The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Lorenzojuan on January 31, 2019, 11:59:28 AM

Title: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Lorenzojuan on January 31, 2019, 11:59:28 AM
Is this imbecile truly helping the planet or is he just doing for profit? I speculate that this man is being influenced by the ignorant masses who do not comprehend the truth. What are your thoughts my fellow allies.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on January 31, 2019, 06:21:24 PM
Is this imbecile truly helping the planet or is he just doing for profit?
Are you suggesting that the two are mutually exclusive? ???
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2019, 01:39:23 AM
Is this imbecile truly helping the planet or is he just doing for profit? I speculate that this man is being influenced by the ignorant masses who do not comprehend the truth. What are your thoughts my fellow allies.
I would more say he is a businessman.
He takes old ideas and presents them as his own as a massive innovation while being unable to make it work.

He is basically just spouting a bunch of stuff to sound good (some of which contradicts other things he has said, and some of which are outright lies or extremely deceptive) and performing a bunch of publicity stunts.

So far all he has really done is what other people have already done.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 02:50:31 AM
Is this imbecile truly helping the planet or is he just doing for profit? I speculate that this man is being influenced by the ignorant masses who do not comprehend the truth. What are your thoughts my fellow allies.
I would more say he is a businessman.
He takes old ideas and presents them as his own as a massive innovation while being unable to make it work.

He is basically just spouting a bunch of stuff to sound good (some of which contradicts other things he has said, and some of which are outright lies or extremely deceptive) and performing a bunch of publicity stunts.

So far all he has really done is what other people have already done.
Except that he's done "what other people have already done" at half the price and
has done things, like landing first stages back on the launch site and on barges, that many others have said could not be done.

I don't have to like Elon Musk or everything he says to admit these things that SpaceX has achieved under his leadership.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2019, 03:54:20 AM
Except that he's done "what other people have already done" at half the price
Such as?

has done things, like landing first stages back on the launch site and on barges
Vertically landed rockets is nothing new.
It has been done in the past.

People just don't like them because with failures, it fails quite badly.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 04:35:28 AM
Except that he's done "what other people have already done" at half the price
Such as?
Launches satellites at half the price.
       Europe Complains: SpaceX Rocket Prices Are Too Cheap to Beat, But is SpaceX playing fair, or profiting from subsidies? (https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-spacex-rocket-prices-are-too-chea.aspx)
Launch capability and cost:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/HaeTidrnNjui9AKp4gE0xbyJ_uSLVRUZJ0k9pHWIjxQ.png?auto=webp&s=fcc79f5feb890c329200865c0e237819dcd2f07b)

Quote from: JackBlack
has done things, like landing first stages back on the launch site and on barges
Vertically landed rockets is nothing new.
It has been done in the past.

People just don't like them because with failures, it fails quite badly.
But their recent record is good enough to seriously bother Arianespace and even question the viability of its Ariane 6.

Still, I guess the future will tell.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:29:47 AM
has done things, like landing first stages back on the launch site and on barges
Vertically landed rockets is nothing new.
It has been done in the past.
But who else does it on a regular basis with orbital class boosters?  Landing a rocket vertically may not be new, but making it part of your business model is.

People just don't like them because with failures, it fails quite badly.
Actually, I think that the way that he looks at failures as learning experiences in kind of endearing.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 01, 2019, 07:54:07 AM
has done things, like landing first stages back on the launch site and on barges
Vertically landed rockets is nothing new.
It has been done in the past.
Oh really, has it?
Pelase provide me a source that shows a rocket starting, transporting something into space (or at least getting there), then coming back and land.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 07:56:21 AM
Simply a face to take the plaudits, flak. To take away the spotlight from those at the top.
 

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2019, 01:36:39 PM
Launches satellites at half the price.
So show the actual cost of the launch with a complete breakdown, not simply what they charge.

Pelase provide me a source that shows a rocket starting, transporting something into space (or at least getting there), then coming back and land.
So old things need a full video of it being done or they don't exist?

Here has some video of vertically landing rockets:
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 02:38:45 PM
Simply a face to take the plaudits, flak. To take away the spotlight from those at the top.
What does that even mean? Please translate but in the meantime:
You win some and

Top 5 Amazing SpaceX Landings Top Fives
         you lose some:

Here's Elon Musk's favorite SpaceX explosions, CNN Business
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 01, 2019, 02:42:54 PM
Launches satellites at half the price.
So show the actual cost of the launch with a complete breakdown, not simply what they charge.

Pelase provide me a source that shows a rocket starting, transporting something into space (or at least getting there), then coming back and land.
So old things need a full video of it being done or they don't exist?

Here has some video of vertically landing rockets:

None of them actually went into space before landing vertically.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 01, 2019, 02:54:04 PM
Launches satellites at half the price.
So show the actual cost of the launch with a complete breakdown, not simply what they charge.

Pelase provide me a source that shows a rocket starting, transporting something into space (or at least getting there), then coming back and land.
So old things need a full video of it being done or they don't exist?

Here has some video of vertically landing rockets:

None of them actually went into space before landing vertically.
Mostly because it wasn't very practical and they dropped the idea.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2019, 02:54:36 PM
Elon Musk is a twerp. Another guy with a lot of dollars, not much sense.

The real honours to anything regarding Tesla or Space X or whatever go to the unsung heroes who did all the work. Elon simply delegates

It's obvious in any industry. The higher the pay grade, the less work you actually do. Sure you get given a shit load of work but your job is simply to pass it on to your subordinates.

Elon is not a rocket scientist. Just a guy with ideas and the money to see them done

However no amount of money will make Mars colonisation happen. Real scientists have called him out on it
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 01, 2019, 02:57:14 PM
Yeah, it's really annoying how he always takes all the credit for everything. His PR team is pretty great I guess.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2019, 02:59:20 PM
None of them actually went into space before landing vertically.
So I take it you missed the one landing on the moon, or isn't that in space according to you?

Regardless, I don't really give a damn. Vertically landed rockets are nothing new. Going to space is nothing new.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 01, 2019, 03:04:05 PM
Yeah, it's really annoying how he always takes all the credit for everything. His PR team is pretty great I guess.
When did he say he developed vertical landing rockets as the first person? Or are you just randomly making claims?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 01, 2019, 04:01:01 PM
Yeah, it's really annoying how he always takes all the credit for everything. His PR team is pretty great I guess.
When did he say he developed vertical landing rockets as the first person? Or are you just randomly making claims?
When did I say he said that?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on February 01, 2019, 04:03:26 PM
has done things, like landing first stages back on the launch site and on barges
Vertically landed rockets is nothing new.
It has been done in the past.
Oh really, has it?
Pelase provide me a source that shows a rocket starting, transporting something into space (or at least getting there), then coming back and land.

Actually, Blue Origin beat SpaceX to successful booster recovery by a few weeks.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Shepard_2#First_vertical_soft_landing
After the loss of NS1, a second New Shepard vehicle was built, NS2. Its first flight, and the second test flight of New Shepard overall, was carried out on 23 November 2015, reaching 100.5 km (330,000 ft) altitude with successful recovery of both capsule and booster stage. The booster rocket successfully performed a powered vertical landing.

Granted, landing New Shepard was arguably much less of a challenge than trying to land a Falcon 9 booster on a barge in the middle of the ocean, but they were most certainly first.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 04:54:43 PM
Elon Musk is a twerp. Another guy with a lot of dollars, not much sense.
The real honours to anything regarding Tesla or Space X or whatever go to the unsung heroes who did all the work. Elon simply delegates
It's obvious in any industry. The higher the pay grade, the less work you actually do. Sure you get given a shit load of work but your job is simply to pass it on to your subordinates.

Elon is not a rocket scientist. Just a guy with ideas and the money to see them done

However no amount of money will make Mars colonisation happen. Real scientists have called him out on it
Sure, Elon Musk, might very well be "a twerp", "not a rocket scientist" and just "a guy with ideas and the money".
But how is it that he and not YOU, even with your famed ASI, did get "the money" and start Tesla and Space X.

I guess you could say that he took the risks with Zip2, X.com, which merged with Confinity and became PayPal to be bought for a cool $1.5 billion in 2002 and then started SpaceX.
And since then
Quote
He helped fund Tesla, Inc., an electric vehicle and solar panel manufacturer, in 2003, and became its CEO and product architect. In 2006, he inspired the creation of SolarCity, a solar energy services company that is now a subsidiary of Tesla, and operates as its chairman. In 2015, Musk co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit research company that aims to promote friendly artificial intelligence. In July 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and is its CEO. In December 2016, Musk founded The Boring Company, an infrastructure and tunnel-construction company.
Whether he's likeable or not Elon Musk is a lot more than SpaceX.

And what were YOU doing? Some say that "some people have all the luck" while others get out there and make their own luck - many fail some succeed.

I too think that the Mars colonisation is a foolish idea but I would not be so rash as to claim that "no amount of money will make Mars colonisation happen".

But flat-earthers and other space-deniers hate him because his rockets help kill any idea that the earth could possibly be flat.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2019, 05:02:43 PM
Settle down rab, whoa! Deep breath

Elon is a dick in real life. That is knowledge in the public domain.

The only way humans will live happily on Mars is to reenginner the human. But then it won't be human anymore

The gravity on Mars can not be changed and it's atmosphere will take far longer than humans have existed before it could be hospitable. And that's as long as the planet, small as it is, can hold onto it.

And no, detonating nukes over the poles won't work

I agree the thought of colonising Mars would be a pioneers dream. But it just won't work.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 06:13:57 PM
Settle down rab, whoa! Deep breath

Elon is a dick in real life. That is knowledge in the public domain.

And I never disagreed but just tried to point out that, at least in a material sense, he's a far more successful person than you.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2019, 06:53:31 PM
Settle down rab, whoa! Deep breath

Elon is a dick in real life. That is knowledge in the public domain.

And I never disagreed but just tried to point out that, at least in a material sense, he's a far more successful person than you.

What you gauge as success may not be what I gauge as success
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on February 01, 2019, 07:43:23 PM
Elon is a dick in real life.
So are a lot of other successful CEOs.  What's your point?

The only way humans will live happily on Mars is to reenginner the human. But then it won't be human anymore

The gravity on Mars can not be changed and it's atmosphere will take far longer than humans have existed before it could be hospitable. And that's as long as the planet, small as it is, can hold onto it.

And no, detonating nukes over the poles won't work

I agree the thought of colonising Mars would be a pioneers dream. But it just won't work.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 07:51:53 PM
Settle down rab, whoa! Deep breath

Elon is a dick in real life. That is knowledge in the public domain.

And I never disagreed but just tried to point out that, at least in a material sense, he's a far more successful person than you.

What you gauge as success may not be what I gauge as success
Forgotten how to read again, I see. I never said that I gauged success in a purely material sense.
All I said was "that, at least in a material sense," Elon Musk "is a far more successful person than you" (or I).

Which I thought covered that and you still ignore these "accomplishments" of Elon Musk:
Quote
In 2015, Musk co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit research company that aims to promote friendly artificial intelligence. In July 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and is its CEO. In December 2016, Musk founded The Boring Company, an infrastructure and tunnel-construction company.
Elon Musk is a lot more than SpaceX.
      "OpenAI, a nonprofit research company that aims to promote friendly artificial intelligence and
      "Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces
" should be right up your alley ::).

Please engage brain before touching keys.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2019, 08:27:49 PM
Settle down rab, whoa! Deep breath

Elon is a dick in real life. That is knowledge in the public domain.

And I never disagreed but just tried to point out that, at least in a material sense, he's a far more successful person than you.

What you gauge as success may not be what I gauge as success
Forgotten how to read again, I see. I never said that I gauged success in a purely material sense.
All I said was "that, at least in a material sense," Elon Musk "is a far more successful person than you" (or I).

Which I thought covered that and you still ignore these "accomplishments" of Elon Musk:
Quote
In 2015, Musk co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit research company that aims to promote friendly artificial intelligence. In July 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and is its CEO. In December 2016, Musk founded The Boring Company, an infrastructure and tunnel-construction company.
Elon Musk is a lot more than SpaceX.
      "OpenAI, a nonprofit research company that aims to promote friendly artificial intelligence and
      "Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces
" should be right up your alley ::).

Please engage brain before touching keys.

So you add in brackets "(or I)" in a faux attempt to not look like a butt this time. OK

I'm not debating what he has brought to the world except to say he's basically the figurehead of a lot of peoples hard work

You really should not take other peoples opinions or criticisms so personally. I'm entitled to my opinion. The OP did ask for my thoughts on him.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 08:42:37 PM
[<< Give it a break! >>
I'm entitled to my opinion. The OP did ask for my thoughts on him.
Of course you are, just as I'm entitled to add things that you seem to ignore.
But you go on and on and on about every little thing.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on February 01, 2019, 10:13:50 PM
I'm not debating what he has brought to the world except to say he's basically the figurehead of a lot of peoples hard work
So what?  Every head of every company is "basically the figurehead of a lot of peoples hard work".  That's just the way that business works.  Leadership is basically the ability to get others to do the hard work of making your ideas real.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on February 01, 2019, 11:01:48 PM
I'm not debating what he has brought to the world except to say he's basically the figurehead of a lot of peoples hard work
So what?  Every head of every company is "basically the figurehead of a lot of peoples hard work".  That's just the way that business works.  Leadership is basically the ability to get others to do the hard work of making your ideas real.

Yeah but does Elon deserve the hero worship he gets though? He won't get much idolism from me that's for sure.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 02, 2019, 01:11:10 AM
Yeah, it's really annoying how he always takes all the credit for everything. His PR team is pretty great I guess.
When did he say he developed vertical landing rockets as the first person? Or are you just randomly making claims?
When did I say he said that?
You literally said 'he always takes all the credit for everything'. Stop speaking in absolutes if you don't mean it.

Quote
Actually, Blue Origin beat SpaceX to successful booster recovery by a few weeks.
Okay, so I shall stand corrected. But it doesn't matter much, because it was parallel development and not spacex imitating blue origin.

Quote
Granted, landing New Shepard was arguably much less of a challenge than trying to land a Falcon 9 booster on a barge in the middle of the ocean, but they were most certainly first.
true.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 02, 2019, 02:51:15 AM
You literally said 'he always takes all the credit for everything'. Stop speaking in absolutes if you don't mean it.

Yes, because his idiotic cult thinks he is solely responsible for everything (as if he personally did all the research and engineering required and was the first one ever to do so), and he frequently reinforce it because he's a narcissist. He doesn't have to outright say he was the first person who developed vertical landing rockets.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2019, 03:01:27 AM
You literally said 'he always takes all the credit for everything'. Stop speaking in absolutes if you don't mean it.

Yes, because his idiotic cult thinks he is solely responsible for everything (as if he personally did all the research and engineering required and was the first one ever to do so), and he frequently reinforce it because he's a narcissist. He doesn't have to outright say he was the first person who developed vertical landing rockets.

When people think 'Space X' they think Elon Musk. And any achievement made is credited to that guy - not the brilliant minds and low paid (comparatively) workers who built the thing and made it happen

When people think NASA, they think of a team of people. A whole room of eggheads working together to pull off the amazing.

Elon takes credit for work others have done. It's a personality trait I can't get behind
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 02, 2019, 03:21:10 AM

Elon takes credit for work others have done. It's a personality trait I can't get behind

Many people believe the boss serves no purpose.
They feel they would do a better job without direction.

Most people are mediocre employees at best, with supervision.
They believe they provide something special that can not be replaced.

Employees always believe the company would be damaged by their absence.


In reality, workers are just pawns and pieces.
They all have relative value and are all replaceable.
They don't matter in the grand scheme.


Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 02, 2019, 03:27:10 AM
Many people believe the boss serves no purpose.
They feel they would do a better job without direction.

Most people are mediocre employees at best, with supervision.
They believe they provide something special that can not be replaced.

Employees always believe the company would be damaged by their absence.


In reality, workers are just pawns and pieces.
They all have relative value and are all replaceable.
They don't matter in the grand scheme.
This is often true, but in science/engineering it's at best partwise true. People are less replacable than in most other businesses.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 02, 2019, 03:27:24 AM

Elon takes credit for work others have done. It's a personality trait I can't get behind

Many people believe the boss serves no purpose.
They feel they would do a better job without direction.

Most people are mediocre employees at best, with supervision.
They believe they provide something special that can not be replaced.

Employees always believe the company would be damaged by their absence.


In reality, workers are just pawns and pieces.
They all have relative value and are all replaceable.
They don't matter in the grand scheme.
Only if you look at them as individual employees. Bosses are replacable too. In fact they often are replaced.

Also Elon is hardly a "boss", he's the owner. He doesn't manage workers directly.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2019, 03:32:16 AM
Many people believe the boss serves no purpose.
They feel they would do a better job without direction.

Most people are mediocre employees at best, with supervision.
They believe they provide something special that can not be replaced.

Employees always believe the company would be damaged by their absence.


In reality, workers are just pawns and pieces.
They all have relative value and are all replaceable.
They don't matter in the grand scheme.
This is often true, but in science/engineering it's at best partwise true. People are less replacable than in most other buisnesses.

I suppose the pizza delivery guy is more replaceable than a guy who has spent years building and researching rocket engines.

Anybody in a STEMM field is a precious resource really.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 02, 2019, 03:33:47 AM
Many people believe the boss serves no purpose.
They feel they would do a better job without direction.

Most people are mediocre employees at best, with supervision.
They believe they provide something special that can not be replaced.

Employees always believe the company would be damaged by their absence.


In reality, workers are just pawns and pieces.
They all have relative value and are all replaceable.
They don't matter in the grand scheme.
This is often true, but in science/engineering it's at best partwise true. People are less replacable than in most other buisnesses.

I suppose the pizza delivery guy is more replaceable than a guy who has spent years building and researching rocket engines.

Anybody in a STEMM field is a precious resource really.
Yeah, that's also true. In terms of "replacability", engineers, physicists, IT guys etc. who work at his companies are definitely not that replacable.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 02, 2019, 03:53:03 AM

Elon takes credit for work others have done. It's a personality trait I can't get behind

Many people believe the boss serves no purpose.
They feel they would do a better job without direction.

Most people are mediocre employees at best, with supervision.
They believe they provide something special that can not be replaced.

Employees always believe the company would be damaged by their absence.


In reality, workers are just pawns and pieces.
They all have relative value and are all replaceable.
They don't matter in the grand scheme.
Only if you look at them as individual employees. Bosses are replacable too. In fact they often are replaced.

Also Elon is hardly a "boss", he's the owner. He doesn't manage workers directly.


Wow, why isn't the drachma the world currency?





Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 02, 2019, 04:26:17 AM

Elon takes credit for work others have done. It's a personality trait I can't get behind

Many people believe the boss serves no purpose.
They feel they would do a better job without direction.

Most people are mediocre employees at best, with supervision.
They believe they provide something special that can not be replaced.

Employees always believe the company would be damaged by their absence.


In reality, workers are just pawns and pieces.
They all have relative value and are all replaceable.
They don't matter in the grand scheme.
Only if you look at them as individual employees. Bosses are replacable too. In fact they often are replaced.

Also Elon is hardly a "boss", he's the owner. He doesn't manage workers directly.


Wow, why isn't the drachma the world currency?
One reason would be that it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on February 02, 2019, 08:12:48 AM
I'm not debating what he has brought to the world except to say he's basically the figurehead of a lot of peoples hard work
So what?  Every head of every company is "basically the figurehead of a lot of peoples hard work".  That's just the way that business works.  Leadership is basically the ability to get others to do the hard work of making your ideas real.

Yeah but does Elon deserve the hero worship he gets though?
He probably deserves it as much as the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

He won't get much idolism from me that's for sure.
I doubt that he would lose any sleep knowing that.  I also doubt that you're anywhere near his harshest critic.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 02, 2019, 08:14:57 AM
Quote
Yeah but does Elon deserve the hero worship he gets though?

He probably deserves it as much as the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

So, not very much?

Btw all of these people were much more important for the innovations they made. Elon mostly just has a lot of money to spend.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on February 02, 2019, 08:25:48 AM
Quote
Yeah but does Elon deserve the hero worship he gets though?

He probably deserves it as much as the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

So, not very much?

Btw all of these people were much more important for the innovations they made. Elon mostly just has a lot of money to spend.
But where did he get that money? 

Besides, most high profile leaders are there more to provide a vision and direction for their various companies.  The good ones are able to surround themselves with the right people to make that vision a reality. 
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 02, 2019, 09:25:35 AM
But where did he get that money?

His parent's African emerald mines, originally. 

Quote
Besides, most high profile leaders are there more to provide a vision and direction for their various companies.  The good ones are able to surround themselves with the right people to make that vision a reality.
Even then that still doesn't sound much like he should get the credit he does...
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on February 02, 2019, 01:20:45 PM
Bill Gates out of your list is also a philanthrpist and started out with nothing. He's also not an arsehole who calls cave rescuers pedos and trash talks his own father as the most terrible and evil human being lol

I don't mind Bill who also knows how to keep a stable marriage. Elon looks like some megalomaniac.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 02, 2019, 02:08:16 PM
Bill Gates out of your list is also a philanthrpist and started out with nothing.

That's an overstatement, his parents were pretty damn rich already. But he definitely deserves more credit than Musk for stuff, and he's ok as far as billionaires go. Now if only he'd do something to stop Microsoft from using Chinese sweatshop labour...

Quote
He's also not an arsehole who calls cave rescuers pedos and trash talks his own father as the most terrible and evil human being lol
To be fair, his dad does seem pretty terrible...
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on February 10, 2019, 02:42:03 AM
Except that he's done "what other people have already done" at half the price
Such as?
Launches satellites at half the price.
       Europe Complains: SpaceX Rocket Prices Are Too Cheap to Beat, But is SpaceX playing fair, or profiting from subsidies? (https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-spacex-rocket-prices-are-too-chea.aspx)
Launch capability and cost:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/HaeTidrnNjui9AKp4gE0xbyJ_uSLVRUZJ0k9pHWIjxQ.png?auto=webp&s=fcc79f5feb890c329200865c0e237819dcd2f07b)

Quote from: JackBlack
has done things, like landing first stages back on the launch site and on barges
Vertically landed rockets is nothing new.
It has been done in the past.

People just don't like them because with failures, it fails quite badly.
But their recent record is good enough to seriously bother Arianespace and even question the viability of its Ariane 6.

Still, I guess the future will tell.
Yes, Arianespace is doing well sending real things into orbits with good rockets that are disposed off. Elon's rockets must carry so much extra fuel into space to enable them to land again, so their payloads become zero = Elon is just a big joke. Apparently he is himself screwing together cars at his factory as the robots do not work. Or he is digging tunnels under the factory?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Pezevenk on February 13, 2019, 10:42:57 AM
Lol someone made a hilarious video about Elon Musk's dumb tunnel stuff:
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 18, 2019, 02:04:38 AM

Elon takes credit for work others have done. It's a personality trait I can't get behind

Many people believe the boss serves no purpose.
They feel they would do a better job without direction.

Most people are mediocre employees at best, with supervision.
They believe they provide something special that can not be replaced.

Employees always believe the company would be damaged by their absence.


In reality, workers are just pawns and pieces.
They all have relative value and are all replaceable.
They don't matter in the grand scheme.
Only if you look at them as individual employees. Bosses are replacable too. In fact they often are replaced.

Also Elon is hardly a "boss", he's the owner. He doesn't manage workers directly.


Wow, why isn't the drachma the world currency?
One reason would be that it doesn't exist.

That's my point.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: SeaCritique on March 18, 2019, 07:34:00 AM
My main exposure to Elon Musk was on The Joe Rogan Experience.

He's interesting, to say in the least. And, it seems to me, he has a hard time expressing himself. He works hard; I don't know how smartly he works hard.

I have my doubts about the validity of any space program. Naturally, I have my doubts about Elon Musk.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2019, 03:08:21 PM
He really misses Harambe https://soundcloud.com/user-209448905/rip-harambe1
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 04, 2022, 07:52:52 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/technology/elon-musk-twitter.html

Quote
Elon Musk becomes Twitter’s largest shareholder.

The Tesla chief executive, who has been critical of Twitter’s content moderation policies, purchased 9.2 percent of the social media company.

Elon Musk, the billionaire chief executive of Tesla and the world’s wealthiest person, bought a nearly 10 percent stake in Twitter, the social media platform where he has more than 80 million followers and shares everything from business ideas and memes to, this past weekend, his experience at a famed Berlin nightclub.

The purchase, made public on Monday in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, is worth about $2.89 billion based on the closing price of Twitter’s stock on Friday. News of Mr. Musk’s buy-in sent Twitter share prices soaring.

A spokesperson for Twitter did not immediately respond to messages requesting comment.


I'm waiting patiently for the blue check meltdowns.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Calen on April 04, 2022, 07:55:07 AM
He'll be able to tweet crap with impunity, now.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on April 04, 2022, 08:54:33 AM
He'll be able to tweet crap with impunity, now.
He doesn't anyway?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on April 04, 2022, 10:26:26 AM
Lone Skum is No Smuelk! I don't like his music.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 14, 2022, 07:57:32 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/14/business/elon-musk-twitter#elon-musk-twitter

Quote
Elon Musk has launched a takeover bid for Twitter, offering to buy it for $54.20 a share, just weeks after he became the social media company’s largest shareholder.

Mr. Musk said this was a “best and final offer,” representing a 54 percent premium over the day before he began investing in the company in late January, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. It would value the company at about $43 billion.

In the filing, Mr. Musk said “I don’t have confidence in management” and that he couldn’t make the changes he wanted in the public market.

If the offer is not accepted, Mr. Musk said, he would “need to reconsider my position as a shareholder,” according to a letter sent to Bret Taylor, Twitter’s chair, on April 13 and enclosed in the filing. “Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it.”

Blue check Twitter is melting down.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Code-Beta1234 on April 15, 2022, 04:27:43 AM
He isnt diffirent form any other billionare. He exploits his workers and busts unions. He invents dumb solutions that can be easly answered by less profitable means. Only diffirence is that he posts 2016 memes form reddit on his twitter sometimes. Also i dont support one billionare with specific agenda owning most important social media of course. And with his hand off approach on moderation i expect a massive right-wing invasion of twitter. All racists and homophobes who were rughtfully banned will come back
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on April 15, 2022, 04:31:23 AM
He isnt diffirent form any other billionare. He exploits his workers and busts unions. He invents dumb solutions that can be easly answered by less profitable means. Only diffirence is that he posts 2016 memes form reddit on his twitter sometimes. Also i dont support one billionare with specific agenda owning most important social media of course.
I would say he is a combination of all the bad traits of politicians and billionaires.
He exploits people, and blatantly lies to them, bordering on outright scamming people.
All while pretending to be the best thing since sliced bread.
What makes it worse are all his dumb fan-boys thinking he is the next Jesus.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 24, 2022, 03:46:46 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-re-examines-elon-musks-bid-may-be-more-receptive-to-a-deal-11650822932


Quote
Twitter Re-Examines Elon Musk’s Bid, May Be More Receptive to a Deal
Two sides are meeting Sunday to discuss takeover bid, people familiar with the matter say

 Twitter Inc. TWTR 3.93% is re-examining Elon Musk’s $43 billion takeover offer after the billionaire lined up financing for the bid, in a sign the social-media company could be more receptive to a deal.

Twitter had been expected to rebuff the offer, which Mr. Musk made earlier this month without saying how he would pay for it. But after he disclosed last week that he now has $46.5 billion in financing, Twitter is taking a fresh look at the offer and is more likely than before to seek to negotiate, people familiar with the matter said. The situation is fast-moving and it is still far from guaranteed Twitter will do so.

It could still happen!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on April 24, 2022, 03:49:40 PM
Twitter is becoming receptive to Elon's musk.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 25, 2022, 08:59:20 AM
Looks like it really might happen, now. Certain segments of Twitter are in meltdown mode, threatening to leave.

Maybe they will join the Fediverse! Mastodon Social is already having trouble keeping up with the influx. The Mastodon side of the Fediverse is where people who like rules and regulations go, the other side of the Fedi is more wild West.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on April 25, 2022, 09:23:42 AM
Looks like it really might happen, now. Certain segments of Twitter are in meltdown mode, threatening to leave.

I thought Musk's whole pitch was that he was going to make it better? And all the free speech blah blah

I find Elon to be a pompous prick and I think Twitter is dumb. While I'm sure it wont I'd love to see Twitter fail after this lol

But I can see how some people might find it disturbing. Sounds like his idea of 'free speech' is a 'no holds barred' giving everyone a license to be trolls and dickwads to each other relegating the twiiterverse as a cesspit (well more than it already was)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on April 25, 2022, 09:46:57 AM
Well looks like a deal is reached....
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 25, 2022, 11:53:17 AM
Looks like it really might happen, now. Certain segments of Twitter are in meltdown mode, threatening to leave.

I thought Musk's whole pitch was that he was going to make it better? And all the free speech blah blah

I find Elon to be a pompous prick and I think Twitter is dumb. While I'm sure it wont I'd love to see Twitter fail after this lol

But I can see how some people might find it disturbing. Sounds like his idea of 'free speech' is a 'no holds barred' giving everyone a license to be trolls and dickwads to each other relegating the twiiterverse as a cesspit (well more than it already was)

His pitch was for free speech, the people threatening to leave don't like free speech. They're not really going to leave, tho.

I have never seen him say anything about 'no holds barred' free speech. The way Twitter is now, people can be dickwads and get away with it, but only if they have the correct (identity)  politics.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 25, 2022, 12:18:10 PM
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518623997054918657?s=20&t=I8pdTBtDitWAiyjkKi6i1w

Quote
I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means

I think he's got a traditional view of free speech.

Of course, he blocks people and they seem to think that means he really doesn't believe in free speech, but they don't understand the difference between getting to say things, and making other people pay attention to what you say.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: boydster on April 25, 2022, 12:31:48 PM
they don't understand the difference between getting to say things, and making other people pay attention to what you say.
I can't wait for Elon Musk to try and teach those folks about consent. That should make for a fun show to watch.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on April 25, 2022, 12:59:39 PM
Musk wants to 'authenticate everyone'. So does that mean even Russian bots can get the blue tick too?

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on April 25, 2022, 12:59:52 PM
Despite what Fox News and other conservative outlets claim, Twitter seems pretty open to all kinds of identity politics. Plenty of anti-tran and gay bashing going on there.

Through their coverage and on social media, right-wing media have ramped up attacks accusing LGBTQ people and opponents of Florida’s latest anti-LGBTQ legislation of “grooming” children.

In a new study, Media Matters analyzed millions of Facebook and Twitter posts that push related anti-LGBTQ language and found this narrative initially spiked in March with anti-LGBTQ Twitter account “Libs of TikTok” at the helm, and the attacks further ramped up in April as right-wing outlets and figures with large followings further amplified the language.

https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/04/22/twitter-libs-of-tiktok-amplified-anti-lgbtq-hate-attacks-exploding-online/

I wonder if Elon will change ant of that.  I don't use it, I detest the whole concept but I hope he doesn't put Trump back on to continue spreading his lies and hate. We have plenty of hate on there already.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on April 25, 2022, 01:18:05 PM
Well looks like Elons favourite cryptocurrency Dogecoin is shooting up. It will probably go up even more when he makes people pay with doge to get authenticated lol

He says it's not about the money..... lol
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 25, 2022, 01:28:07 PM
Musk wants to 'authenticate everyone'. So does that mean even Russian bots can get the blue tick too?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517215066550116354?s=20&t=PAfZHy7CXMozmDI6OobafA
Quote
If our twitter bid succeeds, we will defeat the spam bots or die trying!

His "authenticate real humans" tweet was in reply to this tweet.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on April 25, 2022, 03:19:11 PM
Maybe all the libs will go to Parler or Truth Social in protest.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: appletoast on April 25, 2022, 03:38:57 PM
Maybe all the libs will go to Parler or Truth Social in protest.

That would be hilarious!

As long as they don't physically move to TX or FL.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on April 26, 2022, 12:05:25 AM
I think the government should run a free speech website. 
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on April 26, 2022, 01:52:07 AM

I think he's got a traditional view of free speech.

He says he's a "free speech absolutist".  Good luck with that. 

He might find out that Nike and Coca Cola don't much like their adverts appearing next to posts promoting white power or peadophilia.    ::)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on April 26, 2022, 06:25:11 AM
Louis XIV the Sun-King born of royalty, considered by many including himself as given the divine right to rule by god.
Built himself one of the largest palace complexes in the world at Versailles (12 miles of roads, 200,000 trees, 50 fountains, 2,150 windows, 67 staircases, 6,000 paintings, 1,500 drawings, 2,100 sculptures and 5,000 pieces of furniture), went all catholic and revoked the Edict of Nantes, banning protestant teaching, burning their churches and annulling their marriages and in doing so lost many skilled artisans who sneaked out of the country to England, Germany and the Americas.

But he did strengthen the army, annul the power of his barons by having them serve at his court, get a wet humid part of America named for him, encourage piracy and become the power of Europe, eventually beggaring his country fighting  the War of Spanish succession, he patronised the arts, encouraged industry, fostered trade and commerce, and sponsored the founding of an overseas empire, all in all he was considered a great king.

In taking over one of the preeminent methods of modern broadcasting he (Musk) may be going for the top job, recognising its ability to circumvent traditional media and give him unprecedented access and command of the thoughts of voters, and in doing so, become the new Sun-King, of America.
A better option than Trump, De Santis and the corpse king, maybe.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: boydster on April 26, 2022, 07:04:06 AM
A memelord for president? Fuck, I really hate that idea. I mean, I hate it less than some of the alternatives, but I hate that I hate it less than other very real possibilities for our future.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 26, 2022, 07:55:54 AM

I think he's got a traditional view of free speech.

He says he's a "free speech absolutist".  Good luck with that. 

He might find out that Nike and Coca Cola don't much like their adverts appearing next to posts promoting white power or peadophilia.    ::)

Nike and Coke haven't been complaining about the pedos on Twitter for the past few years, have they? Twitter made the decision to allow MAPs on the platform in 2019. (MAP = minor attracted person)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on April 26, 2022, 08:45:56 AM
Well, I don't know anything about that...don't really follow it that closely.  I'm sure those people don't have freedom to say whatever they like.

However to make money (which is why it exists as a public corporation) Twitter must become attractive to corporate sponsors.  If Musky takes it the other way, then he can watch his investment tank.

Talking of tanking, that's what Tesla stock has been doing all day.  Not sure why, but it swings wildly anyway as there's a lot of speculative money in it.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on April 26, 2022, 09:01:37 AM
I'm not sure but I don't think making money off of Twitter is a priority for Musk.

I'm not sure what his intentions are.  Maybe he's given up on the whole self driving car thing and wants to be an influencer on social media.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 26, 2022, 09:06:03 AM
I don't want to send you down the Twitter MAP rabbit hole. lol They're not allowed to say whatever they want, but they do get away with talking about the age of the children they want to fuck. It's a weird group, that has support from some famous sexologists like James Cantor and Prostasia.

It's weird about advertising. I mean, I don't see any ads on anything because I use ublock origin. I think adblockers have become so good now, and Twitter has had difficulty with ads all along anyway, I don't even know how it can make money. Maybe integrated ads, where they are part of your timeline or on the sidebar or something.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Username on April 26, 2022, 10:15:06 AM
This is actually an issue that affects us directly, as we have been banned for impersonating ourselves, I presume due to our views. I'm curious to see how this will change.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on April 26, 2022, 10:32:27 AM
as we have been banned for impersonating ourselves
Tell me more... ???
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 26, 2022, 10:54:24 AM
as we have been banned for impersonating ourselves
Tell me more... ???

I think the others had a friend working for Twitter and were able to get a bunch of FES accts banned.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Unconvinced on April 27, 2022, 12:40:07 PM
This is actually an issue that affects us directly, as we have been banned for impersonating ourselves, I presume due to our views. I'm curious to see how this will change.

Fighting the constant uphill battle against Poe’s law must be quite trying.

Kind of ironic if the owner of a space technology company makes things easier for you though.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on April 28, 2022, 12:26:21 AM

He might find out that Nike and Coca Cola don't much like their adverts appearing next to posts promoting white power or peadophilia.    ::)

Are you serious?     
KKK and baby rapers?

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 28, 2022, 06:50:37 AM
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519480761749016577?s=20&t=Eb8RvgrGU7UQfx8y3fHpvA

Quote
Next I’m buying Coca-Cola to put the cocaine back in

MAKE COCA COLA GREAT AGAIN!

(he's joking, people got mad anyway)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on April 28, 2022, 12:25:18 PM
This is actually an issue that affects us directly, as we have been banned for impersonating ourselves, I presume due to our views. I'm curious to see how this will change.
Fighting the constant uphill battle against Poe’s law must be quite trying.

Kind of ironic if the owner of a space technology company makes things easier for you though.

I keep forgetting Elon has to be a big part of the grand global conspiracy. It would be ironic indeed.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on April 29, 2022, 12:10:32 AM
Elon Musk is turning into a far right deranged fuckwit, stoking further divisions in an already toxic partisan society. Fuck him

Thank fuck he wasn't born in America or you can be sure as shit he'd run for president.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on April 29, 2022, 02:10:33 AM
Elon Musk is turning into a far right deranged fuckwit
I can't stand the guy, but what has he done that is "far right"?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 29, 2022, 08:56:47 AM
Apparently it is "far right" to say you are a centrist.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on April 29, 2022, 01:37:16 PM
It's insane how far the fringes have gotten.

Joe Biden is a crazy radical extreme liberal socalist? That's just insane.

The whole world has been taking a massive hard right for the past few decades.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 29, 2022, 02:47:51 PM
Did Elon Musk say that?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on April 29, 2022, 05:33:47 PM
Did Elon Musk say that?

Say what?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on April 29, 2022, 06:02:39 PM
Apparently it is "far right" to say you are a centrist.
Centrist?  Is that even a thing anymore?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 29, 2022, 06:16:06 PM
Did Elon Musk say that?

Say what?

This - Joe Biden is a crazy radical extreme liberal socalist? That's just insane.

I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. Some people probably believe that, but I haven't seen Elon Musk say anything like that. 
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on April 29, 2022, 08:31:38 PM
Did Elon Musk say that?

Say what?

This - Joe Biden is a crazy radical extreme liberal socalist? That's just insane.

I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. Some people probably believe that, but I haven't seen Elon Musk say anything like that.
Elon Musk is selling tourist trips to planet Mars and people are already lining up to go with his SpaceX crafts. A one way trip to Mars takes 200 days. I asked Elon why he couldn't go faster. 200 days just to visit Mars, isn't it long? No, he has already sent one of his cars ahead to Mars for you to enjoy.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on April 29, 2022, 10:13:37 PM
Did Elon Musk say that?

Say what?

This - Joe Biden is a crazy radical extreme liberal socalist? That's just insane.

I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. Some people probably believe that, but I haven't seen Elon Musk say anything like that.
Elon Musk is selling tourist trips to planet Mars and people are already lining up to go with his SpaceX crafts. A one way trip to Mars takes 200 days. I asked Elon why he couldn't go faster. 200 days just to visit Mars, isn't it long? No, he has already sent one of his cars ahead to Mars for you to enjoy.

The car missed

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/spacex-launch-tesla-roadster-car-mars-elon-musk-asteroid-orbit-trajectory-missed-a8199186.html

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVZ0h3YW4AIc-9w?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on April 30, 2022, 01:18:27 AM
Did Elon Musk say that?

