Commercial Space Travel is Stupid

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Wujigege, Jul 15, 2021.

  1. lnv

    lnv ✪ Well-Known Hypocrite

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,519
    Likes Received:
    8,703
    Reading List:
    Link
    I am with you on the silly gimmicks of suborbital space being advertised, especially when the tech can't scale to orbital space flight.

    But I am confused by your follow up claim of reusability being a bad thing... or your claim of it stunting advancement...

    First of all, the definition of more advanced tech is pretty much higher efficiency. The more efficient you can do something, the more advanced it is.

    Second of all, the space industry can't exist without reusability. Just like the airplane industry can't exist if you had to throw out the airplane every time. Part of the reason why the space industry was a dead end has been due to lack of reusability. Reusability brings down cost, and the lower the cost, the more science that can be done cheaper. To put it into perspective, the Falcon Heavy can launch at over 38X cheaper per kg than the space shuttle and over 6X cheaper than the European Araine.

    Third of all, I also don't follow your claim about it being an excuse to not build better more powerful rocket engines... last I checked the Starship is replacing the Falcon and will be better with more powerful engines.

    You are aware innovation is the mother of invention right?

    So you are saying we would be much better off if private companies did not make cars ever? So we would all be using horses instead you think is better?

    The car market stagnated because we reached a point where there are limits to the current tech with little room for improvement. So you need completely new tech to really get anywhere. That said, I still wouldn't say there have been no improvements. Just not all of the improvements are easily visible, but they are there. From cars becoming safer to having more bells and whistles.

    That said, it doesn't help that dealers kind of are keeping automakers away from their own consumers. In US, the automakers customer is the dealer, not the consumer. And what the consumer wants and what the dealer wants don't always align.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
    Dr_H_16 likes this.
  2. Vanidor

    Vanidor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    1,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    I didn't find this particularly funny, or interesting,(seemed like a lot of obvious 'jokes') but it seemed to fit the mood of several people in the thread so:

     
  3. reagents 11

    reagents 11 disaster personified

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Reading List:
    Link
    Keywords is LOW POWER high efficiency. There are no freebies in physics there's only tradeoffs. A rocket is 2~4% payloads 90% fuels with the rest as their actual engines and turbopumps. To get into the orbit you need to reach escape velocities so speed rather than endurance is what's important for getting into the orbits and beyond. Putting low power engines would rather waste fuels than they are saving them because 1. They can't carry and deliver more loads 2. They have harder time to reach escape velocities. Which is why they are only using high efficiency but low power engines to power third or second stages of the rockets because their first stages have delivered them into escape velocities and there's minimal gravity by then that they can maintain or modestly increase speed of their flights to their intended direction.
    You don't try reading into what it took for the actual rocket science do you ? First of all bringing the reusability into the equation for the rockets would actually make the rockets construction and materials to be more expensive, it would make the rockets significantly heavier empty, and it would need the rockets to bring almost as much fuel it need to reach the minimum orbit which also translated into another dead weight it has to carry into the orbit. On the contrary Space shuttle non powered descent with surface area is more reliable than rockets stages that need to continuously power their descent because they continuously slowing down as the air get denser and denser the closer they are to the earth. Secondly those upright self landing or any landing at all would warp and damages the body of the rockets which incidentally were around 80% fuel tanks, 10% of turbopumps, 10% engines.
    Here's how their landing looks like.

    The rockets maintain very high pressure inside their chamber and fuel tanks, converting their liquid fuel+oxidizers into gaseous state before they're fed into their combustion chambers. If they say these thing can make hard landings and 100% safe to be reused they're lying.
    If i crash landed my aircraft dare i can say they are still 100% safe to fly instead of 'I'm not sure until we see asses the damage and here's hoping they can fix it'. The reusability is just theoretical rather than reality. Incidentally Elon Musk also didn't elaborate whether another flight with reused rockets would be cheaper than the first one in terms of pricing.

    As for the automakers I'm not implying that competition is a bad thing because most car development that matters actually happen during races than they are during sales. What I'm saying is the tendencies where the private company can make more profits do not drive their advances in development at all.
    Did you notice that Races hardly bring profits at all to their respective car makers instead of just renown and fame ?
     
