4 ms·

Agreed it would be absolutely seismic. How well does that look, from a cold, objective, non-Elon-hype point of view? I mean, he might happen to be 100% correct

Agreed it would be absolutely seismic. How well does that look, from a cold, objective, non-Elon-hype point of view? I mean, he might happen to be 100% correct in his optimism but by now I learned to trust nothing that man says.

modeless 3y ago
Personally? I think it's quite likely they will get it to work. I don't know about the timeline though. Explosions at the launch/landing pads could delay them a lot. I think reliability is likely to be an issue for a long time, and I don't see commercial Earth-to-Earth passenger service happening for that and other reasons. They will have trouble getting customers who can actually use the capabilities Starship has. Seems like everyone is still designing missions for status quo. Luckily they already saw that issue and created their own launch customer in Starlink. And HLS with orbital refueling will also be key.
- avmich 3y ago
  When George W. Bush announced "return to the Moon" program in the wake of Columbia disaster, some related companies (I remember reading about e.g. Caterpillar) started to figure out plans to participate with activities on the surface of the Moon. Maybe it's wrong information :) and maybe a lot has changed since then. But by now I'd be really surprised if some of heavy industrial manufacture companies wouldn't have some plans for equipment to supply to the possible Moon base, as the chances of that happening in some not so distant future look plausible.
mayd 3y ago
> I learned to trust nothing that man says. I admit I did get a little caught up in Musk's web of hype in the early days but fortunately my natural scepticism was strong enough to resist him. Eventually, I found a few detailed analyses of some of his technological fantasies which convinced me that some of what he proposes will not be happening any time soon, if ever. I am by no means an Elon Musk hater but he does speak a lot of nonsense, from time to time, and he seems to be able to persuade many to abandon their scientific scepticism. I was persuaded by what Common Sense Sceptic says about some of Elon Musk's plans: <https://www.youtube.com/@commonsenseskeptic https://www.youtube.com/@commonsenseskeptic>, even though he is clearly biased against Elon Musk. I am convinced that 1. A city-to-city Starship shuttle passenger service will never happen. 2. A self-sustaining colony on Mars will not happen in the foreseeable future. I have strong doubts about other SpaceX and Tesla claims by Elon Musk, but these two events I would actually bet on.
- mlindner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - brijo 3y ago
    [flagged]
- mlindner 3y ago
  I feel sorry that you were convinced by Common Sense Sceptic [sic]. You should know that he's an anti-trans bigot. (Watch this video after the one in the second half of this comment.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh2vE5hsZhw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh2vE5hsZhw Secondly, and honestly more importantly, most of the information he relies in his videos is actually incorrect and outright lies. This is a really good long video that goes through CSS's "facts" and points out how his information is completely faulty and comes from a lack of understanding of rockets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQsyd4MmQCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQsyd4MmQCU
  - blehger 3y ago
    On your first point, why would you expect a sceptic to cease being sceptical just for this one particular belief system?
- redox99 3y ago
  > I am convinced that > 1. A city-to-city Starship shuttle passenger service will never happen. > 2. A self-sustaining colony on Mars will not happen in the foreseeable future. Both are in my opinion completely technologically feasible. Just not economically feasible. If we had another space race I could see a mars colony in the 2040. But I don't think it will happen.
  - Shawnj2 3y ago
    We will probably put people on mars eventually but a Mars colony is basically just not going to be self sustaining. We have Antarctic bases that are definitely not self sustaining which is a similar thing
Shawnj2 3y ago
In order to send HLS to the moon they need something like 20 regular starship launches which is a bit insane. I think it will be great for putting people and things in LEO but past that point I’m not sure.
- avmich 3y ago
  Maybe not so many. Assuming 1200 tons of fuel for Starship on LEO ( from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft) ) and 100-150 tons of payload, it's 8-12 Starship launches to fuel up the orbital stage which can fly to the Moon.
  - Shawnj2 3y ago
    Either way it’s a huge number of launches
    - avmich 3y ago
      But it's also a huge payload to surface, in one piece. As for proportionality, it's up to Starship Isp - which isn't hydrogen, but rather good in comparison with kerosene (well... some Russian vacuum kerosene engines are quite good by Isp...) - and construction mass ratio, which, usually favoring large stages, is rather good for Starship. So, for those 8-12 refueling launches you get payload on the surface of the Moon which dwarfs the one sent by Saturn-Vs, by an order of magnitude or quite likely more. And - important part - all of that is much cheaper, because the main thing being expended is fuel, not rocket stage hardware.