Say what?

This - Joe Biden is a crazy radical extreme liberal socalist? That's just insane.

I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. Some people probably believe that, but I haven't seen Elon Musk say anything like that.
Elon Musk is selling tourist trips to planet Mars and people are already lining up to go with his SpaceX crafts. A one way trip to Mars takes 200 days. I asked Elon why he couldn't go faster. 200 days just to visit Mars, isn't it long? No, he has already sent one of his cars ahead to Mars for you to enjoy.

The car missed

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/spacex-launch-tesla-roadster-car-mars-elon-musk-asteroid-orbit-trajectory-missed-a8199186.html

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVZ0h3YW4AIc-9w?format=jpg&name=medium)
So on Mars you have to walk around.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on April 30, 2022, 04:00:29 AM
Did Elon Musk say that?

Say what?

This - Joe Biden is a crazy radical extreme liberal socalist? That's just insane.

I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. Some people probably believe that, but I haven't seen Elon Musk say anything like that.

I never said Elon said that. I was commenting on how Republicans are saying that, including all of Fox News and the entire GOP propaganda machine.

I was agreeing that the extremes are getting more extreme, to the point that the center no longer exists because people are so wacked out that they think anyone who has one opinion that diverges from them is a CRAZY FAR-SOMETHING EXTREMIST!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 30, 2022, 07:43:37 AM
Did Elon Musk say that?

Say what?

This - Joe Biden is a crazy radical extreme liberal socalist? That's just insane.

I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. Some people probably believe that, but I haven't seen Elon Musk say anything like that.

I never said Elon said that. I was commenting on how Republicans are saying that, including all of Fox News and the entire GOP propaganda machine.

I was agreeing that the extremes are getting more extreme, to the point that the center no longer exists because people are so wacked out that they think anyone who has one opinion that diverges from them is a CRAZY FAR-SOMETHING EXTREMIST!

I AGREE.

Oh no, I think we're the extremists now.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on April 30, 2022, 07:57:34 AM
Did Elon Musk say that?

Say what?

This - Joe Biden is a crazy radical extreme liberal socalist? That's just insane.

I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. Some people probably believe that, but I haven't seen Elon Musk say anything like that.

I never said Elon said that. I was commenting on how Republicans are saying that, including all of Fox News and the entire GOP propaganda machine.

I was agreeing that the extremes are getting more extreme, to the point that the center no longer exists because people are so wacked out that they think anyone who has one opinion that diverges from them is a CRAZY FAR-SOMETHING EXTREMIST!

I AGREE.

Oh no, I think we're the extremists now.

We are!

I demand we find things we can agree on and work to make them happen!  Or or... or else!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 01, 2022, 02:56:27 AM
AOC tweets
Quote
Tired of having to collectively stress about what explosion of hate crimes is happening bc some billionaire with an ego problem unilaterally controls a massive communication platform and skews it because Tucker Carlson or Peter Thiel took him to dinner and made him feel special


Elon Musk replies
Quote
Stop hitting on me, I’m really shy


AOC tweets again
Quote
I was talking about Zuckerberg but ok


ROFL Elon giving himslf an own goal proving he really does have an ego problem. What a dumbarse
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 01, 2022, 08:16:05 AM
AOC tweeted - https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1477000469318885385?s=20&t=oFoszHmK6a9j9uSGmFD0AA

Quote
If Republicans are mad they can’t date me they can just say that instead of projecting their sexual frustrations onto my boyfriend’s feet.

Ya creepy weirdos

Elon was joking about this this tweet.


Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on May 03, 2022, 03:14:18 PM
Whatever makes leftist scream at the sky.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 03, 2022, 10:38:43 PM
I think the government should run a free speech website.

Oh, SHIT, I'm a soothsayer !!!





Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 08, 2022, 10:06:15 AM
I'm not sure but I don't think making money off of Twitter is a priority for Musk.

It absolutely will be.  The entire buyout is leveraged to tits.  It's going to have to make lots just to service the debt, pay for tech investment, then presumably make some money for it's investors (like those free speech champions in Saudi Arabia).

Quote
“That is very high and certainly not a comfortable amount of leverage,” says Jordan Chalfin, a senior technology analyst at CreditSights. It is against the backdrop of these numbers that Musk has floated ideas such as charging a “slight” fee for commercial and government users, although it will stay free for casual users.The New York Times also reported on Friday that Musk expects to pay down the $800m-$900m debt interest costs with free cash flow that he expects to grow to $9.4bn by 2028, although in the short term it looks like it will be tight. According to Chaflin, a proxy for Twitter’s ability to cover its debt interest would be subtracting Twitter’s capital expenditure costs – $1bn last year – from the company’s Ebitda. Stock market analysts’ forecasts for Twitter Ebitda, according to a Reuters poll, is $1.4bn in 2022 and $1.8bn in 2023. It could be a squeeze.

“The extremely high levels of debt Elon plans to saddle Twitter with come at a high price – investment for growth,” says Cornell’s Pascarella. “A technology company like Twitter needs to invest in itself to continue to innovate and grow. Post deal, most of Twitter’s cash flow will be used not for investment, but to service debt.”Speaking about Twitter at a recent conference, Musk said: “I mean, I could technically afford it.” He can, but some users might have to pay.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/07/elon-musks-takeover-financing-deal-could-clip-twitters-wings (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/07/elon-musks-takeover-financing-deal-could-clip-twitters-wings)

The whole thing looks mental to me and incredibly risky.  He's going to have to introduce some kind of subscription service to pay for it.  And nothing says free-speech like a subscription.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on May 08, 2022, 02:55:21 PM
Lets hope it means twitter crashes and burns like the steaming pile of garbage it is.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Username on May 09, 2022, 12:55:19 AM
Lets hope it means twitter crashes and burns like the steaming pile of garbage it is.
This would be an acceptable outcome as well :)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 13, 2022, 06:43:36 AM
Lets hope it means twitter crashes and burns like the steaming pile of garbage it is.
This would be an acceptable outcome as well :)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-13/elon-musk-places-twitter-bid-on-hold/101066482

Twitter shares taking a dive. Maybe Elon is weasling his way out of going through with it?

Probably right. He just wanted his name in the news for a while. Or maybe he really does want to destroy Twitter, in which case, I'm a fan 8)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on May 13, 2022, 02:12:56 PM
Lets hope it means twitter crashes and burns like the steaming pile of garbage it is.
This would be an acceptable outcome as well :)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-13/elon-musk-places-twitter-bid-on-hold/101066482

Twitter shares taking a dive. Maybe Elon is weasling his way out of going through with it?

Probably right. He just wanted his name in the news for a while. Or maybe he really does want to destroy Twitter, in which case, I'm a fan 8)

Destroying Twitter I'm all in for.

Turning it into a right-wing propaganda arm of the Russian government and spreading lies about vaccines and flooding it with racism and homophobia and hate with Trump using it to try and overthrow the US government on the other hand. I hope not.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on May 16, 2022, 01:56:56 PM
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/16/elon-musk-twitter-deal-lower-price

More information to support my theory that Elon musk has a substance abuse problem.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 16, 2022, 03:19:05 PM
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/16/elon-musk-twitter-deal-lower-price

More information to support my theory that Elon musk has a substance abuse problem.

So he strikes a deal to buy it. Then goes 'hold on! I think your lying and Twitter has 4-5x the amount of bots you claimed!' So his hesitation, coupled with saying a significant portion of the users are fake, trashes the stock price and then he uses that excuse to renegotiate a cheaper deal....

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on May 16, 2022, 03:34:45 PM
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/16/elon-musk-twitter-deal-lower-price

More information to support my theory that Elon musk has a substance abuse problem.

So he strikes a deal to buy it. Then goes 'hold on! I think your lying and Twitter has 4-5x the amount of bots you claimed!' So his hesitation, coupled with saying a significant portion of the users are fake, trashes the stock price and then he uses that excuse to renegotiate a cheaper deal....

I could see there being a problem if the number of bots wasn't 4-5x as claimed.

But as Twitter isn't denying it and is simply claiming a violation of an NDA, I would say it was prudent to get a better deal.  Would you want to pay full price for an advertised 20 piece knife set that you discover really only had 5 knives.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 16, 2022, 03:58:22 PM
Did Elon Musk say that?

Say what?

This - Joe Biden is a crazy radical extreme liberal socalist? That's just insane.

I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. Some people probably believe that, but I haven't seen Elon Musk say anything like that.
   


Elon Musk is selling tourist trips to planet Mars and people are already lining up to go with his SpaceX crafts. A one way trip to Mars takes 200 days. I asked Elon why he couldn't go faster. 200 days just to visit Mars, isn't it long? No, he has already sent one of his cars ahead to Mars for you to enjoy.
   


Heiwa, you're fucking awesome!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on May 16, 2022, 04:00:21 PM
I could see there being a problem if the number of bots wasn't 4-5x as claimed.

But as Twitter isn't denying it and is simply claiming a violation of an NDA, I would say it was prudent to get a better deal.  Would you want to pay full price for an advertised 20 piece knife set that you discover really only had 5 knives.
I wouldn't see it as a problem.
It is more like going to buy a 5 knife set, knowing it is only 5 knives, while the company says it is 20, then saying it is only 5 to try and tank the price.

It just seems like a way for him to tank the stocks to try getting a better deal.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 16, 2022, 04:18:42 PM
I could see there being a problem if the number of bots wasn't 4-5x as claimed.

But as Twitter isn't denying it and is simply claiming a violation of an NDA, I would say it was prudent to get a better deal.  Would you want to pay full price for an advertised 20 piece knife set that you discover really only had 5 knives.
I wouldn't see it as a problem.
It is more like going to buy a 5 knife set, knowing it is only 5 knives, while the company says it is 20, then saying it is only 5 to try and tank the price.

It just seems like a way for him to tank the stocks to try getting a better deal.
   
The way a contract works is one party offers something in trade for consideration.   
Both parties must agree to the terms. 

Let's say one piece of shit corporation (twitter) want's a shit load of money for their product. 
The potential buyer wants some assurance the corporation is not just a scam.
The buyer wants proof that the product (subscribers) are in fact real.
[fake accounts aren't worth a nickle]



Twitter seems to be balking. 




Or, try this one on for size . . .   

Musk is forcing his POV for free.   




                ???




.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 16, 2022, 09:00:27 PM
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/16/elon-musk-twitter-deal-lower-price

More information to support my theory that Elon musk has a substance abuse problem.

So he strikes a deal to buy it. Then goes 'hold on! I think your lying and Twitter has 4-5x the amount of bots you claimed!' So his hesitation, coupled with saying a significant portion of the users are fake, trashes the stock price and then he uses that excuse to renegotiate a cheaper deal....

I could see there being a problem if the number of bots wasn't 4-5x as claimed.

But as Twitter isn't denying it and is simply claiming a violation of an NDA, I would say it was prudent to get a better deal.  Would you want to pay full price for an advertised 20 piece knife set that you discover really only had 5 knives.

Twitter is denying bots are as high as he claims. They say the total number is about 5%. Elon 'thinks' it's about 20-25%. There has, been no new information come out since Elon struck a deal

What Twitter is saying is that every users experience will be different. Elon, with over 90 million followers and heavily interested in crypto (a bot favourite apparently) will 'seem' like he's dealing with a larger amount of fakes.

No new information since the deal. This is just Elon fucking with the stock price to try and get a better deal

Or, maybe he's playing the long game. Has zero interest in purchasing and wants to destroy Twitters value (and get his name in the news because, ego).

In which case, I'm a fan if the destroying part
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 16, 2022, 09:13:06 PM

What Twitter is saying is that every users experience will be different. Elon, with over 90 million followers and heavily interested in crypto (a bot favourite apparently) will 'seem' like he's dealing with a larger amount of fakes.

Why would Elon purchase twidder at full price if it was full of fake accounts?     

Obviously you have never been anything but an employee.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 16, 2022, 09:55:14 PM

What Twitter is saying is that every users experience will be different. Elon, with over 90 million followers and heavily interested in crypto (a bot favourite apparently) will 'seem' like he's dealing with a larger amount of fakes.

Why would Elon purchase twidder at full price if it was full of fake accounts?     

Obviously you have never been anything but an employee.

Well that is the question isn't it? It's not like any new information or data has come to light since the deal. And Twitter still maintains its only around 5% - what has always been claimed.

Elon is just making up his own data either to back out or lower the share price as a renegotiating tactic
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 16, 2022, 10:19:36 PM

What Twitter is saying is that every users experience will be different. Elon, with over 90 million followers and heavily interested in crypto (a bot favourite apparently) will 'seem' like he's dealing with a larger amount of fakes.

Why would Elon purchase twidder at full price if it was full of fake accounts?     

Obviously you have never been anything but an employee.

Well that is the question isn't it? It's not like any new information or data has come to light since the deal. And Twitter still maintains its only around 5% - what has always been claimed.

Elon is just making up his own data either to back out or lower the share price as a renegotiating tactic

Actually twidder needs to prove what they are selling. 

Any "deal" includes disclosure of what is being sold. 
If it's 85% fake it has no value.   

What is being pointed out is that twidder is a fake chunk of shit.

Have you ever negotiated a contract where both parties were engaged?   
Not a bill of sale for a car, an actual performance contract.

No you have not.  If you had you would not now be so confused.


It's not a deal until both parties have a fair agreement and ink the paper.   



Did you think Musk was just going to write a check and plop his ass in the CEO chair   
without two dozen layers dissecting every word into syllables?   


Just amazing.    ::)




Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 16, 2022, 11:19:15 PM
Twitter having bots in the order of 5% is not some new information Elon was only just made aware of. After accepting a deal

Elon claims it 4-5x that amount. Based on what? What is his data? Does he already have all of Twitters data?

It's only an anecdotal assumption on his part - and if he believes that the Twitter user base is up to 25% fake accounts - we'll he already struck a deal with that assumption already in his head. Like I said, there has been no revelation come to pass since he made the take over bid.

Maybe Elon should have done more research and asked these questions before putting himself in a bind

What a noob ::)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 16, 2022, 11:54:19 PM
Twitter having bots in the order of 5% is not some new information Elon was only just made aware of. After accepting a deal

Elon claims it 4-5x that amount. Based on what? What is his data? Does he already have all of Twitters data?

It's only an anecdotal assumption on his part - and if he believes that the Twitter user base is up to 25% fake accounts - we'll he already struck a deal with that assumption already in his head. Like I said, there has been no revelation come to pass since he made the take over bid.

Maybe Elon should have done more research and asked these questions before putting himself in a bind

What a noob ::)

Musk is so stupid.  Hahaha.
It's so funny reading what clueless people have to say.   


 Until there are two signatures on one document there is no contract.



Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 17, 2022, 12:23:26 AM
Twitter having bots in the order of 5% is not some new information Elon was only just made aware of. After accepting a deal

Elon claims it 4-5x that amount. Based on what? What is his data? Does he already have all of Twitters data?

It's only an anecdotal assumption on his part - and if he believes that the Twitter user base is up to 25% fake accounts - we'll he already struck a deal with that assumption already in his head. Like I said, there has been no revelation come to pass since he made the take over bid.

Maybe Elon should have done more research and asked these questions before putting himself in a bind

What a noob ::)

Musk is so stupid.  Hahaha.
It's so funny reading what clueless people have to say.   


 Until there are two signatures on one document there is no contract.

Elon has signed the deal though. It was accepted. He can't walk away from it without a substantial financial penalty.

Now it looks like he got cold feet.

So yes. Elon is stupid. Or like I said, playing a game to trash the sticks value in some attempt to score it cheaper which is a pretty dick move but time will tell if it pays off for Elon. Even if it does, it doesn't change the fact that it's still a dick move and proves once again how disingenuous Elon is about anything he says
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 17, 2022, 12:57:45 AM
we'll [sic] he already struck a deal with that assumption already in his head.
 


I didn't realize you were there during the ongoing negotiations.   

So, you have a copy of the signed contract and know what was in his head. 

You know there is a NDA, right? 
Well, of coarse you do.  You wouldn't just talk shit, would you?

I wish I was stupid enough to be a democrat.   
It seems like ignorance is glorious bliss.   




For the rest, just play along,   ;)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 17, 2022, 01:16:45 AM
we'll [sic] he already struck a deal with that assumption already in his head.
 


I didn't realize you were there during the ongoing negotiations.   

So, you have a copy of the signed contract and know what was in his head. 

You know there is a NDA, right? 
Well, of coarse you do.  You wouldn't just talk shit, would you?

I wish I was stupid enough to be a democrat.   
It seems like ignorance is glorious bliss.   




For the rest, just play along,   ;)

Do you think this is the first time Elon has complained about Twitter bots or the first time Twitter has acknowledged them? LOL

Do you think before he got this far in a deal he would not have been given any information about the product he was buying? Or his lawyers?

Quote
It's so funny reading what clueless people have to say.

Indeed

https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/musk-walk-away-44-billion-twitter-deal-not-really/

Quote
Musk and Twitter reportedly agreed to a $1 billion “reverse termination fee” when they reached their deal, but that doesn’t mean Musk can just pay the fee and walk away. As CNBC noted, a reverse breakup fee typically applies when a deal can’t close for some outside reason, such as a regulatory intermediation or third-party financing problems. Buyers can also walk away from deals if fraud is exposed, assuming it has a material adverse effect.

However, the reverse termination fee wouldn’t apply simply because Musk thinks he offered too much money for Twitter. Walking away for that reason means Musk would not only have to pay the $1 billion fee, but also risk being sued for billions of dollars in damages.


Pretty sure Elon could cover it though but maybe he should have done some due diligence before agreeing to the take over.

There is also reputational damage should he ever want to bid for anything else in the future. Even if he follows through as agreed, he's fucked himself

I wish I could be as blissfully ignorant as a dumbarse yankee repugnican ::)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 17, 2022, 01:28:34 AM
The way a contract works is one party offers something in trade for consideration.   
Both parties must agree to the terms. 
Fascinating, thank you for this insight.

Quote
Why would Elon purchase twidder at full price if it was full of fake accounts?     

Obviously you have never been anything but an employee.
Well, it's just great we have an expert on multi-billion pound tech deals to take us through the complexities.   
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on May 17, 2022, 02:04:17 AM
The way a contract works is one party offers something in trade for consideration.   
Both parties must agree to the terms. 

Let's say one piece of shit corporation (twitter) want's a shit load of money for their product. 
The potential buyer wants some assurance the corporation is not just a scam.
The buyer wants proof that the product (subscribers) are in fact real.

Or, lets say that unsolicited, a piece of shit individual (musk) decides to offer a load of money for a product, based upon its share price.
This piece of shit, then sees the price plummeting, and realises they made a bad deal, and needs to make an excuse to lower the price.

Why would Elon purchase twidder at full price if it was full of fake accounts?
Because the trading price was already based upon those fake accounts existing.
The deal is based upon the public share price, based upon what the public knows.
A more pure twitter without the bots would be worth more.

Until there are two signatures on one document there is no contract.
The announcement by twitter certainly seems like they have reached a deal and signed.
They even called it definitive.

So, you have a copy of the signed contract and know what was in his head.

You know there is a NDA, right?
It is a publicly traded company.
That means the contract will likely need to be made public, for approval of the shareholders, rather than just being sold.
And it is:
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001418091/e61e4376-e2c5-4d54-8782-d63fc5e096e9.pdf

The NDA is not for the merger, it appears to be for the information Musk gets Privileged access to before the merger is in effect.

There is also reputational damage should he ever want to bid for anything else in the future.
Given the exiting damage to his reputation from how many times he has already shown he cannot deliver what he promises, this wont do much.
There will still be a bunch of morons praising him and willing to do business with him.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on May 17, 2022, 05:30:39 AM
It's been interesting to watch TSLA during all of this.  Musk doesn't actually have enough cash to buy twitter.  He'll have to sell a lot of Tesla stock.  Since TSLA is obviously in a bubble this moved seems like it's popping that bubble.

Between announcing his plans to buy twitter and now the stock has dropped by 36% or 421 billion dollars.  Musk owns 17% of twitter so he lost about 74 billion.  So about 118 billion to buy twitter.

This deal is costing Elon dearly.  He might be panicking and trying to find a way out.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 17, 2022, 06:31:47 AM
He'll have to sell a lot of Tesla stock. 
I think he was only going to sell some, then use the rest as collateral on a loan.  However I think Tesla stock is now about $100 below the amount it needs to be to leverage that much.

Quote
This deal is costing Elon dearly.  He might be panicking and trying to find a way out.
Personally I think it would have cost him a lot more if it had gone ahead.

It's going to be a nightmare to try and turn Twitter into a profitable company.    Not to mention the Elon "Real life Iron Man" Musk brand is increasingly tarnished and Twitter ownership would likely exacerbate that.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 17, 2022, 07:49:59 AM
There was a time when you could purchase bot followers. I know of someone who had over 50,000 of them. They never purged all of them, either.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on May 18, 2022, 09:27:28 AM
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/the-musk-twitter-endgame
https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-cant-easily-give-twitter-boot-over-bots-2022-05-18/

I was curious so I looked into it a little.  I don't think there's anything in the agreement that lets Elon blow up the deal because of excessive bots.

Additionally Elon can't get out of this by paying a termination fee.  By the terms of the agreement Twitter can force Elon to buy their company for the agreed price and it seems that they intend to follow through.  Which means Elon would be forced to sell more TSLA which further deflates the bubble that stock is in.

It's interesting that he seems to be doing a lot of damage to twitter during all of this.  Maybe he thinks that by lowering twitters stock value that he could get a better deal.  That doesn't sound legal to me.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on May 18, 2022, 12:31:30 PM
Here's a fun one...

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 19, 2022, 02:52:00 AM
It's interesting that he seems to be doing a lot of damage to twitter during all of this.  Maybe he thinks that by lowering twitters stock value that he could get a better deal.  That doesn't sound legal to me.
Now he has "come out" as Republican, basically saying he'll vote Trump.


As a boss of a public company coming down explicitly on either side seems like a very bad move indeed.  Especially when your biggest customer are California liberals.

With this and the Twitter fiasco, he seems keen on trashing is brand.   I wonder if the SEC is about to come down on him and he's losing his shit?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 19, 2022, 02:56:15 AM
It's interesting that he seems to be doing a lot of damage to twitter during all of this.  Maybe he thinks that by lowering twitters stock value that he could get a better deal.  That doesn't sound legal to me.
Now he has "come out" as Republican, basically saying he'll vote Trump.


As a boss of a public company coming down explicitly on either side seems like a very bad move indeed.  Especially when your biggest customer are California liberals.

With this and the Twitter fiasco, he seems keen on trashing is brand.   I wonder if the SEC is about to come down on him and he's losing his shit?

And he said

Quote
“In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party,” he tweeted.

“But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican.

Hmmm. Which party incited an insurrection again? Which party continues to peddle the lie the election was rigged so that half the nation does not see the President as legitimate?

I think he is suffering from a feeling of irrelevance and because the repugs are so loud in their virtue signalling, that's the team he wants behind him

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on May 19, 2022, 07:06:47 AM
I am suddenly very worried that driving an electric car could lead to brain damage.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 20, 2022, 05:24:11 PM
#Elongate has been trending off and on all day  >:D
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on May 23, 2022, 09:06:28 PM

Do you think before he got this far in a deal he would not have been given any information about the product he was buying? Or his lawyers?
 


He is playing with a shit company and exposing it for what it is.   

Twitter is a commie propaganda machine.   



Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on May 24, 2022, 02:22:21 AM

Do you think before he got this far in a deal he would not have been given any information about the product he was buying? Or his lawyers?
 


He is playing with a shit company and exposing it for what it is.   

Twitter is a commie propaganda machine.

A machine he agreed to pay $44 billion for and now looks to have buyers remorse. No cooling off period for this mofo!!!!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on May 24, 2022, 04:29:44 AM

Do you think before he got this far in a deal he would not have been given any information about the product he was buying? Or his lawyers?
 


He is playing with a shit company and exposing it for what it is.   

Twitter is a commie propaganda machine.



Damn! I wondered where all the Trotskyites had gone, cunning of them to pose as the vacuous celebrities, WAGs and general morons who populate twatter, although it was never reported that they were pushing for the proletariat to cast off their chains and seize the means of production.

Well spotted Bully.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on June 17, 2022, 01:20:24 PM
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/17/spacex-fires-employees-criticized-musk

I wonder what exactly Musk's idea of free speech is.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on June 17, 2022, 03:06:30 PM
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/17/spacex-fires-employees-criticized-musk

I wonder what exactly Musk's idea of free speech is.

Depends on what was said.  And your free speech isn't free from consequence when you are on the clock.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on June 17, 2022, 03:31:24 PM
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/17/spacex-fires-employees-criticized-musk

I wonder what exactly Musk's idea of free speech is.
Depends who was fired.
As much as I think Musk is the next big conman, the article indicates that employees who tried to coerce others into signing were fired.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 19, 2022, 10:32:42 PM
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/17/spacex-fires-employees-criticized-musk

I wonder what exactly Musk's idea of free speech is.
At what job can you go around and harass other employees to sign a petition saying that the CEO is an asshat?
If you really think the CEO is an idiot, dont work for him.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on June 20, 2022, 06:09:38 AM

The champion of free speech sacks a bunch of muppets for airing their belief that he is a moron.

First, I haven’t worked for any firm where those in control weren’t jerks, it’s a prerequisite, running a business isn’t about being nice.

Second, you only make it known that you have cracked onto their jerkiness if you are leaving and do not need a reference and are happy that they are not unhinged enough that should they ever gain control of the world, they will have you killed.

Thirdly, the bullying accusation is likely 100% bollocks, newspeak for upsetting the minions by asking them to form an opinion.

Finally, although they deserved the sackings for a lack of rational thinking, they hopefully have shown the world he does intend to become a dictator and are given medals.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 20, 2022, 06:22:18 AM
The champion of free speech sacks a bunch of muppets for airing their belief that he is a moron.
There are 12 000 people at SpaceX. I doubt he does the sacking or spends much time with HR

First, I haven’t worked for any firm where those in control weren’t jerks, it’s a prerequisite, running a business isn’t about being nice.

Second, you only make it known that you have cracked onto their jerkiness if you are leaving and do not need a reference and are happy that they are not unhinged enough that should they ever gain control of the world, they will have you killed.
Running a business turns you into a Jerk, 100% can confirm.
And no, I dont think a rocket company has a team of ninjas killing people.

Thirdly, the bullying accusation is likely 100% bollocks, newspeak for upsetting the minions by asking them to form an opinion.
Maybe, but they could only get 0.01% of the company to agree with their letter, meaning it was not such a popular idea to begin with.

But he is getting old, and all people start becoming dictators where they can after a certain age. Seems consistent where ever I look.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet II on June 20, 2022, 07:37:23 AM

Ah but is it that only 0.01% think he is a Jerk or that the rest are smart enough to realise that as far as enhancing job prospects go, signing a round robin to the effect your employer is a pillock isn’t in the top ten.
Hell, if it had come to me, I would have suspected a trap and burned it whatever I thought, just the sort of thing that happens in paranoid organisations, don’t infiltrate the 5th column, set one up as a honey trap.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on June 20, 2022, 07:43:44 AM
I imagine the consensus at Space X and other industries Elon is involved with is that Elon is a narcissistic, megalomaniac dickwad to the nth degree but he is the CEO of the plebs beneath him and they're employed at His pleasure. Elon giveth and He can taketh away!!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on June 20, 2022, 11:16:45 AM
The context of this action is important.  SpaceX is completely within their rights to fire these people.  Though I find these accusations that these employees were harassing other employees to sign their letter very difficult to believe.

However, Elon is, maybe, buying twitter ostensibly under the pretense that twitter is stifling free speech so he must buy it to save democracy or something.  When he fires people within his organization for publicly expressing an opinion then it makes him look deeply hypocritical. 

Which is why I ask the question, what does he really believe?  Because his actions is completely contradicting his statements.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on June 20, 2022, 02:54:17 PM
I also think the context is important, but for a different reason.

Twitter is a place for people (all people) to share their thoughts.

SpaceX is a company for making wasteful rockets to appease their dictator.
He isn't paying them to think and talk. He is paying them to pad his pockets.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Username on July 03, 2022, 05:10:13 PM
Elon Musk will bring a new age of man; an age of despair and destitution and of subjugation to the evil powers that be.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 03, 2022, 08:28:04 PM
SpaceX is a company for making wasteful rockets to appease their dictator.
Actually, SpaceX rockets are currently the most efficient and cost effective rockets in the industry.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 03, 2022, 10:36:06 PM
Elon Musk will bring a new age of man; an age of despair and destitution and of subjugation to the evil powers that be.

It is difficult to argue with this. That lithium he's obsessed with has to be mined somehow, and I don't think Elon gives a shit that children are doing it in forced slave labour at gunpoint in developing countries.

That's just one aspect of his business. Elon is a net negative overall and that's even when you don't consider his character is simply repugnant. Calls a guy who risked his life to rescue children a pedo simply because he didn't let him get away with using the incident as a marketing tool to boost his ego and profile and rightly shut him and his shitty idea down

His antics are brand recognition destroying. When I see a Tesla car on the road, I don't think 'great human, thinking about the climate'. I think 'what an arsehole'. And that's all on Elon
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 04, 2022, 08:14:28 AM
Elon Musk will bring a new age of man; an age of despair and destitution and of subjugation to the evil powers that be.

It is difficult to argue with this. That lithium he's obsessed with has to be mined somehow, and I don't think Elon gives a shit that children are doing it in forced slave labour at gunpoint in developing countries.

That's just one aspect of his business. Elon is a net negative overall and that's even when you don't consider his character is simply repugnant. Calls a guy who risked his life to rescue children a pedo simply because he didn't let him get away with using the incident as a marketing tool to boost his ego and profile and rightly shut him and his shitty idea down

His antics are brand recognition destroying. When I see a Tesla car on the road, I don't think 'great human, thinking about the climate'. I think 'what an arsehole'. And that's all on Elon

Yes, because Elon made them buy his product....
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 04, 2022, 08:35:14 AM
Elon Musk will bring a new age of man; an age of despair and destitution and of subjugation to the evil powers that be.

It is difficult to argue with this. That lithium he's obsessed with has to be mined somehow, and I don't think Elon gives a shit that children are doing it in forced slave labour at gunpoint in developing countries.

That's just one aspect of his business. Elon is a net negative overall and that's even when you don't consider his character is simply repugnant. Calls a guy who risked his life to rescue children a pedo simply because he didn't let him get away with using the incident as a marketing tool to boost his ego and profile and rightly shut him and his shitty idea down

His antics are brand recognition destroying. When I see a Tesla car on the road, I don't think 'great human, thinking about the climate'. I think 'what an arsehole'. And that's all on Elon

Yes, because Elon made them buy his product....

There are other options these days. You do not need to buy an overpriced and overhyped Tesla to buy an electric car.

Also electric cars are boring. Coming from a guy who had a 400rwkw twin turbo 300zx, I can assure you that a large part of the 'thrill' is the auditory experience. The roar of the engine, the sound of the exhaust, the spool of the turbos and the whoosh or flutter of the the blow off valve. In a EV? Just silence. How lame.

My friend has a Tesla and it's a bucket of shit. To drive interstate (1200km) it took 3 days and quite the scenic route to get to me (much more than 1200km). He had to plan his route where charging stations were. When he got there, he had to wait hours to charge. And if one other person was charging at the same time, his wait time doubled. And you get pissed if the muppet in front of you drives a few km/h under the speed limit or doesn't pay attention those few seconds when the light goes green lol.....

My car at the time ran on diesel and could have made the 1200km trip on a single tank of fuel. (you'd fill up once to not cut it close while you have a rest). I could leave early morning and get there by the evening. The Tesla might have quick acceleration but its a slow POS to arrive anywhere long distance. Run out of juice? You need to get towed home lol

EV cars are the future eventually, but I pity these early adopters who are helping to pave the way for the rest of it to be cheaper and mainstream. Remember when a shitty standard definition and sub 50" plasma TV cost $20K? LOL. Dumbarses actually paid for those lol

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 04, 2022, 08:48:58 AM
Also electric cars are boring.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUStvkKUEAAJ9wI?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on July 04, 2022, 11:55:20 AM
A lot of evs pipe in fake acceleration noises.

A lot of gasoline powered cars do this to.

It's like they think we're stupid.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 04, 2022, 01:00:54 PM
A lot of evs pipe in fake acceleration noises.

I think this is statutory in some places, including the UK

"From 1 July 2021, all new electric and hybrid vehicles registered in the UK need to have a sound generator installed to make a sound similar to a conventional engine."

Only when below 20 km/h though.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 04, 2022, 01:27:08 PM
It's like they think we're stupid.
In a lot of cases, they aren't wrong.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on July 04, 2022, 01:31:38 PM
There's the safety aspect of it at low speeds which I fully agree with.  My car was built before there were these laws.
 I have to be very mindful of pedestrians since it's really easy to sneak up on them.  This is something that happens a lot in parking lots.  I'm trying to find a space.  Someone is walking in front of me.  I don't want to honk because it seems rude.  Then the pedestrian does a sort of sideways glance followed by a much faster head turn.  Always followed by a slight panicked reaction.

There's also just fake noises that happen all the time with certain vehicles.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on July 04, 2022, 01:36:42 PM

There are other options these days. You do not need to buy an overpriced and overhyped Tesla to buy an electric car.


Sort of.  There's a lot of great EVs coming out but if you want to drive any of these long distance you're stuck with Tesla.  Any other fast charging network is just not reliable enough to be useful.  This will slowly get better but this is the reality at this time.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 04, 2022, 03:07:27 PM
A pity there is not much more enthusiasm by the general pleb and indeed a lot if governments for renewable energy like solar power. People's rooftop solar and battery could charge their car. And you could also use your cars battery to power your home at night if you didn't need all that range all the time

Also Tesla making it so only their charging stations could be used exclusively for Tesla's model cars is a dick move and only showcases he's business first, climate second. Imagine if your average car designed their fuel tank in such a way you were restricted to only using a particular brand of fuel because the nozzle wouldn't fit. Or your phone charger using a unique charging port so that you can't use a regular usb cable.... Oh hey Apple.....

How much fuel and thus carbon/pollutants could be spared if governments also invested more in mass public transportation? Or workplaces allowing a work from home to positions that were possible to do so?

Our capitalist society demands we spend. Having free energy from the sun will not do because companies lose money. In fact here, consumers will soon be charged if they put energy into the grid. And of course, why work from home when you can spend $50 a week on petrol and another $50 in tolls and another $100 in parking fees.....

Our society is doomed
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on July 04, 2022, 05:24:44 PM
I agree about the charging stations.  I would support forcing a standard.

There's a better way to go about this shift in fossil fuels.  It's the plug in hybrid.  A fraction of the size of the battery.  No fast charging network necessary.  No range anxiety.  Still eliminates the vast majority of the vehicles fossil fuel usage.  I think we glossed over this option too quickly.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 04, 2022, 05:57:02 PM
I agree about the charging stations.  I would support forcing a standard.
Either that or adapters.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 04, 2022, 06:18:34 PM


They should all play this when you pull up on a pedestrian.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 05, 2022, 03:10:02 AM
A pity there is not much more enthusiasm by the general pleb and indeed a lot if governments for renewable energy like solar power. People's rooftop solar and battery could charge their car.
Im getting solar installed this week, but not for a car. Failing government is plenty incentive to be self sufficent.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on July 05, 2022, 08:25:50 AM
That bad?  Are you also getting a battery backup?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 05, 2022, 09:05:37 AM
A pity there is not much more enthusiasm by the general pleb and indeed a lot if governments for renewable energy like solar power. People's rooftop solar and battery could charge their car.
Im getting solar installed this week, but not for a car. Failing government is plenty incentive to be self sufficent.
You think Biden been a bit crap means the electricity will go off?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 05, 2022, 09:22:29 AM
A pity there is not much more enthusiasm by the general pleb and indeed a lot if governments for renewable energy like solar power. People's rooftop solar and battery could charge their car.
Im getting solar installed this week, but not for a car. Failing government is plenty incentive to be self sufficent.
You think Biden been a bit crap means the electricity will go off?

From what I remember, he's from South Africa - I wonder if they are more proactive on renewable energy targets than America?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 05, 2022, 11:37:07 AM
A pity there is not much more enthusiasm by the general pleb and indeed a lot if governments for renewable energy like solar power. People's rooftop solar and battery could charge their car.
Im getting solar installed this week, but not for a car. Failing government is plenty incentive to be self sufficent.
You think Biden been a bit crap means the electricity will go off?

From what I remember, he's from South Africa - I wonder if they are more proactive on renewable energy targets than America?
Yes, I'm from South Africa. And in theory we have renewable goals. In practice, we have 4 hour power cuts a day, so we are incentiviced to solve our own problems
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2022, 01:43:55 AM
A pity there is not much more enthusiasm by the general pleb and indeed a lot if governments for renewable energy like solar power. People's rooftop solar and battery could charge their car.
Im getting solar installed this week, but not for a car. Failing government is plenty incentive to be self sufficent.
You think Biden been a bit crap means the electricity will go off?

From what I remember, he's from South Africa - I wonder if they are more proactive on renewable energy targets than America?
Yes, I'm from South Africa. And in theory we have renewable goals. In practice, we have 4 hour power cuts a day, so we are incentiviced to solve our own problems
Ah, sorry, presumed you were a yank.  Solar panels sound sensible, especially with all that sun.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 06, 2022, 03:30:55 AM
Ah, sorry, presumed you were a yank.  Solar panels sound sensible, especially with all that sun.
Where I live, we have about 25% overcast days of the year. We recently got a 300mm in 24 hour rain fall. The sunny places are far more North West from where I am. But like everywhere else on earth, really depends on which part of the continent. I can literally go from -10'C in the snow to 20'C on the beach within a few hours drive from where I am right now.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2022, 04:57:41 AM
Ha, me making more presumptions.

Have you got storage set up?   You reckon you could go off grid with the 75% sunny days?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 06, 2022, 08:55:11 AM
I read awhile back that snow is good for solar power because it reflects the sunlight. I guess it would be a pain to keep the snow off the panels, though.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 06, 2022, 10:25:26 AM
Ha, me making more presumptions.

Have you got storage set up?   You reckon you could go off grid with the 75% sunny days?
Going about 80% off, 20% on. Grid tied system.
Solar geyser already with gas for cooking, so that takes most of the load off.
The only things the grid still runs are my ovens and back up water heating if its especially overcast, but I can live without it.
Getting my ovens on a battery system will almost double the investment cost.
With Solar, I only need about 5kwh of LiFe storage. But will see how it goes, can expand if needed.
Oh, no aircons, that helps a lot.

I read awhile back that snow is good for solar power because it reflects the sunlight. I guess it would be a pain to keep the snow off the panels, though.
The only issue I see here is that snow tends to be on the ground, and your panels point up. Maybe in very Northern areas your panels are always at an angle.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on July 08, 2022, 04:01:17 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/tech/elon-musk-twitter-deal-exit/index.html

And it's off.