  4. lnv

    lnv ✪ Well-Known Hypocrite

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,519
    Likes Received:
    8,703
    Reading List:
    Link
    But the fuel is the cheapest part of the rocket. Their current launcher size pretty much is the sweet spot of the commercial launch market and pays the bills. That money goes towards further development.

    Of course it would be more efficient to launch more in bulk. But first you need the demand to to justify it. As proof, the Falcon Heavy is cheaper per kg than the Falcon 9, but it sees far less launches. (Though to be fair, if it had a wider diameter adapter it might have seen more but the demand isn't there just yet). Do note there is also platform maintenance costs.

    The weight increase is significant from the fuel (the extra components aren't that significant), but irrelevant. If I sold you a car that is 10X cheaper, but you had to scrap it every time you drive it. Would you buy it? And the re-usability aspect doesn't cost 10X.

    We even have numbers for this: "Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%, so you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3."

    Uhm, what exactly are we comparing to? Do you mean the shuttle craft vs an engine or vs the dragon? Cause comparing it vs a rocket there is a huge difference in size. If you compare it vs the Dragon, it is far less reliable.

    The reusability rate has been pretty well so far. And continues to improve. One of them already been reused 10X. And actually the biggest issue for the reusability isn't that, but the soot buildup. Which will be addressed with the Starship as they switch to methane.

    No one is saying they will be reused forever. But the more they are reused, the cheaper the cost.

    Refurbishing things is nothing new. Even after crashes, many times things are refurbished and reused as long as they pass all the testing.

    It isn't theoretical, it has already been going for years. And yes there is a discount.

    "SpaceX director of vehicle integration Christopher Couluris said during a briefing this year that reusing rockets can bring prices lower, adding that it "costs $28 million to launch it, that’s with everything."

    In terms of the marginal costs, the costs associated with producing just one extra rocket, Musk also recently shed some further light on the figures. In an interview with Aviation Week in May, Musk listed the marginal cost of a Falcon 9 at $15 million in the best case. He also listed the cost of refurbishing a booster at $1 million. This would fit with Musk's most recent claim that the costs of refurbishment make up less than 10 percent of the booster costs."


    Of course the variance would depend on how many times the booster is reused.



    To be more exact. There is something called the innovator's dilemma. Which effectively is that private companies are actually very good at innovating. But once they grow to take over the market, they begin to stagnate. Which is precisely why you need competition. To remove the bad apples that begin to stagnate and cornet the market. We saw this with Boeing/Lockheed, they were helpful with getting NASA on the moon, but once things cooled down. They bought out all the other companies and cornered the market for themselves that stagnated for decades. (The same for the car market, I mean look, Tesla is pretty much the only successful new US automaker in over 50 years!)

    SpaceX had done a ton to advancement of making space more accessible. And it goes without saying there will come a time when they will also become stagnant (Probably after Musk dies or is somehow removed, cause traditionally I find businesses do better under the original owner who may not care about the good or anything but may care about their "legacy" (unless it is an owner whose goal is only to sell the company)). This is precisely why we need MORE companies in the space race. To prevent stagnation.

    But calling the best advancement/development we had in space over 50 years as a bad thing is going a bit too far..
     
    Dr_H_16 likes this.
  5. lord95

    lord95 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2021
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    7
    Reading List:
    Link
    Yeah, and when space agencies start to make some useless project. So... the exploration of space is might the thing we must be obsessed with. However, I support space exploration only when it suggests some reasonable projects, not like one project by NASA the main purpose of which is to colonize Venus with some floating platforms.
     
  6. lord95

    lord95 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2021
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    7
    Reading List:
    Link
    I guess, Blue Origin dithered and scattered too much after their early November 2015 success. New Glenn led them nowhere... plus their partnership with ULA creating a competitor to New Glenn... not a very convincing path forward.
     
  7. lnv

    lnv ✪ Well-Known Hypocrite

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,519
    Likes Received:
    8,703
    Reading List:
    Link
    The big thing for NASA is they are pretty much at the mercy of congress. The SLS or the Senate Launch System as many joke is nothing more than congressmen throwing around jobs to their local districts trying to keep decades old tech that was used in the space shuttle relevant.

