Great idea. Thanks!
Fantastic.
Great idea and everything, but Trump (as of right now) is not eligible to hold the office of President for another term, and therefore cannot be Vice. Same reason obummer can't be Vice.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
If it takes 18 rockets to get a Starship to the moon, but the total cost to orbit is only 1% of what it costs for Orion/SLS, isn't that a win? I'm not sure I get the argument.
Is X a subsidiary of SpaceX?
No - but both companies are privately held and majority owned by Musk. So, kind of.
grouping it together with ...
Yes grouping it, but I get more of the feeling that the "Bombs Away" reference is to SpaceX (Starlink/Starshield/Starship) dropping the bombs on deep state assets. Just a guess - we shall see.
None of the links here are to NASA. Youtube/@Nasaspaceflight is not actually affiliated in any way with NASA, just uses it in their name (for some reason).
The NASA space flight stream is a perfect example of "you are the news now"
Not a single MSM outlet that I could find is even running a story about the launch. They will report tomorrow "big rocket fails mission"
The most intriguing drop is the first:
Glad you enjoyed it, and I am certainly glad I found it. It did the same for me, restored some faith.
That video, the one he showed is actually in the Apollo records (proving it has not been secret) is a strange one I'll say for sure. That one clip - does it prove we did or didn't go to the moon? I have no effing clue. But it does prove that Bart Sibrel (I actually like the guy tbh) doesn't completely have his facts straight. I guess nobody does.
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.
Definitely was my first thought.
the first 8 year deltas are going to be
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.
I'm guessing you're referencing "Apollo 11 magazine 40/S" - yes ? If so, I looked through it and didn't see a single thing that stood out.
Have you ever heard of "point-shooting" ? IE shooting a pistol without looking down the sights. Even novice shooters can hit targets at 5-7 yards without even looking down the sights.
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.
Yes. Starship will be able to put 200 tons in orbit cheaper than Rocket Lab can put 200 pounds in orbit. If you're a space company not working on a fully reusable design right now, NGMI.
He is trying to make his system do the mission, when his system is not designed to do the mission. It has too few stages and does not use the most effective propellants.
I have to disagree. Starship is designed to be a fully and rapidly reusable spacecraft and launch system to take humanity to Mars. Also it will eventually be 100 times cheaper (tonnage to orbit) than even the closest competitors. The fact that it doesn't use the "most effective propellants" or that it has "too few stages" are just trade-offs to achieve that goal. Methylox is much easier to store and work with than hydrolox although a little less efficient, and it's much more efficient than keralox. Methylox is also atmospheric-carbon-neutral (keralox is not). Two stages is plain simpler than 3, and long considered the best method for fully reusable launch system concepts. Remember that you have to include reentry hardware and a retrieval mechanism for every stage of a reusable system - 2 is easier than 3 or more. Booster and ship both land themselves back on their launch mounts. If you include a third stage, you have to recover your middle stage somewhere halfway around the world, and then somehow get it back to your launch site (which costs you time and money).
Some quick pizza box math. Saturn 5 mass to LEO was about 130 ton. It could bring the entire CSM, LM, fully fueled, all the way to LEO and additionally to trans-lunar injection (free-return trajectory around the moon). Starship, although it has not demonstrated (yet) a heavy lift to LEO, is theoretically capable of 100 to 200 tons to LEO, and you get the booster and ship back to fly again with days, or hours. Starship block 3 dry mass is about 100 tons, so there is either your ENTIRE mass to orbit at the low end, or HALF at the high end. All of the LEO test flights to date have essentially arrived to a modified orbit with empty tanks. The first operational LEO flights of Starship will probably be closer to having somewhere between 20 to 50 tons usable payload to LEO with full re-usability (while they're dialing it in - Falcon 9 basically doubled it's mass to LEO from when it first started flying to now). Wet mass, or a fully fueled Starship is around 1,000 to 1,200 tons. Which means, if you want a fully fueled Starship in LEO, you have to bring 1,100 tons of propellant, at 20 to 50 tons per launch (eventually it will be 100 to 200 tons). Solve for how much delta-v you need to get Starship's extraordinarily big ass all the way to the moon (and back), and you can figure out how many propellant launches you need. SpaceX estimates this will be 8, or 20, or whatever, depending on which numbers they are using.
One other point on the cost of launches - The SLS system costs a staggering $4 billion to launch, and only the SRBs (sort of) and the capsule are "re-usable." Starship, in fully re-usable configuration, will cost $3 million per launch (per SpaceX). Let's give ourselves the benefit here and say it costs $100 million to launch a Starship (about twice what F9 costs today) - that is 40 times cheaper than an SLS launch. So even if it takes 20 propellant flights, that's still half the price of an SLS launch. More likely, it will be 100 times cheaper (tonnage to orbit) than the closest competitor anywhere in the world. In 10 years, high school kids will be launching satellites for science fair projects.
Kek now everyone has a seizure
Do you have a particular clip or photo you'd like me to examine? Send me some index numbers and I'd be happy to take a look. I've looked at a lot of them, but there's something like tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of photo and video frames from Apollo
I can't tell you if we went to the moon or not in the 60's. But I know that the Apollo program could have done it. And I know there's a lot of claims out there about the photography, but I still haven't seen anything that's a dealbreaker, except maybe the two mountains (appear exactly the same) that were taken on two different missions, thousands of clicks apart. I'll look that up again and link it here if I can find it. Haven't looked at that one in a while.
Yes, that's a good one