Let's all take a minute to appreciate the genius of Elon Musk and how he incinerator a third of TSLA's value while engaging in what's likely to be a bruising court battle with a meaningless social media website.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 08, 2022, 04:43:43 PM
He got his name on the headlines for a while. Pretty sure Elon's ego will think the billions lost was worth it

Maybe he'll start his own 'Truth Social' network lol. Or offer to buy that one up now lol
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on July 08, 2022, 04:45:25 PM
He got his name on the headlines for a while. Pretty sure Elon's ego will think the billions lost was worth it

Maybe he'll start his own 'Truth Social' network lol. Or offer to buy that one up now lol

I doubt his ego is under any threat.

Once you have 100 billion dollars does it really matter if that number is 120 or 80?  His life isn't going to change one bit even if he lost 90% of his wealth. He'd still be obscenely rich.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 08, 2022, 05:34:45 PM
He got his name on the headlines for a while. Pretty sure Elon's ego will think the billions lost was worth it

Maybe he'll start his own 'Truth Social' network lol. Or offer to buy that one up now lol

I doubt his ego is under any threat.

Once you have 100 billion dollars does it really matter if that number is 120 or 80?  His life isn't going to change one bit even if he lost 90% of his wealth. He'd still be obscenely rich.

True but his wealth is also calculated in stocks. It's not like he can go to a bank and withdraw 50 billion dollars to go and spend

Elon's name is getting toxic. His trust and reputation are damaging to his other business interests like Tesla. Elon is a guy that can lose billions in revenue just for being a dick. And he's being quite the dick
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 08, 2022, 05:39:38 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/tech/elon-musk-twitter-deal-exit/index.html

And it's off.
Maybe. 
https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-terminating-twitter-deal-2022-07-08/
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Crouton on July 08, 2022, 06:10:41 PM
There's that.  Both sides have the ability to make this fight long, painful and expensive.  It might end with some kind of compromise.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 08, 2022, 11:49:34 PM
SpaceX is a company for making wasteful rockets to appease their dictator.
Actually, SpaceX rockets are currently the most efficient and cost effective rockets in the industry.
Citation needed. And I don't mean some crappy preaching site taking the word of Musk as fact.
Also in regards to the reusable rockets vs non-reusable ones.
Especially as the figures I was able to obtain previously indicate that non-reusable rockets have a cheaper cost per kg to orbit.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 09, 2022, 12:20:46 PM
SpaceX is a company for making wasteful rockets to appease their dictator.
Actually, SpaceX rockets are currently the most efficient and cost effective rockets in the industry.
Citation needed. And I don't mean some crappy preaching site taking the word of Musk as fact.
How about:
https://aerospace.csis.org/data/space-launch-to-low-earth-orbit-how-much-does-it-cost/
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-cost-of-space-flight/


Also in regards to the reusable rockets vs non-reusable ones.
Especially as the figures I was able to obtain previously indicate that non-reusable rockets have a cheaper cost per kg to orbit.
Citation please.   SpaceX has already used more than one F9 booster more than 10 times.  How is it possible that a disposable booster can be more efficient than that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#Reuse_and_recovery_records
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 09, 2022, 04:18:23 PM
Citation please.   SpaceX has already used more than one F9 booster more than 10 times.  How is it possible that a disposable booster can be more efficient than that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#Reuse_and_recovery_records
Because in order to reuse a booster in the manner space-X does you need to have fuel to use for recovery.
If instead you have it as disposable, you can use all the fuel to get the payload into orbit, allowing a larger payload.
You also need to outfit the booster with components for recovery that it otherwise wouldn't need, such as landing legs, further cutting down the weight you can launch into orbit.

In addition, depending on where the booster lands, there can also be costs associated with recovery.
And while you may think you could save that by having it land back at the launch site, that may require more fuel meaning it could be cheaper to recover.

And there are always the costs of refurbishment to get the booster ready to launch again.

And remember, it is only the first stage that is reusable.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 09, 2022, 09:23:31 PM
Because in order to reuse a booster in the manner space-X does you need to have fuel to use for recovery.
If instead you have it as disposable, you can use all the fuel to get the payload into orbit, allowing a larger payload.
Are you suggesting that fuel costs more than the booster? ???  Also, why would you think that every launch will be the maximum rated payload of the rocket?

You also need to outfit the booster with components for recovery that it otherwise wouldn't need, such as landing legs, further cutting down the weight you can launch into orbit.
Yes, but they get reused with the booster.

In addition, depending on where the booster lands, there can also be costs associated with recovery.
And while you may think you could save that by having it land back at the launch site, that may require more fuel meaning it could be cheaper to recover.
Some of the lighter payloads do allow the F9 booster to return to the launch site.

And there are always the costs of refurbishment to get the booster ready to launch again.
Since when does it cost more to refurbish than to build from scratch?

And remember, it is only the first stage that is reusable.
Yes, the biggest and most expensive stage.  Don't forget that they are also recovering and refurbishing the several million dollar payload fairings.

Let's put it this way, SpaceX is charging about $67 million for a refurbished F9 mission and around $90 million for a new expendable F9 mission.  Who else in the medium lift segment comes close to that?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 10, 2022, 02:58:25 AM
Are you suggesting that fuel costs more than the booster? ???  Also, why would you think that every launch will be the maximum rated payload of the rocket?
No, I'm suggesting keeping fuel in reserve reduces the maximum payload which in turn means you could need more rockets for the same payload, increasing the cost.

If you have a significantly smaller payload, there is the question of if a smaller rocket would be better, or adding more fuel to the payload.

Yes, but they get reused with the booster.
But they add weight, reducing the maximum weight of the payload.

Since when does it cost more to refurbish than to build from scratch?
Look at the cost to repair lots of electronics.
While it is surprising, it can cost more to refurbish due to needing to examine each part to determine what needs to be fixed, take it apart and then replace it.
But the big issue with this is you need to refurbish and launch multiple rockets (or refurbish multiple times) vs just launching 1.

Let's put it this way, SpaceX is charging about $67 million for a refurbished F9 mission and around $90 million for a new expendable F9 mission.  Who else in the medium lift segment comes close to that?
Do you have a source for those numbers, showing the actual costs of spaceX, not publicity claims, especially noting that some claim spaceX charges significantly more to the government so they can have lower prices for private launches.

Even using those numbers, the payload for an expendable rocket to LEO is 22.8 tonne. That gives a cost of $3.9 million per tonne. The payload for a reusable rocket is 16.25 tonne, which gives a cost of $4.1 million per tonne. For GTO it is 10.8 and 12.2.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 10, 2022, 11:45:56 AM
Are you suggesting that fuel costs more than the booster? ???  Also, why would you think that every launch will be the maximum rated payload of the rocket?
No, I'm suggesting keeping fuel in reserve reduces the maximum payload which in turn means you could need more rockets for the same payload, increasing the cost.
All rocket manufacturers design their rockets with a specific payload range in mind.  Depending on the customer's requirements, SpaceX offers their F9 boosters to operate in expendable, ocean recovery or land recovery modes and are priced accordingly.  They don't seem to have much trouble attracting customers and filling their needs.

If you have a significantly smaller payload, there is the question of if a smaller rocket would be better, or adding more fuel to the payload.
Does the term "rideshare" mean anything to you?

Since when does it cost more to refurbish than to build from scratch?
Look at the cost to repair lots of electronics.
While it is surprising, it can cost more to refurbish due to needing to examine each part to determine what needs to be fixed, take it apart and then replace it.
Sure, assuming that the electronics go bad after each flight.  SpaceX has been refurbishing their F9 for a number of years now and have been able to increase the reliability of the boosters to the point where the current turnaround record is 21 days (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-new-booster-turnaround-record-21-days/).

But the big issue with this is you need to refurbish and launch multiple rockets (or refurbish multiple times) vs just launching 1.
I can't help but to wonder whose assembly line is stamping out medium lift rockets like popcorn.

Let's put it this way, SpaceX is charging about $67 million for a refurbished F9 mission and around $90 million for a new expendable F9 mission.  Who else in the medium lift segment comes close to that?
Do you have a source for those numbers, showing the actual costs of spaceX, not publicity claims, especially noting that some claim spaceX charges significantly more to the government so they can have lower prices for private launches.
I'm sure that the actual numbers vary quite a lot depending on the customer and payload, but those are the general numbers often quoted by the media.

Even using those numbers, the payload for an expendable rocket to LEO is 22.8 tonne. That gives a cost of $3.9 million per tonne. The payload for a reusable rocket is 16.25 tonne, which gives a cost of $4.1 million per tonne. For GTO it is 10.8 and 12.2.
The numbers generally tossed around by the media for F9 is around $2500/kg to LEO and even less for Falcon Heavy.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-cost-of-space-flight/

If you want exact numbers, then maybe you should contact SpaceX yourself.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 10, 2022, 02:33:07 PM
All rocket manufacturers design their rockets with a specific payload range in mind.  Depending on the customer's requirements, SpaceX offers their F9 boosters to operate in expendable, ocean recovery or land recovery modes and are priced accordingly.  They don't seem to have much trouble attracting customers and filling their needs.
Which in no way addresses the points I made.

People do all sorts of crazy things. Look at how many people have thrown money at a century old idea called the vactrain.
Or how many people throw loads of money at solar roadways.

Does the term "rideshare" mean anything to you?
Yes, does it mean anything to you? Because rideshare would try to get the maximum payload weight.

Sure, assuming that the electronics go bad after each flight.
Electronics were just an example.
The question is what goes bad and needs to be replaced or repaired, how much it costs to determine what those parts are, and how much it costs to then replace them.
With some things, building a new one can be cheaper.

I can't help but to wonder whose assembly line is stamping out medium lift rockets like popcorn.
Well that is what Musk wanted to do at one point.

I'm sure that the actual numbers vary quite a lot depending on the customer and payload, but those are the general numbers often quoted by the media.
And that is the issue. They are numbers which are tossed around, without real justification.
We know Musk is someone who is willing to blatantly lie to people to make his companies look good and make himself money.

We also know he is happy to have companies like Tesla run at a loss to increase image.
So the big question is are these numbers real, or are they significantly undervaluing the cost of the rocket/refurbishment to make their rockets appear significantly cheaper than competitors.

Especially given the apparently much larger cost for government flights.

We can also see the price jump dramatically for things like the crew dragon, where it is allegedly charged at something like $67 million per seat, so crew-1 would be $268 million.

The numbers generally tossed around by the media for F9 is around $2500/kg to LEO and even less for Falcon Heavy.
Which again are numbers tossed around by the media, rather than justified numbers.

If you want exact numbers, then maybe you should contact SpaceX yourself.
And as that would just come from Musk or SpaceX through whatever media BS they have, I wouldn't trust those either.
I would trust SpaceX having an audit of how much things actually cost by an independent third party.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 10, 2022, 06:18:25 PM
Sure, assuming that the electronics go bad after each flight.
Electronics were just an example.
The question is what goes bad and needs to be replaced or repaired, how much it costs to determine what those parts are, and how much it costs to then replace them.
With some things, building a new one can be cheaper.
In this case, the F9 block 5 booster is not one of them.

I can't help but to wonder whose assembly line is stamping out medium lift rockets like popcorn.
Well that is what Musk wanted to do at one point.
No, he wanted reusability so that he wouldn't need to stamp out boosters like popcorn.  As I recall, he was looking at trying to get to the booster to last 100 launches with major refurbs every 10th flight and only inspections and minor refurbs for the rest of the flights.

I'm sure that the actual numbers vary quite a lot depending on the customer and payload, but those are the general numbers often quoted by the media.
And that is the issue. They are numbers which are tossed around, without real justification.
We know Musk is someone who is willing to blatantly lie to people to make his companies look good and make himself money.
How many SpaceX customers do you know of who are pissed off at Musk for lying to them?

We also know he is happy to have companies like Tesla run at a loss to increase image.
So the big question is are these numbers real, or are they significantly undervaluing the cost of the rocket/refurbishment to make their rockets appear significantly cheaper than competitors.
I suppose that's between Musk and his investors.

Especially given the apparently much larger cost for government flights.

We can also see the price jump dramatically for things like the crew dragon, where it is allegedly charged at something like $67 million per seat, so crew-1 would be $268 million.
Which is still significantly cheaper than what Boeing is getting paid for a comparable mission.

If you want exact numbers, then maybe you should contact SpaceX yourself.
And as that would just come from Musk or SpaceX through whatever media BS they have, I wouldn't trust those either.
I would trust SpaceX having an audit of how much things actually cost by an independent third party.
Then why don't you ask a SpaceX customer what they paid for their launch?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 11, 2022, 01:01:12 AM
How many SpaceX customers do you know of who are pissed off at Musk for lying to them?
How many Apple customers do you know of who are pissed off at Apple for lying to them?

I suppose that's between Musk and his investors.
But the point is we can't trust the numbers provided.

Then why don't you ask a SpaceX customer what they paid for their launch?
Already explained.
That would just tell me how much they were charged, not how much it actually costs.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 11, 2022, 02:59:23 AM
There is no longer a question if reusability is cost effective.
EVERY rocket company in the medium to heavy lift range is developing reusable rockets. This goes from ULA, Boeings subsidary to European Space Agency. If Only SpaceX where chaing this dream, then you may have had a point. But the fact that everyone is trying to achieve reusability should show its pretty obvious that it saves money.

I mean, In what world does 30t of landing fuel cost more than an entire rocket + engines where each engine costs millions.

As for launching more mass. The F9 has a LEO payload capacity of about 16t. This is abouth what the Space Shuttle could do. Most payloads weigh a lot less, more in the 4-5t range. These sats are also pretty large, because they have things like solar panels and antenna that are bulky and not very dense. So being able to launch 21t instead of 16t is not really an advantage, something that they can still do.

As for Dragon crew costing more. Its a whole additional vehicle which is far more complex than the rocket below it which is a cause for the additional cost.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 11, 2022, 03:22:49 AM
There is no longer a question if reusability is cost effective.
EVERY rocket company in the medium to heavy lift range is developing reusable rockets.
Look at all the companies that decide to look into the vactrain after Musk hyped it up.
Lots of companies looking into it doesn't mean it is a good idea or cost effective.

Once it is actually cheaper per kg to launch a reusable rocket and reuse it, with that being the actual cost to do so rather than what people are charged,

I mean, In what world does 30t of landing fuel cost more than an entire rocket + engines where each engine costs millions.
It isn't 30 t of landing fuel. It is a reduction in the capacity of the rocket, requiring multiple launches for the same payload mass.

As for launching more mass. The F9 has a LEO payload capacity of about 16t. This is about what the Space Shuttle could do.
That would be the payload to the ISS.
The payload to LEO for the shuttle was 27.5 tonne.

Most payloads weigh a lot less, more in the 4-5t range.
And multiple of these can be launched as the one payload.

These sats are also pretty large, because they have things like solar panels and antenna that are bulky and not very dense.
Which are typically stowed away to make them fairly dense.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 11, 2022, 03:44:10 AM
Even using those numbers, the payload for an expendable rocket to LEO is 22.8 tonne. That gives a cost of $3.9 million per tonne. The payload for a reusable rocket is 16.25 tonne, which gives a cost of $4.1 million per tonne. For GTO it is 10.8 and 12.2.
The mass per ton is actually not the best way to look at things. If you want a Sat weighing 5t in SSO, the mass per kg is pretty useless. You are paying for the whole rocket. So the question is, what rocket can do that for the least amount of money. Ride share is only useful if the other payloads are going to the same orbit, which is very rare.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 11, 2022, 04:07:12 AM
Once it is actually cheaper per kg to launch a reusable rocket and reuse it, with that being the actual cost to do so rather than what people are charged,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_in_spaceflight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_in_spaceflight)
Falcon9 is the most used rocket on earth right now. It has more NASA and commercial payloads (not starlink) in 2022 already than ALL other US launchers combined. If it was not cheaper and safer, then how do you explain this outcome?

It isn't 30 t of landing fuel. It is a reduction in the capacity of the rocket, requiring multiple launches for the same payload mass.
But your not launching "mass", your launching Satellites. Very few sats weight over 5tons, never mind 16. There are only about 10 things that have ever launched into LEO weighing more than 16t. So this additional capacity is not needed. For heavier things, they can launch expendable or use FH.

That would be the payload to the ISS.
The payload to LEO for the shuttle was 27.5 tonne.
Heaviest payload the STS ever did was 22.7t (Chandra telescope) and they had to remove seats and some other equipment to make that happen. It only took 5 people, opposed to 6-7. Launch cost for STS was in the range of $1.4B.

And multiple of these can be launched as the one payload.
Very few satellites want to share orbits. Each sat usually has a mission, and each mission has mission requirements, such as altitude, inclination ext. Starlink is special, because they are groups of sats that want to be in the same inclination and orbit. Cubesats dont care as long as they get into orbit. Its a bit like choosing to take a cheaper bus, but it does not go to the city you want to go to.

Which are typically stowed away to make them fairly dense.
A lot less dense than you think. The Airforce is paying SpaceX money to build bigger fairings because the fairing size is a bigger limitation that its launch mass.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 11, 2022, 04:46:25 AM
If it was not cheaper and safer, then how do you explain this outcome?
Already addressed.

But your not launching "mass", your launching Satellites. Very few sats weight over 5tons, never mind 16. There are only about 10 things that have ever launched into LEO weighing more than 16t. So this additional capacity is not needed.
Which means you can use a smaller and cheaper rocket, or multiple satellites can be launched in one.

If this capacity is not needed, why do they have the Falcon 9 heavy? Why are they working on Starship that they want to entirely replace the Falcon?

Heaviest payload the STS ever did was 22.7t (Chandra telescope) and they had to remove seats and some other equipment to make that happen. It only took 5 people, opposed to 6-7. Launch cost for STS was in the range of $1.4B.
Quite a large cost for a mostly reusable rocket.

Very few satellites want to share orbits.
You are aware they don't need to remain fixed in the orbits they are in?

A lot less dense than you think. The Airforce is paying SpaceX money to build bigger fairings because the fairing size is a bigger limitation that its launch mass.
For a telescope, with a lot of empty space inside. Quite different to solar panels.
And I think that is meant to be launched on the Falcon 9 heavy.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 11, 2022, 05:27:36 AM
Already addressed.
.
I dont think you did. Maybe I missed it? Why do you think most commercial and governments are using the Falcon9 and not another rocket?


Which means you can use a smaller and cheaper rocket, or multiple satellites can be launched in one.
There are very few rockets with payloads above 4 tons. And those that do exist are very expensive or specialised. Again, just look at what's actually being launched, and what they are flying on. There simply is not a smaller and cheaper rocket for a more than 4 ton launcher than Falcon 9.

And you really really cant just put different sats on the same rocket. Those sats need to be going to the same inclination and orbital altitude. You cant just get on any bus and expect to go home.

If this capacity is not needed, why do they have the Falcon 9 heavy? Why are they working on Starship that they want to entirely replace the Falcon?
Because the falcon heavy is MUCH more powerful than a disposable F9. These orbits are also for GEO or inter planetary missions, where it takes far more energy just to launch a 1 ton payload.
Starships full reusability is trying to get total vehicle cost below that of the Falcon 9. So 100t to orbit for less than F9. Then a 4 ton payload will still have a fixed cost.

Quite a large cost for a mostly reusable rocket.
Indeed. And because STS failed at reducing cost, everyone though it could not be done. But It was simply that the engineering did not work out.


You are aware they don't need to remain fixed in the orbits they are in?
Changing inclinations is very energy intense, and so is raising orbits. To do so, you need to add a lot of fuel and complexity to your satellite. By the time you have done this, you may as well have bought a launch for yourself.

For a telescope, with a lot of empty space inside. Quite different to solar panels.
And I think that is meant to be launched on the Falcon 9 heavy.
F9 heavy is massively crippled by its small fairing.
But your underestimating the issue.
Sats are not dense because everything that needs to fold or unfold is a potential failure point. They also have massive thermal issues. For every watt of energy they recieve from the sun, they need to dump somewhere. Being dense means they overheat quickly.

And the bigger issue. They need to be stacked on top of each other for ridesharing. These cubesats are usually launched from a tube, which houses a bunch of sats inside a structure. (This structure is also heavy and large)
If you put multiple sats in a rocket, they need to stack on top of each other, which means the bottom one has to take additional loads for the sats on top. Then these sats need to ensure they can properly disconnect, which has caused many payloads to fail before. This can all be done, but its usually designed from the start with one customer wanting 2 sats and not too difficult requirements.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 11, 2022, 03:38:23 PM
I dont think you did. Maybe I missed it? Why do you think most commercial and governments are using the Falcon9 and not another rocket?
Because it is cheap for them, and is getting a mostly reliable track record.
What alternatives are there? Not many.
But specifically against the point you were making is that it is the cost to them, not the cost to actually make/refurbish the rocket.

Not to mention a lot of the launches are done for starlink.
You want to appeal to 2022 in spaceflight, well of the 29 launches of the Falcon in 2022, 17 of them were for starlink.
If you take out all those starlink launches, the falcon doesn't look any where near as impressive, and is beaten by Long March.

There are very few rockets with payloads above 4 tons.
And if most payloads are less than 5 tonnes, and they want their own dedicated launch, why aren't there more rockets for them?

And you really really cant just put different sats on the same rocket.
As long as they are on a similar enough orbit, its fine.
It isn't like every satellite wants its own orbit all to itself.

And considering you want to cling to the bus analogy, it is also possible for multiple people to get on the one bus, and then get off at different points along the route.
Likewise, with a rocket, it is possible to have multiple payloads released at different points to put them into different orbits.

Because the falcon heavy is MUCH more powerful than a disposable F9.
Is it really?
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode is 8.3 tonne.
The Falcon 9 heavy payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode, is 8 tonne.

This shows just what it takes to make it reusable.
You use 3 stage 1 engines, instead of just 1.

Starships full reusability is trying to get total vehicle cost below that of the Falcon 9.
And if they can manage that, why can't they manage it with a smaller vehicle?

Quite a large cost for a mostly reusable rocket.
Indeed. And because STS failed at reducing cost, everyone though it could not be done. But It was simply that the engineering did not work out.

Changing inclinations is very energy intense, and so is raising orbits.
If only they had a rocket with plenty of payload to spare to do it for them...

To do so, you need to add a lot of fuel and complexity to your satellite.
If you already have fuel on the satellite, chances are it doesn't need to add complexity, just fuel.

F9 heavy is massively crippled by its small fairing.
Yes, but is the F9?

For a simple approximation of a cylinder, the volume of the Falcon fairing is ~183 m^3.
For the expendable payload of 22.8 tonne to LEO, that works out to be a density of 124.7 kg/m^3.
That is already a very low density.

But your underestimating the issue.
Sats are not dense because everything that needs to fold or unfold is a potential failure point. They also have massive thermal issues. For every watt of energy they recieve from the sun, they need to dump somewhere. Being dense means they overheat quickly.
The components which need to fold and unfold are generally going to be too large and too fragile to have open during the launch.
Density doesn't make them overheat. Just how do you think that works?
Do you think being dense will mean they will take in more heat from the sun, or be able to dump less?

If you take something like the ISS, and fill one of the compartments with lead, do you think that will magically make it heat up?

And the bigger issue. They need to be stacked on top of each other for ridesharing.
No they don't.
They can be attached to a central adapter.
This adapter will be what supports the satellites. No load needs to be transferred through other satellites.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 11, 2022, 05:02:25 PM
How many SpaceX customers do you know of who are pissed off at Musk for lying to them?
How many Apple customers do you know of who are pissed off at Apple for lying to them?
Are you seriously trying to compare iPhones to rockets?

I suppose that's between Musk and his investors.
But the point is we can't trust the numbers provided.
If you aren't a potential SpaceX customer, then why should you care what the numbers are?

Then why don't you ask a SpaceX customer what they paid for their launch?
Already explained.
That would just tell me how much they were charged, not how much it actually costs.
Again, why do you care?  If SpaceX is losing money, then that's between SpaceX and their investors.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 12, 2022, 12:52:33 AM
Are you seriously trying to compare iPhones to rockets?
No, I'm comparing fanboys and other opinionated people.
They are quite happy to throw money away.

If you aren't a potential SpaceX customer, then why should you care what the numbers are?
Again, why do you care?  If SpaceX is losing money, then that's between SpaceX and their investors.
Because someone claimed that SpaceX rockets are currently the most efficient and cost effective rockets in the industry.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 12, 2022, 05:07:57 AM
Because it is cheap for them, and is getting a mostly reliable track record.
What alternatives are there? Not many.
But specifically against the point you were making is that it is the cost to them, not the cost to actually make/refurbish the rocket.

Not to mention a lot of the launches are done for starlink.
You want to appeal to 2022 in spaceflight, well of the 29 launches of the Falcon in 2022, 17 of them were for starlink.
Currently (and practically), for above 5tons to orbit, you have
Falcon9 - 16 to 28t
Delta IV - 28t
Proton-M - 23t (now only for Russia)
Soyuz - 8t (now only for Russia)
Ariane 5 - 21t
Atlas V - 17t
There are the options. Soyuz was very well used, but was still out priced by F9. Proton-M actually came close the cost of a F9 at a per kg cost, but was still lost to the F9 as it as it had a better safety record.
The other rockets are all a lot more expensive.
Long March and Angara are not on this list, because no matter how much money you have, you cant buy a launch on one. 

If you take out all those starlink launches, the falcon doesn't look any where near as impressive, and is beaten by Long March.
If I remove CCP payloads from the Long March, it does not look very impressive at ZERO launches. If you want to remove internal payloads for F9, then you need to do that for the Long March too.

[/size]
And if most payloads are less than 5 tonnes, and they want their own dedicated launch, why aren't there more rockets for them?
3 points.
1 - Because mass is not the only thing that matters, energy is. Change your orbit inclination by 45 degrees, and suddenly you need 25% more energy to get to the chosen orbit. Same with raising orbits. As I mentioned time and again, orbit is not a single location. you need a lot more energy to be at a 750x750km orbit vs a 200x200km orbit. So your 5 ton launcher is practically only a 3ton launcher for most customers.
2 - Because a 16t launcher can launch everything a 5t launcher can, but not the other way round. This means there are shared costs between many flights of a big rocket, where a 5ton launcher only flying 3 times a year still needs to pay a 100 people a salary for standing around most of the time.
3 - They are coming, but starting at the small sat market. But the market is not ready for too many of them.
[/quote]

As long as they are on a similar enough orbit, its fine.
It isn't like every satellite wants its own orbit all to itself.

And considering you want to cling to the bus analogy, it is also possible for multiple people to get on the one bus, and then get off at different points along the route.
Likewise, with a rocket, it is possible to have multiple payloads released at different points to put them into different orbits.
As I have said, many sats do share a ride. But not as many. Most want their own specialised orbital characteristics. A second/ third stage is not a bus that can drive to a fuel stop, fill up, change directions and go somewhere else. Its not star trek. There is a massive cost in changing direction.

Is it really?
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode is 8.3 tonne.
The Falcon 9 heavy payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode, is 8 tonne.

This shows just what it takes to make it reusable.
You use 3 stage 1 engines, instead of just 1.
And SpaceX still choses to use a reusable F9 Heavy. Do you want to know why? Because its cheaper for them to refurbish 3 rocket stages than to build 1 new one.

And if they can manage that, why can't they manage it with a smaller vehicle?
Its harder with a smaller vehicle. And they want to do it with a bigger vehicle. Something about Mars.
Its harder with a smaller vehicle not just because your mass fraction becomes tougher to manage with additional parts needed for re-use. But also because a large rocket allows orbital depots, which opens up a host of other possibilities.

If you already have fuel on the satellite, chances are it doesn't need to add complexity, just fuel.
The only reason why your doing this is cause you are flying multiple payloads. So now you need to not only build a bigger sat with more fuel, you also need to accommodate the other sat that will sit on top of yours during launch at 3G. And have to accept that you could launch years later, because the other sat developers are late. Where are they saving time or money?

Yes, but is the F9?

For a simple approximation of a cylinder, the volume of the Falcon fairing is ~183 m^3.
For the expendable payload of 22.8 tonne to LEO, that works out to be a density of 124.7 kg/m^3.
That is already a very low density.
They are not launching foam blocks, they are launching Satelites.
this ->
(https://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/69212138_2630144540349577_6120041153682210816_n-500x750.jpg)
is what a 3.8ton satellite looks like inside a 4m wide fairing.

No they don't.
They can be attached to a central adapter.
This adapter will be what supports the satellites. No load needs to be transferred through other satellites.
Only small sats can fit inside a central adaptor. Small is sub 200-300kg. Not even in the same ball park
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 12, 2022, 02:56:09 PM
If I remove CCP payloads from the Long March, it does not look very impressive at ZERO launches. If you want to remove internal payloads for F9, then you need to do that for the Long March too.
Then we can also remove all US launches for F9.

3 points.
1 - Because mass is not the only thing that matters, energy is. Change your orbit inclination by 45 degrees, and suddenly you need 25% more energy to get to the chosen orbit. Same with raising orbits. As I mentioned time and again, orbit is not a single location. you need a lot more energy to be at a 750x750km orbit vs a 200x200km orbit. So your 5 ton launcher is practically only a 3ton launcher for most customers.
2 - Because a 16t launcher can launch everything a 5t launcher can, but not the other way round. This means there are shared costs between many flights of a big rocket, where a 5ton launcher only flying 3 times a year still needs to pay a 100 people a salary for standing around most of the time.
3 - They are coming, but starting at the small sat market. But the market is not ready for too many of them.
Point 1 just shoots yourself in the foot.
For point 2, why would they need to just stand around most of the time? Are you suggesting it would be impossible for someone to work on 2 different rockets?
3 - But you had just said that practically nothing needs more, so if the market is ready for F9, why isn't it ready for them?

As I have said, many sats do share a ride. But not as many. Most want their own specialised orbital characteristics. A second/ third stage is not a bus that can drive to a fuel stop, fill up, change directions and go somewhere else. Its not star trek. There is a massive cost in changing direction.
But when you have so much overhead, it can have plenty of spare fuel to change orbits.

And SpaceX still choses to use a reusable F9 Heavy. Do you want to know why?
To look good, like Musk likes trying with so much crap.

Its harder with a smaller vehicle. And they want to do it with a bigger vehicle. Something about Mars.
Its harder with a smaller vehicle not just because your mass fraction becomes tougher to manage with additional parts needed for re-use. But also because a large rocket allows orbital depots, which opens up a host of other possibilities.
Or was it because they have already given up on the smaller rocket?
Initially they wanted a fully reusable Falcon 9. They wanted a reusable second stage.

The only reason why your doing this is cause you are flying multiple payloads.
Or if you want to be able to have orbital manoeuvring capability, which can be either for small corrections, pointing in other directions, or for extending the life of the mission. For example, JWT is limited by how much fuel it has.

So now you need to not only build a bigger sat with more fuel, you also need to accommodate the other sat that will sit on top of yours during launch at 3G. And have to accept that you could launch years later, because the other sat developers are late. Where are they saving time or money?
That entirely depends on how the launch is setup. You will not necessarily need the other satellite to sit on top.
To solve the time issue, you just need a contract with a definitive launch date, so if they are late they loose the money, and then make sure you meet the date.

They are not launching foam blocks, they are launching Satelites.
this ->
is what a 3.8ton satellite looks like inside a 4m wide fairing.
An image without any reference to show mass or the like is not helpful for anything.

Only small sats can fit inside a central adaptor. Small is sub 200-300kg. Not even in the same ball park
They don't need to fit inside, they can attach to it.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 12, 2022, 03:47:53 PM
Are you seriously trying to compare iPhones to rockets?
No, I'm comparing fanboys and other opinionated people.
They are quite happy to throw money away.
Then it's a good thing that neither are the in target market for the satellite launch industry.

Because the falcon heavy is MUCH more powerful than a disposable F9.
Is it really?
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode is 5.5 tonne.
The Falcon heavy payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode, is 8 tonne.
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode is 8.3 tonne.
The Falcon heavy payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode, is 26.7 tonne.

This shows just what it takes to make it reusable.
You use 3 stage 1 engines, instead of just 1.
FTFY because you seem to have trouble comparing apples to apples.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 12, 2022, 03:52:06 PM
Are you seriously trying to compare iPhones to rockets?
No, I'm comparing fanboys and other opinionated people.
They are quite happy to throw money away.
Then it's a good thing that neither are the in target market for the satellite launch industry.
Considering we have seen just how much money governments and other large bodies are willing to throw away on technology that "looks good" without any real benefit and which is almost certain to fail; just how sure are you about that?


Because the falcon heavy is MUCH more powerful than a disposable F9.
Is it really?
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode is 8.3 tonne.
The Falcon heavy payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode, is 8 tonne.
The Falcon heavy payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode, is 26.7 tonne.

This shows just what it takes to make it reusable.
You use 3 stage 1 engines, instead of just 1.
FTFY because you seem to have trouble comparing apples to apples.
You didn't fix it, you just entirely ignored the point. Great job. I bet you feel so proud.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 12, 2022, 04:12:29 PM
You didn't fix it, you just entirely ignored the point.
No, you're the one missing the point.  Just like every other space launch provider, SpaceX provides a variety of manned and unmanned launch capabilities that they are able to offer their customers and price those options accordingly.  If they can undercut their competitors and/or pad their profit margin by using flight tested, previously flown boosters, then what's the problem?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 12, 2022, 10:33:45 PM
Then we can also remove all US launches for F9.
No, because Long March does not launch ANY commercial payloads, even within China. Long March is closer in comparison to the SLS. No amount of money can get a commercial payload on the rocket. Its out of the equation of any discussion because the price per ticket is simply not even for discussion.


Point 1 just shoots yourself in the foot.
For point 2, why would they need to just stand around most of the time? Are you suggesting it would be impossible for someone to work on 2 different rockets?
3 - But you had just said that practically nothing needs more, so if the market is ready for F9, why isn't it ready for them?
Point one says that you need a decent sized launcher to be competitive in the Market. WITH reusability, F9 is pretty large.
2 - When you only launch a few times a year, and your job on a rocket is over within 2 weeks, what do you do? In one month you can finish all your work for the year. To give an example. There are whole crews that work on the loading of cryogenic or volatile fuels. This is a specialist job, not some random team of people your pulling off an assembly line. But this job is only need during the week or 2 before launch, and then a bit afterwards. What does this guy do for the rest of the year?
3 - Small sat market (under 1ton) is growing. But the cost to develop rockets is really high. We are talking hundreds of millions, so you cant just quickly make a new rocket. It takes time.

But when you have so much overhead, it can have plenty of spare fuel to change orbits.
This would make sense if reusability was not a lot cheaper. The internal cost to launch a refurbished F9 is about $28m. Less than half the cost of launching one new rocket. SpaceX will chose to launch 2 reused before they dispose of a single rocket.
They also reduce their fixed cost this way. Building rockets is expensive because it takes people to do so. But you also need a bigger factory if you have a higher production rate. So they are keeping a small team to build rockets at a consistent pace. The similarities between their 1st and 2nd stage make this even more important for their business case.

To look good, like Musk likes trying with so much crap.
Except Musk does not book rocket flights, Gwynne Shotwell does. Also, they are not gov funded, they can run out of money. If reuse cost more, they would be broke by now.
In total they have 160 launches on the books. If they made no profit on any of them, no investor would fund them and they would not have cash to develop Starship.

Or was it because they have already given up on the smaller rocket?
Initially they wanted a fully reusable Falcon 9. They wanted a reusable second stage.
As you mention, reusability eats into your payload capacity. F9 only has 16tons to spare after reuse. Reusing the 2nd stage eats into more margin, meaning that their 16ton launcher now becomes a 4ton launcher. And when you consider that 4tons is only a reference orbit, it then competes with the small sat market, which is not good. So in this case, reusability would have not been worth it.
If you make the rocket a LOT bigger, then you can still put a decent payload into orbit, and reuse the 2nd stage. Blue Origin is working on this right now as well. And so is Starship.

Or if you want to be able to have orbital manoeuvring capability, which can be either for small corrections, pointing in other directions, or for extending the life of the mission. For example, JWT is limited by how much fuel it has.
Orbital manoeuvring takes a lot less fuel than inclination or altitude changes. This is really just for desaturating gyros, small single m/s changes in velocity ext. The fuel on these sats lasts them 20 - 30 years. For a inclination change, you will use multiple tons of fuel in hours.

That entirely depends on how the launch is setup. You will not necessarily need the other satellite to sit on top.
To solve the time issue, you just need a contract with a definitive launch date, so if they are late they loose the money, and then make sure you meet the date.
Usually when there is ride share, its the same customer who wants 2 sats, who can design them together. Or they are smaller sats that can sit side by side. But sats are VERY often late, by years. Usually because they are such specialised and cutting edge technology, they run into unforeseen issues in development.

An image without any reference to show mass or the like is not helpful for anything.

https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2020/06/29/third-gps-iii-satellite-encapsulated-in-falcon-9-payload-fairing-ahead-of-launch/
Different launch of the same type of sat. 3.8ton GPS 3 sats. There where a few launched on different rockets. The previous image was on the Delta V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_Block_III#Launch_history

They don't need to fit inside, they can attach to it.
Sure, for little sats, not what we are talking about.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 13, 2022, 01:07:22 AM
You didn't fix it, you just entirely ignored the point.
No, you're the one missing the point.
Considering it was my comment, I think I would know what the point is, especially given the context.
The point is that in the quest of reusability, instead of launching a single Falcon 9, with a single stage 1 booster, they instead need to use a Falcon 9 heavy, with 3 stage 1 boosters.
It is a demonstration of just how much reusability can cost.

If they can undercut their competitors and/or pad their profit margin by using flight tested, previously flown boosters, then what's the problem?
The question is if they are actually padding their profit margin using reusable boosters.

No, because Long March does not launch ANY commercial payloads, even within China. Long March is closer in comparison to the SLS. No amount of money can get a commercial payload on the rocket. Its out of the equation of any discussion because the price per ticket is simply not even for discussion.
By what definition of "commercial"?
They certainly seem to be launching things comparable to commercial things launched in the US.
For example, a bunch of satellites for GalaxySpace.

The only reason it is out of so many equations is because the US doesn't want to allow China to launch satellites. So much so that it blocks any US company from contracting any Chinese entity (including any Chinese company) to launch a satellite.
This also means it blocks satellite components being used by overseas companies to make a satellite which is then launched by the Chinese company.

Just think of how many launches it could have if the US allowed it.

Point one says that you need a decent sized launcher to be competitive in the Market. WITH reusability, F9 is pretty large.
And goes directly against your prior claims that you don't need such a large capacity.

2 - When you only launch a few times a year, and your job on a rocket is over within 2 weeks, what do you do?
Why would you need to have your job only be for that rocket?
Are you saying these people are too stupid to look after 2 or 3 different types of rockets?
If so, I wouldn't trust them looking after 1.

To give an example. There are whole crews that work on the loading of cryogenic or volatile fuels. This is a specialist job, not some random team of people your pulling off an assembly line. But this job is only need during the week or 2 before launch, and then a bit afterwards. What does this guy do for the rest of the year?
The exact same thing, with other rockets.

This would make sense if reusability was not a lot cheaper. The internal cost to launch a refurbished F9 is about $28m.
Prove it.

Except Musk does not book rocket flights, Gwynne Shotwell does.
Musk also didn't really invest much into hyperscam. Instead other companies, or rich people from those companies, were quite happy to throw money away at it.

