Image not available

707x546

smarter every day....png

🧵 Smarter every day? More like dumber every dollar-

Anonymous No. 16177633

because there's no way this guy could say something so stupid without being paid. Highly likely this is the case though, because just a few months after attempting to sell SLS as an alternative to Starship, he has a video hanging out with the ULA CEO. I guess youtubers don't need to declare sponsorships when the company is owned by lockheed and boeing.
>it's not efficient
What the fuck does this guy think efficient means? If Starship pans out then it'll deliver 100 tons to the moon. The only thing all the extra refueling missions will cost is fuel. By the end of the mission, you'll still have all those rockets. With SLS/Orion you're throwing away an entire rocket just to send a metal tent to the moon- which we already did 50 years ago!
The point of the SLS is to use the ULA to funnel money from the federal government to state governments. No one making the decisions cares if it ever gets to space.
Dustin is either a moron or paid, probably both.

Anonymous No. 16177669

>>16177633
give me some time stamps for what you feel is wrong

Anonymous No. 16177693

>>16177669
Around 28:50 is the most egregious. He compares the prep for SpaceX's planned 100 tons to the moon to the SLS and Saturn V. He's comparing a bushel of apples to a single, more expensive orange, arguing the case for the orange.
At various points he also talks about how the capabilities planned for Starship haven't been proven even though development only started five years ago, which I'll remind you, is three years after SLS was supposed to be finished.
A couple other youtubers have also made very ULA friendly videos lately so I suspect they are attempting to do something about their public perception against SpaceX.

Image not available

793x782

1713822799244546.png

Anonymous No. 16177699

Image not available

1004x1020

1704665019554916.jpg

Anonymous No. 16177700

Image not available

1100x1244

spam.png

Anonymous No. 16177701

Image not available

656x670

1703968944547182.jpg

Anonymous No. 16177702

china is SEETHING

Anonymous No. 16177704

I was arguing with someone with an irrational hatred of SpaceX and he said that re-use is inherently inefficient because it uses more fuel. I said that didn't make it inefficient as it costs less but he just refused to hear it, like using more fuel is somehow emotionally a sign of inefficiency. Costing less or delivering much more cargo to the moon was hand waved away because it "uses more fuel". When you push these people on their logic they say the most insane shit

Anonymous No. 16177708

>>16177700
>>16177699
Wow, I made this thread without knowing any of these numbers. That is insane.
>>16177704
What causes this? Also if Dustin really is just retarded and not being paid by the ULA, why does he think he's qualified to lecture a room full of NASA employees? lmao

Anonymous No. 16177709

>>16177704
tell him it costs more fuel to build a new rocket. it might even be true

Anonymous No. 16177718

>>16177708
>What causes this?
No idea, I actually did ask why is he acting like this but no response. I think it's a strange form of tribalism. Dunno if Dustin was paid by ULA but I imagine he was put up to it, to some extent. It's a very silly video, like when he compares the 'score' between Artemis and Apollo, that's like the kind of shit you do to convince children

>>16177709
good point actually, probably true especially with steel and engine manufacture. His point was so retarded that it stunned me for a while

Anonymous No. 16177765

>>16177633
Isn't this the grifter who tried helping physics girl scan people using long covid

Anonymous No. 16177950

>>16177765
>>16177633
This guy is a government spook. It's no secret, he's done videos talking about it.

Anonymous No. 16178029

>>16177633
Cope. Nasa won't be able to return humanity to the moon

Anonymous No. 16178052

>>16177633
>What the fuck does this guy think efficient means?
He means refueling necessitates a massively complicated mission architecture. Did you even watch the video?

Anonymous No. 16178101

>>16177699
>>16177700
>>16177702
>spacex launchs a lot of starlink satalites into LEO
What does any of this have to do with the fact that Starship (as it currently exists) is not well optimized for anything beyond LEO (and maybe GTO) and as such makes for a rather poor lunar lander?

Image not available

940x788

VOMIT-INDUCING.jpg

Anonymous No. 16178138

>>16177633
>Starship
Another elon cocksucker

Anonymous No. 16178139

>>16177633
Based I love SpaceX/Elon

Anonymous No. 16178200

>>16178052
Moving 100 tons is more complicated than something we already did in the 60s?
>>16178101
>(as it currently exists)
Only five years into development. At this rate it will be ready before SLS.
>>16178138
Before he came along the US was using Russian rockets to get to the ISS. I literally don't care about anything else. He could rape a dog on live television for all I care

Image not available

2500x1900

1654889934838.jpg

Anonymous No. 16178216

>>16178200
>Moving 100 tons is more complicated than something we already did in the 60s?
In order for Starship to do anything beyond earth orbit, they need to get refueling to work between ships, multiple launches, as well as well as boil off mitigation and raptor relight after several weeks/months of loiter in orbit. That alone is a more complicated mission architecture than what Apollo did. There's pretty much two ways to do a lunar mission; make a Super Heavy lift vehicle that carries has both a crew module and lunar lander and can do the mission in one launch, or do multiple launches using bunch of smaller vehicles. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, the SHLV is going to be more complex and difficult to develop but it can do the mission in 1 launch, which massively simplifies the mission planning. Going the multiple launch route means that you can use smaller and and easier to build launch vehicles but with the downside that your mission planning is much more difficult. You now have to make sure multiple launches go correctly instead of just one and you have to work schedule slip into everything in case a flight is delayed for whatever reason. Starship has worst of both worlds in that it is both a complex SHLV and one that needs multiple launches to get out beyond LEO, all for the sake of it being reusable when HLS starship won't be returning to earth. So yes, it is an big increase in complexity over what was done in the 60s.
>At this rate it will be ready before SLS
What do you mean? SLS already flew in 2022. HLS is the pacing item for Artemis, unless Jeff Bezos decides to haul ass and get Blue Moon up and running in short form.

Anonymous No. 16178244

>>16178216
That was a lot of words to agree with me

Image not available

211x239

1682820183752161.jpg

Anonymous No. 16178263

>>16178244
>explain why starship is more complicated and why that leads to a more convoluted plan as per the video
>"That was a lot of words to agree with me"

Anonymous No. 16178269

>>16178263
that anon was right though. also the future of space is going to involve more than 1 unrefusable rocket doing everything poorly
>SLS already flew in 2022.
cool when did the 2nd flight happen?