    Actually, out of all the planets. Above the surface of venus in the upper atmosphere is actually the easiest to colonize out of any planet/moon. Even easier than Mars. Venus is also possible to terraform even with current technology (of course it would still take 100 years and pretty much the entire gdp of the world to do so, but never the less)

    To be honest, it is sad how much Venus has been neglected for space research despite it being the closest to Earth.

    Well, the fact that they plan to dump New Glenn in favor of actual tech that get to orbital space is progress in itself. But yeah they had a ton of screw ups getting there. Much better than VG which still has no real plans past their dead end tech.
     
    Dr_H_16 and lord95 like this.
  8. lord95

    lord95 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2021
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    7
    Reading List:
    Link
    Taking into consideration the fact that we still can preserve Earth, I guess, it is needless to colonize such planets like Mars and Venus that are completely unacceptable for humans to live on. The good point will be to colonize planets from other galaxies that at least have a similar environment as Earth. Unfortunately, it will take much time for us to make technology that will allow us to do this.
     
  9. lnv

    lnv ✪ Well-Known Hypocrite

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,519
    Likes Received:
    8,703
    Reading List:
    Link
    You say preserve earth, but let me ask you this, how long do you think it is considered acceptable to use Earth as our experimental lab rat? Using Venus and Mars as experiments would go a long way towards preserving Earth in the long run. And also provide us experience for colonizing outside of our solar system as well.
     
    Dr_H_16, Vanidor and lord95 like this.
  10. lord95

    lord95 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2021
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    7
    Reading List:
    Link
    I just consider it useless to colonize any of the planets from the Solar system and it is just wasting of money. I share the point that one day we will have to colonize another planet but it must be a planet the environment of which will not affect dramatically on human beings
     
    brigs11 likes this.
  11. lnv

    lnv ✪ Well-Known Hypocrite

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,519
    Likes Received:
    8,703
    Reading List:
    Link
    That is like saying, what is the point of wasting money on education. Why not just send everyone straight to work?

    You can't get from A to Z without going through B, C, D, E and F. Everything has an order and a place. Colonizing the planets closest to us has the least hurdle, and a learning experience. It is one thing to go oops, I didn't think of that when you went down the block, and thinking that when you are thousands if not millions light years away.

    The faster we start "going to school" aka, colonizing other planets in our solar system, the faster we get to our end goal of colonizing planets outside. You can't skip the stuff in between.
     
  12. lord95

    lord95 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2021
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    7
    Reading List:
    Link
    You need to understand that life on Venus or Mars will not be the same for humans. These two planets have a really harsh environment where humans cannot survive without special technology. So it doesn`t sound great to live on the planet where your life can turn into a survival
     
    brigs11 likes this.
  13. reagents 11

    reagents 11 disaster personified

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Reading List:
    Link
    1. There hasn't been any development. If you can call that development at all perhaps a development for only US since they never gets to crack close cycle staged combustion engines the likes of RD180 they've been using. The key reason is their lack of materials development in said area, metallurgy alloys and methods to produce metals that can survive oxygen rich fuel in staged combustion.
    Here's the raptor engines for the upcoming starship.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Raptor
    Here's the RD180 the workhorses of NASA space launch vehicles.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180
    Here's RD170 it's predecessor.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-170

    2. The only viable reusable spacecraft is Space shuttle because as I've said first stage boosters has to bring it up into the LEO or beyond within the speed of escape velocities or faster. To even go into such speed with their significant payloads it is inevitable they has to be spent.
    Until they finds the solutions to their metallurgical questions to make engines as good or better than RD180 they're speaking the languages of marketing of Overpromising and Underdelivering.
    That aside here's how Space Shuttle landing looks like.

    Compare that to Starship landing.

    Which one do you think can preserve their airframe better to be reused ? Keep in mind that to stop the Spaceship has to generates lift forces equal to it's free fall speed. Go figure what that can do to it's aluminum frames.

