4 ms·

You do not rely on drag to deorbit a stainless steel 10 story building partially covered in heat shielding in a random location. They deliberately selected a s

You do not rely on drag to deorbit a stainless steel 10 story building partially covered in heat shielding in a random location. They deliberately selected a suborbital trajectory with a velocity that matched orbital reentry... See 1:20 of this video. Everyone who actually follows SpaceX knows this. You are confidently and totally wrong.https://youtu.be/LOerY66mrPc?si=5FUAARFQ3Z98eqjb https://youtu.be/LOerY66mrPc?si=5FUAARFQ3Z98eqjb

pclmulqdq 2y ago
All I see is a video from after IFT-3 that parrots SpaceX's post-hoc rationalization about the fact that their craft could not reach orbital velocity. If you look at the GAO report on Artemis, one of the big issues they mentioned is that Starship has not proven that it can reach orbit, and SpaceX is very interested in making sure that the narrative is that it can and did. It was only after the fact that they said that the never intended to reach an orbital trajectory with IFT-3. And actually, people rely on drag to deorbit huge objects in space in a controlled manner all the time. It's the preferred way to do it, and is basically the only way it's done - any satellite with fuel left will just stay in orbit. They have it down to a science. Usually they aim for the middle of an ocean. Sometimes they miss and chunks fall in a backyard.
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  > All I see is a video from after IFT-3 that parrots SpaceX's post-hoc rationalization about the fact that their craft could not reach orbital velocity. Given that the video was posted 4 days prior to that test, it is downright prescient that they are parroting a post-hoc rationalization.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Just watched it, I had my dates mixed up. The trajectory this guy drew on the map does not involve starship reaching orbital velocity anywhere on it, which is inconsistent with SpaceX's publications. SpaceX's claim was that IFT3 would enter an orbit and then leave it, not that it would follow a ballistic trajectory to the indian ocean. It's possible that SpaceX made the mistake of using the words "orbital velocity" and this YouTuber is right, though.
    - Manabu-eo 2y ago
      > SpaceX's claim was that IFT3 would enter an orbit You are claiming that, SpaceX never claimed that, only "orbital velocity" meaning "orbital speed" in this context. They wanted to test if the Starship is capable of reaching orbit, but w/o entering orbit for safety reasons. For that they wanted to achieve "orbital velocity" but of course not in an "orbital trajectory".
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  I think I'll end with this from Scott Manley, who I think communicates the most reasonable point in this regard. https://youtu.be/8htMpR7mnaM?si=z6UlTM5qC2feP-dM&t=420 https://youtu.be/8htMpR7mnaM?si=z6UlTM5qC2feP-dM&t=420 So there... you're vindicated :-)
- enslavedrobot 2y ago
  "video from after IFT-3" How many times can you be so stridently wrong about something before you consider the possibility that you might not know what you're talking about?

pclmulqdq 2y ago

All I see is a video from after IFT-3 that parrots SpaceX's post-hoc rationalization about the fact that their craft could not reach orbital velocity. If you look at the GAO report on Artemis, one of the big issues they mentioned is that Starship has not proven that it can reach orbit, and SpaceX is very interested in making sure that the narrative is that it can and did. It was only after the fact that they said that the never intended to reach an orbital trajectory with IFT-3. And actually, people rely on drag to deorbit huge objects in space in a controlled manner all the time. It's the preferred way to do it, and is basically the only way it's done - any satellite with fuel left will just stay in orbit. They have it down to a science. Usually they aim for the middle of an ocean. Sometimes they miss and chunks fall in a backyard.

sbuttgereit 2y ago
> All I see is a video from after IFT-3 that parrots SpaceX's post-hoc rationalization about the fact that their craft could not reach orbital velocity. Given that the video was posted 4 days prior to that test, it is downright prescient that they are parroting a post-hoc rationalization.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Just watched it, I had my dates mixed up. The trajectory this guy drew on the map does not involve starship reaching orbital velocity anywhere on it, which is inconsistent with SpaceX's publications. SpaceX's claim was that IFT3 would enter an orbit and then leave it, not that it would follow a ballistic trajectory to the indian ocean. It's possible that SpaceX made the mistake of using the words "orbital velocity" and this YouTuber is right, though.
  - Manabu-eo 2y ago
    > SpaceX's claim was that IFT3 would enter an orbit You are claiming that, SpaceX never claimed that, only "orbital velocity" meaning "orbital speed" in this context. They wanted to test if the Starship is capable of reaching orbit, but w/o entering orbit for safety reasons. For that they wanted to achieve "orbital velocity" but of course not in an "orbital trajectory".
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
sbuttgereit 2y ago
I think I'll end with this from Scott Manley, who I think communicates the most reasonable point in this regard. https://youtu.be/8htMpR7mnaM?si=z6UlTM5qC2feP-dM&t=420 https://youtu.be/8htMpR7mnaM?si=z6UlTM5qC2feP-dM&t=420 So there... you're vindicated :-)
enslavedrobot 2y ago
"video from after IFT-3" How many times can you be so stridently wrong about something before you consider the possibility that you might not know what you're talking about?