Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "Elon Musk \"We dug our own grave with STARSHIP!\"" video.

The ignorance of the masses. When you know what chamber pressure is, expansion ratio, maxQ, full flow staged combustion, hot staging, TEA-TAB, etc. etc... Then you can start having an opinion, because you have no idea what you are looking at. Its like 'the experimental top fuel dragster blew up after doing 300 mph after 200 yards' - my Corolla can drive me to the shop and back without blowing up. Lolz.
8
Well, the timeline might be off by a year or three. Which is fine, its still lightning fast compared to anything else.
5
@PistonAvatarGuy - and that proves what? Its comparing apples and oranges. The amount of resources thrown into the Apollo program was way way more than what SpaceX has access to in its wildest dreams. If anything compare it to the SLS program.
2
@artnull13 - different company, different people, different product. Only common thing is Elon Musk. Why would Tesla be relevant to SpaceX development? SpaceX is a huge success, and Starship is the largest rocket ever flying. There is no comparrison.
2
@PistonAvatarGuy - yes, SLS worked. Once. After how many years and how many billions thrown away on its development? SLS is just rehashed tech from the 1970s. SpaceX Startship is revolutionary on all fronts, there is nothing like it. The engines alone are a marvel of modern engineering, and they are the first of their kind ever. The amounts of firsts on this vehicle is truely amazing. Suggest you get eductate yourself on rocket technology. Because this is like saying there is no difference between a T-Ford and a Tesla. The Starship rocket isn't done yet, nobody says it is. SpaceX has proven that the way to go fast in areospace is to allow failures to happen, and iterate and fix it. That's what made them crush every other rocket company out there in a decade of operation.
2
@PistonAvatarGuy - Why do you care, its a private company - its investor money. I'm sure if it goes bust, the number of governments all over the world ready to buy it up is long. Depends on how successful they are and what challenges they manage to overcome and how quickly. They are well on their way, and the most important things are already solved. Main one up next now would be heat shielding on the Starship holding during re-entry. Yes, there is no reason to question that at the moment. The design can change at any time, if it is deemed incorrect. That's the beauty of their development philosophy. They added hot-staging to an existing design in a few months. That's unheard of elsewhere. - Of course nothing is 100% for new revolutionary technology. The list of unsolved items are long, but getting shorter every day. - Yeah, that has been the approach for years. Hence why there hasn't been any progress in rocket technology until SpaceX really shook up the market. And why SLS will fail (too expensive), and why everyone (who knows what they are talking about) is exited for SpaceX starship.
1
@JGaffney9000 - SpaceX throws more stuff into orbit than the rest of the space industry combined globally. ULA is for sale. Yes, there are other smaller rocket competitors out there, doing their thing. Stoke space is probably the most interesting concept IMO, and Rocket Lab. The rest is just wishes and old stuff, and nobody (except Stoke) is going to reuse the entire stack. None of these rockets have any appreciable capablity for anything else than putting smal satelites into LEO. Which is fine. Starship is another beast entirely.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy - well, Starship is not done yet, it is still in development. Why do you expect it to work on first or second launch, when that's not how SpaceX develops their rockets. One needs to see improvements from launch to launch. And that's what we are seeing. 2nd launch was much better than 1st. We therefore expect 3rd to be better than 2nd. Reusability is of course important, but that comes later. Right now the production of these rockets are so cheap, that a private company can churn them out in a few weeks.
1
 @PistonAvatarGuy - why would it not work as promised? What system do you think would fail so hard that it cannot be worked around?
1
@PistonAvatarGuy - no other rocket in the world uses a full flow staged combustion methalox Engine. It is by far the most technically advanced, powerful rocket engine in the world, and therefore it has no problem lifting a steel rocket. Sure, if they were going for a non-reusable 2.nd stage approach they could easily have made the upper stage in aluminium instead. To get even more payload to orbit, and if all things should fail, they can do that. But that's not the current goal.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy - yes, the body is not in any fancy material. It doesn't need to be, it is however the correct material for the intended mission profile - which is different than any other rocket out there. The engines are the magic sauce here. They are hyper-advanced, far more so than any other rocket engine every produced. And SpaceX is spitting out one every day, so they are extremely cheap to make as well. (Not like the 100-150 million USD a pop for the SLS engines). This was, as you should know, a sub-orbital test flight, and it was going pretty well until the automatic flight termination system blew up the second stage. There is nothing pointing towards the engines being the cause of the problem - no idea where you got that from. Why do you claim it cannot have any payload onboard, didn't you see how fast it got off the pad? Or do you have some insider knowledge, that nobody else has? You are making wild claims about something you seem to have a very limited understanding off. There are very good reasons why NASA and rocket enthusiasts all over the world are very exited for this machine.
1