Most active commenters
  • ActorNightly(7)
  • boxed(3)

←back to thread

404 points voxleone | 18 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
cladopa ◴[] No.45660311[source]
Oh yeah. Replace the stainless steel by carbon fibre, give it to your pals of Boing and instead of being ready in 2030 for 2.3 billion it will be ready in 2050 for 50 billion.

Much better for making your friends rich.

replies(6): >>45660336 #>>45660615 #>>45661799 #>>45661926 #>>45662413 #>>45663135 #
1. ActorNightly ◴[] No.45660615[source]
Space X isn't much better. Its still Musks company.
replies(2): >>45661695 #>>45661861 #
2. actionfromafar ◴[] No.45661695[source]
To this discussion, IMHO the important part is that he's fallen out of favor. He wasn't loyal.
3. qwerpy ◴[] No.45661861[source]
So, the company gets things done but the CEO is unpopular with certain crowds. Seems better than Boeing, which is bad at getting things done. At least their CEO is inoffensive, and that’s what is important?
replies(3): >>45664410 #>>45665082 #>>45667629 #
4. llbeansandrice ◴[] No.45664410[source]
“Unpopular” is a weird way to frame “is a Nazi”.
replies(1): >>45665576 #
5. ActorNightly ◴[] No.45665082[source]
There is gonna be a time when shit hits the fan in United States. Youll know when that is. And you should know that Musk played a large part in making that happen.
6. boxed ◴[] No.45665576{3}[source]
I mean.. Werner von Braun wasn't just "sort of a Nazi if you squint real hard", but an ACTUAL Nazi. At some point you need to focus on getting the job done, and not on purity tests and struggle sessions. THAT is why the US once got to the moon, while China starved 40 million of its own people, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
replies(2): >>45672389 #>>45678674 #
7. mortarion ◴[] No.45667629[source]
They haven't gotten anything done in regards to HLS. They can build their HLS and even launch it into orbit next year but then what?

HLS requires on-orbit refueling. Anything from 10 to 20 refueling launches will be required. Did you think it required one refueling launch? The SH+SS stack will never be reusable or reliable enough to accomplish the refueling operation in time and on budget.

This means one moon mission will require the use of 10 launch pads and probably 20 complete stacks to even be feasible, because reuse will not help one iota.

Their upper stage reuse will never pan out. Sure they will catch a few, then they will remove the engines and stick the rest in a shredder for scraps to be melted down and recycled.

Elon's HLS is completely detached from reality. I won't even call it a SpaceX system because it's unlikely anyone but Elon came up with it.

replies(2): >>45667874 #>>45671565 #
8. ben_w ◴[] No.45667874{3}[source]
While I agree with anyone saying that Musk himself is "detached from reality", and also that the Superheavy/Starship timelines are unrealistically optimistic, given how bad basically everyone else in this sector is I have no specific reason to expect that Superheavy/Starship* will be what delays anything.

Not that this actually helps with any thesis of "Yee Haw, look at Us! We're America! We're number one!"

* And now I'm worrying the initials might have been deliberate on his part; hadn't even considered that before seeing your comment…

9. ricardobeat ◴[] No.45671565{3}[source]
> HLS requires on-orbit refueling. Anything from 10 to 20 refueling launches will be required. Did you think it required one refueling launch? The SH+SS stack will never be reusable or reliable enough to accomplish the refueling operation in time and on budget.

>This means one moon mission will require the use of 10 launch pads

The refueling ships are to be launched weeks/months in advance, one at a time. If you look at the rate of Falcon launches this is nothing out of the ordinary.

replies(1): >>45672349 #
10. ActorNightly ◴[] No.45672349{4}[source]
Yeah and how many refuelings have they done yet?
replies(1): >>45683192 #
11. ActorNightly ◴[] No.45672389{4}[source]
There is a difference between being an engineer, and being useful despite your shit views, versus being what Musk is currently.
replies(1): >>45674298 #
12. boxed ◴[] No.45674298{5}[source]
Everyone keeps saying Musk is just handwaving and not an engineer. Why can't we make the same argument about von Braun? The proof is always handwaving, so I don't see how it's different.
replies(1): >>45675663 #
13. ActorNightly ◴[] No.45675663{6}[source]
Because if you were to go back in time and ask Von Braun actual technical questions about aerospace things, he would tell you an engineering answer. T

If you were to ask Musk technical questions, he would make up shit like he has done hundreds of times in the interviews.

replies(1): >>45679643 #
14. llbeansandrice ◴[] No.45678674{4}[source]
What? The US got to the moon ONLY bc we decided the nazis were more useful and the Soviet Union collapsed bc they didn’t make the same choice?

That’s absurd.

Either way, I’d personally rather today’s Nazis of all flavors to be dead. At the very least they seem a lot dumber than the old ones.

15. boxed ◴[] No.45679643{7}[source]
You haven't watched the interview on Everyday Astronaut I see. You should go watch it.
replies(1): >>45685185 #
16. ricardobeat ◴[] No.45683192{5}[source]
It's a system in development. Do you want to compare to the SLS timeline? 15 years in development, 30 billion spent, with a single test launch.
replies(1): >>45685174 #
17. ActorNightly ◴[] No.45685174{6}[source]
Just because one failed to deliver results doesn't make the alternative automatically the selection.
18. ActorNightly ◴[] No.45685185{8}[source]
I don't need to go watch it. Every single time this comes up, its really easy to see that he has no idea what he is talking about, or at best, he just echoing what he has been told.