    3. Car question. The goals of the rockets is to deliver their payloads.
    If i want my 100 tons of payloads to be delivered to the moon or Mars transfer orbit it isn't the question whether they can reuses the 'car' at all the question is whether they can do so if it at all. It doesn't do if you want to sell me a car that can only deliver half of it and just to low earth orbits even if you tell me that they're reusable of some.
    The price question is really just a salesmen talking points instead of a scientists.

    To this date no SpaceX Space launch vehicles has delivered significant payloads and none of their heavy launch vehicles even has been in actual commission.

    Here's the list of upcoming space launch vehicles
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_heavy-lift_launch_vehicle
    The list would be somewhat impressive if we're not actually try to delve what has been launched by both Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9.

    Frankly I'd put a little bit more faith on Tesla SpaceX if only they were not such a scammer.

    https://mansionengineer.com/2019/02/04/elon-musk-tesla-and-the-solar-roof-tile-fraud-update/



    https://banyanhill.com/700-billion-problem-tesla-cant-fix/

     
  14. Ai chan

    Ai chan Queen of Yuri, Devourer of Traps, Thrusted Witch

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,162
    Likes Received:
    24,062
    Reading List:
    Link
    You misunderstand the motivation behind such endeavours. Rich people do what they want to do. So what if it doesn't make money? It's their passion project, all that wealth has to go somewhere. You can also ask why rich people invest in movies that are most certainly going to flop. The answer is because they can afford it.

    You see, the way rich people thinks and the common people thinks is different. To the common people, money is a necessity, something they need to survive and catch up. To the rich, money is the means to an end. What that end is, it depends on them entirely. Some rich people want to be richer, and so they would invest in portfolios that would make more money. Some rich people want better reputation, so they throw money into charities and hope that people look at them in better light. Some rich people want to have fun, so they throw money into stuff that lets them have fun.

    Space travel is exciting and fun. Sure there's a chance of dying during takeoff and reentry, but some people wouldn't mind for the opportunity to see the stars outside the Earth and to float around in weightless state. Have you seen fire in zero gravity? It's beautiful.

    In comparison, providing drinking water to people without it is not fun. Ai-chan can understand why rich people would stay away from those. Don't expect rich people to be nice. Sure some are nice, but even they wouldn't want to provide drinking water in Congo, dealing with local corruption and constant wars are definitely not fun or bearable. In many cases, much of what they did would most likely require even greater amount of money to grease the corrupt politicians palms.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2021
    Dr_H_16 likes this.
  15. lnv

    lnv ✪ Well-Known Hypocrite

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,519
    Likes Received:
    8,703
    Reading List:
    Link
    It is a HUGE development. The fact that the US who has been the most expensive is now the cheapest for launches by a pretty big margin is development. What you seem to miss is that space is about cost per kg. The cheaper it is to launch, the more science you can do for the same price. Think of it like an athlete who exercise once a week vs one that exercises every day. The lower the cost, the more that can participate.

    Yes, the US fell behind. Mostly because every competitor bought each other out. Prices skyrocket and US was way overdue for replacing the launch vehicle. So it is a huge breakthrough for the US, but at same time it is still a development as far as the world goes.

    Ah, no, the spaceshuttle was the worst thing that ever happened in space history. It was an abomination as it was created to tick checkboxes for things it wasn't even ever used for, or used a few times for. It was expensive as hell as well and overkill for the job.

    The Raptor is WAY superior to the RD180. You are too focused on the overall power of the engines and are ignoring the efficiency. In that regard, the Raptor engine is WAY ahead in both thrust-to-weight ratio, and the fact that it uses methane so there is no soot for reusability.

    You can make up for the overall thrust with more engines you know right? Not to mention, with the merlin and raptor, if a single engine fails, you can still continue the launch, just would have to give up on the landing. With the RD180, you are out of luck.

    Try that shuttle landing anywhere outside of Earth atmosphere.

    The damage on the airframe isn't the biggest maintenance item. The biggest maintenance item is disassembling the engine to clean out the soot.

    This is why on the Space shuttle's boosters, they throw away the booster, but recovered the engines for reuse. Except the savings was minimum cause of the soot, and it being thrown into salt water.