Also, they are not gov funded, they can run out of money. If reuse cost more, they would be broke by now.
Sure, they aren't government funded, they just get billions of dollars from government contracts.

And as already established, the cost per kg of reusable rockets is more to the customers.

As you mention, reusability eats into your payload capacity. F9 only has 16tons to spare after reuse. Reusing the 2nd stage eats into more margin, meaning that their 16ton launcher now becomes a 4ton launcher. And when you consider that 4tons is only a reference orbit, it then competes with the small sat market, which is not good. So in this case, reusability would have not been worth it.
If you make the rocket a LOT bigger, then you can still put a decent payload into orbit, and reuse the 2nd stage. Blue Origin is working on this right now as well. And so is Starship.
Which still shows that it isn't simple a case of they didn't want it. Musk at least implied that he wanted Falcon to be fully reusuable.

And while starship may allow it to be fully reusable, with all the costs of refurbishment, will it end up being more expensive?

For a inclination change, you will use multiple tons of fuel in hours.
Or you can do it more efficiently over a longer period of time, including by using more complex manoeuvres.

https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2020/06/29/third-gps-iii-satellite-encapsulated-in-falcon-9-payload-fairing-ahead-of-launch/
Different launch of the same type of sat.
So why couldn't you get the article for the previous image?
And this one doesn't show it inside the fairing, just near it.
It appears that it will have quite a lot of empty space.

Sure, for little sats, not what we are talking about.
We are talking about rideshare in general, not just for loads where it wouldn't be practical.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 13, 2022, 02:18:15 AM
The point is that in the quest of reusability, instead of launching a single Falcon 9, with a single stage 1 booster, they instead need to use a Falcon 9 heavy, with 3 stage 1 boosters.
It is a demonstration of just how much reusability can cost.
It does demonstrate how much reusability can cost. Its clearly cheaper to reuse 3 booster and destroy one.

By what definition of "commercial"?
They certainly seem to be launching things comparable to commercial things launched in the US.
For example, a bunch of satellites for GalaxySpace.

The only reason it is out of so many equations is because the US doesn't want to allow China to launch satellites. So much so that it blocks any US company from contracting any Chinese entity (including any Chinese company) to launch a satellite.
This also means it blocks satellite components being used by overseas companies to make a satellite which is then launched by the Chinese company.

Just think of how many launches it could have if the US allowed it.
Most Chinese launchers, and sat industries are either state owned, or subsidized. And by subsidized, I mean, they give them direct cash injections to produce a product. I have nothing wrong with this, but they are all funded from the same source. SpaceX gets customers from other countries or companies with no ties to SpaceX, or even USA. I consider this the difference.

And goes directly against your prior claims that you don't need such a large capacity.
Capacity vs Price. An expensive 27t launcher with 1 customer a year is worse than a cheap 16t launcher with 20 customers a year. There is a range where most paying customers are going to maximise the market share. You want to be in that range.

Why would you need to have your job only be for that rocket?
Are you saying these people are too stupid to look after 2 or 3 different types of rockets?
If so, I wouldn't trust them looking after 1.
. . . . .
The exact same thing, with other rockets.

I think you underestimate what I mean by specialised. These crew are trained to specifically work with dangerous liquids, at dangerous temperatures using very specific equipment for a very specific rocket, with trade secrets in a certain location in the country. This team is trained to fuel one specific vehicle, made by one specific company, which wants to ensure their talent does not get poached OR moves their trade secrets to another company. They are not fuelling cars, if they make mistakes they could blow up billion dollar equipment. If you think they can just hop over to dump some -170'C Hydrogen in a rocket after a 2 week course, then you have a very incorrect view of how the industry works.

Prove it.
You want me to steel their internal accounting books? Because I know a quote from a SpaceX representative wont be enough for you.

Musk also didn't really invest much into hyperscam. Instead other companies, or rich people from those companies, were quite happy to throw money away at it.
And? Do you think NASA, The Airforce, multiple countries and commercial communications companies are looking at the cool videos of a Falcon 9 landing and saying "screw it, we know it costs more, but I want to launch on the one that is reusable?" We have actual quotes around the industry saying they are cheaper than alternatives.

Sure, they aren't government funded, they just get billions of dollars from government contracts.

And as already established, the cost per kg of reusable rockets is more to the customers.
So does every other company that supplies goods and services to the US government. They still need to turn a profit on those contracts or go bankrupt.

And no, the cost to the customer is not more, because SpaceX has provided the launch option for disposable rockets, and customers are not choosing those. Maybe try to understand why customers are choosing reusable over disposable.

Which still shows that it isn't simple a case of they didn't want it. Musk at least implied that he wanted Falcon to be fully reusuable.

And while starship may allow it to be fully reusable, with all the costs of refurbishment, will it end up being more expensive?
I think they did want it, they never achieved it as Falcon 9 is too small for full reusability.

And I dont know for certain if SS will be cheaper. We will have to wait and see.
It depends on a few things, one of them is reliability of the rocket itself. If they need to do extensive refurb or not, this is what failed the STS. And how many flights they can get a year. If they can only fly once a year, it will cost a lot. If they can refurb and fly within weeks or days, then they will be fine. You need to share fixed costs (Such as those guys needing to fuel your rocket)
But overall, I have confidence that it will eventually be cheaper to fly a SS for less than $60m. Tending towards $20m a flight.
There will also be different types of flights with different associated costs.
If they are only flying fuel to a depot, that cheap.
Flying people (eventually) will cost a lot more.

Or you can do it more efficiently over a longer period of time, including by using more complex manoeuvres.
The physics does not change, you need to eject mass out the back end at a certain speed. You can get higher ISP motors, but cost seem to increase quickly here. You also are limited by fuels available. The most efficient fuels are Hydrogen, but hydrogen boils off if you dont use it quick enough, which means your throwing good fuel overboard. Electric propulsion is great for small sats, but there is still no large electric propulsion engine, and they take a lot energy which has associated costs. There are mono-propellants, which are used a lot for sats, but they are less efficient and dangerous to work with, so are usually used when you dont need a lot of it.

So why couldn't you get the article for the previous image?
And this one doesn't show it inside the fairing, just near it.
It appears that it will have quite a lot of empty space.
Cant find the previous source. Not sure what browser I used to find it.
Here are more pictures of the exact same sat being loaded in the exact same fairing.
(https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/47441628772_2e04d353e9_k.jpg)
From the bottom - https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/ula/ula-delta-iv-with-gps-iii-sv02-launch-delayed/

(https://insidegnss-com.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/48233203152_3ac60ed4ea_z.jpg?strip=all&lossy=1&ssl=1)
From the top - https://insidegnss.com/second-gps-iii-space-vehicle-magellan-launch-set-for-aug-22/

They are not launching "STUFF" into space, they are launching sats into space. Sats that cost hundreds of millions of $$. There is zero chance they are going to try and fill that fairing to the brim like a jar of marbles.

We are talking about rideshare in general, not just for loads where it wouldn't be practical.
We are talking about re-usability. These sats are so small, you can place them along nearly any payload, they hardly matter except for the small sat launchers.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on July 13, 2022, 05:11:06 AM
Just a general point to add to this whole discussion, don't forget the value in pushing and advancing technology and knowledge.

Of course lots of current rocket parts are not well suited to reuse because until now there has been no need.

Everyone in this thread is right, and the real winner will be more advanced and better rockets in the future. Regardless if reusable will become vastly superior or a dead end, we will know more and have improved all launch systems by trying it.

Even Spin Launch isn't completely worthless. Can't know our limits unless we test them.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 13, 2022, 05:30:13 AM
Just a general point to add to this whole discussion, don't forget the value in pushing and advancing technology and knowledge.

Of course lots of current rocket parts are not well suited to reuse because until now there has been no need.

Everyone in this thread is right, and the real winner will be more advanced and better rockets in the future. Regardless if reusable will become vastly superior or a dead end, we will know more and have improved all launch systems by trying it.

Even Spin Launch isn't completely worthless. Can't know our limits unless we test them.
Well . . . re-usability is key to advancing rocket technology. There will always be disposable rockets to some degree. For ex, sending a rocket to Jupiter, is not coming back. But re-usability is not really being questioned as being viable by anyone in the industry.

Not going to re-usability is more of the same, launch cost will never get lower than the cost of building whole rockets, which puts a hard cap on the space industry. Its like saying to the first car buyers that you think cars will do great, regardless if you need to build a whole new car after every trip. No, they wont.

I have my doubts about spin launch, they have big hurdles to climb.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 13, 2022, 05:31:59 AM
It does demonstrate how much reusability can cost. Its clearly cheaper to reuse 3 booster and destroy one.
No, it isn't. Especially as the Falcon Heavy reusable costs more than a Falcon 9 disposable.

Most Chinese launchers, and sat industries are either state owned, or subsidized.
You could say the same about most Chinese companies.
But the simple fact is, they can't get customers from the US (and even loads of other places), because the US wont let them.

Capacity vs Price. An expensive 27t launcher
The claim was that most are under 5 tonne.

I think you underestimate what I mean by specialised.
No, I think you just think they are morons.
It would be quite stupid for an external company to have people trained to only work with 1 rocket. That would only make sense for the company that makes it rocket to do, if that was the only rocket it made.

You want me to steel their internal accounting books? Because I know a quote from a SpaceX representative wont be enough for you.
Sure, or find some other way to have the information released which doesn't go through their media department or the like.

And? Do you think NASA, The Airforce, multiple countries and commercial communications companies
Again, considering how much companies are willing to waste, I wouldn't be surprised.

And no, the cost to the customer is not more
Per kg, they are more.
Using Falcon heavy, they are more rather than a disposable F9, they are more.

I think they did want it, they never achieved it as Falcon 9 is too small for full reusability.

And I dont know for certain if SS will be cheaper. We will have to wait and see.
We will have to wait and see if they can make it work at all, and then if they can make it work in any significant commercial capacity.

But overall, I have confidence that it will eventually be cheaper to fly a SS for less than $60m. Tending towards $20m a flight.
And considering all the other crap Musk has promised and failed to deliver, I highly doubt it.

The physics does not change
Well one significant change is to boost your orbit to make a correction and then lower it, which takes significantly longer, but can take less fuel.

The most efficient fuels are Hydrogen
Only if you want chemical fuel. Ion thrusters are pretty efficient.

they take a lot energy which has associated costs.
Note: energy not power.
The power requirements are based on how large you want the ion thruster to be, which in turn translates to how quickly you want it to move.

There is zero chance they are going to try and fill that fairing to the brim like a jar of marbles.
Sure, because the only 2 possible options are to either leave all the free space unused, or fill it like a jar of marbles.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 13, 2022, 07:02:01 AM
No, it isn't. Especially as the Falcon Heavy reusable costs more than a Falcon 9 disposable.
Your using very basic things to determine what is best here?
Show me a specific launch and we can discuss it. But its not just what goes into LEO that tells you what a rocket can do at a price.  GEO orbits require a LOT more energy, then its 8 ton disposable for a F9 and 20t+ for a reusable FH. Then there are loads of other factors that I keep mentioning, such as inclination and other specifications that no one is likely privy to. Some launches want the second stage to coast the sat through a certain location to do orbital changes, which requires a lot more work from the 1st stages.



You could say the same about most Chinese companies.
But the simple fact is, they can't get customers from the US (and even loads of other places), because the US wont let them.
I believe they can launch on US launchers, I dont know of a law that will stop them. There is ITAR, which means they cant get access to US tech though, and I dont think thats fair.

No, I think you just think they are morons.
It would be quite stupid for an external company to have people trained to only work with 1 rocket. That would only make sense for the company that makes it rocket to do, if that was the only rocket it made.
Most companies only HAVE one rocket! ULA has 2, but one of them barely launches 1 a year. The other one does okay'ish.
Ariane space has 3 rockets in theory, one is a 1ton launcher, which only uses Italian crew. One is made by Russia, which is now impossible to launch and the other real European rocket launches from South America, meaning it has a very expensive crew. Blue Origin is soon to have 1 toy, and one real rocket, each using completely different fuels. Rocket lab has one rocket. EACH rocket here is completely different to the other. You will have to completely retrain someone if you moved them to another company. So yeah, if you dont launch often, crew just hang around costing you money.

Again, considering how much companies are willing to waste, I wouldn't be surprised.

Right, so you say ALL these companies are spending more on launch costs with zero benefit to them, just to look at a rocket land on a barge in the middle of the ocean.

Per kg, they are more.
Using Falcon heavy, they are more rather than a disposable F9, they are more.
The customer does not pay per kg, they pay launch services which is based on the cost of the entire rocket cost.
If you want to launch a single kg on a Falcon 9 in disposable mode, how much are you spending?
The per/kg gives an indication of price to reference orbits, thats all.


And considering all the other crap Musk has promised and failed to deliver, I highly doubt it.
Im not defending the guy, but seriously? Entire countries space programs where put in jepordy because the Falcon 9 completely outclassed them. And your like, "pfffft, anyone could do that."

Well one significant change is to boost your orbit to make a correction and then lower it, which takes significantly longer, but can take less fuel.
There are all kinds of things you can do to use gravity assist. But these take long. CAPSTONE is taking about 4 months to take a trip that could be done in 4 days, all because it had a lot less energy to work with.

Only if you want chemical fuel. Ion thrusters are pretty efficient.
T's&C's apply. They are very efficient, but VERY low thrust and need a LOT of power. This is why, until now, only very small sats have been using them. It will take multiple years to get a 4ton sat to GEO orbit with Ion thrusters alone at the moment.

Note: energy not power.
The power requirements are based on how large you want the ion thruster to be, which in turn translates to how quickly you want it to move.
Power is heavy and complex though. And while bigger ion thrusters are currently being worked on, they have not been available to sat builders. Artemis gateway is busy developing a large Hall effect thruster for the PPE module. So from about 2024/5 ish, we may see sats using this technology for larger sats.

Sure, because the only 2 possible options are to either leave all the free space unused, or fill it like a jar of marbles.
Yes, literally. You cant fill the gaps with other payloads without jeopardizing that sat. To completely fill the fairing, will require designing a sat to fill the fairing . . . for some reason. Go speak to payload integration officers about why they will sure as heck not just pop another sat in there.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 13, 2022, 11:02:41 AM
And considering all the other crap Musk has promised and failed to deliver, I highly doubt it.

Well known that he is a marketer/snake oil extreme individual. And is probably going to get spanked big-time in the Twitter debacle, but Tesla did just post a 3.7 billion dollar earned income last quarter. Building a car company is no easy feat.

So there's one thing he promised and wildly over-delivered.

Granted, Space is a different beast. But still. Tesla has probably shoved the entire industry to go bigger into EV's. For better or worse. And Space X has probably been a motivator/influencer on getting other companies into the industry. Increasing tech advancements, competition, pricing, etc.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on July 13, 2022, 11:49:47 AM
I have my doubts about spin launch, they have big hurdles to climb.
They aren't going to be launching big payloads anytime soon, if ever.  But it's a proof of concept that shows the idea isn't entirely crazy.

Even if they only manage to launch small payloads into orbit that's still going to be huge. Sending up cube-sats and supplies like food and oxygen and fuel using possibly only renewables would be a big leap forward.  Who cares if you need 20 launches to get supplies to the ISS if all your spending is solar power.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 13, 2022, 12:27:53 PM
I have my doubts about spin launch, they have big hurdles to climb.
They aren't going to be launching big payloads anytime soon, if ever.  But it's a proof of concept that shows the idea isn't entirely crazy.

Even if they only manage to launch small payloads into orbit that's still going to be huge. Sending up cube-sats and supplies like food and oxygen and fuel using possibly only renewables would be a big leap forward.  Who cares if you need 20 launches to get supplies to the ISS if all your spending is solar power.
Their problem is in the economic of it all. They still need a rocket to circularise the orbit of the payload, otherwise they just made a big canon, and will plant the payload into someone's house. Then they need to power this massive monstrosity (Which is an amazing piece of engineering btw) which is going to be the rental cost of entire power plants while it spins up. Then the payload needs to be able to survive 8000 or some gee force to survive the spin up.
So they are limited to very basic payloads, and still have massive costs involved in launching. Similar costs to rockets. This is why I dont think it will work. Not that I dont like the concept, it just does not make sense on the financial side.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on July 13, 2022, 01:34:48 PM
I have my doubts about spin launch, they have big hurdles to climb.
They aren't going to be launching big payloads anytime soon, if ever.  But it's a proof of concept that shows the idea isn't entirely crazy.

Even if they only manage to launch small payloads into orbit that's still going to be huge. Sending up cube-sats and supplies like food and oxygen and fuel using possibly only renewables would be a big leap forward.  Who cares if you need 20 launches to get supplies to the ISS if all your spending is solar power.
Their problem is in the economic of it all. They still need a rocket to circularise the orbit of the payload, otherwise they just made a big canon, and will plant the payload into someone's house. Then they need to power this massive monstrosity (Which is an amazing piece of engineering btw) which is going to be the rental cost of entire power plants while it spins up. Then the payload needs to be able to survive 8000 or some gee force to survive the spin up.
So they are limited to very basic payloads, and still have massive costs involved in launching. Similar costs to rockets. This is why I dont think it will work. Not that I dont like the concept, it just does not make sense on the financial side.
That's the current state of it, yes.  It would be silly to think it can't or won't be improved upon.

It's still producing vastly less polluting and atmosphere warming chemicals which is of considerable benefit.

Basic supplies and fuel can withstand the g forces easily.  So can small satelites, when properly designed.

Testing the current one will show is if, and how bigger and better ones can be made.  It's exciting either way.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 13, 2022, 02:35:15 PM
Your using very basic things to determine what is best here?
No, I'm not determining what is best.

GEO orbits require a LOT more energy, then its 8 ton disposable for a F9 and 20t+ for a reusable FH.
Not according to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says it is 20t+ for an expendable FH. Specifically 26.7 t since April 2017.
For reusable it says it is 8 t since April 2017, putting it below the Falcon 9 expendable at 8.3 t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Capabilities

That is the point I was making. A falcon 9 expendable has a larger payload to GTO than the falcon 9 heavy reusable.

I believe they can launch on US launchers, I dont know of a law that will stop them. There is ITAR, which means they cant get access to US tech though, and I dont think thats fair.
The problem is the other way around. It isn't that Chinese companies can't launch on US rockets. It is that US satellites can't launch on Chinese rockets. And because of how ridiculous the setup is, a satellite with a component from the US cannot launch on a Chinese rocket.
That basically rules out the majority of the western world from being able to use Long March.
That is why the Long March family primarily has Chinese customers, because the US will not allow them to have other customers.
In the past, they did have other customers, including commercial customers from the US. But this upset the US when a failed launch in 1995 of a satellite from a US company resulted in that company writing a report about the failure and giving it to the Chinese company. This resulted in the US reclassifying all satellite technology as munitions, prohibiting its export to China, including indirectly by satellite components going to somewhere else to be used in the construction of a satellite that then goes to China.

If this ban wasn't in place, how many launches of commercial US satellites (and satellites from other countries) would Long March be doing?

Right, so you say ALL these companies are spending more on launch costs with zero benefit to them
Some see public appearance as a very significant benefit.
For a US company, they could see the benefit of using a US rocket as a publicity statement, especially a reusable one.
But it still also leaves open the question of how much SpaceX/Musk is paying for it or having the government pay indirectly.

The customer does not pay per kg, they pay launch services which is based on the cost of the entire rocket cost.
Which in no way changes the fact that the reusable version is still more expensive per kg.
And again, the Falcon Heavy vs Falcon 9 example shows that it can cost significantly more for a reusable rocket.

Im not defending the guy, but seriously? Entire countries space programs where put in jepordy because the Falcon 9 completely outclassed them.
Citation needed.

There are all kinds of things you can do to use gravity assist. But these take long. CAPSTONE is taking about 4 months to take a trip that could be done in 4 days, all because it had a lot less energy to work with.
And imagine if they packed more fuel for more energy to work with?

Power is heavy and complex though.
You seem to have missed the point.
Small ion thrusters need energy, not power.
A low power for a long time equates to lots of energy.

Sure, because the only 2 possible options are to either leave all the free space unused, or fill it like a jar of marbles.
Yes, literally.
No.
The fact that rideshare exists at all shows that is not the case.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 13, 2022, 02:46:55 PM
Well known that he is a marketer/snake oil extreme individual. And is probably going to get spanked big-time in the Twitter debacle, but Tesla did just post a 3.7 billion dollar earned income last quarter. Building a car company is no easy feat.
Do you mean the company he pumped a lot of money into, got banned from being the CEO due to stock manipulation, only to return later, which has promised a cybertruck which is yet to materialise, and an electric semi which is yet to materialise, robo taxies which earn you more than the cost of the vehicle in a year which are yet to materialise, a fully self driving mode which is yet to materialise, and probably plenty more I am missing out on.
I would say that is very much over promised and under-delivered.

Having a collection of people build a car company when you have plenty of money to throw at it and can convince other people to throw money at it is a fairly easy feat.
Remember, it was making a loss or no or very little profit for quite some time. That would kill most start-ups because they don't have the money to keep it going.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 13, 2022, 03:31:50 PM
You didn't fix it, you just entirely ignored the point.
No, you're the one missing the point.
Considering it was my comment, I think I would know what the point is, especially given the context.
Perhaps, it's just that you're focusing on the wrong point.

The point is that in the quest of reusability, instead of launching a single Falcon 9, with a single stage 1 booster, they instead need to use a Falcon 9 heavy, with 3 stage 1 boosters.
It is a demonstration of just how much reusability can cost.
And you're missing the point that SpaceX can offer the customer the option of an expendable F9 or a reusable Falcon Heavy and let the customer to decide which option better fits their needs and budget.  I'm sure that SpaceX would be more than willing to go with the expendable F9 if the customer insists (NASA and Space Force did for their first few flights until the reliability of the previously flown boosters was demonstrated) and is willing to pay the difference.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 13, 2022, 03:56:31 PM
And you're missing the point that SpaceX can offer the customer the option of an expendable F9 or a reusable Falcon Heavy and let the customer to decide which option better fits their needs and budget.  I'm sure that SpaceX would be more than willing to go with the expendable F9 if the customer insists (NASA and Space Force did for their first few flights until the reliability of the previously flown boosters was demonstrated) and is willing to pay the difference.
If the customer is willing to pay the negative difference, i.e. get to pay less and keep more money?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 13, 2022, 04:40:13 PM
And you're missing the point that SpaceX can offer the customer the option of an expendable F9 or a reusable Falcon Heavy and let the customer to decide which option better fits their needs and budget.  I'm sure that SpaceX would be more than willing to go with the expendable F9 if the customer insists (NASA and Space Force did for their first few flights until the reliability of the previously flown boosters was demonstrated) and is willing to pay the difference.
If the customer is willing to pay the negative difference, i.e. get to pay less and keep more money?
As long as the customer can get the services that they need, then yes.  The thing is that every customer's needs are different.  Some needs are better served with expendable and some are better served with reusable, and it's between the customer and SpaceX to figure it out.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 13, 2022, 10:41:02 PM
That's the current state of it, yes.  It would be silly to think it can't or won't be improved upon.

It's still producing vastly less polluting and atmosphere warming chemicals which is of considerable benefit.

Basic supplies and fuel can withstand the g forces easily.  So can small satelites, when properly designed.

Testing the current one will show is if, and how bigger and better ones can be made.  It's exciting either way.
Im sceptical of the idea, not against the idea. I think its amazing that they have come this far.
My issue is that I dont think it will actually save much of anything because of the business model. It can only launch very dumb things, and not a lot of it. Dumb things are the first things we can get out of local mining on asteroids or the moon, such as water, which could probably be done for cheaper in the longer run.
In the short run, it needs to compete with the giant rockets that are being developed, that could get priced down to below $100/kg. When your in the market of launching dumb things, you can maximise the payload mass of big rockets.
Alternatively it can launch dumb small sats. The issue here, is that these dumb small sats have a lot of other rockets that can launch them. And as JackBlack would like to mention, you can throw them in with other payloads, which often happens for about $750 per kg. And when you scale spin launch up, they are only able to put maybe 200kg to orbit, and still need a second stage.
So, as much as I love the idea, I dont really see it working out.

A Launch loop now is something I do see working out, we just need a trillionaire first.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 13, 2022, 10:49:50 PM
Well known that he is a marketer/snake oil extreme individual. And is probably going to get spanked big-time in the Twitter debacle, but Tesla did just post a 3.7 billion dollar earned income last quarter. Building a car company is no easy feat.
Do you mean the company he pumped a lot of money into, got banned from being the CEO due to stock manipulation, only to return later, which has promised a cybertruck which is yet to materialise, and an electric semi which is yet to materialise, robo taxies which earn you more than the cost of the vehicle in a year which are yet to materialise, a fully self driving mode which is yet to materialise, and probably plenty more I am missing out on.
I would say that is very much over promised and under-delivered.

Having a collection of people build a car company when you have plenty of money to throw at it and can convince other people to throw money at it is a fairly easy feat.
Remember, it was making a loss or no or very little profit for quite some time. That would kill most start-ups because they don't have the money to keep it going.

Well, when you put it that way...

However, all car manufacturers have duds. As well, all manufacturers have concept vehicles that never see the light of day. The difference is Elon says of all his concepts that they will emerge whereas others say these are just concepts.

There's nothing wrong with throwing good money after bad if it ultimately leads to a 3.7 billion dollar profit.

How he got there, well, yeah, pretty shady and sketchy, at best. At least he didn't have to pull a DeLorean and traffic 55 pounds of blow to try and keep his company afloat. At least that we know of.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 13, 2022, 11:50:25 PM
No, I'm not determining what is best.
Which really says everything. Because actual companies that want to send billion dollar satellites into orbit disagree with you.

Not according to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says it is 20t+ for an expendable FH. Specifically 26.7 t since April 2017.
For reusable it says it is 8 t since April 2017, putting it below the Falcon 9 expendable at 8.3 t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Capabilities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Capabilities)

That is the point I was making. A falcon 9 expendable has a larger payload to GTO than the falcon 9 heavy reusable.
Great, now go ask wikipedia what the C3 for F9 expendable vs FH is at a 10km/s, because FH is a lot more capable.
There where major upgrades after 2018 to the Falcon family, which improves its performance. No one knows what the FH  payload to GEO actually is, I know, because I have been looking for this answer for some time. They have been switching customers over from F9 disposable to FH. They are not doing this to look cool, they are doing this because its costing less while getting better orbital insertions at the right orbits. A small improvement in orbital insertion can save a customer a lot of money by needing less development on their side.

The problem is the other way around. It isn't that Chinese companies can't launch on US rockets. It is that US satellites can't launch on Chinese rockets. And because of how ridiculous the setup is, a satellite with a component from the US cannot launch on a Chinese rocket.
That basically rules out the majority of the western world from being able to use Long March.
That is why the Long March family primarily has Chinese customers, because the US will not allow them to have other customers.
In the past, they did have other customers, including commercial customers from the US. But this upset the US when a failed launch in 1995 of a satellite from a US company resulted in that company writing a report about the failure and giving it to the Chinese company. This resulted in the US reclassifying all satellite technology as munitions, prohibiting its export to China, including indirectly by satellite components going to somewhere else to be used in the construction of a satellite that then goes to China.

If this ban wasn't in place, how many launches of commercial US satellites (and satellites from other countries) would Long March be doing?
Id like to read more of what you said about this if you have a source.
But in the last 3 years, SpaceX launched for
Egypt, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Korea, Japan, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Israel, Qatar, Argentina, France, Spain . . . this excludes rideshare programs where they launched for basically everyone. Meanwhile, I can barely find any none Chinese launches for the Long March at all. So im not sure if this stands up to scrutiny.

Some see public appearance as a very significant benefit.
For a US company, they could see the benefit of using a US rocket as a publicity statement, especially a reusable one.
But it still also leaves open the question of how much SpaceX/Musk is paying for it or having the government pay indirectly.
This is a terribly weak argument, Why would Turkey and Italy give a rats ass about an American rocket company.
Unless SpaceX found a way to print money, they need to deliver for cheaper than they launch. And considering that they have a lot of money to spend on new R&D, it means they are making stacks of cash somewhere. Their other investments, such as Crew Dragon probably also made good profit, even though it was 25% cheaper than the alternative. No way you cut it, they are making more money launching than anyone else.

Which in no way changes the fact that the reusable version is still more expensive per kg.
In narrow conditions, ill agree. This is a very T's&C's apply statement. One, you need to maximize your payload to an arbitrary orbit, which almost never happens. Flacon 9 is held back by a weak 2nd stage that costs a fair bit to rebuild every time, regardless of 1st stage re-use. Once full re-use is in play, this statement will very rarely if ever be true.

And again, the Falcon Heavy vs Falcon 9 example shows that it can cost significantly more for a reusable rocket.
Under specific conditions. But considering that SpaceX is not disposing of F9's and customers are still rather placing on FH with reuse, it seems that its not that straight forward.

Your only argument against this is that the customers are all idiots.

Citation needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#2000-2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#2000-2010)

And imagine if they packed more fuel for more energy to work with?
This was not launched on a Falcon 9. It was launched from the electron rocket. The fact that it can get to the moon with that rocket is pretty impressive.

You seem to have missed the point.
Small ion thrusters need energy, not power.
A low power for a long time equates to lots of energy.
I understand how ion thrusters work.
There are a few disadvantages with Ion thrusters, which is why they are not always used.
They need electricity to run, which is generated from Solar. Now sat developers dont want to put more solar on than they need, because this is more mass and complexity. Space rated PV also costs about $2000 per W of power. So they develop enough solar to run the sat, and scale the Ion thruster to that level. So when the sat raises orbit, its main computers and instrumentation is actually off or on low power. Then it switches its Ion thrusters off, and can start operating.
They still use them a lot, especially on small sats. But large sats will need massive solar arrays to run them, which may end up costing far more than just being put in the right orbit first time round.

No.
The fact that rideshare exists at all shows that is not the case.
We are talking in circles.
Your not ridesharing on a GPS sat headed for GEO. Even if there is loads of space and mass to spare. Just the risk of your sat damaging or delaying the GPS sat completely removes this as an option. This applies to most, if not all large and expensive sats.

If you want rideshare, then you need to go on a special mission, that is dedicated for rideshare. OR, you need to develop all the sats on the payload yourself.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 14, 2022, 02:29:05 AM
Great, now go ask wikipedia what the C3 for F9 expendable vs FH is at a 10km/s, because FH is a lot more capable.
Falcon Heavy is a lot more capable as expendable. I see no reason to think it is as reusable compared to an expendable Falcon 9.

They have been switching customers over from F9 disposable to FH.
At a greater cost to the customer, and to look good with reusability.

Id like to read more of what you said about this if you have a source.
There are plenty of sources:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/052198china-congress.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/hughes-and-china-great-wall-rocked-by-satellite-export-ban/25265.article
https://spacenews.com/37071us-satellite-component-maker-fined-8-million-for-itar-violations/

But in the last 3 years, SpaceX launched for
Egypt, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Korea, Japan, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Israel, Qatar, Argentina, France, Spain
And how many of those were built with no US components?

This is a terribly weak argument, Why would Turkey and Italy give a rats ass about an American rocket company.
I never said they would.

Unless SpaceX found a way to print money, they need to deliver for cheaper than they launch.
Or, unless they find some other way to fund it, such as loads of money from the government. Including loads to develop new technology.

In narrow conditions, ill agree. This is a very T's&C's apply statement. One, you need to maximize your payload to an arbitrary orbit, which almost never happens. Flacon 9 is held back by a weak 2nd stage that costs a fair bit to rebuild every time, regardless of 1st stage re-use. Once full re-use is in play, this statement will very rarely if ever be true.
The reuse of the second stage is a major problem.
There is already a major hit to the payload capacity for the reuse of the first stage.
Reuse for a second stage would be far worse.

Under specific conditions. But considering that SpaceX is not disposing of F9's and customers are still rather placing on FH with reuse, it seems that its not that straight forward.

Your only argument against this is that the customers are all idiots.
Not necessarily idiots. Just not necessarily motivated purely by how much it will actually cost.

Citation needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#2000-2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#2000-2010)
And just how does that justify your claim?

We are talking in circles.
Yes, you want to pretend that rideshare exists, while also pretending it can't work to make more use of the space unless you wanted to try and cram it 100% full like a bunch of marbles.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 14, 2022, 03:43:36 AM
Falcon Heavy is a lot more capable as expendable. I see no reason to think it is as reusable compared to an expendable Falcon 9.
Who cares if it can launch more to orbit than what customers want. How does it help a customer if you CAN place 20t in GEO, but you only have a 8 ton sat? Why should they pay more for that 12 unused tonnage?

At a greater cost to the customer, and to look good with reusability.
Now im asking you for sources, cause your making stuff up.

There are plenty of sources:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/052198china-congress.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/hughes-and-china-great-wall-rocked-by-satellite-export-ban/25265.article
https://spacenews.com/37071us-satellite-component-maker-fined-8-million-for-itar-violations/
Oh yeah, these are mostly ITAR issues, Im not a fan of this at all.

And how many of those were built with no US components?
A lot actually, Europe has been building their own sats for ages, and many countries such as Turkey and UAE have been developing their own Sat construction industry.

I never said they would.
Right, so that argument makes no sense. They are launching on reusable rockets because they are cheaper, not somehow sexier.

Or, unless they find some other way to fund it, such as loads of money from the government. Including loads to develop new technology.
Great, but now your saying SpaceX basically develops new technology for basically free, because they have to use the funds they get to both develop new capabilities, such as commercial crew AND subsidise their other launches. . . . your making them look even more impressive.

The reuse of the second stage is a major problem.
There is already a major hit to the payload capacity for the reuse of the first stage.
Reuse for a second stage would be far worse.
your really dont get it. Answer this
You have a 8 ton sat which needs to go to a dedicated orbit.
The one that can just launch 8t max. It costs $165m and is disposable.
The other one can launch 1000t disposable, but only 8t reused. It costs $30m reusable or $120m disposed.

Which launch are you buying?

Not necessarily idiots. Just not necessarily motivated purely by how much it will actually cost.
Well, its a bit part, but no one gives a crap what happens to the rocket after it delivers their sat.


And just how does that justify your claim?
Want me to teach you how graphs work?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on July 14, 2022, 06:10:41 AM
That's the current state of it, yes.  It would be silly to think it can't or won't be improved upon.

It's still producing vastly less polluting and atmosphere warming chemicals which is of considerable benefit.

Basic supplies and fuel can withstand the g forces easily.  So can small satelites, when properly designed.

Testing the current one will show is if, and how bigger and better ones can be made.  It's exciting either way.
Im sceptical of the idea, not against the idea. I think its amazing that they have come this far.
My issue is that I dont think it will actually save much of anything because of the business model. It can only launch very dumb things, and not a lot of it. Dumb things are the first things we can get out of local mining on asteroids or the moon, such as water, which could probably be done for cheaper in the longer run.
In the short run, it needs to compete with the giant rockets that are being developed, that could get priced down to below $100/kg. When your in the market of launching dumb things, you can maximise the payload mass of big rockets.
Alternatively it can launch dumb small sats. The issue here, is that these dumb small sats have a lot of other rockets that can launch them. And as JackBlack would like to mention, you can throw them in with other payloads, which often happens for about $750 per kg. And when you scale spin launch up, they are only able to put maybe 200kg to orbit, and still need a second stage.
So, as much as I love the idea, I dont really see it working out.

A Launch loop now is something I do see working out, we just need a trillionaire first.
This is a step in the direction of a launch loop, it's teaching us some of what we will know to try and build one.

In the short run it doesn't need to do anything at all except provide data and experience.  Sure, for the company it's vital to make money and be profitable and find some use case for the current tech.

But if you step back and look at humanity as a whole, it's completely irrelevant if one company makes money or goes bankrupt as long as overall progress advances.  Nothing hard happens without failures along the way.  Spin Launch likely will be a step on the path to something greater, and I'm all for them trying.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 14, 2022, 10:03:23 AM
This is a step in the direction of a launch loop, it's teaching us some of what we will know to try and build one.

In the short run it doesn't need to do anything at all except provide data and experience.  Sure, for the company it's vital to make money and be profitable and find some use case for the current tech.

But if you step back and look at humanity as a whole, it's completely irrelevant if one company makes money or goes bankrupt as long as overall progress advances.  Nothing hard happens without failures along the way.  Spin Launch likely will be a step on the path to something greater, and I'm all for them trying.
Well, any new learning is good. But you want application of that learning. So building things that wont work only gets you so far. That said, I dont think launch loop is so stupid that they should not have built it, and ill be happy to be wrong here. Its just a very close to the edge of feasible idea to me.
Launch loop will require a whole host of new technologies, but also change how much we launch into space from a few tons a year, to tons per min.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JJA on July 14, 2022, 10:17:54 AM
This is a step in the direction of a launch loop, it's teaching us some of what we will know to try and build one.

In the short run it doesn't need to do anything at all except provide data and experience.  Sure, for the company it's vital to make money and be profitable and find some use case for the current tech.

But if you step back and look at humanity as a whole, it's completely irrelevant if one company makes money or goes bankrupt as long as overall progress advances.  Nothing hard happens without failures along the way.  Spin Launch likely will be a step on the path to something greater, and I'm all for them trying.
Well, any new learning is good. But you want application of that learning. So building things that wont work only gets you so far. That said, I dont think launch loop is so stupid that they should not have built it, and ill be happy to be wrong here. Its just a very close to the edge of feasible idea to me.
Launch loop will require a whole host of new technologies, but also change how much we launch into space from a few tons a year, to tons per min.
Engineering and simulation have become VERY good but there is still no substitute for building something to see what it actually does.

Spin Launch has so far raised $75 million dollars.  This entire project is cheap compared to how much is spent on conventional rockets.  Things close to the edge are exactly what we should be doing. :)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 14, 2022, 02:18:26 PM
Falcon Heavy is a lot more capable as expendable. I see no reason to think it is as reusable compared to an expendable Falcon 9.
Who cares if it can launch more to orbit than what customers want. How does it help a customer if you CAN place 20t in GEO, but you only have a 8 ton sat? Why should they pay more for that 12 unused tonnage?
I think you completely misunderstood that.
The point I made is that Falcon 9 expendable is more capable than Falcon Heavy reusable.

Now im asking you for sources, cause your making stuff up.
I already provided a source showing the Falcon 9 expendable has a greater payload to GTO than Falcon 9 heavy reusable.

Oh yeah, these are mostly ITAR issues, Im not a fan of this at all.
Yes ITAR issues which prohibit any US satellite component launching on a Chinese rocket, including those sent overseas to be used to build a satellite in a country other than the US.

With that, it makes sense why the Long March isn't launching satellites for loads of other countries.

A lot actually, Europe has been building their own sats for ages, and many countries such as Turkey and UAE have been developing their own Sat construction industry.
COMPONENTS, not just entire satellites.
I provided an article on a company being fined $8 million for making a component which was used in a satellite built outside the US which went to China.

Right, so that argument makes no sense.
How does it make no sense?
If anything your objection makes no sense.
I spoke specifically about US companies, and you decided to bring up Turkey.

Great, but now your saying SpaceX basically develops new technology for basically free
No, I'm saying the government would waste money on them.
That they are getting more from the government than it actually costs to do the R&D.

your really dont get it.
No, I do get it. And because of that I understand why spaceX gave up on a fully reusable falcon.