modeless 3y ago

Personally? I think it's quite likely they will get it to work. I don't know about the timeline though. Explosions at the launch/landing pads could delay them a lot. I think reliability is likely to be an issue for a long time, and I don't see commercial Earth-to-Earth passenger service happening for that and other reasons. They will have trouble getting customers who can actually use the capabilities Starship has. Seems like everyone is still designing missions for status quo. Luckily they already saw that issue and created their own launch customer in Starlink. And HLS with orbital refueling will also be key.

avmich 3y ago
When George W. Bush announced "return to the Moon" program in the wake of Columbia disaster, some related companies (I remember reading about e.g. Caterpillar) started to figure out plans to participate with activities on the surface of the Moon. Maybe it's wrong information :) and maybe a lot has changed since then. But by now I'd be really surprised if some of heavy industrial manufacture companies wouldn't have some plans for equipment to supply to the possible Moon base, as the chances of that happening in some not so distant future look plausible.

mayd 3y ago

> I learned to trust nothing that man says. I admit I did get a little caught up in Musk's web of hype in the early days but fortunately my natural scepticism was strong enough to resist him. Eventually, I found a few detailed analyses of some of his technological fantasies which convinced me that some of what he proposes will not be happening any time soon, if ever. I am by no means an Elon Musk hater but he does speak a lot of nonsense, from time to time, and he seems to be able to persuade many to abandon their scientific scepticism. I was persuaded by what Common Sense Sceptic says about some of Elon Musk's plans: <https://www.youtube.com/@commonsenseskeptic https://www.youtube.com/@commonsenseskeptic>, even though he is clearly biased against Elon Musk. I am convinced that 1. A city-to-city Starship shuttle passenger service will never happen. 2. A self-sustaining colony on Mars will not happen in the foreseeable future. I have strong doubts about other SpaceX and Tesla claims by Elon Musk, but these two events I would actually bet on.

mlindner 3y ago
[flagged]
- brijo 3y ago
  [flagged]
mlindner 3y ago
I feel sorry that you were convinced by Common Sense Sceptic [sic]. You should know that he's an anti-trans bigot. (Watch this video after the one in the second half of this comment.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh2vE5hsZhw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh2vE5hsZhw Secondly, and honestly more importantly, most of the information he relies in his videos is actually incorrect and outright lies. This is a really good long video that goes through CSS's "facts" and points out how his information is completely faulty and comes from a lack of understanding of rockets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQsyd4MmQCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQsyd4MmQCU
- blehger 3y ago
  On your first point, why would you expect a sceptic to cease being sceptical just for this one particular belief system?
redox99 3y ago
> I am convinced that > 1. A city-to-city Starship shuttle passenger service will never happen. > 2. A self-sustaining colony on Mars will not happen in the foreseeable future. Both are in my opinion completely technologically feasible. Just not economically feasible. If we had another space race I could see a mars colony in the 2040. But I don't think it will happen.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  We will probably put people on mars eventually but a Mars colony is basically just not going to be self sustaining. We have Antarctic bases that are definitely not self sustaining which is a similar thing

Shawnj2 3y ago

In order to send HLS to the moon they need something like 20 regular starship launches which is a bit insane. I think it will be great for putting people and things in LEO but past that point I’m not sure.

avmich 3y ago
Maybe not so many. Assuming 1200 tons of fuel for Starship on LEO ( from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft) ) and 100-150 tons of payload, it's 8-12 Starship launches to fuel up the orbital stage which can fly to the Moon.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  Either way it’s a huge number of launches
  - avmich 3y ago
    But it's also a huge payload to surface, in one piece. As for proportionality, it's up to Starship Isp - which isn't hydrogen, but rather good in comparison with kerosene (well... some Russian vacuum kerosene engines are quite good by Isp...) - and construction mass ratio, which, usually favoring large stages, is rather good for Starship. So, for those 8-12 refueling launches you get payload on the surface of the Moon which dwarfs the one sent by Saturn-Vs, by an order of magnitude or quite likely more. And - important part - all of that is much cheaper, because the main thing being expended is fuel, not rocket stage hardware.