Anonymous No. 16178274

>>16178263
The point here is the difference between 100 tons and just another moon landing. Fucking obviously it takes more fuel to move that much more mass. Factoring payload it's probably less work per ton, but the broader issue is, what's the point of another moon mission? How is it even different from 50 years ago? A repeatable 100 tons to the moon means infrastructure up there, while all the SLS means is we can do what we did in the 60s for more money on a longer timeline

Anonymous No. 16178288

>>16178269
> 1 unrefusable rocket doing everything poorly
No. The areospace industry in general and space flight specifically has been one of specialization. For instance Falcon 9 is a successful rocket because its well optimized for Medium lift to LEO, but Starship is an awkward position in that its overkill for Low Earth Orbit and underpowered for almost everything else.

>>16178274
>means infrastructure up there
The Artemis Lunar Cabin is not going to be much more than Altair 2.0. There's just not that big of a need for lunar infrastructure, and even as it stands it a bit a self licking ice cream cone.
> what's the point of another moon mission
A good question since there isn't that much that a human can do on the moon but that a robot can't.

Anonymous No. 16178298

>>16178288
ah you must have missed it
>cool when did the 2nd flight happen?
can you answer that thanks!

Anonymous No. 16178312

>>16178298
September of next year, but put that goal post down.

Anonymous No. 16178464

>>16178216
>they need to get refueling to work between ships, multiple launches, as well as well as boil off mitigation and raptor relight after several weeks/months of loiter in orbit
multiple launches shouldn't be a problem given that's starship's goal.

Anonymous No. 16178468

>>16178288
>Starship is an awkward position in that its overkill for Low Earth Orbit and underpowered for almost everything else.
Is it? I don't know, how is it overpowered for LEO?

Anonymous No. 16178507

>>16177633
heah elong is a disingenuous fuck, but it's pretty obvious that he's trying to build out launch infrastructure so future contracts are uncompeteable, instead of going contract to contract.

Of course it's not efficient. Of course it's underhanded and anticompetitive. But i'd rather have this than Boeing/ULA/etc endlessly sucking on the taxpayers tiddies.

Anonymous No. 16178552

>>16177693
I don't really get what NASA's goal is.
I also don't get what their different options are to achieve that goal.
Could you give a QRD?

From what Destin seems to be saying, a lack of communication between departments means very few people know what the full plan is, and so can't point out any fatal flaws in that plan(s).

Anonymous No. 16178557

>>16178507
>Of course it's underhanded and anticompetitive
that's the nature of government, so i don't see a problem with musk taking advantage with it just as many others have

Anonymous No. 16178590

I recon the big problem with Artemis is there's no economical reason to go to the moon. In a business all these little problems destin's bringing up would be solved because to not do so would equal not being paid.
also 50 years of dysgenics = 5 IQ points less than apollo days

Anonymous No. 16178616

>>16177633
What did he say and why do you think it's dumb? If you can't provide the context in your post I'll assume you're a viral marketer trying to drum up views and hide the thread.

Anonymous No. 16178619

>>16177633
>Because there's no way this guy could say something so stupid without being paid.
Hes just saying the truth

>Highly likely this is the case though, because just a few months after attempting to sell SLS as an alternative to Starship

SLS is not a alternative for starship because theyre way different rockets, one is made for launching starlinks to LEO, the other one to launch people to lunar orbit

>it's not efficient
What the fuck does this guy think efficient means? If Starship pans out then it'll deliver 100 tons to the moon. The only thing all the extra refueling missions will cost is fuel.

Fake, current starship can only put 40, (even a worse than a falcon heavy LMAO) but spaceX lied all this time saying it was 100-150T (btw why do spacex fags talk so much about "100T to the moon" when Artemis missions is about 2 astronauts and maybe a rover of 2T? Is elon paying for the rest of 95T of payload? LMAO again)

About the refueling, they gonna need AT LEAST 20 of them, You cant say this is gonna be expensive af, knowing spaceX are wasting 2-3 billions per year right now just to make 4 suborbital launches


>By the end of the mission, you'll still have all those rockets. With SLS/Orion you're throwing away an entire rocket just to send a metal tent to the moon- which we already did 50 years ago!

Why would you want a reusable SLS? Reusable rockets makes sense only you have a ultra high rate, just look what happened to the shuttle

>The point of the SLS is to use the ULA to funnel money from the federal government to state governments. No one making the decisions cares if it ever gets to space.

The point of the SLS is to get people to the moon, while Starship cant get higher than LEO (except for 20 refueling) for a certificated manned starship well have to wait for 10 at best, and even if already exist, starship have no enought delta V to get back from the lunar orbit, thats why HLS wont have wing or heat shield

Anonymous No. 16178633

>>16178619
from what i gathered from the video he's just saying the modern moon mission has less communication and more complexity with seemingly less redundancy

Anonymous No. 16178725

>>16178619
>when Artemis missions is about 2 astronauts and maybe a rover of 2T?
> a 2 ton vehicle can get you back from the moon

I guess it's gonna be powered by wind turbines too, make it eco friendly while we're at it.

Anonymous No. 16178746

>>16178725
>a 2 ton vehicle can get you back from the moon

Nigga what are you saying

Anonymous No. 16178780

>>16177633
>Dustin is either a moron or paid, probably both.
Well, he's definitely a moron, so he's probably getting paid by lib-bergs to push their agenda.
There's an easy litmus test: Has he ever claimed "climate change" is real?

Anonymous No. 16178781

>>16178725
>I guess it's gonna be powered by wind turbines too, make it eco friendly while we're at it.
Lol!

Anonymous No. 16178807

>>16178619
>The point of the SLS is to get people to the moon
This is fundamentally wrong, the senators writing the checks do not care about this at all.
>Fake, current starship can only put 40
Thanks for including "current"
>You cant say this is gonna be expensive af, knowing spaceX are wasting 2-3 billions per year right now just to make 4 suborbital launches
And this is how I know you're completely full of shit. Why don't you check how much the SLS cost before even the first launch.
>>16178725
That is around how much the original lunar module weighed. But still given the tech advancement between the 60s and now, there's no reason we should be repeating the same mission. 100 tons would be the start of lunar development, 2 tons was achieved 50 years ago.