Answer this
I see no reason to answer your fantasy.
Try again once they actually have starship running at a reasonable price.

Well, its a bit part, but no one gives a crap what happens to the rocket after it delivers their sat.
But they do often care about their image.

Want me to teach you how graphs work?
No, I understand how they work.
I want you to tell me how it justifies your claim.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 14, 2022, 03:47:43 PM
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-dad-errol-has-second-child-with-stepdaughter-report-2022-7

Quote
Elon Musk's dad has fathered a second child with his stepdaughter, who is 41 years his junior, he said in a new interview.

Errol Musk, 76, told The Sun Wednesday that he had a daughter with Jana Bezuidenhout, 35, in 2019.

The elder Musk and Bezuidenhout previously welcomed a son, Elliot Rush, who is now 5 years old.

Bezuidenhout's mother, Heide, and Musk were married for 18 years and share two children. Bezuidenhout was 4 years old when Musk became her stepfather.

Elon being a weirdo is not so weird.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 14, 2022, 08:50:52 PM
Engineering and simulation have become VERY good but there is still no substitute for building something to see what it actually does.

Spin Launch has so far raised $75 million dollars.  This entire project is cheap compared to how much is spent on conventional rockets.  Things close to the edge are exactly what we should be doing. :)
Simulations dont tell you how to build things, they only tell you what things should look like after you built them. It also cant send anything to orbit. They need to build a MUCH bigger spinnie thing to get to orbit. They are talking about 200m across or more, the one they have now is relatively small.
Im excited to see where it goes either way. Most rocket companies dont make it, so there will be no shame in them failing.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 14, 2022, 09:29:38 PM
I think you completely misunderstood that.
The point I made is that Falcon 9 expendable is more capable than Falcon Heavy reusable.
Its not. Because all the numbers you have shown where with the Falcon 9 block 5 vs Falcon heavy block 4 versions. No one but insiders know what Falcon Heavies actual performance is right now. But its certainly higher than what's shown on Wikipedia. The upgrades happened during 2018, and there have been no official stats on the new lift capability because it does not fly as often.

The Block 4 Disposable Flacon 9 could only take 5.5t to Geo, while the Block 4 Flacon Heavy reusable can do 8t, whats currently shown on Wiki.
So no, Falcon 9 reusable is not more capable.

Yes ITAR issues which prohibit any US satellite component launching on a Chinese rocket, including those sent overseas to be used to build a satellite in a country other than the US.

With that, it makes sense why the Long March isn't launching satellites for loads of other countries.
No, it makes sense why its not launching US sats. As I mentioned, many countries make every single component of their own Sats. North Korea, Japan, Europe, UAE Turkey and even frikken South Africa can and do make 100% of their own sats, but dont launch them.

How does it make no sense?
If anything your objection makes no sense.
I spoke specifically about US companies, and you decided to bring up Turkey.
You are saying that these companies are launching on a reusable rocket even though it costs them more, only because it looks cool!
Are you insane.

No, I'm saying the government would waste money on them.
That they are getting more from the government than it actually costs to do the R&D.
News flash, making a profit is central to running a company.
If it cost them more to do the R&D than they recieve, why would they develop tech only for the gov? We can even compare a lot the development side by side to another company to see if they are over pricing, and they are not. They are infact a lot cheaper than the competition. So if they develop new things for cheaper, and they fly for cheaper, where are they getting this "free cash" to subsidize their launches? According to you, they need to be overcharging a lot more somewhere? Where?


No, I do get it. And because of that I understand why spaceX gave up on a fully reusable falcon.
I never said other wise, I agreed. They could not make a fully re-usable falcon 9 work because its smaller. Reusable rockets need to be bigger to be able to do the same job cheaper.

I see no reason to answer your fantasy.
Try again once they actually have starship running at a reasonable price.
Starship wont be launching for customers for quite some time. You not answering a pretty simple analogy at least gives me assurance that your finally getting it.

But they do often care about their image.
Yes, through pretty TV adds and the CEO saying nice things during gay pride month. They are not wasting money on launches, especially when everyone else dumps their rockets in the ocean, and no one bats an eye. Literally only rocket enthusiasts really care.

No, I understand how they work.
I want you to tell me how it justifies your claim.
The main launchers for the global market before the Falcon 9 where Ariane 5, Soyuz and Proton-M. Falcon 9 was introduced in 2013, and completed its block 5 upgrades in 2018.
Ariane 5 peaked in 2015 and saw its market disappear.
Proton peaked in 2012, then saw its market disappear as the Falcon 9 entered the Market.
Soyuz, the smallest of the lot has only just managed to keep its market share, peaking last year thanks to OneWeb. But its pretty much over for Soyuz now as SpaceX is now launching all of OneWebs sats going forward.
The rest of the Global launcher had nearly vanished.

SpaceX in the same time had consistently increased its launches every year. They only stared launching Starlink in 2019 (2 of them), so this is not due to internal flights.
So saying that SpaceX did not do anything significant is a very large exaggeration.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 15, 2022, 03:56:19 AM
Its not. Because all the numbers you have shown where with the Falcon 9 block 5 vs Falcon heavy block 4 versions. No one but insiders know what Falcon Heavies actual performance is right now. But its certainly higher than what's shown on Wikipedia. The upgrades happened during 2018, and there have been no official stats on the new lift capability because it does not fly as often.
Notice your contradicting yourself?
You claim no one but insiders know, yet somehow you magically know it is better.

You also seem to be trying to compare it to the reusable Falcon 9.
In 2016, the tried landing a falcon 9 booster from a flight to GTO witha payload of ~5.3 t.
In 2017, the successfully launched a 5.6 t payload to GTO.
They later (may 2017) planned to launch a ~6.1 t payload with a Falcon heavy, but used a Falcon 9 instead.

And the page comparing the different Falcon 9 blocks, shows the change from block 3 to block 5 was going from 5.3 t to 5.8 t for the reusable rocket, while the expendable remained at 8.3 t.

And from looking at the launches, it seems they want to use lower energy GTO orbits with Falcon 9.

No, it makes sense why its not launching US sats. As I mentioned, many countries make every single component of their own Sats. North Korea, Japan, Europe, UAE Turkey and even frikken South Africa can and do make 100% of their own sats, but dont launch them.
Are you sure they make their own satellites entirely from their own components? Do you have any citation for that?

And how many SpaceX launches has North Korea had?

Are you insane.
No, are you?

News flash, making a profit is central to running a company.
Actually, that depends on what your end goal for the company is.
Some are there to make a profit for the company.
Others are there to make a profit for their owner, which can be built upon hype and false promises.
Some are literally scams where they get money from investors to pay off prior investors.

And SpaceX is still taking in investors.

If it cost them more to do the R&D than they recieve, why would they develop tech only for the gov?
To get money?

They are infact a lot cheaper than the competition.
Citation needed.

Starship wont be launching for customers for quite some time. You not answering a pretty simple analogy at least gives me assurance that your finally getting it.
I have always been getting it. The problem is with fantasy.
I can easily claim that there would be a reusable rocket that only costs $100 to refurbish and launch and that it has a payload of 1 Gt to Mars, so it is clearly cheaper than any disposable rocket.
But that is just fantasy, it doesn't show reusable is cheaper.

They are not wasting money on launches, especially when everyone else dumps their rockets in the ocean, and no one bats an eye.
And again you appear to be contradicting yourself.
You want to act like SpaceX has the vast majority of launches, with mainly reusable rockets, yet now claim other companies (the ones contracting spaceX) are just dumping their rockets in the ocean?

The main launchers for the global market before the Falcon 9 where Ariane 5, Soyuz and Proton-M. Falcon 9 was introduced in 2013, and completed its block 5 upgrades in 2018.
Ariane 5 peaked in 2015 and saw its market disappear.
Sure, it "peaked" at the same level it was in in 2012, and then had its "market disappear" so it only launched 5 rockets in 2021.
Soyuz will now have gotten killed by the Ukraine invasion.

And again, with all the launches of Starlink, that graph is quite misleading.

SpaceX hasn't killed other countries space programs.
50% of launches in 2021 for "commercial" payloads were not by SpaceX.
It is also strange that it excludes military missions and GPS for Atlas and Delta, but not SpaceX.
And as pointed out, it ignores Long March.

So perhaps you should learn how graphs work yourself, including on how they can be quite misleading.

So saying that SpaceX did not do anything significant is a very large exaggeration.
Shifting the goalposts I see.
Your claim wasn't just that SpaceX did something significant. It was
"Entire countries space programs where put in jepordy because the Falcon 9 completely outclassed them."
And that simply isn't supported by the data.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 18, 2022, 01:17:33 AM
Notice your contradicting yourself?
You claim no one but insiders know, yet somehow you magically know it is better.

You also seem to be trying to compare it to the reusable Falcon 9.
In 2016, the tried landing a falcon 9 booster from a flight to GTO witha payload of ~5.3 t.
In 2017, the successfully launched a 5.6 t payload to GTO.
They later (may 2017) planned to launch a ~6.1 t payload with a Falcon heavy, but used a Falcon 9 instead.

And the page comparing the different Falcon 9 blocks, shows the change from block 3 to block 5 was going from 5.3 t to 5.8 t for the reusable rocket, while the expendable remained at 8.3 t.

And from looking at the launches, it seems they want to use lower energy GTO orbits with Falcon 9.
Right, and where does it say what the updated Falcon Heavy GTO mass is?
So all you have is that the F9 has increased capacity from 2016 to today, but you believe nothing changed on Falcon Heavy?
They used Falcon9 because it was cheaper and could do the launch as it kept increasing capacity. As Falcon9 gets better, so does Falcon Heavy.
Reusability also has multi profiles, each with a different advantage.

Are you sure they make their own satellites entirely from their own components? Do you have any citation for that?

And how many SpaceX launches has North Korea had?
Yes I am sure, and it will be hard to find citations. Just like it will be hard to find citations that Apple does not use Samsung parts. It will be a lot easier finding citations that they DO use US components. But I have spoken to people from multiple space industries, (JAXA, SANSA, ESA, Polsa) and multiple countries can build 100% of their own sats. UAE for instance is spending a lot of money to build their own sats. Airbus alone has been building its own sats for decades. And USA does not produce 100% of their own sats all the time either. They can, but in a commercial sense, they often use European suppliers. Germany has the best space hardened solar panels in the World, and USA uses them a lot.

I Meant South Korea. But North Korea certainly can, just not super complex.

Actually, that depends on what your end goal for the company is.
Some are there to make a profit for the company.
Others are there to make a profit for their owner, which can be built upon hype and false promises.
Some are literally scams where they get money from investors to pay off prior investors.

And SpaceX is still taking in investors.
So . . .  to make a profit.
And to make a profit you need to spend less than you earn.
https://craft.co/spacex/funding-rounds (https://craft.co/spacex/funding-rounds) here is all the grants and investor funding SpaceX has ever received. The rest of their income has to come from delivering services.

They have received 7.4B from investors since 2002, and with they had to

Develop 4 rockets. Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Starship
Develop multiple rocket engines, Merlin, Draco & S Draco, Raptors.
Develop and launch over 2500 sats

None of that development was paid for from service contracts like the Dragon capsules.
So 4 rockets, 2 Large engines and 2500 sats for $7.4B.
How does it compare?
Just building (Not developing) 18 RS-25's cost NASA $1.8B
Just Launching (Not developing) one SLS rocket with one Orion capsule will cost over $4B
EACH space shuttle launch cost about $1.4B over the lifetime of the program.
Each one of those GPS3 sats in the picture costs well over $400m each.
So Id say SpaceX is doing a lot with that money.

Citation needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Commercial_Crew_Program#CCDev_2
Boeing Starliner - $5.1B and have still not launched
SpaceX Dragon 2 -$3.1B and are already done with the original launch contract.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_HLS_development_history#Preliminary_HLS_studies
HLS contracts
Blue Origin - $5.99B
Dynetics - $9.8B
SpaceX - 2.94B

I have always been getting it. The problem is with fantasy.
I can easily claim that there would be a reusable rocket that only costs $100 to refurbish and launch and that it has a payload of 1 Gt to Mars, so it is clearly cheaper than any disposable rocket.
But that is just fantasy, it doesn't show reusable is cheaper.
Except actual pricing for reusability.
You need to invent conspiracies for reusability is more expensive, over just looking at the
A - Actual prices
B - Looking at where the entire launch market is heading.

And again you appear to be contradicting yourself.
You want to act like SpaceX has the vast majority of launches, with mainly reusable rockets, yet now claim other companies (the ones contracting spaceX) are just dumping their rockets in the ocean?
What?
I said other launch companies are dumping rocket stages in the Ocean and no one is crying over it.
What are you on about?

Sure, it "peaked" at the same level it was in in 2012, and then had its "market disappear" so it only launched 5 rockets in 2021.
Soyuz will now have gotten killed by the Ukraine invasion.

And again, with all the launches of Starlink, that graph is quite misleading.

SpaceX hasn't killed other countries space programs.
50% of launches in 2021 for "commercial" payloads were not by SpaceX.
It is also strange that it excludes military missions and GPS for Atlas and Delta, but not SpaceX.
And as pointed out, it ignores Long March.

So perhaps you should learn how graphs work yourself, including on how they can be quite misleading.
Ariane when from 12 to 5 launches in a span of 6 years.
OneWeb, competition to SpaceX refused to launch on F9 at any price. Of Soyuz launched 1 in 2019, 3 in 2020 and 9 in 2021. How do their launches look like without OneWeb? Then tell me how well Russia space is doing without that one single customer. Now that Soyuz is no longer an option, they could chose Ariane, Vulcan (Soon) or SpaceX only if they are really really desperate. Guess which they chose?

The last time Delta launched a non gov launch was in 2010, and 2016 for Atlas.
I mean, the Delta costs about $350m per launch, and Altas more than double a F9 for less performance after reuse.

Shifting the goalposts I see.
Your claim wasn't just that SpaceX did something significant. It was
"Entire countries space programs where put in jepordy because the Falcon 9 completely outclassed them."
And that simply isn't supported by the data.
Commercial launch programs, not space programs. And yes, its very much supported by the data
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 18, 2022, 04:48:16 AM
Right, and where does it say what the updated Falcon Heavy GTO mass is?
On the page, it goes from 6.4 t to 8 t.

Yes I am sure, and it will be hard to find citations. Just like it will be hard to find citations that Apple does not use Samsung parts. It will be a lot easier finding citations that they DO use US components.
You mean like this one:
https://thehackernews.com/2014/01/potential-backdoors-discovered-in-us.html

It is relative easy to assemble a satellite from components
The difficulty is in making the components.
And there are a lot of different components that need to be made.

https://craft.co/spacex/funding-rounds (https://craft.co/spacex/funding-rounds) here is all the grants and investor funding SpaceX has ever received. The rest of their income has to come from delivering services.
They have received 7.4B from investors since 2002, and with they had to
Which is only one source of income. So they didn't have to do everything with that.

Develop 4 rockets. Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Starship
Which is really 1 toy rocket, used more for demonstration than anything else and really just a stepping stone to the others, 2 rockets which are really just different configurations of the same rocket, and 1 rocket which is still in the R&D phase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Commercial_Crew_Program#CCDev_2
Boeing Starliner - $5.1B and have still not launched
SpaceX Dragon 2 -$3.1B and are already done with the original launch contract.
And did you bother noting what that was for?
SpaceX had already developed the Dragon due to prior contracts.
And it ignores that spaceX is being both the crew holder and the rocket, whereas boeing is just being 1.

HLS contracts
Blue Origin - $5.99B
Dynetics - $9.8B
SpaceX - 2.94B
Not contracts, bids.
Which then means SpaceX gets the money as the lowest bidder.

Except actual pricing for reusability.
You aren't discussing that.
You are discussing hypothetical prices for a rocket which is yet to go into orbit.

I said other launch companies
Why? We were discussing those paying SpaceX, not SpaceX itself.

Ariane when from 12 to 5 launches in a span of 6 years.
Still not killing other countries space programs.

Commercial launch programs, not space programs. And yes, its very much supported by the data
Then why did you claim:
Im not defending the guy, but seriously? Entire countries space programs where put in jepordy because the Falcon 9 completely outclassed them.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 18, 2022, 06:14:00 AM
https://spacenews.com/arabsat-ceo-falcon-heavy-gives-our-satellite-extra-life/ (https://spacenews.com/arabsat-ceo-falcon-heavy-gives-our-satellite-extra-life/)

Right there you can see that a customer chose a Falcon Heavy fully reusable over a Falcon9 due to its higher orbital payload capabilities.
Im not sure what you think the conspiracy is.

You mean like this one:
https://thehackernews.com/2014/01/potential-backdoors-discovered-in-us.html (https://thehackernews.com/2014/01/potential-backdoors-discovered-in-us.html)
that is from 2014, and what do you think happened afterwards? Did they not launch any sats ever again?
Maybe this article will help you
https://www.reuters.com/article/emirates-satellite-int-idUSKBN27D23B (https://www.reuters.com/article/emirates-satellite-int-idUSKBN27D23B)

Which is only one source of income. So they didn't have to do everything with that.
Which other sources of income do they have? Because according to you, they are losing money on re-usable launches, which is all their launches.

Which is really 1 toy rocket, used more for demonstration than anything else and really just a stepping stone to the others, 2 rockets which are really just different configurations of the same rocket, and 1 rocket which is still in the R&D phase.
That toy rocket had a higher LEO payload capacity than a lot of rockets we have mentioned in this discussion so far.
The falcon heavy, although a different configuration took a lot of R&D to develop. Its not lego. SLS is using space shuttle engines, main tank and side boosters, but is already $23B in development. And that other rocket in R&D phase is a few months out from its first orbital launch.

And did you bother noting what that was for?
SpaceX had already developed the Dragon due to prior contracts.
And it ignores that spaceX is being both the crew holder and the rocket, whereas boeing is just being 1.
Dragon 1 and Dragon Crew are completely different vehicles. Im not even sure what they have in common if anything.
And Boeing is a 50% owner of ULA, and all ULA tech is Boeing tech. Meaning all ULA launches are Boeing launches.

Not contracts, bids.
Which then means SpaceX gets the money as the lowest bidder.
Which means they have to produce the vehicle for the bid price. They cant change the value after they bid. Otherwise everyone would just bid $1.

You aren't discussing that.
You are discussing hypothetical prices for a rocket which is yet to go into orbit.
I dont know what its going to cost. I can only speculate. I never said I knew what its launch price would be.

Still not killing other countries space programs.
Your trying to be super clever here.
Nigeria has a space program, its pretty hard to kill a countries space program.
But when you lose 50% of your market, it can be said to severely hurt your market share.
You dont need to KILL THE MARKET. GAME OVER RUSSIA!!!
Your watching too much youtube.

Then why did you claim:
Im not defending the guy, but seriously? Entire countries space programs where put in jepordy because the Falcon 9 completely outclassed them.
Because it massively hurt their ability to competitively perform in those markets!
ESA is going to fly European payloads on European rockets at any cost. Its a national thing. Same with every country that has some launch capability, even if SpaceX charges $1 per metric ton to any orbit. So you cant really kill any national launch provider. But you can drain them of commercial contracts.
ESA has been impacted to the point where they admit that they must get reusability working asap. OneWeb, a European company is launching all their sats on Falcon9 now. Europe does not have a rocket able to compete on price OR cadence.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 18, 2022, 02:07:06 PM
HLS contracts
Blue Origin - $5.99B
Dynetics - $9.8B
SpaceX - 2.94B
Not contracts, bids.
Which then means SpaceX gets the money as the lowest bidder.
I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but that was a fixed price contract, not a cost plus contract that NASA previously used.  If program costs more than what was bid, then the contractor has to eat the difference.  That's a good chunk of why it sucks to be Boeing right now; they can't bill NASA extra to make up for their botched demo flight.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 18, 2022, 04:10:13 PM
Right there you can see that a customer chose a Falcon Heavy fully reusable over a Falcon9 due to its higher orbital payload capabilities.
No we can't.
They do not specify what configuration each of them were going for. All we can see is that the end result was a reusable falcon heavy. Where they considering a reusable falcon 9 or an expendable one?

As their satellite is well within the capabilities of an expendable Falcon 9, it seems they were comparing it to a reusable Falcon 9 (which would have put it into a lower energy GTO), as if they had already chosen to go with a reusable rocket, and just need to pick which one.

that is from 2014
And did you notice who was building it?
Airbus, which you claim has been building its own satellites for decades.

Maybe this article will help you
No, it doesn't, as it says nothing about the origin of the components.
Again, building your own satellite from components is much easier than building all the components yourself.

Which other sources of income do they have? Because according to you, they are losing money on re-usable launches, which is all their launches.
Government contracts.
Income for Starlink.

You literally provided another source of income below your claim.

That toy rocket had a higher LEO payload capacity than a lot of rockets we have mentioned in this discussion so far.
Really?
It has a proven capacity of 180 kg, and an initial claim of 600 kg, which was later reduced to 420 kg.
That sure sounds like quite a lot less than the various rockets we have been discussing.
It had very few launches, and SpaceX even admitted "We could not make Falcon 1 work as a business."
So not really anything to brag about.

The falcon heavy, although a different configuration took a lot of R&D to develop. Its not lego. SLS is using space shuttle engines, main tank and side boosters, but is already $23B in development. And that other rocket in R&D phase is a few months out from its first orbital launch.
If they actually developed crossfeed, you would have a point.
Instead, what you have now are 3 boosters, strapped together, with nose cones on 2 of them and the second stage on the core one.
The change to the launch profile is the core booster has a more complex profile where it is initially at full thrust, then throttles down until booster separation.
So not really all that complex.

Compare that to the SLS, which while using components of the reusable boosters from the shuttle, is still redesigning them into 5 segment boosters instead of the 4 segment boosters the shuttle had, It is using a similar but still different fuel tank to the shuttle, with a configuration entirely different from the shuttle, where now fuel needs to be fed to the bottom of the stage to the engines mounted there instead of flowing fuel into the shuttle to go to its engines, with obvious differences in where the engines are mounted, and it has a second stage where the shuttle was effectively a single stage with boosters.
So drastically different.

Dragon 1 and Dragon Crew are completely different vehicles.
In the same way a 1990 Mustang is different to a 2000 Mustang.

Which means they have to produce the vehicle for the bid price.
But it doesn't mean they are getting so much less money than the competitors.
And what will happen if they don't meet the bid price and need more money?
Lots of government contracts start out cheap then end up getting more money.

I dont know what its going to cost. I can only speculate.
Which is no better than the fantasy I provided.
You are speculating that it will be massively cheaper to try and prop up your claim that reusability is massively cheaper.

Your trying to be super clever here.
No, I'm not. I am merely showing that your "evidence" does not support your claim.
If you didn't mean that it that it threatened their space program, then you shouldn't have said it did.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 18, 2022, 04:58:27 PM
Which means they have to produce the vehicle for the bid price.
But it doesn't mean they are getting so much less money than the competitors.
And what will happen if they don't meet the bid price and need more money?
Since it's a fixed price contract, nothing happens.  They suck it up and eat the difference (or beg for more money like Boeing did).  They can probably write off the loss come tax time.


I dont know what its going to cost. I can only speculate.
Which is no better than the fantasy I provided.
So you admit that your whole argument is a fantasy?  Good to know.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 18, 2022, 09:27:00 PM
No we can't.
They do not specify what configuration each of them were going for. All we can see is that the end result was a reusable falcon heavy. Where they considering a reusable falcon 9 or an expendable one?

As their satellite is well within the capabilities of an expendable Falcon 9, it seems they were comparing it to a reusable Falcon 9 (which would have put it into a lower energy GTO), as if they had already chosen to go with a reusable rocket, and just need to pick which one.
I do know it was at a very high inclination, so not so sure if it was F9 disposable capable.
There is more to orbits than reaching the reference orbits!
They talk about giving the sat multiple years of additional life, meaning orbital insertion from the second stage was very important for them.

And did you notice who was building it?
Airbus, which you claim has been building its own satellites for decades.
Airbus HAS been building its own sats for years. It does not mean they cant import parts. Here they did possibly because they thought the imported parts wont have spy software on.
But now UAE can build their own sats. They still need to import some components, because very few countries make certain things. For eg, Solar for Germany, computers from Taiwan ext. The US also imports parts, does this mean they cant build sats?
"Parts" does not make a satellite. Otherwise no country can make a sat according to your definition. Even US spy sats need components imported from other countries.

Government contracts.
Income for Starlink.

You literally provided another source of income below your claim.
Lets go over this again.
You say that reuse is cheaper because they are subsidizing their re-use launches with other things. This means they need at least $17m dollars extra from somewhere else per launch, or about $2-3B spare change somewhere.
We know its not investor money because they dont have all that much relative to how much they are developing.
Its not starlink, because they only have about 300 000 customers at $100 each right now, while selling user terminals for less than it costs to make. All of their customers income a month barely pays for one launch.
All their Gov contracts are substantially cheaper than the ULA or Boeing alternative, so they are already undercutting there, plus they still need to actually deliver on these services, its not free money.

So where are they getting this $2 - 3 billion?

Really?
It has a proven capacity of 180 kg, and an initial claim of 600 kg, which was later reduced to 420 kg.
That sure sounds like quite a lot less than the various rockets we have been discussing.
It had very few launches, and SpaceX even admitted "We could not make Falcon 1 work as a business."
So not really anything to brag about.
That was before the merlin saw any upgrades, so it could probably reach its 600kg.
Electron, the rocket that launched the Capstone mission mentioned earlier only has a LEO capacity of about 300kg.
Vega, Soyuz and PSLV are closer to launch mass to Falcon 1 than Falcon 9.
I agree, F1 is not impressive, yet its closer to a lot of the commercial alternatives than F9.

If they actually developed crossfeed, you would have a point.
Instead, what you have now are 3 boosters, strapped together, with nose cones on 2 of them and the second stage on the core one.
The change to the launch profile is the core booster has a more complex profile where it is initially at full thrust, then throttles down until booster separation.
So not really all that complex.

Compare that to the SLS, which while using components of the reusable boosters from the shuttle, is still redesigning them into 5 segment boosters instead of the 4 segment boosters the shuttle had, It is using a similar but still different fuel tank to the shuttle, with a configuration entirely different from the shuttle, where now fuel needs to be fed to the bottom of the stage to the engines mounted there instead of flowing fuel into the shuttle to go to its engines, with obvious differences in where the engines are mounted, and it has a second stage where the shuttle was effectively a single stage with boosters.
So drastically different.
FH cross feed was very complex. It needs to work with a common booster design which would make the common booster worse or far more complex. And at the end of the day, Falcon Heavy is restricted by its fairing size, so more up mass is pretty much useless. As proof, go see how many FH disposable launches are on the manifest. Not too many to justify the sacrifices that will need to be made.

And SLS, while it DID need a lot of upgrades, took more money to develop than what has passed through SpaceX doors to date. Just for the single vehicle.

In the same way a 1990 Mustang is different to a 2000 Mustang.
They have a different structure and size
Different Parachutes
Different heat shields
Different avionics
Different trunk and energy management system
D2 has super dracos not on D1
D2 has a LES not on D1
D2 has can auto dock, while D1 needs to manually berth
D2 has a ECLSS system while D1 does not.

Please tell me, where are they they same?
But it doesn't mean they are getting so much less money than the competitors.
And what will happen if they don't meet the bid price and need more money?
Lots of government contracts start out cheap then end up getting more money.
Charging less for a service means you get less for a service. Im guessing your not an account.
If they need more money, then they need to self fund to deliver or get penalised for failing to deliver. Boeing's starliner is in this position right now. Boeing is self funding additional dev of starliner as it cost them more than the bid price to develop, while NASA is rejecting them on other bids due to bad performance.
These bids are all fixed cost bids. Means you deliver at that price, end of story.
SLS is on a cost plus bid. Meaning if it costs more, the US gov pays more.
Cost plus makes sense when there is only one bidder and NASA has direct control of the contract.

Which is no better than the fantasy I provided.
You are speculating that it will be massively cheaper to try and prop up your claim that reusability is massively cheaper.
We know reusability is cheaper, because we have real figures to use.
Your developing conspiracies to justify otherwise.

In what world is building a new rocket cheaper than fuel and repairs?
Each Space Shuttle cost about $450m to launch. A lot sure, but they cost over $2b to build.
The RS-25s that SLS will dump in the ocean each cost more than an entire FH disposable launch.

There are conditions where single use is cheaper, for ex, where launch cadence is very very low. Which is where the world was from 1970 to 2010's. We are not there anymore.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 19, 2022, 01:45:35 AM
So you admit that your whole argument is a fantasy?  Good to know.
Seriously?
Just how did you manage to come up with that dishonest BS?

They talk about giving the sat multiple years of additional life, meaning orbital insertion from the second stage was very important for them.
And yet still no indication that they were considering a Falcon 9 expendable.

But now UAE can build their own sats. They still need to import some components
Which was the very point I was making, which you seem to repeatedly fail to grasp.
NO US SATELLITE COMPONENT is allowed to be launched on a Chinese rocket.
So saying they can make their own satellites from components is entirely pointless.

You say that reuse is cheaper
No, I say per kg reuse is not cheaper, and that there is no reason at all to believe the claims of how much it actually costs them.

Its not starlink, because they only have about 300 000 customers at $100 each right now
$710 upfront and then $110 per month.
Or for their premium service, you can pay $3000 upfront and $500 per month.
That $110 per month works out to be $1320 per year per person, or almost $400 million dollars for all their subscribers.

That was before the merlin saw any upgrades, so it could probably reach its 600kg.
Electron, the rocket that launched the Capstone mission mentioned earlier only has a LEO capacity of about 300kg.
Vega, Soyuz and PSLV are closer to launch mass to Falcon 1 than Falcon 9.
Yet you claim the vast majority of the launch mass for the F9 isn't needed.
I would say only the electron is comparable to the F1.

FH cross feed was very complex.
Hence why if they actually did it you would have a point.
Instead what they did is rather insignificant compared to SLS.
Comparing it to SLS to pretend SpaceX is so much cheaper is quite dishonest.

In the same way a 1990 Mustang is different to a 2000 Mustang.
Please tell me, where are they they same?
Similar can be said of any derivative.
It again ignores the point.
SpaceX already had a government paid for starting point to work from. So they should take less money to produce Dragon 2.

Charging less for a service means you get less for a service.
Charging less for a service, so you get the money while your competitors don't doesn't mean you get less. Instead, it means you get more.

We know reusability is cheaper, because we have real figures to use.
Your developing conspiracies to justify otherwise.
Not per kg, and still quite questionable given how much is kept secret internally.
And more to the point, we have no basis to claim a reusable orbital rocket (instead of just a booster) is cheaper.

In what world is building a new rocket cheaper than fuel and repairs?
In a world were that requires a more complex rocket, a reduction in capacity and potentially quite significant cost for repairs.

Each Space Shuttle cost about $450m to launch. A lot sure, but they cost over $2b to build.
You sure do love useless points.
Try comparing it to the cost of a rocket with the same capabilities as the shuttle, but without the reusability.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 19, 2022, 11:39:57 AM
And yet still no indication that they were considering a Falcon 9 expendable.
Considering it was at a 32 degree inclination at over 6.5t, its right at the edge of what a F9 disposable could do. F9 reusable is not an option here.

Which was the very point I was making, which you seem to repeatedly fail to grasp.
NO US SATELLITE COMPONENT is allowed to be launched on a Chinese rocket.
So saying they can make their own satellites from components is entirely pointless.
ITAR does not cover everything made in the USA. It covers specific things. It is meant to ensure certain tech does not fall into Chinese hands. Europe actually has something similar. Solar panels and many many other things are not on that list. But, you can 100% build a sat without ANY American components. Or do you think Russia is importing American satellite components in their Spy sats? Russia, the country that was launching sats before the USA?

No, I say per kg reuse is not cheaper, and that there is no reason at all to believe the claims of how much it actually costs them.
And as mentioned probably over 20 times now. You dont buy launch services by the kg. Just like reference orbits, price per kg is just an indicator of cost. Its not the cost.

$710 upfront and then $110 per month.
Or for their premium service, you can pay $3000 upfront and $500 per month.
That $110 per month works out to be $1320 per year per person, or almost $400 million dollars for all their subscribers.
$400m a year to pay for over 20 Falcon 9 launches, each with about 50 average sats.
According to you, reuse is more expensive, so this is costing them over $1-2B a year just in launch cost.
So either reuse is a hell lot cheaper than you think, or SpaceX has invented a money printing machine somewhere.

Yet you claim the vast majority of the launch mass for the F9 isn't needed.
Very few rockets ever launch at their max capacity. Your max capacity is your range of mass that you can launch for a price. Falcon 9 can launch anything from 1g to 16t for $50m. Within that range will be smaller rockets that can put payload up for less, and beyond that range will be bigger rockets for more. One of those options being disposable for a lot more money.


Hence why if they actually did it you would have a point.
Instead what they did is rather insignificant compared to SLS.
Comparing it to SLS to pretend SpaceX is so much cheaper is quite dishonest.
No, I never compared just the Flacon Heavy upgrade to the SLS.
I compared
4 rockets (F1, F9, FH, SS)
2 large rocket engines (merlin, Raptor)
deployed over 2500 sats (Of which there are 2 versions)
For 1/3rd of the price of SLS.

Similar can be said of any derivative.
It again ignores the point.
SpaceX already had a government paid for starting point to work from. So they should take less money to produce Dragon 2.
You mean like how Boeing was building the SLS, and was deeply involved in the $90B STS program should be able to now build Starliner cheaper for cheaper? Like that?

Charging less for a service, so you get the money while your competitors don't doesn't mean you get less. Instead, it means you get more.
Oh right, if only the competition did not realise they could bid less?
Why did the others bid more than double for the same service?

Not per kg, and still quite questionable given how much is kept secret internally.
And more to the point, we have no basis to claim a reusable orbital rocket (instead of just a booster) is cheaper.
Again, not per kg under certain conditions for a partially reusable rocket. But AGAIN, no one is paying for launch services by the kg.
I also have no claim that if you jump off a high enough building you will die. We will only know once you do it, maybe your immune to gravity, who knows. But we can make certain informed guesses.

In a world were that requires a more complex rocket, a reduction in capacity and potentially quite significant cost for repairs.
Right, this is the first time you said something interesting.
How much does that complexity cost, in both mass, fixed cost, variable cost and cadence? How often can you reuse and how much does re-use cost?
How much reduction in capacity, and what is the cost of that and market of that lost capacity? How does it compare to using the full capacity?
Everyone in the industry that has done this math is currently developing reusable rockets. We can play a game of, which major launch company is not currently building reuse. You start.
You sure do love useless points.
Try comparing it to the cost of a rocket with the same capabilities as the shuttle, but without the reusability.
There does not exist any vehicles with the same capability of the shuttle. 7 people plus 16ton to LEO with a low-g glide slope return to earth. Maybe the Buran, but we have nothing to work off there.
You can try an put a ULA rocket + Starliner and 7 people at $90m per seat. Then add the Vulcan at $160m and still end up more expensive than the Space Shuttle.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 19, 2022, 02:15:44 PM
So you admit that your whole argument is a fantasy?  Good to know.
Seriously?
Just how did you manage to come up with that dishonest BS?
By reading your posts.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 19, 2022, 02:54:50 PM
Considering it was at a 32 degree inclination at over 6.5t, its right at the edge of what a F9 disposable could do. F9 reusable is not an option here.
Not really.
That would be assuming that it would achieve the same kind of orbital insertion as the falcon heavy. But as pointed out, it didn't. They are using F9 reusable to launch into a lower energy GTO, which would likely take years off the satellites life.
Seems to match the story quite well.
So I would say F9 reusable

ITAR does not cover everything made in the USA. It covers specific things.
Including satellite components, which was the point I made earlier, and included a link to a news article where a company was fined 8 million dollars for ICs which went into a satellite launched by China.
https://spacenews.com/37071us-satellite-component-maker-fined-8-million-for-itar-violations/

Solar panels and many many other things are not on that list.
ICs normally aren't, yet ones made for satellites are.
Does the same apply to solar panels?
I would think so.
General, commercial grade items typically aren't controlled.
But components intended for use in satellites are.


$400m a year to pay for over 20 Falcon 9 launches, each with about 50 average sats.
According to you, reuse is more expensive, so this is costing them over $1-2B a year just in launch cost.
So either reuse is a hell lot cheaper than you think, or SpaceX has invented a money printing machine somewhere.
Or, they have multiple sources of income which can be used together to pay for launches.

Yet you claim the vast majority of the launch mass for the F9 isn't needed.
Very few rockets ever launch at their max capacity.
Which is just avoiding the point.

No, I never compared just the Flacon Heavy upgrade to the SLS.
I compared
4 rockets (F1, F9, FH, SS)
2 large rocket engines (merlin, Raptor)
deployed over 2500 sats (Of which there are 2 versions)
For 1/3rd of the price of SLS.
And I pointed out one of those rockets is a toy, 2 are basically the same thing, and one is yet to launch or even prove it can get to orbit.

And after that you responded by claiming the falcon heavy took lots of R&D, and that SLS is using some things from the shuttle.
That sure seems to be an attempt to compare the 2.

You mean like how Boeing was building the SLS, and was deeply involved in the $90B STS program should be able to now build Starliner cheaper for cheaper? Like that?
Are they in any way comparable to the strainer?
No.

Why did the others bid more than double for the same service?
Ask them.

But we can make certain informed guesses.
You aren't making informed guesses.
You are wildly speculating on a rocket that hasn't even been to orbit yet about claims of how cheap it will be.
And considering how many broken promises Musk has already made, why should any of that be taken seriously?

Right, this is the first time you said something interesting.
Considering I have already pointed that out, I doubt it.

How much does that complexity cost, in both mass, fixed cost, variable cost and cadence? How often can you reuse and how much does re-use cost?
How much reduction in capacity, and what is the cost of that and market of that lost capacity? How does it compare to using the full capacity?
And they are all questions which no one outside of spaceX knows the answer to for their rockets.
They are things which can cause reusability to cost more.

Everyone in the industry that has done this math is currently developing reusable rockets.
How do you know that?
How many are going for a fully reusable orbital rocket?
Only spaceX that I know of.
Additionally, as pointed out before, sometimes there are factors other than cost.

There does not exist any vehicles with the same capability of the shuttle.
Which is a problem for you, not me.
You can't compare the cost of building the space shuttle with the cost to launch it to try saying reuse is cheaper.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 19, 2022, 03:23:53 PM
Everyone in the industry that has done this math is currently developing reusable rockets.
How do you know that?
How many are going for a fully reusable orbital rocket?
Only spaceX that I know of.
Maybe not fully reusable, but quite a few at least partially reusable.
Blue Origin is looking to reuse both first and second stages of New Glenn.  New Sheppard is fully reusable.
Rocket Labs is looking to reuse first stage on Electron and Neutron.
Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two is fully reusable.
ULA Vulcan Centaur is looking to reuse the first stage engine module.
The list goes on...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_launch_vehicle#List_of_reusable_launch_systems
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 19, 2022, 03:48:33 PM
Everyone in the industry that has done this math is currently developing reusable rockets.
How do you know that?
How many are going for a fully reusable orbital rocket?
Only spaceX that I know of.
Maybe not fully reusable, but quite a few at least partially reusable.
Blue Origin is looking to reuse both first and second stages of New Glenn.  New Sheppard is fully reusable.
Rocket Labs is looking to reuse first stage on Electron and Neutron.
Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two is fully reusable.
ULA Vulcan Centaur is looking to reuse the first stage engine module.
The list goes on...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_launch_vehicle#List_of_reusable_launch_systems
New Glenn is yet to launch, so we will see if it actually tries to reuse the second stage. Remember, Falcon 9 was meant to be fully reusable.
New Sheppard is a sub-orbital booster, SpaceShip is a suborbital space plane. If you are going to list that, you may as well list planes and cars.

