8 ms·

It's just pedantry about the name, must really hate the Starliner too, or the Starfighter, or anything else with the word star in it, if it can't physically get

• moccachino 8y ago
  I will establish a new small company, focused on innovating hygienic facilities for starships. I will call it Startubs.
  • de_watcher 8y ago
    Starshits?
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
• davedx 8y ago
  If it can get to Mars then it could certainly fly itself into the sun too. Possibly wouldn't be the best use of SpaceX money, though.
  • avar 8y ago
    This is a common misconception. It requires much much more energy and delta-V to send a craft on a collision course with the sun than to send it to Mars, or even to send it outside the Solar system altogether[1][2]. 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5lt50r/why_does_it_take_more_delta_v_to_hit_the_sun_than/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5lt50r/why_does... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Interplanetary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Interplanetary
  • ZiiS 8y ago
    Not technically true. To dive into the Sun requires a much higher delta-v then to transfer to Mars. If you look at the Parker Solar Probe it is using a 7 year flightpath getting multiple gravity assists of Venus to miss by 6Gm at 200km/s.
  • nominatronic 8y ago
    Nope. It takes far more delta-V to get to the Sun than to get to Mars. To get to Mars you need to change your solar orbit from that of Earth to match that of Mars. The difference is a small fraction of Earth's orbital velocity. By comparison, you only need to add about 41% of Earth's velocity to escape the solar system entirely. But to get to the Sun, you need to subtract 100% of Earth's orbital velocity. It's a colossal amount of delta-V.
    • benj111 8y ago
      On the other hand where do you ultimately end up if you only add 40% delta V ?
    • irrational 8y ago
      That's so counter-intuitive. It feels like the sun is a giant gravity well and we just have to give something a bit of a shove in the right direction to fall down into the well. It's not like its rocket science.
      • mkl 8y ago
        That might work if it was starting stationary, but it's not. It's starting from Earth, which has enormous orbital velocity perpendicular to the way to the sun. Everything on Earth already has that velocity too, and there's no way to get rid of it except cancel it out by burning a lot of fuel to basically go just as fast in the opposite direction.
        • Klathmon 8y ago
          I always hated using terms like "orbital velocity" trying to explain things to people who don't know what it means. The analogy I use is imagine you have a ball on a string. If you spin that ball around your head, so the string is tight, how hard do you think it would be to hit a friend with it? Now how hard would it be to hit yourself with it? A friend, you just let go! The ball is already spinning and WANTS to go flying out further away. But to hit yourself? You are going to have to first stop the spinning, then pull it toward yourself, or just pull repeatedly on the string harder and harder until it spins faster and faster until it hits you. It's a lot more effort! It may not make sense at first, but it's easy to forget that earth is spinning around the sun pretty damn fast, and to get near it you need to first stop (or GREATLY reduce) that spin, that orbit, and only then can you start to approach it.
• burfog 8y ago
  No no, totally fine with "starter motor" and "bastard"