Anonymous No. 16178815

>>16178807
>100 tons would be the start of lunar development, 2 tons was achieved 50 years ago.
This. Is our goal just to send "diversity" to visit the moon long enough to stomp out Armstrong's footprint and brag that the moon is no longer "White man's domain," or are we going there to set up a staging area for future expansion into space?
I suspect it's all about the former for the left, but it would be nice if they could admit their entire motivation is seething about White racial accomplishment.

Anonymous No. 16178846

>>16178815
No, theyre planning gateway that is a orbital lunar station, and their modules will be launched in Falcon Heavy, so that fake shit of "100 T to the moon thanks to starship" is unreal, useless and NASA or any space agency wont pay for that payloads

Anonymous No. 16179097

>>16178846
>gateway
Completely retarded idea if Starship pans out. Unnecessary. Basically another space station. You need to get it through your autism riddled grey matter that none of these things are planned to work, they are designed to make money for war companies and senators.
>useless and NASA or any space agency wont pay for that payloads
They don't have to. Say what you will about Musk but he's eschewing executive bonuses and investor payouts in favor of actually spending the money himself. SpaceX is the entire launch industry on Earth right now, they set the price and they're doing it cheaper than ever. Can you imagine the size of their profit margin? All of that is funneled into the development of humans in space.
Honestly I don't know why I'm arguing with you, it'll come to fruition soon enough

Image not available

958x538

megu cringe.png

Anonymous No. 16179116

>>16178464
>given that's starship's goal
It's still a design choice that has tradeoffs, sure it allows you have to have a deep space missions via refueling, but that refueling architecture results in massively increased mission complexity.

>>16178468
Its overkill in that there isn't a 100 ton to LEO launch market. There's not much demand for that much lift as evidenced by the fact Roscosmos back in the 90s couldn't get anyone buy an Energia launch despite the fact that they were offering them for pennies.

>>16178633
>has less communication and more complexity with seemingly less redundancy
Which it is and that is a problem. His point wasn't even limited to starship in this regard given that Gateway will be in a NRHO.

>>16178807
>Why don't you check how much the SLS cost before even the first launch
The cost of SLS independent of the cost of starship, and while Starship may cost less than Starship other SHLVs, a launch its not going to be less than that of a Falcon Heavy. So if we're going off the original source selection statement

>>16179097
>he's eschewing executive bonuses and investor payouts
That is not true given that he was trying to get a $55 billion executive bonus, which would have been the largest in history, from Tesla.
>favor of actually spending the money himself.
The only money he personally put into SpaceX was back in 2002, SpaceX in recently up about a billion or two dollars every year in funding from venture capital.
Which shouldn't be surprising since most of Musk's wealth is tied up in his stocks, and as such he does have much liquid cash on had, hence why he had borrow $13 billion dollars in order to help pay for his acquisition of twitter.

Anonymous No. 16179137

>>16179116
>there isn't a 100 ton to LEO launch market
He is building the rocket for himself using revenue from elsewhere
>given that he was trying to get a $55 billion executive bonus
From Tesla you fucking retard, and where would he put that money? Do you think he was going to use it to buy a yacht? The guy is personally moving towards a future in space and you're spending your free time defending a government bloat project

Anonymous No. 16179158

>>16179137
>He is building the rocket for himself using revenue from elsewhere
So its a money sink?
>From Tesla
That's irrelevant, and if he's trying to get that much scratch out of a company that's announcing huge layoffs, that means he's wouldn't be above trying to get a big payout from spacex if he could.
>and where would he put that money? Do you think he was going to use it to buy a yacht?
>personally moving towards a future in space
Musk is no different that any other Silicon Valley techfaggot billionaire espousing some form of effective altruism. In all likelihood he's only really in it for himself. The space fantasy that's he's promising is just hype for techno-fetishists.
>a government bloat project
If Artemis is a government bloat project, its one that Musk has no qualms getting in on.

Anonymous No. 16179162

Not a SpaceX fanboy neither NASA , I prefer the Zambian's space corporation.

Anonymous No. 16179226

>>16177633

He is a fed. At some point his channel was bought and he started making boring overhyped videos that require a constant stream of impossible contracts with the gov't for a civilian and mere videos and product sponsors don't give him enough money back to justify the effort. So of course he is a puppet, he is seen as an influencer asset that controls a sizeable target audience. This implies he is acting all the time, once you start to notice it things get depressing. In front of his home videos he is one person, then suddenly he is aggressively extroverted in front of a live audience, constantly putting them down, condescending, then end with a pep talk. He can switch so fast and easily because feds are all about acting, they make an upper class, you can call them capitalists, fascists, communists whatever, they will waste your time and they will con you, they practice conning their whole lives. They will make a project harder than it naturally is because their essence and personality is counterproductivity incarnated, when they see someone being productive their trained instinct is to punish that person, not reward. Imagine having to deal with this shady clown on a daily basis. His talk is extremely vague, he asks for more centralization, as if that wasn't the problem that got people killed when they knew something was wrong with capsule but couldn't speak up. You really have to understand what a fed is, the time they waste at work, their absurd oversocialization, their ridiculous high income and unproductive lifestyle. Omg I told them to be simple, redundant and think of the astronauts! Alright let me ride the clown bike right here hehehe. Many times the AmAzInG redundancy in projects was theatrical, the point of this attempt is to test new tech, just getting to the moon by the same methods is not impressive unless you are an insecure engineer, there Needs to be novelty to justify the inherent risk, from a scientific perspective. He is afraid.

Anonymous No. 16179541

>>16179226
>Many times the AmAzInG redundancy in projects was theatrical
On the contrary, the redundancy built into the Apollo CSM and the Lunar Lander was to make sure to maximize the odds of a successful mission and minimize the odds of a crew fatality.
>just getting to the moon by the same methods is not impressive
The goal is to go back to the moon, not fetishise technology for its own sake.

Anonymous No. 16179545

>>16177633
Why this rocket making scary faces in the thumbnail

Anonymous No. 16179546

>>16178780
I cannot speak with confident certainty, but I can say I do not recall him touching on it.

Anonymous No. 16179579

>>16178200
>He could rape a dog on live television for all I care
yep, psycho confirmed.