And note that Vulcan is just considering reusing the engine and avionics modules, rather than the entire first stage, and using a parachute rather than a propulsive landing.

If reuse like the Falcon 9 or StarShip is so much better, why isn't ULA planning on making the entire first stage reusable? Why aren't they planning on making the entire craft reusable?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 19, 2022, 04:11:25 PM
Remember, Falcon 9 was meant to be fully reusable.
Not really.  Maybe at first, but it didn't take long for SpaceX realize that reusing the second stage wouldn't be practical. 

New Sheppard is a sub-orbital booster, SpaceShip is a suborbital space plane. If you are going to list that, you may as well list planes and cars.
If they can go into some officially recognized region of space, then why not?

And note that Vulcan is just considering reusing the engine and avionics modules, rather than the entire first stage, and using a parachute rather than a propulsive landing.
That's why I said "at least partially reusable". ::)

If reuse like the Falcon 9 or StarShip is so much better, why isn't ULA planning on making the entire first stage reusable? Why aren't they planning on making the entire craft reusable?
You would be better off asking ULA, but my guess it that it might have to do with it being an easier engineering solution.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 19, 2022, 04:30:34 PM
So much bitter arguing and barely any of it to do with Elon himself anymore - only his shitty companies

Well here is a refresher to remind you what this thread is about!!

(https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/fb828c6ae8fe11ab922e9f9382b232e3)

OK...... Go!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 19, 2022, 04:47:59 PM
Not really.  Maybe at first, but it didn't take long for SpaceX realize that reusing the second stage wouldn't be practical.
I wouldn't say almost 10 years amounts to "didn't take long"

If they can go into some officially recognized region of space, then why not?
Because the majority of the difficulty of reuse comes with the energy/fuel requirements to go to orbit, then remove itself from orbit and successfully land.
That is why the first stage, a sub-orbital booster, is relatively easy to reuse compared to the second stage which actually goes into orbit.
It gets even worse the more energetic the orbit.

That's why I said "at least partially reusable". ::)
I know, but my point is it shows discarding parts can be cheaper than reuse.
This particular line of discussion came from discussing a fully reusable rocket (i.e. the current claims for starship).

You would be better off asking ULA, but my guess it that it might have to do with it being an easier engineering solution.
I would think disconnecting a major part of the rocket, and using an inflatable heat shield, would be a more complex engineering task than trying to recover the entire booster.
However, doing it this way means you need to slow down a much lighter object, which means you don't need to reserve loads of fuel to do it.
Imagine a reusable falcon 9 booster, with the payload comparable to an expendable one.

But I suppose it would likely be easier to transport and less likely to fall over and break.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 19, 2022, 05:18:08 PM
Not really.  Maybe at first, but it didn't take long for SpaceX realize that reusing the second stage wouldn't be practical.
I wouldn't say almost 10 years amounts to "didn't take long"
Do you have any evidence that SpaceX ever put any serious effort into making F9 stage 2 reusable? 

If they can go into some officially recognized region of space, then why not?
Because the majority of the difficulty of reuse comes with the energy/fuel requirements to go to orbit, then remove itself from orbit and successfully land.
That is why the first stage, a sub-orbital booster, is relatively easy to reuse compared to the second stage which actually goes into orbit.
It gets even worse the more energetic the orbit.
Yes, that's why SpaceX isn't trying to reuse F9 second stages.

That's why I said "at least partially reusable". ::)
I know, but my point is it shows discarding parts can be cheaper than reuse.
This particular line of discussion came from discussing a fully reusable rocket (i.e. the current claims for starship).
Then stop bringing up Falcon 9 and Heavy.  Neither were designed to be fully reusable.

You would be better off asking ULA, but my guess it that it might have to do with it being an easier engineering solution.
I would think disconnecting a major part of the rocket, and using an inflatable heat shield, would be a more complex engineering task than trying to recover the entire booster.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  That's ULA's problem to figure out, not mine.

However, doing it this way means you need to slow down a much lighter object, which means you don't need to reserve loads of fuel to do it.
They probably won't need to reserve any fuel to do it that way.  So what?  Who says that there is only one cost effective way to do reusable?

Imagine a reusable falcon 9 booster, with the payload comparable to an expendable one.
Why?  F9 reusable and expendable have different capabilities (and different price points) for different customers for a reason.  One size does not fit all.

But I suppose it would likely be easier to transport and less likely to fall over and break.
Where will that engine module land?  How much will it cost to refurbish?  How much will it cost to build the rest of the first stage for the next launch?  How long will it take ULA to actually bring it to market?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 20, 2022, 02:09:25 AM
Do you have any evidence that SpaceX ever put any serious effort into making F9 stage 2 reusable?
No. Do you have any evidence that New Glenn has put it any effort?

Yes, that's why SpaceX isn't trying to reuse F9 second stages.
And why a reusable rocket can easily cost more.

Then stop bringing up Falcon 9 and Heavy.  Neither were designed to be fully reusable.
Tell that to everyone else.

They probably won't need to reserve any fuel to do it that way.  So what?
So more fuel can be spent getting the payload/second stage moving.

Why?
Because it would be better.

Where will that engine module land?  How much will it cost to refurbish?  How much will it cost to build the rest of the first stage for the next launch?  How long will it take ULA to actually bring it to market?
It is planned to be caught by a helicopter. As for the rest, who knows. The same can be asked about spaceX.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 20, 2022, 10:44:40 AM
So this discussion is not going anywhere because JackBlack is hiding behind the fact that this is a new technology currently still in development.
The discussion started here
Also in regards to the reusable rockets vs non-reusable ones.
Especially as the figures I was able to obtain previously indicate that non-reusable rockets have a cheaper cost per kg to orbit.
In where he can show that a disposable F9 is cheaper than a reusable F9 per kg. Then following this logic up by saying re-usable rockets are a dead end.
This is like showing how a 18 wheeler truck is cheaper than a F150 pick up per kg so you should use it for doing your groceries.
Or that the iPhone is a dead end, because its battery life is shorter than a Nokia 6210.

Your pointing out a mostly irrelevant fact in what gets to decide what model works.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 20, 2022, 02:30:30 PM
Do you have any evidence that SpaceX ever put any serious effort into making F9 stage 2 reusable?
No. Do you have any evidence that New Glenn has put it any effort?
Nothing firm, but some media speculation.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/blue-origin-is-developing-reusable-second-stage-other-advanced-projects/

Yes, that's why SpaceX isn't trying to reuse F9 second stages.
And why a reusable rocket can easily cost more.
And you have yet to provide any evidence that F9 reusable does cost more than F9 (or any other comparable) expendable.
 
Where will that engine module land?  How much will it cost to refurbish?  How much will it cost to build the rest of the first stage for the next launch?  How long will it take ULA to actually bring it to market?
It is planned to be caught by a helicopter. As for the rest, who knows. The same can be asked about spaceX.
Except that we know that SpaceX already brought F9 reusable to market years ago and is doing quite well.  Everyone else seems to be playing catch up.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 20, 2022, 03:04:42 PM
Then following this logic up by saying re-usable rockets are a dead end.
Not that they are a dead end, just that they aren't as good as people are claiming.

Where this actually started was a comparison of twitter to SpaceX, due to Musk claiming to want to open up twitter for free speech while firing employees at SpaceX for "speaking out", with me pointing out the 2 are different with a joke about wasteful rockets and appeasing a dictator.


And you have yet to provide any evidence that F9 reusable does cost more than F9 (or any other comparable) expendable.
I have on a per kg basis, and in comparing an expendable F9 to a reusable Falcon Heavy.
 
Except that we know that SpaceX already brought F9 reusable to market years ago
Yes, 2 questions answered for spaceX, the other 2 remain unknown.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 20, 2022, 03:19:13 PM
And you have yet to provide any evidence that F9 reusable does cost more than F9 (or any other comparable) expendable.
I have on a per kg basis...
Oh?  What is the cost per kg for Delta Heavy or Atlas 5?
 
...and in comparing an expendable F9 to a reusable Falcon Heavy
A single core F9 and a 3 core Falcon Heavy is not an apples to apples comparison, especially when understand that FH has more partial reusability options than F9.

Except that we know that SpaceX already brought F9 reusable to market years ago
Yes, 2 questions answered for spaceX, the other 2 remain unknown.
Maybe unknown to you and me, but not to SpaceX and their customers.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 20, 2022, 04:08:52 PM
Oh?  What is the cost per kg for Delta Heavy or Atlas 5?
Haven't checked.

A single core F9 and a 3 core Falcon Heavy is not an apples to apples comparison, especially when understand that FH has more partial reusability options than F9.
I would say the more important parts are those which are disposed of, which are the same for Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9, as a Falcon Heavy is a Falcon 9 with 2 extra boosters.

Maybe unknown to you and me, but not to SpaceX and their customers.
While SpaceX would know, I don't think their customers would.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 20, 2022, 09:59:34 PM
Money is a made up BS thing humans invented which in the grand scheme of things, is valueless

Anything which can reduce the use and materials of actual finite resources is a good endeavour.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 21, 2022, 12:27:08 AM
Anything which can reduce the use and materials of actual finite resources is a good endeavour.
I vote wiping out the majority of the world's population.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 21, 2022, 01:13:23 AM
Not that they are a dead end, just that they aren't as good as people are claiming.
This is a nuanced discussion, and your trying to make it black and white.

Falcon9 reusable is 25% cheaper than disposable for all payloads up to 16t to LEO. After 16t, disposable slowly closes the gap until about 21t when disposable reaches the same price point per kg as reusable. Disposable F9 is ONLY cheaper per kg between 21t to 22t to LEO.
But For ALL launches under 21t, reusable is cheaper per kg.

If I include Falcon Heavy Disposable in the mix, Heavy is more than triple the price per kg of F9 reusable at 16t to LEO. Its only at 47tons than Falcon Heavy Disposable is the same price per kg as Falcon 9 reusable.

47tons is in the range of National scale projects, that cost of launch is of zero concern anyway.
So saying disposable is cheaper per Kg is being very blind to the actual reality of the situation.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 21, 2022, 01:21:44 AM
Not that they are a dead end, just that they aren't as good as people are claiming.
This is a nuanced discussion, and your trying to make it black and white.

Falcon9 reusable is 25% cheaper than disposable for all payloads up to 16t to LEO. After 16t, disposable slowly closes the gap until about 21t when disposable reaches the same price point per kg as reusable. Disposable F9 is ONLY cheaper per kg between 21t to 22t to LEO.
But For ALL launches under 21t, reusable is cheaper per kg.

If I include Falcon Heavy Disposable in the mix, Heavy is more than triple the price per kg of F9 reusable at 16t to LEO. Its only at 47tons than Falcon Heavy Disposable is the same price per kg as Falcon 9 reusable.

47tons is in the range of National scale projects, that cost of launch is of zero concern anyway.
So saying disposable is cheaper per Kg is being very blind to the actual reality of the situation.
Now try it for GTO.

And think of how much cheaper it would have been for F9 expendable if F9 wasn't designed as reusable.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 21, 2022, 02:01:12 AM
Now try it for GTO.

And think of how much cheaper it would have been for F9 expendable if F9 wasn't designed as reusable.
F9 expendable literally has no parts needed for reuse attached when it launches. No legs, no grid fins.


Give me the updated FH launch to GEO from after the May 2018 upgrades and Ill work it out for you.


But for Falcon9.
Reusable at 5500kg to GEO works out at $9100 per kg
Disposable at 7400 kg to GEO works out to $9100 per kg


Anything below 5500kg is cheaper on reusable per kg or otherwise.




Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 22, 2022, 06:45:17 AM
Oh look, Now China also wants some action in the fully reusable rocket business.
Almost like full reusability has a lot of merit to it.

https://spacenews.com/china-could-shift-to-fully-reusable-super-heavy-launcher-in-wake-of-starship/ (https://spacenews.com/china-could-shift-to-fully-reusable-super-heavy-launcher-in-wake-of-starship/)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2022, 02:41:53 PM
Fully reusable has a nice ring to it.
The issue is the practicality of it creating a quite significant cost.

Look at how many people liked the idea of solar stupid roadways, or hyperscam.
People liking the idea and "wanting in on it", doesn't mean it is actually a good idea.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 22, 2022, 02:53:02 PM
Fully reusable has a nice ring to it.
The issue is the practicality of it creating a quite significant cost.

Look at how many people liked the idea of solar stupid roadways, or hyperscam.
People liking the idea and "wanting in on it", doesn't mean it is actually a good idea.

Money has no real value, ultimately. We made it up. Our 'throw away' society is disgusting

Why is it more economical for the end user to buy a brand new phone instead of repairing the old one? Or for any appliance? It's stupid

Earth's resources are finite.

Once upon a time solar panels were not economical for the the average home owner. Or LED light globes and so on. But here we are, these things not only being standard but cheap. Because we invested in it

Investing in reusable rockets is a good thing
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2022, 08:21:25 PM
Fully reusable has a nice ring to it.
The issue is the practicality of it creating a quite significant cost.
Is it more practical to use a brand new booster rocket once and throw it away or build a brand new one and then reuse it 12 more times (and counting) with minimal refurbishment between flights?

Look at how many people liked the idea of solar stupid roadways, or hyperscam.
Irrelevant.

People liking the idea and "wanting in on it", doesn't mean it is actually a good idea.
The market will decide if reusable rockets are a good idea, not you.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 22, 2022, 08:36:43 PM
The Space Shuttle was partially reusable, and it was cheaper to re-use it than built it again for every launch.
F9 is partially re-usable and is the cheapest rocket to get most payloads to orbit.

But somehow you think the model that has worked every time will now suddenly collapse because . . . . reasons.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2022, 08:46:08 PM
He probably thinks that refurbishing an F9 booster is like doing a gut-rehab on a old house.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 22, 2022, 09:00:51 PM
He probably thinks that refurbishing an F9 booster is like doing a gut-rehab on a old house.
I actually dont know what he is thinking. NASA and others has attempted reuse multiple times before SpaceX. Its just technically challenging because there are massive energies involved. A fully reusable launch system has been the holy grail of rocket design since when rockets where developed. But most rocket designs originated from ICBM's, and evolved to rockets to take things to space. ICBM's dont have great prospects for reuse.
In the future we will see single use rockets less and less, as engineers figure out how to solve the challenges better. Starship will be the first fully reusable rocket, it will be far from the last.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2022, 09:17:23 PM
Fully reusable has a nice ring to it.
The issue is the practicality of it creating a quite significant cost.
Is it more practical to use a brand new booster rocket once and throw it away or build a brand new one and then reuse it 12 more times (and counting) with minimal refurbishment between flights?
That is not fully reusable.
As for more practical, that waits to be seen. Considering the prior dishonesty of Musk I see no reason to trust anything coming from SpaceX until it is audited by an independent third party.

Look at how many people liked the idea of solar stupid roadways, or hyperscam.
Irrelevant.
Quite relavent.
It shows that people or even a company thinking something is a good idea and investing in it doesn't actually make it good.
People go after stupid ideas all the time.

People liking the idea and "wanting in on it", doesn't mean it is actually a good idea.
The market will decide if reusable rockets are a good idea, not you.
The realisation and practical implementation and use of the idea, or lack thereof, will decide if it is a good idea, not you.


The Space Shuttle was partially reusable, and it was cheaper to re-use it than built it again for every launch.
Again, meaningless comparison.
You need to compare it to one that is designed to be disposable.

That would be like me saying cleaning and reusing a pure silver fork is a lot cheaper than making a new one every time, while ignoring plastic forks.

He probably thinks that refurbishing an F9 booster is like doing a gut-rehab on a old house.
We have no idea what it entails.

A fully reusable launch system has been the holy grail of rocket design since when rockets where developed.
A launch system which doesn't need rockets at all is the holy grail of space launch.
Such as a linear accelerator or a space elevator.

Something being the holy grail doesn't mean it is possible or practical.

Starship will be the first fully reusable rocket, it will be far from the last.
Starship MAY be the first.
It is yet to be proven to be a reusable orbital rocket.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2022, 09:22:33 PM
Starship will be the first fully reusable rocket, it will be far from the last.
Actually, Virgin Galactic SpaceShip 2 and Blue Origin New Sheppard are already fully reusable, albeit suborbital.  Personally, I'd say that I'm cautiously optimistic about StarShip and SuperHeavy.  I think that it's awfully ambitious undertaking and they will probably need to blow up quite a few more before they get it right.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2022, 09:37:55 PM
Fully reusable has a nice ring to it.
The issue is the practicality of it creating a quite significant cost.
Is it more practical to use a brand new booster rocket once and throw it away or build a brand new one and then reuse it 12 more times (and counting) with minimal refurbishment between flights?
That is not fully reusable.
I didn't say that it was.  You're the one flogging the "fully reusable" horse, not me.

As for more practical, that waits to be seen. Considering the prior dishonesty of Musk I see no reason to trust anything coming from SpaceX until it is audited by an independent third party.
What evidence do you have that Musk ever lied about the cost or price of F9?  I'd say that Musk is more overly optimistic than dishonest.

Look at how many people liked the idea of solar stupid roadways, or hyperscam.
Irrelevant.
Quite relavent.
It shows that people or even a company thinking something is a good idea and investing in it doesn't actually make it good.
People go after stupid ideas all the time.
So what? 

People liking the idea and "wanting in on it", doesn't mean it is actually a good idea.
The market will decide if reusable rockets are a good idea, not you.
The realisation and practical implementation and use of the idea, or lack thereof, will decide if it is a good idea, not you.
The market seems to have already decided that reusable boosters have been realized and practically implemented, and they are the ones that matter.

He probably thinks that refurbishing an F9 booster is like doing a gut-rehab on a old house.
We have no idea what it entails.
Having worked as a service technician for over 15 years, I think that I might have a small clue.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2022, 12:17:42 AM
I didn't say that it was.
Yet you used it in response to a comment specifically discussing full reusability.

What evidence do you have that Musk ever lied about the cost or price of F9?
What evidence do you have that he hasn't?

I'd say that Musk is more overly optimistic than dishonest.
So he was optimistic when he set up a display of his solar roof tiles, claiming they were fully working and powering the houses, when they were a complete fake?
I would call that blatant dishonesty.

So what?
So lots of companies wanting to consider fully reusable rockets doesn't make it a good idea.
This was said in response to someone saying full reusability has a lot of merit because people are looking into it.

The market seems to have already decided that reusable boosters
Again, it was discussing full reusability. Not just boosters.

Having worked as a service technician for over 15 years, I think that I might have a small clue.
So you have serviced an F9 booster?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 23, 2022, 08:53:58 AM
What evidence do you have that Musk ever lied about the cost or price of F9?
What evidence do you have that he hasn't?
You're the one claiming that Musk is being dishonest, therefore it's your burden to support that claim, not mine to disprove.

I'd say that Musk is more overly optimistic than dishonest.
So he was optimistic when he set up a display of his solar roof tiles, claiming they were fully working and powering the houses, when they were a complete fake?
I would call that blatant dishonesty.
What does that have to do with the Falcon rockets that have  been working just fine for years? ???

So what?
So lots of companies wanting to consider fully reusable rockets doesn't make it a good idea.
This was said in response to someone saying full reusability has a lot of merit because people are looking into it.
Lots of companies are looking into various levels of reusability from fully reusable to fully expendable and everything in between.  Why would so many companies would be looking into reusability if there was no merit in it?

The market seems to have already decided that reusable boosters
Again, it was discussing full reusability. Not just boosters.
Don't be so narrow minded.  Again, there are various degrees of reusability and partial reusability is an important and necessary step towards full reusability

Having worked as a service technician for over 15 years, I think that I might have a small clue.
So you have serviced an F9 booster?
No, but I have refurbished machines that were made to be used more than once.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2022, 02:36:52 PM
You're the one claiming that Musk is being dishonest, therefore it's your burden to support that claim, not mine to disprove.
There is already plenty of evidence around Musk's dishonesty, including actions against him by the SEC.
So his dishonesty is well established.

What does that have to do with the Falcon rockets
It shows the character of Musk.

So what?
So lots of companies wanting to consider fully reusable rockets doesn't make it a good idea.
This was said in response to someone saying full reusability has a lot of merit because people are looking into it.
Lots of companies are looking into various levels of reusability from fully reusable to fully expendable and everything in between.  Why would so many companies would be looking into reusability if there was no merit in it?
It's like you just entirely ignored what I said and want to keep going around in circles.

An idea can sound good when you don't think about it and be revealed to have little to no merit when actually thought about or investigated.
How many companies starting looking into the vactrain idea after Musk talked about his hyperscam?
Does that make it a good idea which actually has merit?
How many companies/government bodies started developing or otherwise looking into solar roadways?
Does that make it a good idea which actually has merit?

Don't be so narrow minded.  Again, there are various degrees of reusability and partial reusability is an important and necessary step towards full reusability
So I guess back in the time of the Concorde, the market decided supersonic passenger jets are good?

No, but I have refurbished machines that were made to be used more than once.
Which are in no way comparable to a rocket booster.
And that means your statements about how long it would take or how much it would cost are no better than any random person's.
I have also refurbished machines, again nothing like a rocket booster, and know how time consuming it can be to identify any faults and repair them, and how it can sometimes cost more to repair a part than to replace it.
We have built a society around lots of disposable items which are cheaper to replace than to repair or refurbish. With the more complex and interconnected the system, the more likely it is that replacement is cheaper and easier than repair.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 24, 2022, 10:24:51 AM
It's like you just entirely ignored what I said and want to keep going around in circles.

An idea can sound good when you don't think about it and be revealed to have little to no merit when actually thought about or investigated.
How many companies starting looking into the vactrain idea after Musk talked about his hyperscam?
Does that make it a good idea which actually has merit?
How many companies/government bodies started developing or otherwise looking into solar roadways?
Does that make it a good idea which actually has merit?
How many solar roadways are in service?  How many hyperloops are in service?  How many reusable Falcon 9s are in service?  Hmm...  Maybe every once in a while an idea that sound good do have merit, and it appears that reusable F9 boosters is one of them.

Don't be so narrow minded.  Again, there are various degrees of reusability and partial reusability is an important and necessary step towards full reusability
So I guess back in the time of the Concorde, the market decided supersonic passenger jets are good?
Some ideas are ahead of their time.  I'm guessing that you don't realize (or care) that he idea of supersonic passenger jets never went away.  In fact, there are several supersonic passenger jets in development.  Will any of them ever hit the market?  Who knows?  But even if they don't, that doesn't mean that they were a bad idea.
https://www.businessinsider.com/see-the-supersonic-passenger-planes-will-connect-cities-1-hour-2022-7

No, but I have refurbished machines that were made to be used more than once.
Which are in no way comparable to a rocket booster.
Neither are hyperloops or solar roadways, but that doesn't stop you from bringing them up.  Even so, just remember that there was a time when the airplane was considered to be an absurd idea that would never get anywhere.

I have also refurbished machines, again nothing like a rocket booster, and know how time consuming it can be to identify any faults and repair them, and how it can sometimes cost more to repair a part than to replace it.
We have built a society around lots of disposable items which are cheaper to replace than to repair or refurbish. With the more complex and interconnected the system, the more likely it is that replacement is cheaper and easier than repair.
Yes, unfortunately a significant part of the economy is based on disposable goods.  However, there is still a significant market for durable durable goods (cars, airplanes, etc.).  Why is such a horrible idea to try to transition rockets from a disposable product to a more durable one?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2022, 02:54:18 PM
It's like you just entirely ignored what I said and want to keep going around in circles.

An idea can sound good when you don't think about it and be revealed to have little to no merit when actually thought about or investigated.
How many companies starting looking into the vactrain idea after Musk talked about his hyperscam?
Does that make it a good idea which actually has merit?
How many companies/government bodies started developing or otherwise looking into solar roadways?
Does that make it a good idea which actually has merit?
How many solar roadways are in service?  How many hyperloops are in service?
How many fully reusable rockets are in service? How many different companies have reusable boosters on a commercially available rocket?

Some ideas are ahead of their time.  I'm guessing that you don't realize (or care) that he idea of supersonic passenger jets never went away.  In fact, there are several supersonic passenger jets in development.  Will any of them ever hit the market?  Who knows?  But even if they don't, that doesn't mean that they were a bad idea.
Again, you miss the point.
The point is that companies looking into it doesn't mean it is an idea that has significant merit.
Even developing a commercial product which goes onto the market and is used doesn't show it actually has significant merit.

Yes, I know that there are still people developing supersonic passenger jets.

Neither are hyperloops or solar roadways, but that doesn't stop you from bringing them up.
You really do struggle to understand things don't you?
They were brought up for a specific reason, in a manner which makes them relevant.
Ideas which sound good when you don't think about them too much, which companies are happy to invest in, which aren't actually good ideas and are shown to have lots of issues if you stop and think about them in depth.

Yes, unfortunately a significant part of the economy is based on disposable goods.  However, there is still a significant market for durable durable goods (cars, airplanes, etc.).  Why is such a horrible idea to try to transition rockets from a disposable product to a more durable one?
I have never said it is a horrible idea.
But one issue is the environmental impact. I would prefer a more environmentally friendly approach to space, including really thinking about if something needs to go into space in the first place.

Cheap access to space will result in vastly more space junk, potentially resulting in an end to exploration of space for a considerable period of time, and result in burning a lot more carbon containing fuels pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Cars and airplanes are great for reusability because you take them from one location to another. And in the destination, cars and airplanes are still needed to move people. But there are not a lot of crafts in orbit that need to get back down, and even less that would need a full second stage of a rocket to do so. The other big reason is that they aren't continually accelerating so they don't have any where near as much penalty for carrying extra mass.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 24, 2022, 04:48:38 PM
How many fully reusable rockets are in service?
Two.  New Sheppard and SpaceShip 2.

How many different companies have reusable boosters on a commercially available rocket?
One, so far.

Again, you miss the point.
The point is that companies looking into it doesn't mean it is an idea that has significant merit.
Even developing a commercial product which goes onto the market and is used doesn't show it actually has significant merit.
So then, what gives a new idea significant merit?

Neither are hyperloops or solar roadways, but that doesn't stop you from bringing them up.
You really do struggle to understand things don't you?
That's what happens when you're so bad at trying to explain them. 

They were brought up for a specific reason, in a manner which makes them relevant.
Ideas which sound good when you don't think about them too much, which companies are happy to invest in, which aren't actually good ideas and are shown to have lots of issues if you stop and think about them in depth.
What issues have you shown that makes F9 a bad idea? ???

I have never said it is a horrible idea.
But one issue is the environmental impact. I would prefer a more environmentally friendly approach to space, including really thinking about if something needs to go into space in the first place.
Since when is expendable more environmentally friendly than reusable? ???

Cheap access to space will result in vastly more space junk, potentially resulting in an end to exploration of space for a considerable period of time, and result in burning a lot more carbon containing fuels pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Cars and airplanes are great for reusability because you take them from one location to another. And in the destination, cars and airplanes are still needed to move people. But there are not a lot of crafts in orbit that need to get back down, and even less that would need a full second stage of a rocket to do so. The other big reason is that they aren't continually accelerating so they don't have any where near as much penalty for carrying extra mass.
Cool story, bro.  Tractor trailers load their trailer, drive to a destination, deliver the load and then run with an empty trailer to the next place to load up again.  Should truckers throw their trucks or trailers away after every delivery because it's inefficient to pull an empty trailer?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 24, 2022, 10:46:06 PM
F9 reusable can be compared to F9 disposable. Its as close to an apples to apples comparison that you can get where the reusable variant ends up being a lot cheaper. Yet you want other comparisons that dont exist. So here, we can already show that partial reuse is cheaper.
As shown, for F9 reusable its cheaper per kg or otherwise for every payload under 21tons. Per Kg is only cheaper at the edge of what a disposable F9 can do, which is capacity that has never been used.

How much refurbishment does it take to get a booster ready for launch. 21 days. Less if you realise that it takes about 2-4 days to get the booster in the factory after it lands on a barge, then it needs to leave to launch a few days before launch. So practically, it needs a week of refurbishment time. Not a lot you can do in a week, so its clear that refurbishment is not expensive vs building an entire new rocket.

Second stage reusability will be tested out in the coming months to years. And it will not start out perfectly as they have not figured everything out yet. But as time goes on they will resolve the issues and perfect it.

And reusability is WAY more environmentally friendly than disposable rockets. But the type of fuel here is more important, and Methalox is a better fuel to use, reusable or otherwise.

Solar highways and Vactrains are not commercial products. F9 reusable is a commercial product. No one is investing in F9, they are buying services. People invest in these other ideas because they think they have merit. And they kinda do in narrow use cases.

Starship is not a commercial product yet, so we cant say if it will be successful. Its yet to launch.
But even if its not reusable, you have a 150+ton to LEO disposable vehicle. The reason why people think Starship will be successful is because the company behind it has already got successful rocket experience. So their chance of success is a lot higher.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 25, 2022, 03:00:09 AM
Two.  New Sheppard and SpaceShip 2
If you want to play this game, we may as well classify all jet engines as rockets and say there are loads.
The question is clearly focusing on orbital rockets.

So then, what gives a new idea significant merit?
Lots of things, like practicality, feasibility, and many other factors.

That's what happens when you're so bad at trying to explain them.
They were explained just fine.

What issues have you shown that makes F9 a bad idea
The reduction in capacity by making it reusable.

Since when is expendable more environmentally friendly than reusable?
When it takes more to reuse it.

Cool story, bro.  Tractor trailers load their trailer, drive to a destination, deliver the load and then run with an empty trailer to the next place to load up again.
How often do they go all the way back empty. And great job ignoring the rest, where I point out how rockets are basically continually accelerating How much energy is required to keep a tractor trailer going?

F9 reusable can be compared to F9 disposable. Its as close to an apples to apples comparison that you can get
Like how I demonstrated that per kg disposable is cheaper?
And how I pointed out the F9 expendable has a payload to GTO that matches or beats Falcon Heavy?

I would certainly think that is indicating disposable is cheaper.

How much refurbishment does it take to get a booster ready for launch. 21 days. Less if you realise that it takes about 2-4 days to get the booster in the factory after it lands on a barge, then it needs to leave to launch a few days before launch. So practically, it needs a week of refurbishment time. Not a lot you can do in a week, so its clear that refurbishment is not expensive vs building an entire new rocket.
That would be 2 weeks not three, and there is a lot of cost you can use in that, depending on what needs to be replaced, as amazingly enough, you can have parts made before this time which then go in during this time.

Second stage reusability will be tested out in the coming months to years. And it will not start out perfectly as they have not figured everything out yet. But as time goes on they will resolve the issues and perfect it.
Or decide it is a fools errand and give up.
Why assume they will perfect it?

Solar highways and Vactrains are not commercial products.
The Concorde was.


The reason why people think Starship will be successful is because the company behind it has already got successful rocket experience. So their chance of success is a lot higher.
And the reason people doubt it is because of all the BS claims Musk has made, which would indicate their chance of success is a lot lower.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 25, 2022, 03:43:58 AM
Like how I demonstrated that per kg disposable is cheaper?
And how I pointed out the F9 expendable has a payload to GTO that matches or beats Falcon Heavy?

I would certainly think that is indicating disposable is cheaper.
F9 reusable. 16t for $50m = $3 125 per kg
F9 disposable. 21t for $67m = $3149 per kg.
So for every single payload reusable can launch, reusability its cheaper. Only the narrow gap between 21t - 22t is disposable cheaper PER KG than the apples to apples comparison. If you wanted to launch a 22t sat, it will move to a Falcon Heavy because you are too close the to the margins for a Falcon9.

And how I pointed out the F9 expendable has a payload to GTO that matches or beats Falcon Heavy?
I have still not seen any post 2018 FH updates shared yet. So your comparing an old FH to a new F9. Also, this is not apples to apples, FH is a completely different setup.

That would be 2 weeks not three, and there is a lot of cost you can use in that, depending on what needs to be replaced, as amazingly enough, you can have parts made before this time which then go in during this time.
In that 2 weeks they have to integrate an entire 2nd stage, with payloads and close the fairing shells and test.
ULA says just this process can take "no more than 3 months"
What exactly are they doing to the booster other than visual checks and maybe replacing an engine or 2 within this period.
Where is the $20m that you say they are actually spending going?

Or decide it is a fools errand and give up.
Why assume they will perfect it?
Who assumed they will perfect it? Chances are the next fully reusable vehicle will be better than the first.
But its very likely that the first fully reusable vehicle will be cheaper than anything flying today at a per kg basis. The big question is what the cost per launch, not just the per kg price.

The Concorde was.
Your just pointing at things that did not work out. What exactly are you trying to say here, all new things are impossible? What does this have to do with reusable rockets?
Comair when bankrupt in 2012, does this prove that commercial air travel is a fools errand?

And the reason people doubt it is because of all the BS claims Musk has made, which would indicate their chance of success is a lot lower.
90% of his claims just miss their timelines. I dont care much for the shit he says, I follow the space industry. And his claims on re-usability are mostly checking out.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 25, 2022, 05:40:11 AM
Only the narrow gap between 21t - 22t is disposable cheaper PER KG than the apples to apples comparison.
Why should they be an apples to apples comparison with a different payload capacity?

If you wanted to launch a 22t sat, it will move to a Falcon Heavy because you are too close the to the margins for a Falcon9.
So are you saying the Falcon 9 shouldn't be labelled as 22t?

I have still not seen any post 2018 FH updates shared yet. So your comparing an old FH to a new F9.
I'm comparing a FH to a F9 at the same time.

Also, this is not apples to apples
Yes it is, far more so than your comparison. That is because of how close the capacity is.

I would think comparing an 8 t launch capacity to an 8 t launch capacity would be a quite good apples to apples comparison.

In that 2 weeks they have to integrate an entire 2nd stage, with payloads and close the fairing shells and test.
Which is not a sequential process.
The payload encapsulating is done entirely separately to the first stage. They are joined at the launch site integration hanger shortly before launch.
Likewise, there is no need to build the second stage on the first stage. It can be prepared offsite and just needs to be joined.
Why should they take such a long time that nothing else can be done?

Who assumed they will perfect it?
You did.
In the quoted section of your post which was in my post that you are responding to.
So I'll ask again, why assume they will perfect it? Why assume that that is the only possible outcome, rather than an alternative of deciding it isn't practical/economically viable?

Your just pointing at things that did not work out.
Yes, commercial things which didn't work out.
To address your claim that full reusability has a lot of merit too it because companies want in on the action.
And because you were appealing to entities looking into it without having a working commercial product, that would also include solar roadways and hyperscam as well as commercial products like the Concorde.

This is to show you need more than just companies looking into it for it to actually have merit.

90% of his claims just miss their timelines.
I would say 90% of his claims are pure BS or extremely dishonest.
Especially as a lot of those "missed timelines" are about how great he is at doing things quickly.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 25, 2022, 06:50:36 AM
So are you saying the Falcon 9 shouldn't be labelled as 22t?
There is some degree in redundancy that you want for rocket launches to ensure successful insertion. Its insurance. If your spending $1B on your sat, you want insurance that it gets to orbit. If there is an engine that shuts 2 seconds early and your flying at 100% capacity, your not getting to your orbit. 1ton on 22t is less than 5% mass that you would either want for extra fuel to guarantee success, or you fly on a bigger rocket. No payload is going to use 100% of a rockets capacity. It just does not work that way.

I'm comparing a FH to a F9 at the same time.
Your not comparing apples to apples here.

FH reusable has multiple configurations. I have said this multiple times now.
It can return back to launch site
Return to drone ship
or expend centre core, and return side to drone or land.
Each on of these configurations has different payload to GTO.

Last source I found with FH GTO return to ship is at 10ton
https://imgur.com/wkNu2wE (https://imgur.com/wkNu2wE)
Your trying to skip the nuance to make your case. Where the nuance is where it matters.

Here is a fun question for you, what is the F9 disposables TLI compared to FH?

But these are still 2 different rocket configurations. Compare a disposable FH to a reusable FH is you want to draw parallel comparisons. Otherwise I might as well throw a DeltaIV and Ariane in the comparison as well.

Which is not a sequential process.
The payload encapsulating is done entirely separately to the first stage. They are joined at the launch site integration hanger shortly before launch.
Likewise, there is no need to build the second stage on the first stage. It can be prepared offsite and just needs to be joined.
Why should they take such a long time that nothing else can be done?
Ask ULA, it takes them 3 months to mate a payload to a rocket if they already have the rocket built.
The point is, with all that other stuff, SpaceX still manages to refurbish a booster in 2 weeks or less. There is not a lot of costly maintenance you can do in 2 weeks. Visual inspections, going over flight data. Cleaning some fuel lines. Patching some paint. What exactly are you doing for $20m?

You did.
In the quoted section of your post which was in my post that you are responding to.
So I'll ask again, why assume they will perfect it? Why assume that that is the only possible outcome, rather than an alternative of deciding it isn't practical/economically viable?
I dont assume they will perfect it, I assume they will get it right. Perfection happens after a lot of evolution.
And I can ask you the same, why assume it will fail over succeeding?
The reasons why I assume a greater than 50% chance of success is due to a bunch of factors. Including in this is economics, technological progress since the STS and the development process being applied.
None of which we have really discussed at this point.

Yes, commercial things which didn't work out.
To address your claim that full reusability has a lot of merit too it because companies want in on the action.
And because you were appealing to entities looking into it without having a working commercial product, that would also include solar roadways and hyperscam as well as commercial products like the Concorde.

This is to show you need more than just companies looking into it for it to actually have merit.
Umm, this proves nothing in any direction. Some ideas work, some dont. The context of these failures is vastly different to reusable rockets.
Solar roadways never received real investment from other commercial investors. It was mostly politicians which where won over.
Hyperloop from Virgin is still ongoing, and yet to see if it will fail or not.

I would say 90% of his claims are pure BS or extremely dishonest.
Especially as a lot of those "missed timelines" are about how great he is at doing things quickly.
Im sure you would.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 25, 2022, 03:50:13 PM
There is some degree in redundancy that you want for rocket launches to ensure successful insertion.
And that should be included in the determination of the payload capacity.

You also seem to be quite happy to go to 16 t for reusable, 0.25 t below its stated capacity.
So why stop at 1.8 t below the expendable capacity?
Quite the dishonest double standard.

If you want 5% as an error margin, then that means the capacity of the reusable F9 should be stated as 15.2, giving a cost of  $3289 per kg, using 2019 launch prices.
Then the disposable would have a capacity of 21.66 t, giving a cost of $3093 per kg, using 2022 launch prices.
If instead you use the earlier launch prices for disposable it drops to $2770 per kg.
In fact, using the same 2021 launch prices for both (and noting that it is going off a claim of "around $50 million", so even that is questionable), it would be 18.24 t for the Falcon 9 to meet the cost per kg of reusable.