    Yes, the goal of the rocket is to deliver their payload. But your argument isn't about being able to deliver it, you are for some weird reason demanding that an electric car have multiple gears of transmission just like a gas car. Despite both having same top speed and everything else. Why are you so fixated about the power of a single engine?

    The Falcon Heavy has launched a few times. And their core market currently is in the mid-weight launch division. There is no real market for heavy launches just yet. Once the starship is made, their primary heavy launches would mostly be their own stuff.

    You are only proving my point. That no one cares to launch anything heavy these days. The big market now is cubesats. As you can put your research into a small cube sat, and do all the tests you need done.

    To go into doing actual heavy launches, you need to either have a market for it, or make a market for it. And they are doing both.

    Scammer how exactly? You mean all those people claiming the Tesla Roadster would never be produced? Oops, it was. Or the Model S would never be produced? Oops it was, The Model X would never be produced? It was. The Model 3 would never be produced? It was. The Model Y would never be produced? It was!

    Unfortunately, with the stock market and short selling, there are a ton of BS out there.

    Does Tesla and SpaceX take longer than they often time promise to get things done? Sure. But they do deliver what was promised.

    Let me give you a piece of history:
    "1908: During flight trials to win a contract from the U.S. Army Signal Corps, pilot Orville Wright and passenger Lt. Thomas Selfridge crash in a Wright Flyer at Fort Myer, Virginia. Wright is injured, and Selfridge becomes the first passenger to die in an airplane accident.

    Despite the crash, and the first passenger death in an airplane, the Army was significantly impressed with the Wright Flyer and allowed the brothers to complete the trials the following year. "


    I am guessing if you were the one in charge there, you would have called it a scam and ended the project.
     
    Dr_H_16 and Ai chan like this.
  16. reagents 11

    reagents 11 disaster personified

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Reading List:
    Link
    1. Like i said it's neither the cheapest nor the best there is. The reusability itself is dubious since it's never had to try beyond LEO with significant payloads. Elon sends his personal Roadster and that's it. Check and compare yourself. Note that Russian use rubles.

    2. The Raptor on the contrary is way more inferior. It needs cooling, it's plumbing is a nightmarish complications, it can only produce half the thrust.
    You can add more engines yes but it'll still be 1+1 vs 2+2 equation. The amount is thrust is what's the most important. Again not the reusability since sky is the actual limit.

    3. You can design new Space Shuttle with the new 'reusable' vectorable rocket engines and it'll still better than falling like rock starship. The gold standard for reusability is preservation of it's airframes.
    And you don't need those powered rocket descents and landing with a starship, just ride the air gently until it lands so no need for damning another half fuel to carry to orbit and back.

    4. Wow how do you connect that with actual scientific breakthrough with the sleaze marketing sales of SpaceX ?
    - wright flyer is the first in it's class to achieve controllable flight whereas the spacex is neither the first nor the best or even the 'cheapest'.
    - spacex achieve nothing no breakthroughs to this date. It sends roadsters and that's it. The self landing and reusability itself already exist and in use by third stages of any rockets with lander mission.
    You can say that SpaceX answer the question nobody asked. Make sense since Elon Musk is salesman rather than a real scientists.

    5. The success of your rockets programme is actually measured with the weight and ranges of payloads you can achieved. And like I've said the private company would just play around in LEO because anything beyond would cost them significant of resources funds just for development alone with zero promise of actual return.

    By the way here's another milestone things in space. Not some Tesla roadsters.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauka_(ISS_module)
    https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/334047-new-iss-module-nauka
    The first self navigable segment.
    Before you brag about ISS read this first.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orbital_Segment