Anonymous No. 16179609

>>16179579
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Totalitarian_Temptation_in_Space.html
>To the dedicated space fanatic, space is so important that it doesn't matter if London or New York is destroyed along the way, or thousands of innocent people are worked and starved to death.
Jeffrey F Bell was right about space cadets

Anonymous No. 16179634

>>16179541
nope, the stated goal is to get back to the moon and STAY there, amongst other things.
that requires newer technology and a 100t payload, not apollo 2.0.

this video seriously changed my perspective on this tard, it proved that he either has no clue what he's talking about or is a govt fed shill.

Image not available

767x650

You won't be....png

Anonymous No. 16179646

>>16179634
>that requires newer technology and a 100t payload, not apollo 2.0.
>he doesn't know about Apollo Applications

Anonymous No. 16179723

>>16179609
It literally is that important. Once we learn how to live on one shitty irradiated rock we can live on all of them. Once we learn how to live in space we can start heading to nearby stars regardless of how long it takes. That's panspermia. The universe is completely empty except for right here, and that will change forever in our lifetime. We're going to witness the first point on a cubic function. If the Earth is completely destroyed to make that happen it would still be worth it

Image not available

337x294

1715945206998574.jpg

Anonymous No. 16179728

>>16179723
>Once we learn how to live on one shitty irradiated rock we can live on all of them
>and that will change forever in our lifetime
Not even Musk is actually serious about colonizing mars, quit hallucinating.

Anonymous No. 16179735

>>16179728
It doesn't matter, if the Starship mass to orbit per dollar ends up being half the mass and double the dollar, it'll still happen anyway. The bottleneck of needing to invent all sorts of mass saving technology to launch anything will be gone. Launching whatever will be within the grasp of your average billionaire and most of the S&P
I'm starting to get the impression you people don't understand what Starship is or represents from an economic standpoint

Anonymous No. 16179778

>>16179735
>mass to orbit per dollar
Dollars per kilogram is not the be all end all. For example, let's say you had a satellite that only massed in at about 250kg and you can't do any ride sharing, you could spend 50-60 million dollars on a Falcon 9 launch on the basis that it has a low dollars/kg or you could go with a small sat launcher like electron and pay ~$40 million dollars less in absolute terms even if the cost in terms of dollars/kg is higher. It's specious to think that is the only metric that matters, especially when Falcon Heavy has an even lower cost per kilogram to LEO than F9 and its launch vehicle that flies rather infrequently. There just isn't a very big need for that much launch capacity, which shouldn't be a surprise because the history of the aerospace industry is littered with dead ends that were technically innovative, but failed commercially because few the capability (L1011, Concorde, Convair 990, Airbus A380, Antanov 225, Bristol Brabazon to name a few). What is starship supposed to do beyond a some HLS missions and deploy starlink? There isn't much of a market for commercial payloads to deep space. Furthermore the cost of the payload itself matters, and does so independently of launch costs, for the same reason why getting cheaper plane ticket doesn't mean the hotel room at the destination is going to be a bargain.
>represents from an economic standpoint
Starship has a rather thin niche from an economic standpoint, and there is no rationale for space colonies simple because there's no form of economic activity that can be done on the moon/mars/wherever that can't be done on earth far easier. Especially when we don't even know if human physiology even holds up in low gravity in the long term.

Anonymous No. 16179827

>>16179778
>let's say you had a satellite that only massed in at about 250kg and you can't do any ride sharing
show examples of this happening first

Anonymous No. 16179863

>>16179778
Alright so you legitimately don't understand, that's fine. The Starship model essentially means that your mass to orbit does not matter, it will always be the cheapest option. It may even be able to compete with electron at the low end.
>Furthermore the cost of the payload itself matters
Starship brings the cost of the payload down too, that's my point. The development of anything for space gets cheaper because you don't have to invent a new technology to make it lighter or fold it up every time you want to launch something novel
>There isn't much of a market for commercial payloads to deep space
I'm not convinced this is true. We'll see if the cost coming down reveals one

Anonymous No. 16179894

>>16179827
Hawkeye360's Hawk 6 in January last year, regardless the math still stands. Just because larger rockets tend have a lower dollars/kg doesn't mean you're going to use them for everything. Moreover there's a rather harsh power law distribution in commercial spaceflight, there's a lot of flights medium lift vehicles, not so much of heavy ones. And even when most HLVs do fly they rarely carry anything heavier than 20 tons.

>>16179863
> It may even be able to compete with electron at the low end.
There is no reason to assume that Starship will cost less than either F9 or FH in absolute terms let other than aspirational wish casting, especially considering that its much larger system. The per hour cost of a Cessna 172 is a tenth of that of a typical wide body, even though the pro-rata cost is lower.
>development of anything for space gets cheaper
Again, the idealized $/kg cost of a FH is the lowest of any rocket right now, and its just not getting that much use.
>>16179863
>I'm not convinced this is true.
Rockets in development generally have payloads lined up for them long before they even fly, for example the first buyer for a flight of FH was bought back in 2010, who's already has plans to fly Starship other than NASA (for Artemis) and SpaceX( for Starlink) itself?

Anonymous No. 16179897

>>16179894
> a lot of flights
a lot of flights for*

Anonymous No. 16179904

>>16179894
>Hawkeye360's Hawk 6 in January last year,
>and you can't do any ride sharing
those were microsatellites btw

Anonymous No. 16179915

>>16178288
>Starship is an awkward position in that its overkill for Low Earth Orbit
Depends on how much you want to put into LEO.

If the end goal is just perpetuating the current status quo with a single research station manned by a skeleton crew doing minimal work, then yes, it’s complete overkill. But, if we want to start establishing serious orbital infrastructure - multiple stations for habitation, refueling, research, and one day maybe even construction of larger Beyond-LEO platforms, then the kind of cargo and crew capacity Starship can offer sounds perfect.

Anonymous No. 16179950

>>16179894
Reusable rockets have only been a thing for a little over a decade, I don't think it's optimistic to a assume that the Starship numbers pan out as planned (accounting for Elon math even 2x or 3x less would be significant). There's really no reconciliation on any other point if this is our main disagreement. Like the Cessna argument, you'd have to throw the thing away or at least disassemble and rebuild it for the analogy to extend to what we're talking about here, and I think Elon even uses that example to make his point.

