3 ms·

> I'm dead inside. No kidding? > Also watch some Thunderf00t Somehow I knew that tool was your "source". He's never done anything but complain on the intern

> I'm dead inside. No kidding? > Also watch some Thunderf00t Somehow I knew that tool was your "source". He's never done anything but complain on the internet, often parroting outright falsehoods. Watch his videos from a few years back and compare his bullshit with what actually happened. Huffing that stuff will kill your brain cells. Scott works in the engineering professions. > I'd trust Bezos over Musk any day. I'd welcome another vendor of reusable rockets. Really love Rocketlab and Stoke who are doing same. Still waiting on Bezos though. I hope he succeeds. Meanwhile, SpaceX keeps launching and breaking records. > It is a key thing if you never re-lit your engines in vacuum and zero-g. Like they did for the landing burn? Yeah, they checked that one off the list already. Firing ullage thrusters before lighting engines is technically rocket science, but not the hard part. > I can guess that there was some money up front This isn't pictionary. Guesses don't count. > Ability for modelling and simulations and to test things properly And SpaceX has the best simulation software in the business: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYA0f6R5KAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYA0f6R5KAI It is not sufficient to molecularly model a system as large and complex as Starship, nor as fast as building and flying a rocket.

scotty79 2y ago
> Somehow I knew that tool was your "source". He's never done anything but complain on the internet, often parroting outright falsehoods. He also does actual scientific research. And in a decade no thing he called bullshit ever turned out to be anything close to what was being advertised. And you are seriously going to accuse him of parroting while you re-post Musk's apologetics verbatim? Do you think I haven't seen "it's good actually, ground breaking even, everybody who says otherwise is incompetent, some smart people cheer for it and you can't simulate everything" arguments? > Watch his videos from a few years back and compare his bullshit with what actually happened. Care to share specifics? What was he ultimately wrong on? > Scott works in the engineering professions. Scott is affable enthusiast, fellow gamer and software developer. Also astrophysicist. I like him. Has some good points that Thunderf00t misses. None actually contradict the criticism. > Still waiting on Bezos though. Bezos isn't working on anything like Starship because he didn't get the grant because he assessed (imho correctly) that it requires many times higher budget and longer timelines. Musk just overpromised as always and will underdeliver as (nearly?) always. He's already underdelivering because he's behind all published schedules for what he's doing. > Like they did for the landing burn? Landing burn was done in both gravity (from air breaking) and atmosphere. Also they had a pile of experience in doing landing burn so not screwing that up is not really an achievement. The only impressive thing about it is that they managed to do it with the second stage. Which means in only half-melted on re-entry and didn't tumble with engines forward like on the previous "flight". > This isn't pictionary. Guesses don't count. Right... no guessing allowed. You eat up and find out it was crap only after a full plate. Because smell is not always reliable. > And SpaceX has the best simulation software in the business Right, you still need to know how to use it and actually use it. It perfectly explains why their engines work at all. Apart from that, it's way simpler just to fling an empty pipe to the border of space for added benefit that it technically meets some milestone and you get cash shower you desperately need.
- timschmidt 2y ago
  > Care to share specifics? What was he ultimately wrong on? Here's a list of 9 counterfactual claims from just one video: https://www.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lrhznb/i_fact_checked_thunderf00ts_spacex_busted_part_1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lrhznb/i_fact_... Here's a well referenced article about the man, titled "The Never Sinking Ship: How Thunderf00t Sucks at Science (or Else He’s a Liar; Probably He’s Just a Liar)": https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9345 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9345 Appears he's also a creationist. > Bezos isn't working on anything like Starship It's called "Project Jarvis" and here's a whole article about it with photos: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue-origins-project-jarvis-test-tank/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue... > The only impressive thing about it is that they managed to do it with the second stage. Which means in only half-melted on re-entry and didn't tumble with engines forward like on the previous "flight". Cynicism is tiring. You don't have to find their achievements impressive. Their goal isn't to impress you. It seems to me that they're relentlessly accomplishing their goals step by step, as any good engineering team will. IFT5 is right around the corner. Booster has been loaded onto the OLM. I'm looking forward to all the improvements they'll be testing this go-round. It's a blast watching each test flight! > it's way simpler just to fling an empty pipe Not sure what you're attempting to describe here. If you think Starship is an empty pipe you aren't familiar with the details of it's construction.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    > Here's a list of 9 counterfactual claims from just one video: https://www.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lrhznb/i_fact_ https://www.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lrhznb/i_fact_... I don't think counterfactual means what you think it means. Anyways, I didn't ask for minutia of objections people have against him. Just for one thing he called bs that eventually turned out to be as good as how it was advertised. > Here's a well referenced article about the man, titled "The Never Sinking Ship: How Thunderf00t Sucks at Science (or Else He’s a Liar; Probably He’s Just a Liar)": https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9345 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9345 Wow, such a well reasoned, calm and objective assessment form a non-partisan. > Appears he's also a creationist. Are you kidding me? He has the whole video cycle titled "Why do people laugh at creationists" from 16 years ago. It consists of 44 parts and is informative and hilarious. That's how I first encountered his content. Guy attacks beliefs semi-professionally. With first-hand science knowledge and math. He does that for more than a decade. People don't like their faith challenge so he accumulated a mountain of haters over the years. He doesn't care. It doesn't stop him from going after bs. Even if it's peddled by a billionaire. If you tried to prove that you don't know anything about him apart from the name and smearing produced by faithful that hate him and hate that he doesn't agree with their bs ... you couldn't have done it better. > It's called "Project Jarvis" and here's a whole article about it with photos: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue... Thanks, but it's just booster recovery project for New Glenn which is in direct competition with Falcon Heavy not Starship. > Cynicism is tiring. Only for people who can't bare reality. > I'm looking forward to all the improvements they'll be testing this go-round. It's a blast watching each test flight! I can agree with that. Fireworks are always fun to watch. I'll enjoy it even more with grounded Thunderf00t commentary. I don't need cheerleaders to enjoy. > If you think Starship is an empty pipe you aren't familiar with the details of it's construction. You can see insides of the Starship on the video from the flight tests. Apart from engines and tanks it's empty, it's not even pressurized. There's a girder across to prevent it from collapsing. Whatever. Enjoy. I see that you are a fervent believer so this conversation pretty much ran its course. But I'm thankful to you for giving me an idea for the best explanation why Elon is doing what he's doing. Milestone was a key word.

