Comments by "Gabor Rajnai" (@gaborrajnai6213) on "Scott Manley" channel.

Because normal rocket either dont go to orbit and simply fall back fast, or do a retrofire and fall back fast. But this thing is in orbit what means the only thing that slows it down is the extremely rare upper atmosphere an it takes time to deorbit it.
2
With 1 human takes up speculatively 1 m2 space and there are 7,6 billion humans it is 7,6 billion m2 what is 7600 km2 The total surface area of Earth is 510100000 km2 so the chance that something hit a human is approx 1:70000.
2
Lol even the Soviets didnt want to build a spaceplane, let alone the Chinese. Its well documented that Glushko hated the idea, sabotaging it on every single turn, because they knew full well as their american counterparts, or every single person in aeronautics, that its a horrible idea. The sole reason they built it is solely a military one, it can bomb a target in unpredictable trajectories while on the hypersonic flightpath thatswhy hard to shoot down. Thatswhy we are betting against Starship, it will be riddled with every single problem the Shuttle had...
2
Wait, you just compared Musk's fashion show in importance to the Chinese landing on the moon? Ok, I get it that space exploration is kindof a dick measuing contest, and you have to root for your side in it, but still, come on man...
2
It is a very ambitious project. But not guaranteed to success. Gazillion of things what can go wrong.
2
Yeah most likely what you think is the dumping of the fuel is actually a leak in the plumbing, which sent the whole spacecraft into an uncontrollable roll. They didnt want to ligt up the engine because that would have sent the whole rocket instantly kaboom. I counted it, it started around 1 rpm when it got into orbit, and finished at 15 rpm.
1
Well how much LOX and CH! left at the termination? Maybe 10%? And it has to return as well so it most likely needs that fuel. How will it refuel anything in orbit?
1
If the payload was empty it means it did not have weight, so the fuel economy remains. Thats pretty much the problem with all the rockets, they eat up their fuel on the way to orbit, you cant do too much about it. @samholmes12345678
1
Blu Origin's teammate Northrop manufactured the Apollo Lunar Excursion module. So technically speaking, they have the experience.
1
Come on, they let their rockets fail, and learn from their failures. That is iterative engineering. Very popular design philosophy nowadays.
1
@fredbloggs5902 Actually the original lunar excursion module had launch abort. Because noone can be sure if they can land on the designated spot, or not. Another beautiful technical challenge for SpaceX to solve besides the high center of mass of their lander. Good news is, if it can land on Moon it can land on Mars as well.
1
Well, it didnt went into orbit, but almost.
1
@alaefarmestatesllc It depends on the retrofiring, but actually if something returns on a ballistic trajectory, it will be faster when it lands because it spends less time in atmosphere to brake it. If it is aerobraking, like this rocketpart, it will almost certainly reach its terminal velocity before it impacts, because it slows down gradually, so it reaches a constant velocity where gravitational force and aerodynamical forces balance out. That depends on the lift and drag generated on the debris and its weight, I would give it a 200-300 km/h terminal velocity in air.
1
Well I could ask, if NASA believes for a moment, that Starship will ever make it to the Moon, then why do they build SLS at all... Of course its convenient, if they think Starship will fail, then the blame is shifted from their side to Musks side, without actually having to finance a costly Moon operation. Meanwhile Mr Taxpayer can undercut the launch market prices for conventional satellite launches, while getting some firework show. Everybody gets what they want out of the deal. The Chinese also dont want to go to the Moon, their biggest rocket is nowhere hear the power requirement to do that, so they would have to design a new BFR, try it doing Lunar flybys all before 2030. Wont happen.
1
Well, kinda not. In any gravity environment. Unless there are concrete spaceports there to land. Lets say as long as its center of mass is between its legs it wont tumble.
1
Well, Northrop built 8 lunar landers, 7 landed succesfully on the Moon, and one saved the life of the Apollo 13 astronauts. Musk landed a water tower which landed from a height of where the Boeing flies. Once. From five tries. Which one sounds more qualified for the job?
1
Noone expected that that thing will go into orbit, and it almost made it.