Anonymous No. 16179955

>>16179097
>They don't have to. Say what you will about Musk but he's eschewing executive bonuses and investor payouts in favor of actually spending the money himself. SpaceX is the entire launch industry on Earth right now, they set the price and they're doing it cheaper than ever. Can you imagine the size of their profit margin?

I say it again you stupid spx fag, WHOS PAYING FOR THAT LUNAR PAYLOAD? Everything spacex did was thanks to goverment money under NASA contracts, falcon 9, falcon heavy, dragon cargo, dragon crew etc and even starship right now, and you think now elon is going to spend his money in lunar bases that will be 100x difficult and expensive? You seems too inocent or new fag to the spaceflight world, but SpaceX is a company, no a space agency, so theyll never do something that is just a waste of money because "ELON IS GOOD!!"

And no, theres no market outside of LEO, so theres no profit in getting shit to the moon

Anonymous No. 16179963

>>16179955
why aren't you getting mad at daddy government for funding Musk?

Anonymous No. 16179993

>>16179955
>WHOS PAYING FOR THAT LUNAR PAYLOAD
Mad. But if Starship's 100 tons is cheaper than the alternative then it doesn't matter.
>You seems too inocent or new fag to the spaceflight world
I'll grant you the possiblity. When I was a kid and first started getting interested in space, they had ended the shuttle and needed Russia to get to space, and Obama had refocused NASA onto something to do with the weather. You can check >>16177699 >>16177700 and >>16177702 for a refresher on what has happened since then. I have literally only seen a line go up exponentially since I started watching this space, and I don't expect it to taper off.
>SpaceX is a company, no a space agency, so theyll never do something that is just a waste of money because "ELON IS GOOD!!"
Successful industrialists used to actually do stuff with their money, like build a city out of limestone just because the world is better for it. It's been about a century so I don't blame you for forgetting.

Anonymous No. 16179996

>>16179915
>multiple stations for habitation
There aren't that many space stations being proposed, and among 3 commercial proposals current being floated one of them one of them is Orbital Reef by Blue Origin and thus it would be unlikely to every fly on StarShip.
>refueling
A self licking ice cream cone, in that you need a rocket than needs refueling in order to justify it.
>research
There really isn't that much data in space that only humans can gather, but which robots can't. The research being done in LEO is a rather niche and there isn't much of it to do. Hence why the ISS isn't producing much more than Shuttle-Mir was in the 90s. Hell one of the arguments against the ISS in the 90s is that it was hardware for its own sake and that there just isn't that much novel research to be done in LEO.
>one day maybe even construction of larger Beyond-LEO platforms, then the kind of cargo and crew capacity Starship can offer sounds perfect.
But that's just the issue, Starship in these regards is a solution looking for a problem (ironically like a lot of space advocacy in general). You're already assuming that there's pressing need for these things that StarShip can then fulfill.

1/

Anonymous No. 16179997

>>16179950
>Reusable rockets have only been a thing for a little over a decade
The shuttle, faults and all, was partial reusable like F9 and FH. And if you're wanting to argue that the STS wasn't reusable but "refurbishable" you're engaging in hairsplitting.
Re usability has benefits and drawbacks as with every other engineering trade off, its not a panacea.
>I don't think it's optimistic to a assume that the Starship numbers pan out as planned
The aspirational cost per launch has never been justified. Even if F9 was fully reusable like it was initially planned it wouldn't cost that little, primarily because most of F9s cost effectiveness is due to the fact that SpaceX is pretty decently vertically integrated and that F9 is optimized for production in having the same diameter, propellants, and essentially the same engines on both stages and reuseabilty just recoups a fair bit more on top of that that.

A launch of one of SpaceX's existing rockets is about 50-70% percent of the price of other rockets within the same weight class, and while that does imply that a single launch of Starship would also be cheaper than other SHLVs (both historic and currently existing) it still would have a launch costs in the 100s of millions

2/

Anonymous No. 16180023

>>16179997
That's kind of a bummer. Do you think a $3mil SHLV is ever possible? I've really been hoping to spend all my retirement money on a 2070 moon vacation. Man what a bummer

Image not available

2022x1257

nuclearLightbulb3.jpg

Anonymous No. 16180032

>>16180023
>Do you think a $3mil SHLV is ever possible?
If we get something bulk graphine production and/or a closed cycle gas core nuclear thermal rocket engine, then yes the rocket could even be a SSTO. As the former would allow rockets to have a very low dry mass compared to their GLOW, and the latter would have both high thrust and very high ISP.

Anonymous No. 16180042

>>16179996
>There really isn't that much data in space that only humans can gather, but which robots can't.
The same can be said of every scientific field. Every single experiment being run by humans today could conceivably be done by machine (if not already now, then in the near future), but that'd be a pretty fucking dull world, don't you think?
>Starship in these regards is a solution looking for a problem (ironically like a lot of space advocacy in general).
Why bother researching anything in space at all if we're not ultimately going to make the effort to go out there ourselves?

Anonymous No. 16180075

>>16180032
Well here's hoping a cheaper heavy lift vehicle will make the invention and testing of such a thing easier. In the mean time I'm staying optimistic. Even if you're right about the technical challenges I think your take on the economics might be outdated. Things are changing quickly

Anonymous No. 16180105

>>16180042
>The same can be said of every scientific field.
Let me clarify, research still has to be done by humans, as LLMs aren't even close to being used to solve high specificity problems, even though getting the info can be done be probes. For example, we don't really need to send astronauts to the moon in order to get a sample of lunar regolith but we do need human researchers in order to turn that raw data from it into knowledge.
>but that'd be a pretty fucking dull world, don't you think?
The problems is that "high technology" and manned space flight do not necessarily go hand in hand. The manned spysats, weathersats, comsats that were being proposed in the early 50s basically dead with invention of transistor and integrated circuit, and then later on after that fiber optics ate in the need for a lot of comsats and as such satellite internet has somewhat narrow business case. Its still there, but its just not as vital, even Starlink relies on ground ground stations that are hooked to fiber optics.
>Why bother researching anything in space at
It can still provide us knowledge given that science operates on induction, as by definition general conclusions are reached from specific instances.
> if we're not ultimately going to make the effort to go out there ourselves?
I'm not of the opinion that manned spaceflight is pointless, just that doing so is going to remain of relatively niche utility in the near term. I think we will go out there one day, but not anytime soon unfortunately, if we're lucky we'll see a few small antarctic style research stations on the moon and mars in our lifetimes, but not much more barring a breakthrough in the aforementioned bulk graphene or Nuclear lightbulb, or alternatively radical life extension.