scotty79 2y ago

> Somehow I knew that tool was your "source". He's never done anything but complain on the internet, often parroting outright falsehoods. He also does actual scientific research. And in a decade no thing he called bullshit ever turned out to be anything close to what was being advertised. And you are seriously going to accuse him of parroting while you re-post Musk's apologetics verbatim? Do you think I haven't seen "it's good actually, ground breaking even, everybody who says otherwise is incompetent, some smart people cheer for it and you can't simulate everything" arguments? > Watch his videos from a few years back and compare his bullshit with what actually happened. Care to share specifics? What was he ultimately wrong on? > Scott works in the engineering professions. Scott is affable enthusiast, fellow gamer and software developer. Also astrophysicist. I like him. Has some good points that Thunderf00t misses. None actually contradict the criticism. > Still waiting on Bezos though. Bezos isn't working on anything like Starship because he didn't get the grant because he assessed (imho correctly) that it requires many times higher budget and longer timelines. Musk just overpromised as always and will underdeliver as (nearly?) always. He's already underdelivering because he's behind all published schedules for what he's doing. > Like they did for the landing burn? Landing burn was done in both gravity (from air breaking) and atmosphere. Also they had a pile of experience in doing landing burn so not screwing that up is not really an achievement. The only impressive thing about it is that they managed to do it with the second stage. Which means in only half-melted on re-entry and didn't tumble with engines forward like on the previous "flight". > This isn't pictionary. Guesses don't count. Right... no guessing allowed. You eat up and find out it was crap only after a full plate. Because smell is not always reliable. > And SpaceX has the best simulation software in the business Right, you still need to know how to use it and actually use it. It perfectly explains why their engines work at all. Apart from that, it's way simpler just to fling an empty pipe to the border of space for added benefit that it technically meets some milestone and you get cash shower you desperately need.