    "The first module, Zarya, otherwise known as the Functional Cargo Block or FGB, was the first component of the ISS to be launched, and provided the early station configuration with electrical power, storage, propulsion, and navigation guidance, until a short time after the Russian service module Zvezda docked and was transferred control. Zvezda contains the ESA built DMS-R Data Management System.[3] Now primarily used for storage, Zarya provides ports for Soyuz spacecraft, Progress (spacecraft) and the European ATV to dock to the station. Ships boosting the station's orbit dock to the aft port (the rear port according to the station's normal orientation and direction of travel). The FGB is a descendant of the TKS spacecraft designed for the Russian Salyut program. 5.4 tons of propellant fuel can be stored and transferred automatically to and from ships docked. Zarya was originally intended as a module for the Russian Mir space station,[citation needed] but was not flown as of the end of the Mir-1 program. Developed by Russia and the former Soviet Union, construction of Zarya was funded by the United States and NASA,[4] and Zarya remains a US-owned module.[5]

    The second module, Zvezda, is the station's Service Module - it provides a living environment for the crew, contains the ISS's main engine system, and provides a docking port for Soyuz, Progress and Automated Transfer Vehicle spacecraft.[6]"

    Yes. Russian actually is the actual builder of ISS with the original plans called mir2.
    US space station programs development is called Freedom.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Station_Freedom

    "Underestimates by NASA of the station program's cost and unwillingness by the U.S. Congress to appropriate funding for the space station resulted in delays of Freedom's design and construction; it was regularly redesigned and re-scoped. Between 1984 and 1993 it went through seven major re-designs, losing capacity and capabilities each time. Rather than being completed in a decade, as Reagan had predicted, Freedom was never built, and no Shuttle launches were made as part of the program."

    Sadly it was killed in drawing boards.

    6. Electric Vehicles has the most efficient energy conversion there is, not gonna lie and Tesla EM motors is the best in the current markets by wide margin however in it's current technology where it is only powered with Lithium ion battery they simply is not viable vehicles for any serious vehicular activities. The charging is too long, limited ranges, it's heavy and cost significant volumes (in comparison gas tank would be lighter and lighter as it emptied out), too complicated for field repairs, etc etc. It's a nice urban commuters not gonna lie.


    Well i never say Tesla cars is the actual Scams although i did say their semi trucks is one which it is for a long hauler company. I say Hyperloop, Solar tiles, Tesla semi, and Spaceship is a scams. Three of which were factually correct with the fourth being debated here.
    What are your thoughts with those three subjects ?
    You can start with the 'Hypeloop' Hyperloop which apparently dugged out with sewer tunneling equipment and isn't fit for any kinds of travels.
     
  17. lnv

    lnv ✪ Well-Known Hypocrite

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,519
    Likes Received:
    8,703
    Reading List:
    Link
    SpaceX has launched things beyond LEO. Both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy. And no, not just the roadster.

    You are aware that Russia went from owning pretty much most of the commercial launch market to pretty much non-existent because they couldn't compete right?

    [​IMG]

    The Raptor has over double the thrust to weight ratio, and 2 raptors weight less than one RD180.
    The amount of thrust of a single engine is irrelevant, what matters is the amount of thrust of all the engines combined!

    Not to mention, the rapor costs over 10X cheaper! And is reusable.

    Try the following in the space shuttle spacecraft: Launch abort, landing abort, landing on the moon.
    The space shuttle was nothing more than a death trap. NASA's calculations put the Falcon 9 + dragon as 4X safer than the space shuttle. And that is considering how ridiculously expensive the space shuttle was.

    And again, air frame, fuel and etc are the CHEAP parts! Why are you so obsessed by them?

    You say that now, because we are over 100 years later. If you were there 100 years ago, you'd be calling the wright brothers sleazy marketers. Just like the many people in the US army who at the time also dismissed them for many years.

    Uhm, they literally took over almost the entire global launch market. Offering the lowest commercial launch costs. The reusability is also a first. 3rd stage landing is like saying "air balloons did flight before the airplane, thus the airplane is nothing new"

    No, the success of a rocket program is measured by getting what you need in space, where you need it on the cheap. SpaceX has launched quite a bunch of stuff beyond LEO. Just because LEO happens to be the where the money is, doesn't mean they don't launch them.

    I am not sure why you are so obsessed with the roadster. The Roadster was launched as part of a demo flight, normally demo flights contain a block of concrete. They just chose to launch a roadster for fun instead (also, there were other things there, not just the roadster)

    Russia built the ISS? Really?

