127
Second SpaceX Starship launch ends with explosion. What happens next?
(www.nationalgeographic.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
127 points (87.1% liked)
Technology
59377 readers
6041 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean... They invented reusable rockets.
Edit: they invented the first reusable liquid-fueled rockets and the first rockets that can autonomously land themselves. NASA used reusable solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle that would deploy parachutes and land in the ocean. Getting a solid rocket booster back into a reusable state seems like a lot of work to me.
They absolutely didn't invent reusable rockets.
They created reusable rockets. Lots and lots of concepts on the drawing board, but theirs was unique and the first one to get made.
The rocket boosters on the space shuttle were absolutely reused. Here's video of one being retrieved.
We can argue about semantics, but they were moreso rebuilt from the same parts than reused as is. NASA found that it would have been much cheaper to build new SRBs after each launch than rebuild them.
The SRBs used on the final shuttle mission were the same boosters used on the first mission. That set was used a total of 60 times. Only 2 sets of boosters were never recovered for re-use. The set from STS-4 had a parachute malfunction, and the set from the Challenger exploded.
Literally reused. What are you talking about.
SRB boosters are quite close to literally just a big steel tube, and they reused them by dropping them into the ocean under a parachute.
They still had to clean out and refurb every booster launched. And that was without the complex rocket engines that would get destroyed by being submerged in the ocean.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Here's
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Creating isn't inventing, and there's wasn't the first to be flown. Man, the SpaceX fans don't really know the history of the industry they make these claims about.
You referring to the DC-X subscale tech demonstrator?
I think inventing is a less well defined term, since anyone with a napkin can claim to invent something to a very low fidelity. The details are the hard part, not the idea itself. So that's why I specified created, since that is inventing to a very high level of fidelity.
There's several other examples. I also don't think inventing is an ill-defined term. That's an absurd thing to even say.
You mind telling what those other examples are, and defining in inventing?
I hope this is simple enough for you.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invent
So it needs to be created in real life, rather than just a drawing or design? Or does creating it only as a design without building it count?
Also, all technology is built on previous work, especially rocketry. That would seem to eliminate the possibility of invention in rocketry due to the clause of your own ingenuity, etc. What's the cutoff for invention vs refinement?
Musk simps try soooo hard and it's hilarious.
I don't even like musk? And how does that have anything to do with SpaceX?
Sure repeating his lies well for someone pretending not to like him. Maybe have a few moments of critical thoughts about the marketing BS you believe and who created it?
Is it an elon lie that SpaceX has incredibly effective cheap reusability in their rockets? That seems pretty well established at this point.
It isn't well established, look how much NASA paid Russia for launch services, now look at SpaceX. Seriously. For pretending to be fans of this shit in general, it really is only the musk lies you people repeat.
5k/kg for Soyuz vs 2.5k/kg for SpaceX? I don't get your point. Or are you talking about the ride swaps with Russian and US Cosmonauts and Astronauts respectively to ride in each other's rockets to give dissimilar redundancy?
Ah yes, the dollars per kilo fallacy. A favorite of people that don't understand the industry but want to repeat the things Musk tells them to. Fantastic. We're already on page two of the script. Now, go ahead and tell me how SpaceX invented something that already existed for decades.
How would you propose measuring launch costs?
You could start off with actual mission costs, launch support costs, and what missions need to be met. For example, this is why Star Shit is such a moronic idea when Falcon could perform all its launch needs.
Are you about to tell me that a 747 is always cheaper than a Cessna? Is that the next argument in your script, or do we have to skip a couple pages before you bring that one out?
Starship is actually planned to be better on all those fronts than falcon 9. Cheaper per launch, less support costs, more capable and flexible system, etc. There might be some small use case where falcon 9 is still superior, but it will be pretty small if starship works.
I mean, I now know how little you know. Congratulations tipping your hand here, because truly these are the words of someone that's a fan of Musk and has zero serious thoughts about space. Jeff Bell would be beside himself reading what you've written. Back to the Zubrin books with you.
You mind enlightening me?
It's guaranteed nothing I could say would make you leave your religion of musk lies. So, I'll pass. Reality is available for you any time you want to try it out, though.
You've not actually said anything or given any evidence other than generally waving towards that Russia is cheaper, but have not clarified at all. If you know some secret sauce, I'd be happy to hear it. But you so far have stayed miles away from anything remotely close to solid evidence.
I'm guessing you work at a competitor as a parking lot attendant or something? Because saying Star Shit is going to be better than Falcon is utterly hysterical.
Nope. Anyway, evidence or references would be nice.
No, I was going to say that the launch support costs and mission needs are also more capable with falcon 9 than soyuz.
We do try hard. So does Musk. That’s probably why we like him.
I bet you like him because he makes you feel like you can be a low effort, low knowledge person and still pretend to know what you're talking about. SUPER popular with fans of his. Especially fans that think being a fan of his companies makes them an expert in a certain field even though actual experts laugh at the nonsense they repeat to one another.
And you bet that based on solid reasoning and evidence no doubt.
Welcome to the Cult of Musk.
I've had experience with Musk Fans in the past. They all read from the same script, including the "I don't even like Musk" lie.
Given that time and money I bet NASA could have that and made ones that don't blow up every test.
LOL... NASA has existed for many more decades than Spacex has. The Spacex Falcon rocket is possibly the most reliable rocket available today, launches payloads more often than any other rocket and it's much cheaper than its competitors. You're comparing a brand new rocket design to other, thoroughly tested rockets that have had many iterations. This was literally the second flight of this rocket, they were expecting it to fail.
NASA doesn’t build many rockets. They are almost all done under contract.
Given time and money, I'm sure Bob Jones could make a reusable rocket in his back garage. It would just take a lot of both. SpaceX is good at making a lot of progress with little time and money.
How much are you betting? Because I could use some free money, lol.