I am fully aware of Musk and SpaceX. I have been following him out of professional interest for 20 years. I am quite aware of his pathbreaking approach to reusability. I've been there myself with different system concepts.
The extremely ignorant video discussion was an attempt to "prove" the Apollo system could not have been done in a single shot, because Musk would need anywhere from 6 to 20 tanking flights to accomplish it his way. That's because his transportation system to low Earth orbit was not optimized to go to the Moon. If you are happy with all those tanking flights and encumbrances, be happy. But the Apollo system was rigorously designed to the Moon mission requirements and had no weight to spare for reusability features, in order to meet the requirements---to go there in one shot, which it did. Do you get the message this time?
A recreational vehicle is a great way to travel around, but would you enter it in the Indianapolis 500? That is the difference in requirements.
Two messages ago you didn't even grasp the concept of reusable rockets and now you're saying "you've been there yourself" ? I feel like I'm talking to a tree stump. Goodbye and goodday.
That's the trouble with people who don't understand a subject. The original post was trying to make SpaceX's system approach into a stupid "proof" that the Apollo approach couldn't have worked. I was showing that the reusability feature did not help the argument, because it led to the necessity of many tanking missions, which the stupid people were ascribing to Apollo, as being a bad system feature. Apollo was expendable, which was one of the ways that allowed it to work.
The interest in reusable launchers has a long history, as I mentioned. And I've been involved in them. I even gave you a system reference to look up (RASV). But no, you don't like being educated, don't understand what I am trying to tell you, deny my experience and expertise, insult me, and go off in a huff. I am really tempted to ask how old you are, to see when you first might have learned about any of this stuff. You certainly don't know anything about rocket ballistics.
The original post was trying to make SpaceX's system approach into a stupid "proof" that the Apollo approach couldn't have worked.
I said nothing of the sort. You go ahead and continue thinking you're an expert, but based on the doot ratios of our conversation, I know the score.
You certainly don't know anything about rocket ballistics.
Wow. Coming from the same guy who said you can just point your telescope at the moon and see the Apollo lander stages? Have fun with your life bud. Bye.
You didn't read a single thing I wrote, did you ?
I'm guessing the whole "re-usability" concept is flying clear over the top of your head - you're still talking about expendable vehicles.
I am fully aware of Musk and SpaceX. I have been following him out of professional interest for 20 years. I am quite aware of his pathbreaking approach to reusability. I've been there myself with different system concepts.
The extremely ignorant video discussion was an attempt to "prove" the Apollo system could not have been done in a single shot, because Musk would need anywhere from 6 to 20 tanking flights to accomplish it his way. That's because his transportation system to low Earth orbit was not optimized to go to the Moon. If you are happy with all those tanking flights and encumbrances, be happy. But the Apollo system was rigorously designed to the Moon mission requirements and had no weight to spare for reusability features, in order to meet the requirements---to go there in one shot, which it did. Do you get the message this time?
A recreational vehicle is a great way to travel around, but would you enter it in the Indianapolis 500? That is the difference in requirements.
Two messages ago you didn't even grasp the concept of reusable rockets and now you're saying "you've been there yourself" ? I feel like I'm talking to a tree stump. Goodbye and goodday.
😆😆😆
Accurate
That's the trouble with people who don't understand a subject. The original post was trying to make SpaceX's system approach into a stupid "proof" that the Apollo approach couldn't have worked. I was showing that the reusability feature did not help the argument, because it led to the necessity of many tanking missions, which the stupid people were ascribing to Apollo, as being a bad system feature. Apollo was expendable, which was one of the ways that allowed it to work.
The interest in reusable launchers has a long history, as I mentioned. And I've been involved in them. I even gave you a system reference to look up (RASV). But no, you don't like being educated, don't understand what I am trying to tell you, deny my experience and expertise, insult me, and go off in a huff. I am really tempted to ask how old you are, to see when you first might have learned about any of this stuff. You certainly don't know anything about rocket ballistics.
I said nothing of the sort. You go ahead and continue thinking you're an expert, but based on the doot ratios of our conversation, I know the score.
Wow. Coming from the same guy who said you can just point your telescope at the moon and see the Apollo lander stages? Have fun with your life bud. Bye.