>>16180075
>make the invention and testing of such a thing easier
If starship does actually get its refueling architecture to work, that would be interesting even if it doesn't lend it self to all that useful of a system.

Anonymous No. 16180146

>>16179997
average time to make PARTIAL reusable and cost to do so for the shuttle? also if you want to educate yourself look into the same for the F9. HTH

Anonymous No. 16180147

>>16177633
Didnt this guy admit to fucking his his sister or something

Anonymous No. 16180179

>>16180146
>literally 10x faster
I did not realize that.

Anonymous No. 16180228

>if starship pans out
You're trolling, right?

Anonymous No. 16180336

>everyone itt asking who the customer is
You can tell the non schizo part of /sci/ is stuck in academia because none of you faggots understand economics whatsoever. The Starship customer is starlink. Remember Musk first made his money from an internet adjacent business, he knows what he's doing here. Starlink recently made a deal with the big telecom companies and their network instantly filled up completely. Every single satellite they launch makes them money. Musk has actually been fairly quiet about this, counter to his usual strategy, and I suspect it's because he doesn't want these dinosaur companies to realize he's displacing them before it's too late. That being said, the numbers are insane. Not Elon numbers, real numbers, and there's no "if" here. They are building the starlink network right now and will continue to build it. It is actually not unreasonable to say that by the time he is done, SpaceX will be the largest company on Earth.
>>16180228
SpaceX is launching more than the world combined launched a decade ago, and they're doing it with rockets that land and get reused. I think you guys can stop with that now

Anonymous No. 16180683

>>16180146
The shuttle was still partially reusable even if it was a space plane with a much more convoluted design. Granted comparing shuttle to F9/FH isn't a prefect apples to apples comparison comparison, because the shuttle always flew with crew and manned flights wills always cost more than their unmanned counterparts.

Anonymous No. 16180700

If we mine the moon it will be the end of us and we will have deserved it.
Well, most of us.

Image not available

1200x901

168173831299263.jpg

Anonymous No. 16180726

>>16177633
>If Starship pans out then it'll deliver 100 tons to the moon.
>100 tons
>yet to make LEO dead empty
There is no way it will ever "pan out".

Anonymous No. 16180897

>>16180726
Nice graphic. What NASA really needs is an enormously expensive partnership with the same old bloated monopolies to achieve a mission which is only differentiated from the one 50 years ago by the presence of a nigger and a woman. Get real faggot. Starship is going to leave the ULA even further behind than falcon already has.

Anonymous No. 16180930

>>16180897
Yes?

Image not available

1256x731

Starlink_growth_t....png

Anonymous No. 16181109

>>16180336
Yeah, starlink is going already making nearly $4 bn/year (with conservative estimates, i.e. assuming there are zero higher-revenue subscribers on the expensive plans like the $1000/month 1 TB boat plan). Graphing the subscribers gives a highly correlated 2nd order polynomial trend with an r^2 of .996. So growth is still happening. Cost will come down significantly once Starship replaces Falcon 9 for Starlink launches because:

1.) Methane is cheaper than kerosene.
2.) Methane is a less sooty fuel, which means the engines will stay cleaner and thus need less maintenance/refurbishment between flights.
3.) Methane is a single type of hydrocarbon (CH4) whereas kerosene is a mix of several compounds with10-16 carbons per molecule, so they all burn at different rates/temperatures, which makes modeling them very hard, which means optimal kerosene designs need a lot more fudge factor than simpler chemicals like CH4.
4.) Square cube law. The bigger the ship, the higher the volume to surface area ratio, which means a bigger ship gets proportionally lighter than a smaller ship.
5.) square cube law for re-entry. A larger ship will have a slower terminal velocity.
6.) Both Starship stages are planned to be reusable. On Falcon 9, the 2nd stage, (which is ~ 1/10th the cost of the whole rocket gets tossed).

Anonymous No. 16181351

>>16180683
like I said go check how long it took and how much money they needed to make the PARTIALLY reusable space plane component ready for flight

Anonymous No. 16181523

>>16181351
The dude is earnestly comparing the shuttle to falcon, there's no hope here. The old space guys just have to die off >>16181109
Solid numbers, thanks

Anonymous No. 16181534

>>16179116
>there isn't a 100 ton to LEO launch market
Then it's not overkill to get to LEO, there's just not a market. Chicken before egg, besides they've made themselves a market by needing starlink sats up there.

Anonymous No. 16181551

>>16179116
>that refueling architecture results in massively increased mission complexity.
I suppose the counter to that is refueling reduces the overall complexity of having multiple different missions. Like everyone rides the bus rather than their own custom car.
>Which it is and that is a problem.
I agree, I can't imagine NASA's returning humans to the moon in 3 years. I recon Elon's using this moon buisness to get more launch infrastructure up and make precedent for regulators to let him launch loads of rockets quickly. I wouldn't be too shocked if by NASA going down this route (i think they will, and will fail to get to the moon on time) astronauts will get killed. It's unfortunate but this is a government regulations induced problem at the end of the day.

Anonymous No. 16181561

>>16179778
>What is starship supposed to do beyond a some HLS missions and deploy starlink
Do that for the next 20 years until people start making 25 ton satellites to ride share with.

I don't really see why this is a problem, it's not your money after all. Well unless you're bothered by taxes, but the US government spends more on healthcare than anyone else ($1.7 trillion), so Musk Bucks are peanuts.

Anonymous No. 16181577

>>16179097
>[gateway] Completely retarded idea if Starship pans out.
Sounds an excellent use of Starship. Probably inefficient and shoehorning things in, but so was the Shuttle.
>>16179955
> WHOS PAYING FOR THAT LUNAR PAYLOAD?
The government because it's populated by stupid people. They will continue to fund Starship because of the same.