    [​IMG]

    There is nothing wrong with the lithium ion batteries. They have the best economies of scale which is letting their prices drop rapidly. And they have the capability of reaching the required range, and charge time. While the extra weight is a thing, the difference when looking at the entire package is minimum. And with Tesla's next gen design, it will be negative.

    Things simply don't happen overnight.

    The delay of the semi truck is related to multiple factors from covid, to it being a new market that requires far more testing and certification. Tesla historically had delays on things and only managed to be somewhat on time with the Model 3 and Model Y. People called those scams too, and once they were released, they called the next product they would release a scam. When will people learn? The semi will happen, but patience is necessary, especially when a company enters a new market as they run into teething issues along the way.

    The solar tiles faced similar situation, or more specifically, Tesla made the tiles and Panasonic made the panels for the tiles. But the panasonic panels did not work as well with the tiles. So Tesla had to switch providers, and the 3rd gen tiles has seen increased production, but covid is still a thing.

    As for Hyperloop, Tesla nor SpaceX have EVER said they plan to release it. To be more exact, Musk released the open source design for it and said anyone who wants to make it they can. But he said he will not, only MAYBE if no one else does.

    I think you are though conflating the hyperloop with the Boring company, which goal is to bring down the cost of tunneling. They started with normal commercial tunneling equipment as a base, and upgraded it with improvements. Then they plan to design one from scratch.
     
    Dr_H_16 likes this.
  18. reagents 11

    reagents 11 disaster personified

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Reading List:
    Link
    1. Like i said you can strap as much engines you want it still won't beat them. It'll be just 1+1 vs 2+2.
    Nothing real apparently in Raptor Wikipedia entry. The thrust to weight ratio is cited from Elon Musk tweet and the 1,5 tons of dry weight is a goal rather than actual reality. We'll just talk about Raptor engine when it walk the talk.

    2. The commercial launch are dominated by European firms. That was always the case but you can actually see that it seems China is pulling ahead with their own rockets delivery. But what does this supposed to proof again ? Russian is the undisputed leader in rocket technology.

    3. Yes. Russia built ISS. Really. Russian Orbital Segment is responsible for the entire ISS control, navigation, and movement. The other segments is an add-ons to their module.

    4. "Uhm, they literally took over almost the entire global launch market. Offering the lowest commercial launch costs."
    Nope, come back to reality would you ?

    5. "The reusability is also a first. 3rd stage landing is like saying "air balloons did flight before the airplane, thus the airplane is nothing new"

    Actually yes Airplane is nothing new there's more entry in the flying machines development history than just airplanes. And it seems you missed my point that is you can reuse all liquid rocket engines with slight modifications to it's throttle rates including RD180 if that is what you want. This has been done all the time before when they makes second or third stages of the rockets.
    The key points is still whether they can push through the higher thrust ratings without melting.

    6. - Tesla Semi is a scams when they haven't even solved the battery problems and still sell them as 'revolutions of hauling'. They didn't even speak of how much tonnages it can haul and resort to sleaze marketing tactics selling the 0 - 60km as if that's what hauler company would want.
    - Solar tiles. So receiving 1000 dollars deposits while keep delaying roll outs and jack the prices more than double on their actual roll outs is not a scam ?
    - Lastly for the hyperloop numerous statements and appearances of Elon Musk regarding them easily disproved your claim.
    "Think of it like a wormholes, you enter one side and comes out on another sides" yeah wormholes as in it's for worm and rated with a worm speed limit. I mean i can't help but laugh that they actually dig it with sewers equipment and specifications and the city went and actually let them.

    Frankly it's quite clear by now you're hardcores Elon Musk fans with the epitome of "worshipping the science without the understanding of it".
     
  19. lnv

    lnv ✪ Well-Known Hypocrite

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,519
    Likes Received:
    8,703
    Reading List:
    Link
    Again, no it isn't. You are limited by the weight and volume, not by the amount of engines. Since the Raptor is lighter and smaller, you can fit more raptors in the same amount of space as you would the RD180. So it won't be 1+1 vs 2+2 but 1*9 vs 2*4.