timschmidt 2y ago
> Care to share specifics? What was he ultimately wrong on? Here's a list of 9 counterfactual claims from just one video: https://www.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lrhznb/i_fact_checked_thunderf00ts_spacex_busted_part_1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lrhznb/i_fact_... Here's a well referenced article about the man, titled "The Never Sinking Ship: How Thunderf00t Sucks at Science (or Else He’s a Liar; Probably He’s Just a Liar)": https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9345 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9345 Appears he's also a creationist. > Bezos isn't working on anything like Starship It's called "Project Jarvis" and here's a whole article about it with photos: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue-origins-project-jarvis-test-tank/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue... > The only impressive thing about it is that they managed to do it with the second stage. Which means in only half-melted on re-entry and didn't tumble with engines forward like on the previous "flight". Cynicism is tiring. You don't have to find their achievements impressive. Their goal isn't to impress you. It seems to me that they're relentlessly accomplishing their goals step by step, as any good engineering team will. IFT5 is right around the corner. Booster has been loaded onto the OLM. I'm looking forward to all the improvements they'll be testing this go-round. It's a blast watching each test flight! > it's way simpler just to fling an empty pipe Not sure what you're attempting to describe here. If you think Starship is an empty pipe you aren't familiar with the details of it's construction.
- scotty79 2y ago
  > Here's a list of 9 counterfactual claims from just one video: https://www.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lrhznb/i_fact_ https://www.reddit.com/r/thunderf00t/comments/lrhznb/i_fact_... I don't think counterfactual means what you think it means. Anyways, I didn't ask for minutia of objections people have against him. Just for one thing he called bs that eventually turned out to be as good as how it was advertised. > Here's a well referenced article about the man, titled "The Never Sinking Ship: How Thunderf00t Sucks at Science (or Else He’s a Liar; Probably He’s Just a Liar)": https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9345 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9345 Wow, such a well reasoned, calm and objective assessment form a non-partisan. > Appears he's also a creationist. Are you kidding me? He has the whole video cycle titled "Why do people laugh at creationists" from 16 years ago. It consists of 44 parts and is informative and hilarious. That's how I first encountered his content. Guy attacks beliefs semi-professionally. With first-hand science knowledge and math. He does that for more than a decade. People don't like their faith challenge so he accumulated a mountain of haters over the years. He doesn't care. It doesn't stop him from going after bs. Even if it's peddled by a billionaire. If you tried to prove that you don't know anything about him apart from the name and smearing produced by faithful that hate him and hate that he doesn't agree with their bs ... you couldn't have done it better. > It's called "Project Jarvis" and here's a whole article about it with photos: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue... Thanks, but it's just booster recovery project for New Glenn which is in direct competition with Falcon Heavy not Starship. > Cynicism is tiring. Only for people who can't bare reality. > I'm looking forward to all the improvements they'll be testing this go-round. It's a blast watching each test flight! I can agree with that. Fireworks are always fun to watch. I'll enjoy it even more with grounded Thunderf00t commentary. I don't need cheerleaders to enjoy. > If you think Starship is an empty pipe you aren't familiar with the details of it's construction. You can see insides of the Starship on the video from the flight tests. Apart from engines and tanks it's empty, it's not even pressurized. There's a girder across to prevent it from collapsing. Whatever. Enjoy. I see that you are a fervent believer so this conversation pretty much ran its course. But I'm thankful to you for giving me an idea for the best explanation why Elon is doing what he's doing. Milestone was a key word.