Image not available

822x564

Doomed.png

Anonymous No. 16181589

>>16179996
>Starship in these regards is a solution looking for a problem (ironically like a lot of space advocacy in general).
Completely agree. That's why I'm not bothered by SpaceX's actions. It's a strong possibility that the entirety of the space industry only exists because governments steal people's money and waste it on space. That is to say there isn't an economical reason to go to space yet. Though I do hope our economy/technology has reached the point where that's no longer true.

Of all the stuff the government wastes stolen money (your taxes) on, I think 10,000 ton rockets are pretty cool.

Anonymous No. 16181611

>>16177950
He got a ride on a boomer sub. They don't do that for just anyone.

Anonymous No. 16182028

>>16177633
Over here, Germany, i have to pay monthly around 18 Euros to finance most worst, dumb idiotic primitive unwatchable state propaganda thinkable. It sucks out around 90% for pensions and "administration" which is a useless apparatus every communist state will be jealous about. That retarded paid shill do it for "free". Compared to the productions quality over here it is way better and informative too, beside the dumb propaganda. Sure that's relative, but could be way worst.

Anonymous No. 16182165

The whole point of starship is completing Musk's autistic dreams of colonizing Mars.
Starlink and HLS are useful revenue and development programs to help fund and develop this endeavor. Musk does not give a shit if there as an economic case behind Starship - which this thread fails to realize. He will have Starlink paying for it. Alongside his incredibly lucrative F9 venture.
This has been known for years.
Two more weeks. Trust the plan.

Anonymous No. 16182342

>>16180726
>starship has yet to make LEO
easy way to spot someone disingenuous or gets their info from someone disingenuous
No it has not made orbit, flight 3 was slightly suborbital so in case the control systems failed, you wouldn't have a giant tube of space junk

Anonymous No. 16182383

I feel like every single argument that could ever happen around the topic of rocketry can be resolved by making a mockup in KSP

Anonymous No. 16182756

>>16182383
The other day I saw a video where a guy launched a spin station in one piece using 36 Starships taped together so I'm not sure that's true

Anonymous No. 16183024

>>16182756
36 starships has more than enough capacity

Anonymous No. 16183072

>>16182028
a particulary frustrating thing i find with germany is they claim to hate nazis but their government acts like nazis under the excuse of stopping nazis.
Are germans genetically predisposed towards big government?

Anonymous No. 16183092

>>16182756
It's not exactly 1:1 in every regard but if you use mods that convert the scale of everything to real life with real planets you can use it as a proof of concept

Anonymous No. 16183095

>>16183072
that's just the horseshoe effect

Anonymous No. 16183926

>>16177633

He used to work for NASA, only started doing YouTube because of the furlough he IS old space.

Image not available

446x420

dbdbcd02eea6c8788....png

Anonymous No. 16183942

>>16183072
All the German males were killed in WWII, the new population is 50% Russian rape babies. And Russians are 50% Asian genetically. And Asians were bred for authoritarianism for millennia.


Now the finns on the other hand, no one has a clue where their genetics come from. Personally I think it was introduced form a parallel universe.

Anonymous No. 16184417

>>16181534
>there's just not a market. Chicken before egg
"If you build it they will come" has a rather dismal track record across the history of areospace. SpaceX found success with F9 becaues it was well optimized for the existing launch market. The future is finding better ways to put 20 tons into LEO, not 100.

>>16181551
>reduces the overall complexity of having multiple different missions
Even if it was, it still makes each specific mission a lot more convoluted.

>>16181561
>making 25 ton satellites to ride share with
Even taking starlink out of consideration the average satellite is not getting bigger. Moreover despite there being some speculation about "big dumb satellites" no one wants to build a satellite bus that can only fly one launch vehicle

>>16182383
As much I like KSP, not really given how things are simplified in order to make a compelling game.

Anonymous No. 16184633

>>16183095
horseshoe effect being real or not doesn't change the fact that germans cant see they're acting like nazis to stop nazis

Anonymous No. 16184797

>>16184417
>The future is finding better ways to put 20 tons into LEO, not 100.
This is a retarded opinion if you care about space. How much quicker, cheaper, and bigger could the JWST have been if they didn't need it to be so light and small? What sort of things could be built from stock parts and launched for the same price or cheaper than 10 years ago? You don't seem to understand the constraints on space development or how Starship eliminates them.
The whole argument for the non-existence of a market is disingenuous at best when you consider the timeline these things are developed over, and the fact that every plan starts with the assumption that it needs to be under a certain weight. Starship doesn't just make launch 10x cheaper, it makes the development of the thing you're launching 100x cheaper.
No one disparaging Starship itt actually understands it at all

Anonymous No. 16184924

>>16184797
>BRO WE WILL NEVER NEED TO BUILD LARGER SATELLITES THAN WHAT THE DELTA-THOR CAN LAUNCH! THERES NO MARKET FOR IT!

Anonymous No. 16184954

>>16184797
That's what I think is the case too, but I know nothing of spaceflight, so presume I'm wrong. Can someone suggest why significantly cheap and high payload rockets wouldn't reduce the cost of development of space payloads?

It just seems to make sense to me: if launching a 100t capacity starship is literally as cheap as launching a 10t capicty rocket, you'd build your previously 10t bespoke satelite to be 50t and use lower tolerance parts.

Anonymous No. 16185033

>>16184954
No it literally is that simple. The only reason these guys think otherwise is because since the first satellites the name of the game was highly engineered low weight components that each took a team of scientists to work out. That's what NASA has gotten good at over the last 70 years and it's basically been how every telescope and rover has been built. You add a million dollars because it needs to be machined out of one piece of aluminum, you add ten million dollars because all your engineers need to learn how to work with tungsten, all to save an amount of weight which launched on Starship would cost the same as buying JPL lunch for a day. Starship represents a complete paradigm shift with regard to what gets sent around the solar system, not just how cheap it is to get mass up to LEO.
tldr, anyone familiar with how space has worked throughout it's entire history are currently making outdated assumptions about the fundamentals

Anonymous No. 16185041

>>16184417
>the average satellite is not getting bigger
I wonder if that has anything to do with the cost, or the rockets available. Hmmm

Anonymous No. 16185044

>>16185033
We gotta be good scientists here, try poking holes in our theory. I want to believe, but we can't have nice things so it cant be true.