Your not comparing apples to apples here.
Yes I am. I am comparing the same launch capacity to GTO.
That is an apples to apples comparison.
It shows what is required to get that capacity to GTO.

That is a vastly more valid comparison than comparing 2 configurations of the same rocket where one is expendable and the other is reusable, with significantly different payload capacities.

Last source I found with FH GTO return to ship is at 10ton
Really? Your latest source is a random picture taken from who knows when, with no indication of if these are real numbers of typical Musk projections.
And which advertises lower capacities than data from this year?
I call BS.

I would be more likely to go off this:
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf

Which indicates the standard for FH to GTO is 8 t, while fully expended it is 26.7 t

Compare a disposable FH to a reusable FH is you want to draw parallel comparisons.
No, because they have vastly different capacities.
I will compare a rocket with a payload of 8 t to GTO to a rocket with a payload of 8 t to GTO.

Trying to compare a rocket with a payload of 8 t to GTO to one with a payload of 26.7 t is not valid at all.

If you are going to do that you may as well compare the cost of a falcon 1 to the cost of a falcon heavy.

An honest valid comparison will compare rockets with comparable payload capacities.

The point is, with all that other stuff, SpaceX still manages to refurbish a booster in 2 weeks or less. There is not a lot of costly maintenance you can do in 2 weeks.
Again, you can if the parts you are replacing are costly.

I dont assume they will perfect it
Then why did you say this:
But as time goes on they will resolve the issues and perfect it.
That sure seems like you are assuming they will perfect it.
I never indicated you said they will perfect it on the first go.

And the question is why assume they will perfect it with all the challenges which make second stage reuse quite challenging.

And I can ask you the same, why assume it will fail over succeeding?
I wouldn't go as far as saying I assume they will fail.
I just have very serious doubts about them succeeding, given how they abandoned doing it for the Falcon 9, and due to how impractical it typically is to reuse the second stage.

Umm, this proves nothing in any direction.
The point was that the Chinese looking into it proves nothing in either direction.

I'm not using these companies to show it must be a failure. I'm using them to object to your implication that it must have merit because others are looking into it.

Solar roadways never received real investment from other commercial investors. It was mostly politicians which where won over.
Solar roadways recieved lots of money from the government as well as private citizens.
In addition, there were multiple companies, including SolaRoad and Wattway, which both built installations.

Hyperloop from Virgin is still ongoing, and yet to see if it will fail or not.
https://www.businessinsider.com/virgin-hyperloop-layoffs-passenger-travel-cargo-transport-2022-2
They have abandoned plans for human rated travel.
And don't forget about all the previous people looking into the vactrain concept.
This wasn't an idea invented by Musk, it was Musk reviving a 100 year old idea.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 25, 2022, 04:37:44 PM
What issues have you shown that makes F9 a bad idea
The reduction in capacity by making it reusable.
You're assuming that every launch will be at maximum capacity.  That is not true.

Since when is expendable more environmentally friendly than reusable?
When it takes more to reuse it.
Why would it take more resources to reuse a rocket that's designed to be reused than to build a new disposable rocket? ???

F9 booster number B1060 has been successfully launched and recovered 13 times.  Ten of those launches were Starlink missions.  Please explain how it would have been cheaper and more environmentally friendly to build 13 expendable F9 boosters.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 25, 2022, 11:04:00 PM
And that should be included in the determination of the payload capacity.

You also seem to be quite happy to go to 16 t for reusable, 0.25 t below its stated capacity.
So why stop at 1.8 t below the expendable capacity?
Quite the dishonest double standard.

If you want 5% as an error margin, then that means the capacity of the reusable F9 should be stated as 15.2, giving a cost of  $3289 per kg, using 2019 launch prices.
Then the disposable would have a capacity of 21.66 t, giving a cost of $3093 per kg, using 2022 launch prices.
If instead you use the earlier launch prices for disposable it drops to $2770 per kg.
In fact, using the same 2021 launch prices for both (and noting that it is going off a claim of "around $50 million", so even that is questionable), it would be 18.24 t for the Falcon 9 to meet the cost per kg of reusable.
If your car can do 520km on a tank of fuel, but you always fill up before you reach the last 50km, should they only claim 470km range? No, because thats the max theoretical range. Because, and I cant believe I have to say this so many times, THESE ARE REFRENCE ORBITS!

F9 reusable has multiple tons of additional fuel it can use to save the payload at the loss of recovering the booster. F9 disposable does not. F9 reusable has already launched over 16.25 ton to orbit, so we know it can do more than 16t.

Yes I am. I am comparing the same launch capacity to GTO.
That is an apples to apples comparison.
It shows what is required to get that capacity to GTO.

That is a vastly more valid comparison than comparing 2 configurations of the same rocket where one is expendable and the other is reusable, with significantly different payload capacities.
We are not trying to evaluate what it cost to get a payload into Orbit, your trying to evaluate the cost feasibilities of re-use.
All Falcon Heavy side boosters are ALWAYS reused boosters. How does this effect the launch cost vs using new side boosters? You dont know, because this is a completely different configuration of what you are comparing. Compare FH disposable to FH reused to make an apples to apples comparison. But now your just grasping at anything that helps your point, and its not going well.

Really? Your latest source is a random picture taken from who knows when, with no indication of if these are real numbers of typical Musk projections.
And which advertises lower capacities than data from this year?
I call BS.

I would be more likely to go off this:
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf

Which indicates the standard for FH to GTO is 8 t, while fully expended it is 26.7 t
Its a image taken at IAC, which is the biggest astronomical congress on earth. Yes, you will keep using things that suite your narrative. So far your narrative requires you to ignore actual facts we have available.
- Acknowledging that FH has multiple modes to be reused
- Actual use for the rockets where customers chose a FH over F9 disposable
- multiple sources that contradict your narrative

If you land the side boosters back to land it needs to use more fuel for recovery than side boosters landing on barge. Is there a better way for recovery? Yes, landing all the boosters downrange. This gives us more GTO capacity obviously. But you chose the worst recovery option, and then call it "Apples to apples". Your being dishonest in what your trying to analyse.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 25, 2022, 11:05:08 PM
Compare a disposable FH to a reusable FH is you want to draw parallel comparisons.

No, because they have vastly different capacities.
I will compare a rocket with a payload of 8 t to GTO to a rocket with a payload of 8 t to GTO.

Trying to compare a rocket with a payload of 8 t to GTO to one with a payload of 26.7 t is not valid at all.

If you are going to do that you may as well compare the cost of a falcon 1 to the cost of a falcon heavy.

An honest valid comparison will compare rockets with comparable payload capacities.
Except your using the worst layout for FH to the best layout for F9 Disposable.

Again, you can if the parts you are replacing are costly.
What parts are costing $20m?!
The most expensive parts are the merlin engines (less than $1m per engine), but SpaceX is is launching more than 1 rocket a week, they dont have the capacity to build 10 new engines a week. We also have multiple sources saying that refurb is mostly just checking, cleaning and only replacing small engine parts, not entire engines.
But I guess only sources that say reuse is bad are acceptable here.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/12/01/spacex-launch-sunday-will-signify-a-new-advance-in-reusing-rockets/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/12/01/spacex-launch-sunday-will-signify-a-new-advance-in-reusing-rockets/)
And this is when they just started reuse. They are at 13 uses per vehicle now.

That sure seems like you are assuming they will perfect it.
I never indicated you said they will perfect it on the first go.
OVER TIME!
Your like the guy who looked at the very first aircraft and saying that this will never work for passenger transport.

And the question is why assume they will perfect it with all the challenges which make second stage reuse quite challenging.
Because there is nothing in the laws of physics that forbids it. The STS was reused, but had technical and management issues.
Dragon capsules are reused. Reusing vehicles from orbit is not a new thing.

I wouldn't go as far as saying I assume they will fail.
I just have very serious doubts about them succeeding, given how they abandoned doing it for the Falcon 9, and due to how impractical it typically is to reuse the second stage.
The physics for F9 are not the same as for Starship. Falcon 9 second stage followed a completely different development path. With Starship they started development in re-use with the second stage from day one.

The point was that the Chinese looking into it proves nothing in either direction.

I'm not using these companies to show it must be a failure. I'm using them to object to your implication that it must have merit because others are looking into it.
Comparing rocket development to rocket development is not relevant, but looking at solar roadways proves something about rocket development? You make zero sense.
EVERYONE looking into rocket re-use tells you that there is a good reason to look at rocket re-use.
Because X unrelated thing exists tells you nothing about rocket re-use.

Solar roadways recieved lots of money from the government as well as private citizens.
In addition, there were multiple companies, including SolaRoad and Wattway, which both built installations.
So idiotic politicians and Kickstarter. Im not sure what this shows?

https://www.businessinsider.com/virgin-hyperloop-layoffs-passenger-travel-cargo-transport-2022-2
They have abandoned plans for human rated travel.
And don't forget about all the previous people looking into the vactrain concept.
This wasn't an idea invented by Musk, it was Musk reviving a 100 year old idea.
I know it was not invented by Musk, who said it was? It was literally just an idea he threw out in the open and said "try it if you want". I dont even know why it so strongly relates to Musk.
Hyperloop is looking for a use case. Entering into a new market is really hard, because you need to pay for the R&D upfront. Until the idea is dead, we dont know if it will work or make sense.

You really are the, "only old ideas are good" person.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 26, 2022, 01:15:55 AM
You're assuming that every launch will be at maximum capacity.  That is not true.
No, I'm recognising that reusability can significantly reduce the capacity.

Why would it take more resources to reuse a rocket that's designed to be reused than to build a new disposable rocket?
Due to the complexity in refurbishing.
Why do you think the shuttle was abandoned?
A big part was how much reusability was costing.

F9 reusable has multiple tons of additional fuel it can use to save the payload at the loss of recovering the booster.
Not after the booster has disconnected and they are relying on the second stage.

We are not trying to evaluate what it cost to get a payload into Orbit, your trying to evaluate the cost feasibilities of re-use.
And in order to evaluate the feasibility of reuse, you need a valid comparison.

Do you think comparing a hypothetical rocket which could launch 100 t to LEO in disposable configuration to one which can launch 1 t to LEO in reusable configuration would be a valid comparison?

I certainly wouldn't.

But according to you, if that hypothetical 1 t launch costs any less than the 100 t disposable launch then reusability is cheaper and feasible.

All Falcon Heavy side boosters are ALWAYS reused boosters.
No they aren't.
The first commercial flight used brand new boosters.

Compare FH disposable to FH reused to make an apples to apples comparison.
No, I will compare an 8 t launch capacity to an 8 t launch capacity.
An actual apples to apples comparison.

But now your just grasping at anything that helps your point, and its not going well.
No, that would be you.
I am making honest valid comparisons.

Its a image taken at IAC
Which one?
When was it?
Are those numbers the actual capacities, or just Musk projections?

So far your narrative requires you to ignore actual facts we have available.
No it doesn't. My "narrative" uses facts which are available.

- Acknowledging that FH has multiple modes to be reused
I fully accept it has multiple modes. Where it can reuse all three 1st stage boosters, or just the side boosters, or none. And they can either return to the landing site or land on a drone ship.

- Actual use for the rockets where customers chose a FH over F9 disposable
And what about those that went the other way, choosing F9 over FH?
And there are questions of the motivation for doing so.

- multiple sources that contradict your narrative
What sources?

But you chose the worst recovery option, and then call it "Apples to apples". Your being dishonest in what your trying to analyse.
No, I'm being honest, comparing an 8 t launch to an 8 t launch.
I am using the numbers I could find from sources which should be deemed to be reliable.
You instead want to be dishonest and compare vastly different capacities and pretend that being able to put a lot less into orbit for cheaper somehow makes reusability better.

Except your using the worst layout for FH to the best layout for F9 Disposable.
Citation needed, and I don't just mean a random picture.

We also have multiple sources saying that refurb is mostly just checking, cleaning and only replacing small engine parts, not entire engines.
What sources? An audit by an independent third party?

OVER TIME!
Again WHY?

Because there is nothing in the laws of physics that forbids it. The STS was reused, but had technical and management issues.
And was impractical for reuse. One of the major issues was the tiles for the reusable heat shield instead of a disposable heat shield.
But even they didn't reuse the main fuel tank.

Dragon capsules are reused.
When you have people inside needing to get back down to Earth, you kind of need the vehicle to be recoverable, and that means you already need the components which would be needed to make it reusable.

But notice that they still aren't recovering the second stage.
Also note that strainer is not recovering the entire thing, and instead just recovering the crew capsule.

The physics for F9 are not the same as for Starship.
The fundamental issues are still there.
You are taking a craft and accelerating it to orbital speed at orbital height.
You then need to slow it down, get it through the atmosphere without burning up and being destroyed, and then recovering it.

Comparing rocket development to rocket development is not relevant, but looking at solar roadways proves something about rocket development? You make zero sense.
No, I'm making perfect sense, you are just being intentionally obtuse.

A company looking into it doesn't mean it has merit.

EVERYONE looking into rocket re-use tells you that there is a good reason to look at rocket re-use.
Not really.
Lots of companies looking into it just indicates it would be an ideal goal to achieve.
That doesn't mean it actually has merit and should be looked into.

I know it was not invented by Musk, who said it was? It was literally just an idea he threw out in the open and said "try it if you want". I dont even know why it so strongly relates to Musk.
Because of the cult of Musk that things everything he does is perfection.

Until the idea is dead, we dont know if it will work or make sense.
A lot of ideas never really die.
Look at how many people you can find using homeopathy, or thinking Earth is flat, or still wanting solar roadways, or the centuries old vactrain, and so on.

You really are the, "only old ideas are good" person.
No, I'm fine with good ideas, even new ones.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 26, 2022, 02:15:36 AM
Due to the complexity in refurbishing.
Why do you think the shuttle was abandoned?
A big part was how much reusability was costing.
The Shuttle was abandoned due to design flaws that made it inherently unsafe with no way to make it safe. Specifically the issue of ice falling on the orbiter which could not be resolved without a complete redesign.
The shuttle also did not allow for further evolution in the reusability of it as the program was shut off early, even though there where proposals to significantly reduce refurbishment time and cost.

Not after the booster has disconnected and they are relying on the second stage.
Please explain to me how this helps the first stage be more reliable for orbital insertions?

No they aren't.
The first commercial flight used brand new boosters.
They reused the side boosters! These where when they switched from Block 4 - 5 boosters.

No, I will compare an 8 t launch capacity to an 8 t launch capacity.
An actual apples to apples comparison.
No, your comparing a F9 disposable to a FH that reuses its side boosters back to launch site. This is not the maximum capacity that a FH re-usable can launch. We know this from multiple sources now. But you keep ignoring this.

Which one?
When was it?
Are those numbers the actual capacities, or just Musk projections?
IAC 2018.
And oh ffs. All numbers are made up until it suits you. How can you say that the disposable F9 costs are not subsidized by SpaceX to lower them to out the competition? The Actual disposable launches actually costs $250m each. Proof? I dont need it, any number that dont suit my argument are invalid!
There are multiple sources that say that FH in reusable mode is more capable than F9 disposable.
Multiple sources that say that SpaceX only spends about $30m for a reusable launch.
But these sources don't fit your narrative. So they dont count.

I fully accept it has multiple modes. Where it can reuse all three 1st stage boosters, or just the side boosters, or none. And they can either return to the landing site or land on a drone ship.
And your only comparing a Disposable F9 to a reusable FH that returns to land, Not downrange which significantly increases payload capacity.

And what about those that went the other way, choosing F9 over FH?
And there are questions of the motivation for doing so.
It has gone both ways. It tells you that there is more to it than simple reference orbits. There is more to it than simple cost too.
So until you can say WHY they changed its pretty tough to make any clear statement.

No, I'm being honest, comparing an 8 t launch to an 8 t launch.
I am using the numbers I could find from sources which should be deemed to be reliable.
You instead want to be dishonest and compare vastly different capacities and pretend that being able to put a lot less into orbit for cheaper somehow makes reusability better.
A single stick rocket is significantly simpler to operate than a 3 core rocket. Delta Heavy costs in the Range of $350-$450m to launch. Its not a apples to apples comparison as its a much more complex rocket with 3 cores.
Why not compare FH to Delta?

Citation needed, and I don't just mean a random picture.
You mean random picture with one of SpaceX top engineers at the biggest space conferences on earth in 2018.

What sources? An audit by an independent third party?
"Only sources that say what I want them to say will be accepted" - check.

And was impractical for reuse. One of the major issues was the tiles for the reusable heat shield instead of a disposable heat shield.
But even they didn't reuse the main fuel tank.
There where a lot of issues with STS in terms of getting the cost down.
Tiles where very fragile and absorbed moisture from the air reducing their life span - We not have better materials. They also had better alternatives in the works, but never got to implement them.
The air frame needed to be inspected between each flight as aluminium cant handle heat well
Main engines where Hydrolox which is inherently more expensive to develop and handle.
Side solids dumping into the ocean meant that refurbishment was far more complex and costly than initially expected.
STS had other bells and whistles that just made it more expensive.
And yes, they had to rebuild the main tank after every flight, so was not fully reusable.

These are all things that Starship wont need to deal with, hence why its likely to be a better model than the STS for reuse.

When you have people inside needing to get back down to Earth, you kind of need the vehicle to be recoverable, and that means you already need the components which would be needed to make it reusable.

But notice that they still aren't recovering the second stage.
Also note that strainer is not recovering the entire thing, and instead just recovering the crew capsule.
They are not recovering the second stage because . . . .F9 is not fully reusable. I dont see why you keep bringing this up?
Did you mean starliner?
Apollo capsules where not re-used, and neither is Soyuz which is still flying today.
SpaceX Dragon2 also lands in the ocean which degrades its heat shield pretty fast, as heat shield material does not like water. Starliner can reuse their heatshield 10 times or more (Some say up to 20 times). Orion can also re-use its heat shield multiple times.

The fundamental issues are still there.
You are taking a craft and accelerating it to orbital speed at orbital height.
You then need to slow it down, get it through the atmosphere without burning up and being destroyed, and then recovering it.
This is like explaining how a car and horse are fundamentally the same because they accelerate you through the landscape, can be steered and can drop you off at your house.
All stages you just described have craft that can be reused for that stage. Starship is just putting all those stages together in 2 (Booster and SS) components.

Not really.
Lots of companies looking into it just indicates it would be an ideal goal to achieve.
That doesn't mean it actually has merit and should be looked into.
Your contradicting yourself here.
If its an ideal goal to achieve, it has merit.
The fact that ALL major space companies are looking at it, tells you this by itself.

Because of the cult of Musk that things everything he does is perfection.
He is human, he is a jack ass just like everyone else.

A lot of ideas never really die.
Look at how many people you can find using homeopathy, or thinking Earth is flat, or still wanting solar roadways, or the centuries old vactrain, and so on.
but . . . the earth is flat . . .
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on July 26, 2022, 06:41:56 AM
So my thoughts on Elon Musk.

Well he's a man, but I probably just offended a bunch of people by assuming pronouns.

He's a wealthy businessman, so socialists and communists that hate capitalism despise him.

His political views seem to bounce around, but then again he is a wealthy businessman and throws supports behind things that will better his business.

He's done some really cool things and done some really dumb things.

Overall, I say that he fits the definition of being human and who really gives a shit.  So what, he has wealth and fame.  Don't like, go do something to gain wealth and fame for yourself.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 26, 2022, 02:23:42 PM
So my thoughts on Elon Musk.

Well he's a man, but I probably just offended a bunch of people by assuming pronouns.

He's a wealthy businessman, so socialists and communists that hate capitalism despise him.

His political views seem to bounce around, but then again he is a wealthy businessman and throws supports behind things that will better his business.

He's done some really cool things and done some really dumb things.

Overall, I say that he fits the definition of being human and who really gives a shit.  So what, he has wealth and fame.  Don't like, go do something to gain wealth and fame for yourself.

He's also a petty, narcissistic fuckwit who is easily butt hurt (eg when the diver told him where to stick his stupid sub idea to rescue the kids trapped in a cave).

It's also clear that money can't buy yourself a good body, good looks or good health

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/405/950/b48)
Almost an albino. Damn he needs a tan! Yeich!


He's sided with Repugnicans in the political spectrum because he knows most if those voters are easily brainwashed and not very bright - thus easy to manipulate.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 26, 2022, 02:28:14 PM
You're assuming that every launch will be at maximum capacity.  That is not true.
No, I'm recognising that reusability can significantly reduce the capacity.
Are you suggesting that SpaceX and their customers don't realize that too?

Why would it take more resources to reuse a rocket that's designed to be reused than to build a new disposable rocket?
Due to the complexity in refurbishing.
Why do you think the shuttle was abandoned?
A big part was how much reusability was costing.
The shuttle was one of the most complex rocket systems ever built.  F9 and FH aren't.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 26, 2022, 08:34:11 PM
Again, you can if the parts you are replacing are costly.
What parts are costing $20m?!
The most expensive parts are the merlin engines (less than $1m per engine), but SpaceX is is launching more than 1 rocket a week, they dont have the capacity to build 10 new engines a week. We also have multiple sources saying that refurb is mostly just checking, cleaning and only replacing small engine parts, not entire engines.

Quote from: https://provscons.com/why-are-spacex-payload-fairings-so-expensive/
SpaceX does not reveal the price of their rocket parts. However, from various Elon Musk interviews, we found that the first stage of a Falcon 9 costs $30 million, the second stage $10 million, pad and ground support $5 million, insurance around $3 million, fuel $0.8 million, and Payload Fairing $5 million.
So, even if it takes $20 million to refurbish the first stage (which I seriously doubt), that's still saving $10 million per reuse vs new.  BTW, those $5 million payload fairings are also being recovered, refurbished and reused.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 26, 2022, 10:14:38 PM
He's also a petty, narcissistic fuckwit who is easily butt hurt (eg when the diver told him where to stick his stupid sub idea to rescue the kids trapped in a cave).

It's also clear that money can't buy yourself a good body, good looks or good health

Almost an albino. Damn he needs a tan! Yeich!

He's sided with Repugnicans in the political spectrum because he knows most if those voters are easily brainwashed and not very bright - thus easy to manipulate.
So what your saying is that he is just a normal person. Plenty of poor fat arseholes out there.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: sceptimatic on July 26, 2022, 10:15:09 PM
A puppet for the establishment, like Zuckerberg and such.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 26, 2022, 11:02:33 PM
A puppet for the establishment, like Zuckerberg and such.
How is he a puppet I am curios? Who is pulling the strings, the illuminati? Free Masons? Sponge Bob?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 27, 2022, 03:13:32 PM
The Shuttle was abandoned due to design flaws that made it inherently unsafe with no way to make it safe. Specifically the issue of ice falling on the orbiter which could not be resolved without a complete redesign.
The shuttle was abandoned for multiple reasons.
Yes, safety was one, but a big one was the cost, with cheaper expendable launch vehicles

Please explain to me how this helps the first stage be more reliable for orbital insertions?
Why? That has nothing to do with what I said. And the first stage is not responsible for orbital insertions.
Instead, the second stage actually inserts the payload into orbit.
A non-reusable second stage.
So having a reusable booster doesn't help if something goes wrong with the second stage.

They reused the side boosters!
Yes, they reused the boosters after this flight, but the fact remains, they were new for that flight.

No, your comparing a F9 disposable to a FH that reuses its side boosters back to launch site. This is not the maximum capacity that a FH re-usable can launch. We know this from multiple sources now. But you keep ignoring this.
You provided a single source, which was just a crappy picture which didn't even have the Falcon 9's capacity correct.
So I am using the numbers that are available to me, and the numbers spaceX is currently showing.

Multiple sources that say that SpaceX only spends about $30m for a reusable launch.
But these sources don't fit your narrative. So they dont count.
Because it isn't multiple sources.
Instead it is just one source, which has been repeated.

So until you can say WHY they changed its pretty tough to make any clear statement.
So why do you keep trying to make clear statements that FH is cheaper and more capable because people switched to it?

A single stick rocket is significantly simpler to operate than a 3 core rocket. Delta Heavy costs in the Range of $350-$450m to launch. Its not a apples to apples comparison as its a much more complex rocket with 3 cores.
It is the most honest comparison available.
2 rockets, produced by the same company with roughly the same capacity.

These are all things that Starship wont need to deal with, hence why its likely to be a better model than the STS for reuse.
You mean they are things that it is claimed starship wont need to deal with.

They are not recovering the second stage because . . . .F9 is not fully reusable. I dont see why you keep bringing this up?
To show that even though they are launching a craft to orbit, and recovering that craft to reuse it, they still don't reuse the stage that put it into orbit.

Did you mean starliner?
Yes, I did mean Starliner.

This is like explaining how a car and horse are fundamentally the same because they accelerate you through the landscape, can be steered and can drop you off at your house.
No, it is explaining the fundamental issue such craft face.

All stages you just described have craft that can be reused for that stage.
Do they?
I wouldn't count the Shuttle using the OMS to finish getting into orbit as comparable to the second stage.
A large portion of the thrust is provided by fuel stored in the external tank which is jettisoned just before getting into an orbit that doesn't go too deep into the atmosphere.
That external tank has a mass of 26.5 t. Quite significant compared to the shuttle's 78 t dry mass.

What GTO craft has been reused?

Your contradicting yourself here.
No I'm not.

An ideal goal doesn't mean the idea actually has merit, due to what it may require to achieve that goal, which may make that goal impossible, impractical or unfeasable.
I would say an ideal goal for a space launch system would be a single stage to orbit space plane which, can take off from any airport and land at any airport, and which only uses electrical power, and can be reused just like any other plane where it just needs to get "refuelled" (which in this case would be recharged).
This would be great as it would mean you don't need dedicated launch facilities as it can take off from any airport, there would be no significant environmental impact if the electricity came from renewable sources, and it could land, charge and go again.

The other ideal goal would be teleporting things to space.

That doesn't mean that such ideas would have merit.

Just like solar roadways does have what may be considered an ideal goal, make all roads collect solar radiation to power the grid, without lowering the quality of the roads.
The issue is that it is basically impossible to do so, and the challenges in doing so means the idea has no real merit (at least not now) as the requirements for roads and solar panels are vastly different.

He is human, he is a jack ass just like everyone else.
Don't sell him so short.
He is vastly more of a jackass than the vast majority of people I know.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 27, 2022, 04:24:24 PM
He is vastly more of a jackass than the vast majority of people I know.
But not as much of a jackass as some people here.  :-X
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 27, 2022, 07:37:07 PM
The shuttle was abandoned for multiple reasons.
Yes, safety was one, but a big one was the cost, with cheaper expendable launch vehicles
The US lost its ability to send humans up with the Space Shuttle for a long time. There where no alternatives to it, so they had to scramble to make some. The SpaceX Dragon is the one alternative. And USA riding with Russians was all they had until then. The other alternative is still not flying. It was not canceled due to cost, it was all because of the safety risks.

Why? That has nothing to do with what I said. And the first stage is not responsible for orbital insertions.
Instead, the second stage actually inserts the payload into orbit.
A non-reusable second stage.
So having a reusable booster doesn't help if something goes wrong with the second stage.
The 2nd stage does also not use 100% of its fuel, it ALSO has some remaining for insurance. Both the 1st stage and the 2nd stage never fly to 100% capacity for the same reasons you dont drive your car at 100% of its claimed distance before you fuel up.

You provided a single source, which was just a crappy picture which didn't even have the Falcon 9's capacity correct.
So I am using the numbers that are available to me, and the numbers spaceX is currently showing.
Okay, so why dont you use the numbers of reuse that both the CEO and COO use for their actual internal cost to fly a reused booster. Which is under $30m?

Because it isn't multiple sources.
Instead it is just one source, which has been repeated.
this one -https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144?s=20&t=WsZz8eRsVaNwAlqvn3x0tw
or this one - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/16/elon-musk-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-over-a-million-dollars-less-to-insure.html
or this one - https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/05/spacex-spent-less-than-half-the-cost-of-a-new-first-stage-on-falcon-9-relaunch/

3 of the main people in a company are all saying the same thing. It costs them less than $30m per reusable F9 launch.

So why do you keep trying to make clear statements that FH is cheaper and more capable because people switched to it?
Why else would they? It obviously brings something that a F9 disposable does not.

It is the most honest comparison available.
2 rockets, produced by the same company with roughly the same capacity.
It depends on what you are trying to compare. One rocket is significantly more complex to operate than the other.

You mean they are things that it is claimed starship wont need to deal with.
No, SS would literally not have to worry about, Ice falling on the booster. Recovering side boosters, working with Hydrogen, ext.

To show that even though they are launching a craft to orbit, and recovering that craft to reuse it, they still don't reuse the stage that put it into orbit.
They dont recover the 2nd stage because it will impact the payload capacity to the point where it no longer makes sense. So they need a larger rocket to make 2nd stage reuse work, hence Starship. Also, often the 2nd stage is placed in a graveyard orbit after GEO insertions, meaning recovery is almost impossible. Its yet to see how SS will deal with this, but its likely they will use a pusher stage.

Do they?
I wouldn't count the Shuttle using the OMS to finish getting into orbit as comparable to the second stage.
A large portion of the thrust is provided by fuel stored in the external tank which is jettisoned just before getting into an orbit that doesn't go too deep into the atmosphere.
That external tank has a mass of 26.5 t. Quite significant compared to the shuttle's 78 t dry mass.

What GTO craft has been reused?
Orion will be reused, and thats coming back from the moon. Testing the full system is happening soon.
STS was a 1.5 stage rocket, because they all light at the same time, but the boosters disconnect early. The main tank is jettisoned at just before orbital velocity well outside of the atmosphere, about 110km or so. They dont make orbit due to their trajectory with a perigee below 0, but apogee of about 200km.

No I'm not.

An ideal goal doesn't mean the idea actually has merit, due to what it may require to achieve that goal, which may make that goal impossible, impractical or unfeasable.
I would say an ideal goal for a space launch system would be a single stage to orbit space plane which, can take off from any airport and land at any airport, and which only uses electrical power, and can be reused just like any other plane where it just needs to get "refuelled" (which in this case would be recharged).
This would be great as it would mean you don't need dedicated launch facilities as it can take off from any airport, there would be no significant environmental impact if the electricity came from renewable sources, and it could land, charge and go again.

The other ideal goal would be teleporting things to space.

That doesn't mean that such ideas would have merit.

Just like solar roadways does have what may be considered an ideal goal, make all roads collect solar radiation to power the grid, without lowering the quality of the roads.
The issue is that it is basically impossible to do so, and the challenges in doing so means the idea has no real merit (at least not now) as the requirements for roads and solar panels are vastly different.
Your miscontrudinng what an ideal goal is for fantasy sci-fi writers vs an ideal goal for rocket engineers. An ideal goal for a rocket engineer would be something that is possible, feasible and doable. I can show you some amazing concepts that are ideal, if only they had the trillion dollars worth of funding. Something like the launch loop is ideal, in that its possible, feasible and do-able, but needs insane international co-operation and money to make it happen first.

Re-use, is an ideal that is actually being worked on by real engineers, unlike SSTO or teleportation.

Don't sell him so short.
He is vastly more of a jackass than the vast majority of people I know.
Give those people a few billion and you will find out how much of a jack ass they really are.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 28, 2022, 02:19:25 AM
The US lost its ability to send humans up with the Space Shuttle for a long time. There where no alternatives to it
Russia was an alternative to it.

It was not canceled due to cost, it was all because of the safety risks.
Cost was a major factor.

Okay, so why dont you use the numbers of reuse that both the CEO and COO use for their actual internal cost to fly a reused booster.
Do they? Or are they just the figures they give the public?

3 of the main people in a company are all saying the same thing.
Which isn't that hard to pull off, and doesn't mean it is true.

Why else would they? It obviously brings something that a F9 disposable does not.
So why did people switch from FH to F9?
You are just running around in circles.
You have admitted that it is pretty tough to make a clear statement.
Yet here you are, yet again making a clear statement based on nothing more than your wishful thinking.

It depends on what you are trying to compare.
The cost to launch the payload to orbit, being that specific weight.
If the FH is so much more complex and costly, then why didn't space X just make a larger version of the F9 to get that payload?

No, SS would literally not have to worry about, Ice falling on the booster. Recovering side boosters, working with Hydrogen, ext.
Other than the ice, they have comparable issues to worry about.

They dont recover the 2nd stage because it will impact the payload capacity to the point where it no longer makes sense. So they need a larger rocket to make 2nd stage reuse work, hence Starship.
And a larger rocket will have a larger impact on the payload capacity.

Its yet to see how SS will deal with this, but its likely they will use a pusher stage.
So still a non-fully reusable rocket?

Orion will be reused
Notice how now you are appealing to the future, rather than the present or past like you did before?
With that absence of reasoning you may as well claim Starship will have it so clearly all stages that can be reused exist.

Regardless, is the entire Orion craft meant to be reused, or just the command module?

Your miscontrudinng what an ideal goal is for fantasy sci-fi writers vs an ideal goal for rocket engineers.
No I'm not.
In the real world, basically nothing is ideal.

Give those people a few billion and you will find out how much of a jack ass they really are.
Or possibly how little of a jackass they are. How many are just jackasses to make ends meet?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 28, 2022, 03:37:12 AM
Russia was an alternative to it.
You mean, absolutely last choice.

Cost was a major factor.
If cost was a major factor, why did they follow up with the SLS that will cost $4B for every Artemis Launch? STS costs $1.8B including development cost, or $450m per launch without dev.

Which isn't that hard to pull off, and doesn't mean it is true.
These are the same people who decide what price is put on the website, which gets placed on Wiki. If you dont trust them, then you cant trust any other price at all. Then we can just throw any random numbers at each other.

So why did people switch from FH to F9?
You are just running around in circles.
You have admitted that it is pretty tough to make a clear statement.
Yet here you are, yet again making a clear statement based on nothing more than your wishful thinking.
They switched to F9 disposable as it got an upgrade to make it more capable. So F9 disposable was then as capable as a FH return to land. Still not as capable as a FH return to downrange which was not availible at the time.

The cost to launch the payload to orbit, being that specific weight.
If the FH is so much more complex and costly, then why didn't space X just make a larger version of the F9 to get that payload?
So in your search to find out if reuse is viable or not, you are specifically looking for cases where its not, opposed to the majority of the cases where it is.
Your basically going to conclude that reusability is not better in all cases, as there are some niche cases where disposable is better. And Id agree with you. So far it seems dispoable is better in about 1 out of every 100 or so launches in the real world.

Other than the ice, they have comparable issues to worry about.
No they dont.

They dont have to work with the RL-25 which costs over $250m a piece at the time. It also used hydrogen which consistently leaks. Hydrogen is notoriously hard to work with as it leaks through solid steel, damaging it in the process. This is why almost no new rocket engines are hydrogen anymore.
They also dont have to work with an aluminium body that starts to fail at 250'C vs about 1400'C for stainless steel. Which, btw, is what saved one specific STS from failing as a tile broke on re-entry, but it broke under a stainless steel plate.
They also have much improved heat shield material.
They also dont have solid rocket side boosters which the STS dumped in the Ocean. Dumping these things in the Ocean meant that all the electronics and expensive components on them had to be rebuilt every time. Meaning it was not really cost saving.
They dont have complex politics to deal with. STS had a better heat shield design which they could not implement because the current heatshield was made in some senators state.
There are LOADS of things they dont have to deal with, before you even get to the issues the program had in designing the thing. It started off as an Airforce craft, to be used to capture Russian sats, and refurbish their own. Then the airforce dropped it completely.

So no, they dont have comparable issues to worry about.
And a larger rocket will have a larger impact on the payload capacity.
Yes and No.
Few things scale linearly. Your heatshield is about the same thickness for both Starship, STS and Dragon, even though they are all different sizes and mass. To get a thinner heat shield you need to increase your approaching surface area. F9 2 stage would have weighed a lot vs its re-entry surface area leading to a heavier mass fraction just for recovery. It also could not land propulsivly as its Thrust to weight ratio is much too high, meaning more equipment needs to be added to it. Overall, it may have ended being a 6 ton launcher for $20-25m (that only saves $5 - $10m) vs a 16t launcher for $30m (Cost, not price)

But losing 10 tons on a 16 ton launcher is a much bigger deal than losing 100tons on a 200ton launcher. There are almost zero payloads currently imagined weighing 100tons.
So you now have a 100t vehicle that can cost about $50-$100 or so million.
The have also got all the lessons in refurbishment from F9 to go with them to make it easier, cheaper and quicker to do this.
Its yet to see how SS will deal with this, but its likely they will use a pusher stage.
So still a non-fully reusable rocket?
For all LEO orbits, its going to be fully reusable. Its possible that it can be re-used for higher orbits, but becomes less efficient after a while where disposable will be better.
Re-usability is not magic, it has use cases for it and against it.
Once orbital depots are set up, reusable pusher tugs can be built.  And there will still be some versions that wont be re-usable. For example the HLS version wont be re-usable, but all the tankers will be. Any deep space version wont be reusable. Unless its return from Mars with ISRU, then its reusable.
Its almost like this is a complex topic that cant be answered with a single sentence.

Notice how now you are appealing to the future, rather than the present or past like you did before?
With that absence of reasoning you may as well claim Starship will have it so clearly all stages that can be reused exist.

Regardless, is the entire Orion craft meant to be reused, or just the command module?
So your saying NASA does not know what they are doing with the Artemis program? Im appealing to actual rockets and capsules here. If you doubt NASA's claim that the craft they are about to launch wont do what they say it will, then go and make that argument.
The crew module is being reused, the part that re-enters. My point was that you can reuse something that comes back to earth at a very high velocity. The cheaper parts where never meant to be reused.

Starship is meant to be reused, all of it. Except maybe some small components like the engine bell stiffeners which I bet when you find out about them will scream how its not reusable.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 28, 2022, 02:00:41 PM
So why did people switch from FH to F9?

Not all customers did.  Some still need the extra lift capacity of FH.
https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/category/falcon-heavy/
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 28, 2022, 03:04:28 PM
If cost was a major factor, why did they follow up with the SLS that will cost $4B for every Artemis Launch?
Different president, and standard government incompetence with estimating launch prices for a rocket that isn't developed yet.
Remember, they thought the shuttle would be really cheap, until they actually did it.


They switched to F9 disposable as it got an upgrade to make it more capable. So F9 disposable was then as capable as a FH return to land. Still not as capable as a FH return to downrange which was not availible at the time.
Why wasn't returning downrange available at the time?

So in your search to find out if reuse is viable or not, you are specifically looking for cases where its not, opposed to the majority of the cases where it is.
No, I'm looking for an honest comparison between 2 vehicles, one reusable and one expendable, where both are using the majority of their payload capacity, instead of reuse being better if you fly only a small portion of the payload capacity.

If there was a smaller version of the Falcon, which had the capacity of the reusable F9, how much would it cost?

No they dont.
Yes they do. They still have liquid oxygen, and fuel to deal with.
They have the heat of rentry to deal with.
With your comment, I take it you think 9-11 was an inside job, because jet fuel can't melt steel beams?
Or do you recognise that heat can cause steel to lose its strength and potentially fail at quite low temperatures, even as low as 300 C?

The crew module is being reused, the part that re-enters. My point was that you can reuse something that comes back to earth at a very high velocity. The cheaper parts where never meant to be reused.
So you were making a point which wasn't relevant at all?
I already know that they can. The issue is where is the reusable second stage?
No where. The closest you get to that is the shuttle, which ditched a quite heavy tank just before getting into orbit.