1
If they have some common sense, then in abort condition they fire up all raptors on starship, break up from superheavy and try to get as far as possible.
1
Problem is, that during lunar landing they will have quite a lot of horizontal speed as well, which they have to cancel out, otherwise it would destroy them, and there is no atmosphere to brake. So they have to maneuver a bit.
1
@N1lav Sure. It is not astronomically low either, but highly unlikely.
1
 @MonotoneCreeper Yep, it definitely could be refined, because there is not equal chance, that a human will be at any given point in the surface.
1
@joansparky4439 I made some calculations for that. The surface area between N ans S lat 42 is roughly 341335277,46 km2 Approx 6681 million human living between. if we take an average that the pop-s 56,2% lives in cities, and the whole surface area of those cities in the world is 3,5 million km2, then I suppose, that the urban surface area between these latitudes would be arond 3 million km2. That gives 1:110 chance, that the debris will actually hit a city. If we consider the rest of the population except maybe 1% cave dwellers and travellers lives in villages with an average pop of 200 residents/km2, that gives 14 million km2 of village space and 1/23 chance that it will hit a village. BUT, this thing wont be as fast as you would expect. It will possibly impact with 200-300 km/h terminal velocity in smaller pieces, which possibly damage a building, but not necessarily kill the occupants. So the 1 m2 i would say is a correct guess. Now if we give that a city is certainly struck and everyone is outside in the harms way, with 1220 ppl/km2 given fro the urban area a pop we counted to it, the chance, that the debris will directly struck someone is 1:839, so the overall chance, tha a city resident is killed 1:110x1:839= 1:90000. A village resident with pop density os 200ppl/km2 have 1:5000 chance, that he will be directly struck that gives the overall chance that a villager is killed 1/23x1:5000=1:115000. The overall chance that someone is stuck and killed either in a city or a village, in worst case scenario is 1:50000. There is a quite high chance of 1/19 however, that somebody's property will be damaged.
1
@TheEvilmooseofdoom Well, actually his teammate Northrop built the original LEM-s. So he actually has the proven track record, not SpaceX.
1
Yeah people tend to forget, that if this thing drops into someone's head, it will have the force of a tactical nuke. NASA engineers knew full well, that the Satunrn V better work every single time, since a failure could wipe out south Florida.
1
Russians worked that way. It was OK for their smaller rockets, not as OK for their bigger rockets.
1
On the other hand, if it turns out, that any part of the rocket system doesn't work, there would be literally nothing, which could lift the watertower into orbit, regardless if they build the lunar lander or not. Its kind of a gamble for the NASA. They are betting on that the first stage will work as well.
1
1:14574285714285,7
1
3 I think.
1
I wonder Scott, if anyone ever tried to reignite a turbopump rocket engine after an extended period of disengagement. As far as I know in the Apollo program they used pressure fed rocket engines specifically for these tasks.
1
Not anything against SpaceX but I don't see how this thing will ever be human rated. Ok, that they do this kind of flight with automated stages, but a real crew would need some passive protection, which always works. Like a parachute or something.
1
No, thats iterative engineering. It is perfectly OK, for the sake of humanity. FAA is waylaying progress with its useless safety protocols! They don't understand the rapid design. Dinosaurs.
1
Yeah, that was the main storyline of Gravity.
1
I am a little bit sceptical, that if that tower would land on a 8-10 percent slope it wouldn't tumble. Thats a great engineering challenge to solve. I guess the end product will look quite different.
1
What if the fire was actually intentional, and when it burned ot they knew they got rid of the methane.
1
There is no such thing as "team space". They were forced out of the ISS project, so now they are trolling the world while they build their own. Besides there is literally nothing that the others can do, as there is very little cooperation between chinese space program and any other nation.
1
@WatchesTrainsAndRockets Well, its certainly not a big happy family. And I can understand the reasons behind it. But we simply don't have any kind of leverage on them. Besides they don't launch these to impress the world, they alunch these to impress the chinese poulation, so it is not a real faceloss for them. Even if it would they know that except some spacenerds noone will remember abut 1 year after they sent their last module, that they have inferior rocket design, but they will have an operational space station in orbit.
1