Anonymous No. 16185061

>>16185044
Well the second stage landing might turn out to be impossible, but considering the construction cost, a Starship launch might still cost about the same as an f9 launch. Of course in that case the second stage doesn't need any remaining fuel so you might be able to add more mass to LEO than planned. Pretty much everything has been solved, I don't know. They're developing something paradigm shifting, sometimes it happens

Anonymous No. 16185070

>>16185061
>Well the second stage landing might turn out to be impossible
how so?

Anonymous No. 16185082

>>16185070
The belly flop and flip is pretty bold. They've successfully landed plenty of first stages at this point but no second stages, so if we're making assumptions here then while the first stage is a safe bet, the second stage presents a risk. Even so, it would still be the cheapest mass to orbit ever.

Anonymous No. 16185276

>>16184417
>the average satellite is not getting bigger
how the hell would they? lmao

Anonymous No. 16185693

>>16184797
>>16185033
>>16185041
>>16185276
Idealized launch costs have been decreasing and satellites still aren't getting bigger, this is even true taking Starlink into consideration as even the heavier v2s are about around ton, which is fairly typical.

Anonymous No. 16185868

>>16177633
>caring what literal glowie does on public information platforms
At this point I would have thought everyone is immune to propaganda but apparently not.

Anonymous No. 16186031

>>16185693
I'm going to use JWST as an example again, they spent 20 years and 10 billion dollars because it needed to fit on an ariane 5. If starship existed it could've been the original planned size or bigger, because they didn't need to keep shaving down mass or make it fold up. Around 2% of the budget went towards the launch, with several billion going towards working around the constraints of the launch. It always comes down to money, and with Starship your development cost comes down much sharper than your launch cost. If launching and developing a 100ton satellite costs the same as a cubesat, why wouldn't you?

Anonymous No. 16186033

>>16184417
>The future is finding better ways to put 20 tons into LEO, not 100.
If you can put 100 tons into orbit you can put 20 tons into orbit 5 times over. Putting 100 tons into orbit is a better way of putting 20 tons into orbit.

Anonymous No. 16186126

>>16186031
> If launching and developing a 100ton satellite costs the same as a cubesat, why wouldn't you?
The thing is it never will. A cube sat costs around ~50k, a 100 ton satellite (or really any manufactured object), no matter how crudely constructed is not going to cost as little as a cube sat.
Certain costs are going to be independent of what constraints might be imposed by mass or payload volume.Yes JWST would have been able to save some money if it didn't have work around the mass and volume constraints of the Ariane 5, but JWST was going to need rather sensitive detectors, actuators, as well as other new technology to do the mission regardless of whether it could be launched without folding or not. There are certain costs that are going to be independent those constraints.
Similarly, there are 7 ton GEOsat buses that are currently being built and there are medium and large LVs that are more than capable of putting 7 tons into LEO, yet the typical LEO satellite is around 100-1000kg and isn't getting heavier. How come no one is making a bus for LEOsats that weighs a couple tons, but saves money on the basis that it has lower development costs and doesn't have to be as highly engineered now that launch costs are lower with F9/FH?

>>16186033
Problem the commercial launch market is mostly static, and the only thing that could really take advantage of that much capacity is Starlink. This also is why other newspace companies are eyeing mega-constellations of their own, as there aren't enough commercial payloads for their rockets and they're hoping launching their own will get them enough launches to justify the upfront cost of developing a reusable vehicle.

Anonymous No. 16186147

>>16186126
>Problem the commercial launch market is mostly static
Keyword being "mostly." There are already companies planning for Starship.

Anonymous No. 16186158

>>16186126
It almost feels like the entire industry is waiting to see how Starship works out before developing anything for falcon. Beyond that, the telecom sats are being replaced by starlink already. So it makes things cheaper for science, serves the entirety of telecom, and probably serves some function for the DoD. They're always putting mysteries in GEO. I don't know, I don't see a condition where 100 tons for 30 million isn't useful for everyone

Anonymous No. 16186162

>>16186147
Yeah, there are silicon valley startups right now working on space hardware like rovers. You could argue they're further along than NASA because they're goal is repeatable assembly line manufacturing rather than custom purpose built everything.
Also, building a hotel for the level of wealth that could afford a space flight ticket already costs nearly 100 million. How much dumb mass in aluminum, glass, and complementary alcohol would it take to make a space hotel? That business model becomes viable.
Starship creates markets

Anonymous No. 16186228

>>16177633
You only caught up to it now? It's obvious this guy is a spook. He works for some three letter agency. It was blindingly obvious when he started doing factory tours. The US elite is desperate to get manufacturing back into the country for a future war with China/Russia/Whatever other Dusthole in the MIddle East at Israel's behest, and they're spinning the propaganda on all cylinders.

Veritasium is the same, by the way. Either a spook or a useful idiot on the government's dole (probably via some proxy NGO type shit)

Anonymous No. 16186248

>>16186228
If that's the case, why would he advocate for SLS over Starship? Wouldn't America compete with a commie nation via what the free market produces (SpaceX) instead of a gov program just like China or Russia has? Are the higher ups in the government retar- no, wait, yeah, they are. I forgot. Thanks anon, you're probably right

Anonymous No. 16186331

>>16186248
Why wouldn't he? All his friends and family members work for SLS subcontractors, directly or indirectly.
He's from Huntsville, Alabama.
His IRL social bubble is 100% oldspace and MIC employees that are constantly seething about those clueless Silicon Valley tech bro con artists.

Anonymous No. 16186361

>>16186228
Where is the rabbit hole on this? I am aware of breadtubers and KSMG like night controlling Mr. Beast and youtube, etc. I am aware of different channels on a case by case, but what is the larger agenda?

Anonymous No. 16186446

>>16183072
Man we are an occupied country with an occupation force gone to full retardation. If you believe you see "Germans" in any media think twice.

Anonymous No. 16186481

>>16186361
For this particular guy they need engineers for the upcoming conflict with China.
For every one in the US , China throws ten.

Its a major issue and this way they popularize engineering and most of those inspired kids(globally) will end up working as defense contractors working on machines for killing people.
Somehow they will make it seem ok in their heads.

Anonymous No. 16186630

>>16186481
Why would the US grow China just to fight China? Are they stupid?

Anonymous No. 16186675

bait thread