3 ms·
I mean challenging the “well known” engineering orthodoxies like rockets landing being almost impossible and not worth doing seem to have worked out ok for him?
by zpeti 3y ago
I mean challenging the “well known” engineering orthodoxies like rockets landing being almost impossible and not worth doing seem to have worked out ok for him?
I love it when people take one small issue and point out how stupid he’s being, yet ignore how by challenging every point of engineering on rockets he’s almost at the point of making a mars transportation system possible.
- sschueller 3y agoRockets landing was never considered impossible, NASA even built and tested several such vehicles long ago. What was determined is that is is not economically viable which even SpaceX has started to realize on some launches where they ditch the landing in order to be able to carry more payload. The launch pad at Cape Canaveral may not be exactly what Starship needs but it would be a good start. Like flame trenches and placing the fuel storage tanks far enough away from the launch pad.
- George83728 3y ago> What was determined is is not economically viable which even SpaceX has started to realize on some launches where they ditch the landing in order to be able to carry more payload. SpaceX hasn't "started to realize" that, they always knew that some F9 launches would be fully expendable and they've been occasionally expending F9 boosters from the start. Not because there's something wrong with the economics of booster reuse generally, but because expending a booster is sometimes (not usually) worth it to get more mass into orbit (roughly double to GTO with Falcon Heavy if they expend the core stage.) That extra performance was always known to be required for some payloads, but isn't required for most payloads.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y agoWhat was stopping any other launch system from sending fuel tanks to LEO and beyond? Probably not a whole lot technically. By now we could have had several fuel tanks in Mars orbit and a few on the ground, rather than all those orbiters and ground vehicles. Trade-offs.
- George83728 3y agoWhat would be the point? Who'd pay for it? The real money is in launching satellites into orbit around earth and you don't need orbital propellant depots for that. Serious Mars colony customers don't exist. I know they're planning it for Starship HLS to the Moon, maybe it will finally be done then (I'm not holding my breath, Starship HLS's role in Artemis still seems farcical to me.) But until then, it's never really been an idea worth developing.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y agoDoesn't look like my tone came across correctly. I agree with you.