjhgkejhgk ◴[] No.45685052{8}[source]
> merely removing the recovery hardware and robustness from Ship

I mean if you have to remove important parts to get to orbit, you can't say that you could get to orbit. You couldn't, you just admited that you'd have to remove such and such. What am I missing?