    Did you not see the graph? Russia owned 60% of the launch market back in 2010, come 2018, SpaceX took that 60% and Russia is at 10%. SpaceX ate everyone's l(a)unch.

    If Russia was so ahead, why are they losing launches?

    That is because you don't need 2 control units. But most of the ISS was sent up by the US. Mostly cause russia has been slacking and hasn't been sending up the stuff they were suppose to.

    It is reality, I literally showed you the graphs that prove it. Are you in denial of reality?

    Of course you can, did you miss the part where I said that the space shuttle rocket engines were reused, but due to the soot and the salt water damage that put a huge toll? Not to mention the high cost of the engines themselves?

    What SpaceX did was make light engines with good thrust to weight ratio. And also nearly perfected the landing(so no more salt water) to make reusability much cheaper. And with raptor, it will solve the soot issue.

    Landing an entire rocket booster the size of the statue of liberty, and landing a 3rd stage is completely different thing.


    They have, the 4680 structural battery is the solution to making lithium ion batteries weight net negative.
    0-60 is actually quite important, because part of the most dangerous thing for a large truck is merging onto the highway.

    The Tesla semi is already doing deliveries for Tesla. But again, patience. It is a new market for Tesla so these things take time to sort out.

    It's not like Tesla is using the deposit, they remain in escrow. And do not go towards their earnings. Even if you add up all the deposits, it is nothing more than chump change. The fact that you think Tesla is intentionally trying to scam people here is silly. Anyone who put down a deposit can ask for it back at ANY time.

    The deposits are only there to prevent fraud.

    Again, entering a new market always has teething issues for any company.

    First of all, the first hyperloop design was above ground, not below. And again, you are confusing the Boring company and the hyperloop which are 2 different things.

    I am not sure what you are talking about, but it is pretty clear you have some sort of deep inexplicable hatred for Musk. Since you end up totally ignoring science in your blind hatred for the guy, I am not sure why you see yourself any better than those Elon Musk fans.

    PS I am a fan of progress of technology. That is all I care about.
     
    Dr_H_16 likes this.
  20. reagents 11

    reagents 11 disaster personified

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    2,554
    Reading List:
    Link
    1. 9*2.3Mn vs 9*4.5Mn ? Did you think diameter is a problem ? Not really ever since 1953.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka

    Falcon heavy itself
    [​IMG]

    2. That graph merges China launch and Spacex if that's what you want to use. But go check it out.
    https://www.rocketlaunch.live/?pastOnly=1
    SpaceX is launching mostly it's own test launch and it's own commercial commission the Starlink.
    The only real scientific launch are done by China mostly. Global commercial satellite launch still dominated by European firm but i had to give credit to SpaceX for getting the European company a competing products.

    3. That's because the space station technology is Soviet origin not an US one. Deal with it.

    4. It made low power engines that anyone can do themselves. That itself isn't the problem the problem is it's scamming nature they keep doing. $100.000 dollars per seat to mars anyone ? We would jack the price on the rollout ofc. Those bombastic claims helped them raking it out through the stock market until everyone fooled like you noticed later they're bullshit.

    5. - 0-60 is nothing important and rather would put many of their drivers in jails or out of jobs for reckless driving. Braking is what you're trying to use in this argument ? Again going from 0 to 60km/h is not important although going from 60-0 indeed is important. Since they refuses to talk about the haul tonnages at all it speaks everything about what they want to do with their Semi.
    - Ofc they would get away taking $1000 if you let them and only if you let them.
    - I did not confuse anyone who goes on calling his RGB sewer tunnel 'invention' a revolution in mass rapid transportation.

    6. Of course I'm much better because i keep my own skepticism and objectivity in check unlike the fanboys who were infatuated and help the conman scam going for as long as it can because they worshipped the science without trying to understand them.

    PS. No you're not a fan of progress in technology you're an infatuated fanboys willing to excuse blatant frauds going on in attempt to keep your personal belief.
    There are many scammers who posed as inventors throughout history and Elon Musk or SpaceX shouldn't be exempted from that list if you in fact love a progress in technology especially when the future of real development at said sector is at stakes.