So why did people switch from FH to F9?
Not all customers did.
Great job missing the point.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 28, 2022, 04:15:21 PM
So in your search to find out if reuse is viable or not, you are specifically looking for cases where its not, opposed to the majority of the cases where it is.
No, I'm looking for an honest comparison between 2 vehicles, one reusable and one expendable, where both are using the majority of their payload capacity, instead of reuse being better if you fly only a small portion of the payload capacity.
The thing is that F9 and FH can both be flown in expendable or various reusable modes and have different payload capacities based on those modes.  Comparing the best mode of one against the worst mode of the other is hardly an honest comparison.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 29, 2022, 01:12:26 AM
The thing is that F9 and FH can both be flown in expendable or various reusable modes and have different payload capacities based on those modes.  Comparing the best mode of one against the worst mode of the other is hardly an honest comparison.
Pretty much any rocket booster that is made to be reusable can be flown in an expendable manner to get a better payload.
So because of that you are basically saying you will never accept a comparison that shows expendable can be better.

The comparisons I have provided are pretty much the only honest ways to make such a comparison.
You can either consider the full payload of a single rocket in either mode, to see how much it costs per kg; or you can compare comparable payloads between 2 different rockets operating near their maximum capacity.
Any other comparison would be quite dishonest.

And the second option means you need to compare 2 rockets, one operating in the best mode for payload (expendable), and one operating in a much worse mode (reusable).

That is pretty much the point I have been making. Making it reusable makes it far less capable.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 29, 2022, 02:15:32 AM
Materials are finite. Why the hell do you advocate a throw away society Jack? Money is just arbitrary and made up.

You've lost this debate Jack. Both on the costs and also the ethics

The only thing I think we all agree on is Elon Musk is a huge dickwad.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: sceptimatic on July 29, 2022, 02:38:29 AM
A puppet for the establishment, like Zuckerberg and such.
How is he a puppet I am curios? Who is pulling the strings, the illuminati? Free Masons? Sponge Bob?
I don't think you're curious.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 29, 2022, 02:44:55 AM
A puppet for the establishment, like Zuckerberg and such.
How is he a puppet I am curios? Who is pulling the strings, the illuminati? Free Masons? Sponge Bob?
I don't think you're curious.

I wouldn't have though Zuckerberg was a puppet but one of the puppet masters. He has a billion+ people under his heel through this Facebook/Meta shit
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 29, 2022, 02:51:44 AM
Materials are finite. Why the hell do you advocate a throw away society Jack?
Pretty much the entire space industry is based upon throwing stuff away.
I would prefer trying to do things on Earth rather than in space.
For example, I see starlink as a massive waste built upon throwing stuff away.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 29, 2022, 02:53:02 AM
Materials are finite. Why the hell do you advocate a throw away society Jack?
Pretty much the entire space industry is based upon throwing stuff away.
I would prefer trying to do things on Earth rather than in space.
For example, I see starlink as a massive waste built upon throwing stuff away.

I see the space industry as our pursuit of knowledge but hey, you do you
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 29, 2022, 04:42:14 AM
Different president, and standard government incompetence with estimating launch prices for a rocket that isn't developed yet.
Remember, they thought the shuttle would be really cheap, until they actually did it.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf
This is from the offical anouncement of the reitring of the STS.
"or future, sustainable exploration pro-grams, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews."
"with Space Station assembly complete at the end of this decade, NASA will retire the Space Shuttle and put crew and cargo on different launches, a safer approach to crew transport."
In that document, the STS disasters is mentioned multiple times. They where seen as death traps near the end, and even needed a back up STS be on the pad when another was in orbit in case a rescue was needed.
They also all reached the end of their structural life as they where getting old. Money is always a concern, but NASA's budget comes from the national tresury, they dont have a budget per se. If NASA spends less, they cant use it on other projects, each project is approved by congress.

Why wasn't returning downrange available at the time?
They only had 2 drone ships. 3rd on only came online in may 2021.

No, I'm looking for an honest comparison between 2 vehicles, one reusable and one expendable, where both are using the majority of their payload capacity, instead of reuse being better if you fly only a small portion of the payload capacity.

If there was a smaller version of the Falcon, which had the capacity of the reusable F9, how much would it cost?
Just using F9 disposable vs semi-reusable you can make some cost per kg comparisons. They both end very close to the same price per kg if they maximise their payload.
Some things this does not tell us.
What is the actual cost, and not price? - we more or less know what reusable cost is, but not new cost
What is the use case? - Because your not launching kg's, but satellites, what configuration do customers actually want?
How does this influence fixed and variable costs of a company? - If you need another factory to produce one more unit, then your fixed costs jump at that extra unit.
How does this influence your launch cadence? - F9 partial reusablity allows SpaceX facotries to focus only on 2nd stages, and not a big bigger 1st stage. This means they can produce more complete rockets quicker for less fixed cost.

This is a complex question, and you can get whatever you want out of it. And there are also differnt ways to reuse a vehicle. Not all models are the same, and will result in the same outcome.

Yes they do. They still have liquid oxygen, and fuel to deal with.
They have the heat of rentry to deal with.
With your comment, I take it you think 9-11 was an inside job, because jet fuel can't melt steel beams?
Or do you recognise that heat can cause steel to lose its strength and potentially fail at quite low temperatures, even as low as 300 C?
Liquid Oxygen is a lot easier to work with for a lot of reasons. Aside from the fact that it boils at 50'C warmer than hydrogen, it does not cause metal embrittlement. The oxygen atom is a lot bigger and much easier to deal with, meaning it does not leak right through a solid steel pipe. Hydrogen also needs much larger fuel tanks due to its very low energy density. Hydrogen is very much NOT like oxygen. You also need to be a lot more careful around hydrogen, as it burns clear and is hard to detect. This means you could literally have a hydrogen flame shooting out of a pipe, and you wont know it until it burns your leg off.
But O2 is not a fuel, its an oxidiser. RP-1 and Liquid Methane is easy to deal with.

As for strength over temperature.
Different materials perform differntly at different temperatures.

Aluminium drops below a usable strength at very low temperatures.
At 20'C, aluminium can hold 250 MPa stress
At 300'C its below 80Mpa or about 30% its initial strength

Staniless steel
At 20'C its about 590Mpa
But at 600'C is still at 380Mpa, still at 65% of its initial strength.

For exposure to heat, you want stainless steel over aluminium. STS was heavy and they needed aluminium to get it under weight at the cost of playing very close to failure if a tile breaks. SS has more thrust available to it, so they can forgo some mass efficency for safety.

So you were making a point which wasn't relevant at all?
I already know that they can. The issue is where is the reusable second stage?
No where. The closest you get to that is the shuttle, which ditched a quite heavy tank just before getting into orbit.
There are no fully reusable rockets in existance yet. Im not sure what you are thinking?!
Im giving example of components of reusability at every stage. 1st stage has been done. Return from Orbit and beyond has been done. Not in the same vehicle obviously. But it seems that something are not all that obvious for everyone.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 29, 2022, 05:10:35 AM
Pretty much any rocket booster that is made to be reusable can be flown in an expendable manner to get a better payload.
So because of that you are basically saying you will never accept a comparison that shows expendable can be better.

The comparisons I have provided are pretty much the only honest ways to make such a comparison.
You can either consider the full payload of a single rocket in either mode, to see how much it costs per kg; or you can compare comparable payloads between 2 different rockets operating near their maximum capacity.
Any other comparison would be quite dishonest.

And the second option means you need to compare 2 rockets, one operating in the best mode for payload (expendable), and one operating in a much worse mode (reusable).

That is pretty much the point I have been making. Making it reusable makes it far less capable.
The problem is your seeing this as an exercise to maximising some specific utility. Max payload.
Maximum payload not what customers are looking for. Not everyone is building 22 ton satellites to go to orbit, heck, nearly no one is.
You need to first look at what customers want, then see how to best suit that. F9 was built around a business model, so they designed a rocket that is far to big in disposable mode, so it can be flown cheaper for the actual market they are targeting.
F9 reusable is an excellent rocket for most customers. However its not an ideal rocket by a long shot. It has a terrible 2nd stage for example. If you want a better second stage, you double or tripple your launch budget and fly with ULA.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 29, 2022, 07:24:23 AM
Materials are finite. Why the hell do you advocate a throw away society Jack?
Pretty much the entire space industry is based upon throwing stuff away.
I would prefer trying to do things on Earth rather than in space.
For example, I see starlink as a massive waste built upon throwing stuff away.
Being a share holder of French Arianeespace BV company I always recommend our one-way rockets to LEO or GEO. They have no engines but just solid fuel burning to produce hot gas through a nozzle catapulting the pay load into orbit. The best and cheapest way.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 29, 2022, 09:01:28 AM
Being a share holder of French Arianeespace BV company I always recommend our one-way rockets to LEO or GEO. They have no engines but just solid fuel burning to produce hot gas through a nozzle catapulting the pay load into orbit. The best and cheapest way.
Ariane space and cheap dont go side to side very well. Hopefully Ariane 6 is better than its predecessor.
What rocket are you talking about that is all solids that goes to GEO? As far as I know Vega (Which is mostly made in Italy) has never made GEO.
Vega also has the history of destorying the very expensive satellites during failures.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 29, 2022, 09:37:50 AM
Being a share holder of French Arianeespace BV company I always recommend our one-way rockets to LEO or GEO. They have no engines but just solid fuel burning to produce hot gas through a nozzle catapulting the pay load into orbit. The best and cheapest way.
Ariane space and cheap dont go side to side very well. Hopefully Ariane 6 is better than its predecessor.
What rocket are you talking about that is all solids that goes to GEO? As far as I know Vega (Which is mostly made in Italy) has never made GEO.
Vega also has the history of destorying the very expensive satellites during failures.
I am talking about Ariane 5, that can lob 20 tons into LEO and 10 tons into GTO. For that Ariane 5 burns > 750 tons of solid fuel. It is simple fire works, even if there are three rockets at lift off for big pay loads. Who need to lob 10-20 tons into space? Aha! NASA wants to go the Moon and back and land on Earth after that. Arianespace solid fuel crafts/rockets are one way only and mostly with much smaller pay loads.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 29, 2022, 02:21:24 PM
I am talking about Ariane 5, that can lob 20 tons into LEO and 10 tons into GTO. For that Ariane 5 burns > 750 tons of solid fuel.

*sigh*  Anders, you really need to learn the products that you're trying to push.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Cryogenic_main_stage
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 29, 2022, 06:07:53 PM
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf
This is from the offical anouncement of the reitring of the STS.
"or future, sustainable exploration pro-grams, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews."
"with Space Station assembly complete at the end of this decade, NASA will retire the Space Shuttle and put crew and cargo on different launches, a safer approach to crew transport."
In that document, the STS disasters is mentioned multiple times.
[/quote]
You left out another great quote for it:
"NASA will free up resources in its budget in three ways: holding down growth in existing programs that do not support the vision; retiring the Space Shuttle to free up billions of dollars in the next decade; and focusing on innovations that reduce the cost of sustained space operations"

Sure sounds like cost was a significant contributing factor.

They only had 2 drone ships. 3rd on only came online in may 2021.
So it is still not possible to have a downrange landing for all three boosters, at least not without a massive delay to move a drone ship.
2 operate in the Atlantic and 1 in the Pacific.

Just using F9 disposable vs semi-reusable you can make some cost per kg comparisons. They both end very close to the same price per kg if they maximise their payload.
Some things this does not tell us.
What is the actual cost, and not price?
And until there is more transparency from spaceX, or an independent audit, we will not know that.

Liquid Oxygen is a lot easier to work with for a lot of reasons. Aside from the fact that it boils at 50'C warmer than hydrogen, it does not cause metal embrittlement.
The cold temperature of liquid oxygen can cause steel to undergo a ductile to brittle transition, causing similar embrittlement.
All cryogenic fluids have issues regarding metal embrittlement.

Hydrogen also needs much larger fuel tanks due to its very low energy density.
Conversely, other fuels need a lot greater mass of the fuel.

There are no fully reusable rockets in existance yet. Im not sure what you are thinking?!
You indicated that there are current examples of reusability at every stage.
Where is a reusable second stage?
I haven't seen one.

The problem is your seeing this as an exercise to maximising some specific utility. Max payload.
I would say more a rocket suited to the payload.

so they designed a rocket that is far to big in disposable mode, so it can be flown cheaper for the actual market they are targeting.
And that is basically the issue with your comparisons.
F9 is too large for a disposable rocket for LEO for most payloads.
So what would a smaller version with a more appropriate payload cost?
Would it be more or less expensive than a reusable F9?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 29, 2022, 06:19:54 PM
The thing is that F9 and FH can both be flown in expendable or various reusable modes and have different payload capacities based on those modes.  Comparing the best mode of one against the worst mode of the other is hardly an honest comparison.
Pretty much any rocket booster that is made to be reusable can be flown in an expendable manner to get a better payload.
So because of that you are basically saying you will never accept a comparison that shows expendable can be better.

The comparisons I have provided are pretty much the only honest ways to make such a comparison.
You can either consider the full payload of a single rocket in either mode, to see how much it costs per kg; or you can compare comparable payloads between 2 different rockets operating near their maximum capacity.
Any other comparison would be quite dishonest.

And the second option means you need to compare 2 rockets, one operating in the best mode for payload (expendable), and one operating in a much worse mode (reusable).

That is pretty much the point I have been making. Making it reusable makes it far less capable.
If you want to compare expendable vs reusable, then compare F9 expendable vs F9 reusable or FH expendable vs FH reusable.  The payload penalty is already well known to be about 30% for F9 reusable vs expendable.  SpaceX knows this.  Their customers know this.  The media knows this.  Everyone knows this.  You aren't bringing anything new to the discussion, except for your unsourced implication that the F9 booster costs more to refurbish than to build new.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 29, 2022, 06:38:58 PM
I am talking about Ariane 5, that can lob 20 tons into LEO and 10 tons into GTO. For that Ariane 5 burns > 750 tons of solid fuel.

*sigh*  Anders, you really need to learn the products that you're trying to push.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Cryogenic_main_stage

The boosters have solid fuel and maybe also the rocket itself to keep it simple. Anyway, it works one-way up only and after lift-off it is never seen again.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 29, 2022, 07:12:22 PM
If you want to compare expendable vs reusable, then compare F9 expendable vs F9 reusable or FH expendable vs FH reusable.
And the only honest way to do that is to do it on a per kg basis, which shows the expendable is cheaper.
What is entirely dishonest is to say a reusable rocket with a significant payload penalty is cheaper than the same rocket as a disposable rocket with a greater payload.

Again, the best honest comparison is between 2 rockets from the same company, one reusable, one expendable, with roughly the same payload capacity.

Everyone knows this.  You aren't bringing anything new to the discussion, except for your unsourced implication that the F9 booster costs more to refurbish than to build new.
That is not my implication at all.
My implication is that due to the payload penalty for a reusable rocket, and the cost to refurbish it, it can be cheaper to use an expendable rocket.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 29, 2022, 07:48:17 PM
The boosters have solid fuel and maybe also the rocket itself to keep it simple.

Yes for the side boosters.  No for the main stage.  It uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as the propellant.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Cryogenic_main_stage
Ariane 5's cryogenic H173 main stage (H158 for Ariane 5G, G+, and GS) is called the EPC (Étage Principal Cryotechnique — Cryotechnic Main Stage). It consists of a 5.4 m (18 ft) diameter by 30.5 m (100 ft) high tank with two compartments, one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen, and a Vulcain 2 engine at the base with a vacuum thrust of 1,390 kN (310,000 lbf).
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 30, 2022, 02:28:16 AM
The boosters have solid fuel and maybe also the rocket itself to keep it simple.

Yes for the side boosters.  No for the main stage.  It uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as the propellant.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Cryogenic_main_stage
Ariane 5's cryogenic H173 main stage (H158 for Ariane 5G, G+, and GS) is called the EPC (Étage Principal Cryotechnique — Cryotechnic Main Stage). It consists of a 5.4 m (18 ft) diameter by 30.5 m (100 ft) high tank with two compartments, one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen, and a Vulcain 2 engine at the base with a vacuum thrust of 1,390 kN (310,000 lbf).
I know! It is just to keep NASA happy. Because the complete Ariane 5 is simply solid fuel with no liquid oxygen and nitrogen anywhere. it works for the boosters and for the main rocket. The bosters are just fitted to increase the pay load.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 30, 2022, 08:31:25 AM
I know! It is just to keep NASA happy. Because the complete Ariane 5 is simply solid fuel with no liquid oxygen and nitrogen anywhere. it works for the boosters and for the main rocket. The bosters are just fitted to increase the pay load.
I was going to ask if you're just trolling or if you're genuinely this stupid.  Then I remembered that you're a geocentrist and I was able to answer my own question.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 30, 2022, 10:07:55 AM
I know! It is just to keep NASA happy. Because the complete Ariane 5 is simply solid fuel with no liquid oxygen and nitrogen anywhere. it works for the boosters and for the main rocket. The bosters are just fitted to increase the pay load.
I was going to ask if you're just trolling or if you're genuinely this stupid.  Then I remembered that you're a geocentrist and I was able to answer my own question.
Yes, looking out of my window I have concluded that planet Earth is the center of the Universe that Tycho Brahe concluded centuries ago. I know plenty stupid people do no agree but I respect different opinions about anything.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 30, 2022, 11:15:13 AM
I know! It is just to keep NASA happy. Because the complete Ariane 5 is simply solid fuel with no liquid oxygen and nitrogen anywhere. it works for the boosters and for the main rocket. The bosters are just fitted to increase the pay load.
I was going to ask if you're just trolling or if you're genuinely this stupid.  Then I remembered that you're a geocentrist and I was able to answer my own question.
Yes, looking out of my window I have concluded that planet Earth is the center of the Universe that Tycho Brahe concluded centuries ago. I know plenty stupid people do no agree but I respect different opinions about anything.

Well from our vantage point in a 93 billion light year sphere we are at the centre. But to a 3 breasted and very hot looking alien babe in the triangulum galaxy, from her vantage point, she is also at the centre. No matter where you are located, looking from your observable sphere, you will be at the centre.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 30, 2022, 11:34:27 AM
The boosters have solid fuel and maybe also the rocket itself to keep it simple.

Yes for the side boosters.  No for the main stage.  It uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as the propellant.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Cryogenic_main_stage
Ariane 5's cryogenic H173 main stage (H158 for Ariane 5G, G+, and GS) is called the EPC (Étage Principal Cryotechnique — Cryotechnic Main Stage). It consists of a 5.4 m (18 ft) diameter by 30.5 m (100 ft) high tank with two compartments, one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen, and a Vulcain 2 engine at the base with a vacuum thrust of 1,390 kN (310,000 lbf).
I know! It is just to keep NASA happy. Because the complete Ariane 5 is simply solid fuel with no liquid oxygen and nitrogen anywhere. it works for the boosters and for the main rocket. The bosters are just fitted to increase the pay load.

As Marko pointed out, you are wrong. Apparently, Ariane Space, you know, the folks who actually designed and built it, say you are wrong as well. I'm gonna go with the folks who built the the thing before I would take the word of a lone deluded conspiracy theorist.

"As the central element of Ariane 5, the core cryogenic stage serves as one of the launcher’s key propulsion systems.  It carries a propellant load of 132.27 metric tons of liquid oxygen and 25.84 metric tons of liquid hydrogen to feed the stage’s Vulcain main engine."
arianespace
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 30, 2022, 01:05:12 PM
The boosters have solid fuel and maybe also the rocket itself to keep it simple.

Yes for the side boosters.  No for the main stage.  It uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as the propellant.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Cryogenic_main_stage
Ariane 5's cryogenic H173 main stage (H158 for Ariane 5G, G+, and GS) is called the EPC (Étage Principal Cryotechnique — Cryotechnic Main Stage). It consists of a 5.4 m (18 ft) diameter by 30.5 m (100 ft) high tank with two compartments, one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen, and a Vulcain 2 engine at the base with a vacuum thrust of 1,390 kN (310,000 lbf).
I know! It is just to keep NASA happy. Because the complete Ariane 5 is simply solid fuel with no liquid oxygen and nitrogen anywhere. it works for the boosters and for the main rocket. The bosters are just fitted to increase the pay load.

As Marko pointed out, you are wrong. Apparently, Ariane Space, you know, the folks who actually designed and built it, say you are wrong as well. I'm gonna go with the folks who built the the thing before I would take the word of a lone deluded conspiracy theorist.

"As the central element of Ariane 5, the core cryogenic stage serves as one of the launcher’s key propulsion systems.  It carries a propellant load of 132.27 metric tons of liquid oxygen and 25.84 metric tons of liquid hydrogen to feed the stage’s Vulcain main engine."
arianespace
Anyway, the boosters are solid fuel fire works and I see no reason why the main rocket cannot be the same. Ariane 5 is just for one-way LEO and GTO trips and solid fuel is the best for it. Elon is going to Mars with passengers, he says, so he needs liquid fuel, poor sod.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 30, 2022, 01:20:42 PM
The boosters have solid fuel and maybe also the rocket itself to keep it simple.

Yes for the side boosters.  No for the main stage.  It uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as the propellant.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Cryogenic_main_stage
Ariane 5's cryogenic H173 main stage (H158 for Ariane 5G, G+, and GS) is called the EPC (Étage Principal Cryotechnique — Cryotechnic Main Stage). It consists of a 5.4 m (18 ft) diameter by 30.5 m (100 ft) high tank with two compartments, one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen, and a Vulcain 2 engine at the base with a vacuum thrust of 1,390 kN (310,000 lbf).
I know! It is just to keep NASA happy. Because the complete Ariane 5 is simply solid fuel with no liquid oxygen and nitrogen anywhere. it works for the boosters and for the main rocket. The bosters are just fitted to increase the pay load.

As Marko pointed out, you are wrong. Apparently, Ariane Space, you know, the folks who actually designed and built it, say you are wrong as well. I'm gonna go with the folks who built the the thing before I would take the word of a lone deluded conspiracy theorist.

"As the central element of Ariane 5, the core cryogenic stage serves as one of the launcher’s key propulsion systems.  It carries a propellant load of 132.27 metric tons of liquid oxygen and 25.84 metric tons of liquid hydrogen to feed the stage’s Vulcain main engine."
arianespace
Anyway, the boosters are solid fuel fire works and I see no reason why the main rocket cannot be the same. Ariane 5 is just for one-way LEO and GTO trips and solid fuel is the best for it. Elon is going to Mars with passengers, he says, so he needs liquid fuel, poor sod.

Elon Musk is not going to Mars. It's that 'Mars One' hoax all over again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One

Mars can not be colonised or terraformed. You'd have more luck making a cloud city on Venus or living on Saturns moon Titan. Mars is dead

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 30, 2022, 02:16:53 PM
Anyway, the boosters are solid fuel fire works and I see no reason why the main rocket cannot be the same.
Because liquid propellant rockets can burn for more than a bout 2 minutes at a time.  Liquid propellant rocket engines can also be throttled or turned off and reignited.

Ariane 5 is just for one-way LEO and GTO trips and solid fuel is the best for it.
If solid propellant was best, then more rockets would be using it.  As it is, only a very few rockets use solid propellant all the way to orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket#Orbital_rockets
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 30, 2022, 04:08:06 PM
The boosters have solid fuel and maybe also the rocket itself to keep it simple.

Yes for the side boosters.  No for the main stage.  It uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as the propellant.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Cryogenic_main_stage
Ariane 5's cryogenic H173 main stage (H158 for Ariane 5G, G+, and GS) is called the EPC (Étage Principal Cryotechnique — Cryotechnic Main Stage). It consists of a 5.4 m (18 ft) diameter by 30.5 m (100 ft) high tank with two compartments, one for liquid oxygen and one for liquid hydrogen, and a Vulcain 2 engine at the base with a vacuum thrust of 1,390 kN (310,000 lbf).
I know! It is just to keep NASA happy. Because the complete Ariane 5 is simply solid fuel with no liquid oxygen and nitrogen anywhere. it works for the boosters and for the main rocket. The bosters are just fitted to increase the pay load.

As Marko pointed out, you are wrong. Apparently, Ariane Space, you know, the folks who actually designed and built it, say you are wrong as well. I'm gonna go with the folks who built the the thing before I would take the word of a lone deluded conspiracy theorist.

"As the central element of Ariane 5, the core cryogenic stage serves as one of the launcher’s key propulsion systems.  It carries a propellant load of 132.27 metric tons of liquid oxygen and 25.84 metric tons of liquid hydrogen to feed the stage’s Vulcain main engine."
arianespace
Anyway, the boosters are solid fuel fire works and I see no reason why the main rocket cannot be the same. Ariane 5 is just for one-way LEO and GTO trips and solid fuel is the best for it. Elon is going to Mars with passengers, he says, so he needs liquid fuel, poor sod.

Who cares what a lone deluded conspiracy theorist thinks as to why the main rocket should be this or that? No one.

The Ariane engineers decided their rocket would have a liquid fuel main rocket. Last I checked, you aren't an engineer at the Ariane company, or am I mistaken?

What makes you think you know more about the Ariane 5 than the company and people who engineered and built it?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 30, 2022, 07:25:56 PM
Yes, looking out of my window I have concluded that planet Earth is the center of the Universe
Don't feel to bad, lots of stupid people make that mistake.

I know plenty stupid people do no agree but I respect different opinions about anything.
What you should be worried about are the intelligent people who do not agree.
Respecting different opinions typically wont include indicating people are stupid if they don't agree.

Anyway, the boosters are solid fuel fire works and I see no reason why the main rocket cannot be the same. Ariane 5 is just for one-way LEO and GTO trips and solid fuel is the best for it. Elon is going to Mars with passengers, he says, so he needs liquid fuel, poor sod.
Efficiency.
Solid rocket fuel is good for small rockets.
But liquid is much better for larger rockets, or if you need to control the throttle.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 30, 2022, 11:07:54 PM
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 31, 2022, 01:20:26 AM
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2003/06/Ariane-5_uses_both_solid_and_liquid_fuel_to_propel_spacecraft_into_space)

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site (https://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-facility/operations/)

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 04:31:01 AM
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2003/06/Ariane-5_uses_both_solid_and_liquid_fuel_to_propel_spacecraft_into_space)

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site (https://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-facility/operations/)

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 31, 2022, 04:46:57 AM
I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.
Do you think repeating it often enough will magically make it true?
Just why do you want them to only use solid fuel so much?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 31, 2022, 04:56:51 AM
I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.
Do you think repeating it often enough will magically make it true?

You mean like you repeating that throwing away things is better than reusing or making the most of things?

You will never win that argument. Are you a washing machine repair man? 'Oh the cheap $2 sensor on your machine is broken. You might as well buy a whole new washing machine because labour alone to fix it will cost more than a new one'
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 07:29:12 AM
I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.
Do you think repeating it often enough will magically make it true?
Just why do you want them to only use solid fuel so much?
Arianespace boosters/rocket use solid fuel that burns and produce hot gas that is ejected to propel the space craft oneway. Very cheap and simple. Liquid fuels are much more complex to handle. Keep it simple.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 31, 2022, 08:19:08 AM
You left out another great quote for it:
"NASA will free up resources in its budget in three ways: holding down growth in existing programs that do not support the vision; retiring the Space Shuttle to free up billions of dollars in the next decade; and focusing on innovations that reduce the cost of sustained space operations"

Sure sounds like cost was a significant contributing factor.
And the first thing they did after STS was develop a rocket that costs more than the STS and flies at most once a year. All the same contractors that built the STS are being used to build SLS. The SLS is literally designed to be able to re-use STS components. The same expensive components.
SLS, however is safer with actual launch abort without red zones all the way to orbit.

So it is still not possible to have a downrange landing for all three boosters, at least not without a massive delay to move a drone ship.
2 operate in the Atlantic and 1 in the Pacific.
Is you goal to compare re-usability to disposable when re-usability is not utilised in its best practical configuration. Or are you specifically looking for scenarios where its less efficient? Because it looks like your trying to compare re-usability is its less ideal scenarios to ideal disposable scenarios.

And until there is more transparency from spaceX, or an independent audit, we will not know that.
The only time you will have some levels of transparency is from NASA, no where else. So your stuck comparing NASA built STS to the SLS, thats it. Or you end the conversation admitting that maybe the actual sources we have out there is the best we are going to get, and work off that.



The cold temperature of liquid oxygen can cause steel to undergo a ductile to brittle transition, causing similar embrittlement.
All cryogenic fluids have issues regarding metal embrittlement.
There is a difference between losing ductility due to low temperature and hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen does both, oxygen does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
Hydrogen is also the smallest particle, so it leaks through everything that would seal bigger particles like oxygen.
You also need to use specialised tools when working near hydrogen as it is very explosive in air and very hard to detect.
The RS-25 engines each cost as much as 3 entire disposable Falcon9 rockets for a reason.

Conversely, other fuels need a lot greater mass of the fuel.
This is a whole topic by itself. But Hydrogen engines are very efficient, as in, they have a very high ISP, but terrible thrust. This leads to larger gravity losses due to low acceleration, meaning they need more fuel and mass to get off the ground. This is why both the STS and SLS have side boosters that have high trust. Hydrogen is great in vacuum as a second stage engine, but not as a first stage engine.

You indicated that there are current examples of reusability at every stage.
Where is a reusable second stage?
I haven't seen one.
EVERY STAGE.
- Launch
- Orbit
- Return to orbit (even lunar orbit!!!)
 I never said there is a reusability that combines all stages into one LV.

And that is basically the issue with your comparisons.
F9 is too large for a disposable rocket for LEO for most payloads.
So what would a smaller version with a more appropriate payload cost?
Would it be more or less expensive than a reusable F9?
F9 R - 16.2t - $50m - $3086$/kg
Atlas V - 18.5t - $153m - $8270$/kg
Ariane 5 - 21t - $185m - $8800$/kg
Proton-M -23t - $65m - $2826$/kg * It had failed 1 out of every 10 launches so far
Soyuz-2 - 8.2t - $80/$48 - $9756$/kg - 5853$/kg (European vs Russian operation)
Proton-M and Soyuz built in Russia have an advantage of an engineer costing you about 5 times less (before the invasion) So these prices should be seen in this context. European and American labour costs roughly the same.

The Soyuz is one of the most successful rockets ever, but it still does not match F9 at cost. For a 8t launch, Soyuz costs about the same as a F9 reusable, but F9 has better reliability. If you launch the Soyuz from European operations where labour differences are not so stark, its still much cheaper to launch a F9R over a Soyuz at any payload mass.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 31, 2022, 08:28:34 AM
Anyway, the boosters are solid fuel fire works and I see no reason why the main rocket cannot be the same. Ariane 5 is just for one-way LEO and GTO trips and solid fuel is the best for it. Elon is going to Mars with passengers, he says, so he needs liquid fuel, poor sod.
Solid boosters are heavy and difficult to manage. It means more expensive logistics to get the rocket on a pad.
A typical rocket can weigh 50t dry, but be filled with 600t of liquid fuel. Liquid is a lot easier to move than one large 600t solid booster.
Then you have the issue that solids cant throttle, meaning its full power or nothing, making very very hard to get the correct orbital insertion. Imagine docking a ship, but you only have full power, and can only cut power once you run out of fuel.
Then solids typically have very low ISP's but high thrust. ISP is a measure of efficiency. So you need a lot more mass from a solid to accelerate your rocket. They have good thrust though, meaning they can help more efficient low thrust rockets get off the ground. Think of it as 1st gear vs 5th gear of a car. You need both, solids are only your 1st gears.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 31, 2022, 08:32:42 AM
Elon Musk is not going to Mars. It's that 'Mars One' hoax all over again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One

Mars can not be colonised or terraformed. You'd have more luck making a cloud city on Venus or living on Saturns moon Titan. Mars is dead
If Musk goes to Mars, it will be with NASA and other agencies. No way they have the resources to do it alone.
But Mars can be colonised, and a lot easier than Venus.
Also, Saturn is very very very far away. Your not sending people there until we have a very well established space industry. As in Mega large space ships

Explain to me how you land and take off from a cloud city with a 5000ton rocket?
Then what ever explanation you give me, think how that cant be applied to Mars, just easier.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 31, 2022, 08:47:08 AM
Elon Musk is not going to Mars. It's that 'Mars One' hoax all over again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One

Mars can not be colonised or terraformed. You'd have more luck making a cloud city on Venus or living on Saturns moon Titan. Mars is dead
If Musk goes to Mars, it will be with NASA and other agencies. No way they have the resources to do it alone.
But Mars can be colonised, and a lot easier than Venus.
Also, Saturn is very very very far away. Your not sending people there until we have a very well established space industry. As in Mega large space ships

Explain to me how you land and take off from a cloud city with a 5000ton rocket?
Then what ever explanation you give me, think how that cant be applied to Mars, just easier.

This video explains it pretty well why Venus may be a better candidate for colonisation over Mars


And we could probably terraform Venus much quicker than the dead planet Mars



And here is some info about the habitability of Titan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Titan
Quote
Saturn's largest moon Titan is one of several candidates for possible future colonization of the outer Solar System.

According to Cassini data from 2008, Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth. These hydrocarbons rain from the sky and collect in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.[1] "Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material—it's a giant factory of organic chemicals", said Ralph Lorenz, who leads the study of Titan based on radar data from Cassini. "This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan." Several hundred lakes and seas have been observed, with several dozen estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than Earth's oil and gas reserves. The dark dunes that run along the equator contain a volume of organics several hundred times larger than Earth's coal reserves.[2]
Titan 'sea' (left) compared at scale to Lake Superior (right)

Radar images obtained on July 21, 2006 appear to show lakes of liquid hydrocarbon (such as methane and ethane) in Titan's northern latitudes. This is the first discovery of currently existing lakes beyond Earth.[3] The lakes range in size from about a kilometer in width to one hundred kilometers across.

On March 13, 2007, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that it found strong evidence of seas of methane and ethane in the northern hemisphere. At least one of these is larger than any of the Great Lakes in North America.

Suitability

The American aerospace engineer and author Robert Zubrin identified Saturn as the most important and valuable of the four gas giants in the Solar System, because of its relative proximity, low radiation, and excellent system of moons. He also named Titan as the most important moon on which to establish a base to develop the resources of the Saturn system.[5]

Habitability

Robert Zubrin has pointed out that Titan possesses an abundance of all the elements necessary to support life, saying "In certain ways, Titan is the most hospitable extraterrestrial world within our solar system for human colonization."[6] The atmosphere contains plentiful nitrogen and methane. Additionally, strong evidence indicates that liquid methane exists on the surface. Evidence also indicates the presence of liquid water and ammonia under the surface, which are delivered to the surface by volcanic activity. While this water can be used to generate breathable oxygen, more is blown into Titan's atmosphere from the geysers on the icy moon of Enceladus (also a moon of Saturn), as they start as water molecules and evolve into oxygen and hydrogen. Nitrogen is ideal to add buffer gas partial pressure to breathable air (it forms about 78% of Earth's atmosphere).[7] Nitrogen, methane and ammonia can all be used to produce fertilizer for growing food.

In situ energy resources

In situ energy resources on Titan for use by future humans include chemical, nuclear, wind, solar and hydropower. Electrical power could be produced using chemical power plants adding hydrogen to acetylene (i.e. hydrogenation; oxygen is not freely available), or turbines in large methane seas such as Kraken Mare where the tidal pull of Saturn causes up to a meter of tidal change each Titan day. Nuclear and solar power might also be feasible.[8]

Gravity is going to be a bitch but Mars presents the same problem
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2022, 09:11:18 AM
I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.
Why do you say such stupid things?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 31, 2022, 09:30:41 AM
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2003/06/Ariane-5_uses_both_solid_and_liquid_fuel_to_propel_spacecraft_into_space)

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site (https://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-facility/operations/)

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 10:06:01 AM
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2003/06/Ariane-5_uses_both_solid_and_liquid_fuel_to_propel_spacecraft_into_space)

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site (https://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-facility/operations/)

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 31, 2022, 10:43:45 AM
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2003/06/Ariane-5_uses_both_solid_and_liquid_fuel_to_propel_spacecraft_into_space)

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site (https://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-facility/operations/)

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.

I know you "say" that, but that's not rooted in reality.

What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 31, 2022, 10:48:55 AM
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2003/06/Ariane-5_uses_both_solid_and_liquid_fuel_to_propel_spacecraft_into_space)

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site (https://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-facility/operations/)

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.

I know you "say" that, but that's not rooted in reality.

What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong?

Heiwa, ever the contrarian will just say the opposite of what intelligent people say. He's in his twilight years and staring at death and reminded of his mortality every day in the mirror so I guess he wants to have a bit of a laugh before his other foot steps in the grave
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 31, 2022, 10:49:26 AM
This video explains it pretty well why Venus may be a better candidate for colonisation over Mars


And we could probably terraform Venus much quicker than the dead planet Mars


And here is some info about the habitability of Titan
Venus has nice weather, temperature and pressure at an altitude of about 60-70km.

The problem is, you cant land there.

You can at best drop a very fancy light weight glider or balloon there. This glider needs to be able to return from orbital velocity. So it will need to be dropped from an orbital re-entry vehicle and exit that vehicle. If you took a vehicle like the Starship with 100t payload to Venus, it would need 100t max payload vehicle that can fly or float before you waste the starship. This means each flier or balloon's own mass needs to be account to what the actual payload to venus actually is - This is important in a later step
This means your sending one way craft to drop off relatively small gliders or balloons. Great, now how do you get back? Venus has similar gravity to earth, meaning you need a similar sized launch vehicle to get back. Think of the SLS or Starship, fully stacked with a launch tower and all that infrastructure, just its floating on a Balloon. This balloon will need to keep up a million tons of mass for not just the rocket, but all the fuel processing equipment. You can also only build this entire massive cloud city, 100t at a time AFTER you account for the fact that most of your payload your bringing down is made up of balloons or fliers to keep your equipment from sinking too low and crashing. So maybe 20-30 tons at a time.

Mars has 1/3rd the gravity, meaning a starship can return to earth without the booster stage. It needs far less fuel and infrastructure and most importantly, it has ground! You dont need to build a mega city, before you can return your first human back to earth. You land directly on the ground and most of your payload is not a giant balloon or aircraft.

Oh, and Mars has actual water on the Surface, where Venus only has hydrogen stored inside sulphuric acid as your only source of water.

Mars is a piece of cake compared to Venus.

As for terraforming Venus, That video just casually mentions shooting more mass off the surface of Venus than what an atmosphere on Mars would weigh. So I think not.

Titan is awesome, but getting there will require a new type of rocket. Trips to Mars using existing technology can be under 6 months. To Saturn, you would be lucky to make it in 6 years.

So Mars will be colonised generations before the other two. Because we have the technology to go to Mars withing the next decade or so, but not Titan or Venus.


Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 10:51:55 AM
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2003/06/Ariane-5_uses_both_solid_and_liquid_fuel_to_propel_spacecraft_into_space)

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site (https://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-facility/operations/)

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.

I know you "say" that, but that's not rooted in reality.

What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong?
Just study what I write on my web site. Copy paste what you think is wrong, and we discuss.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 31, 2022, 10:53:33 AM
Just study what I write on my web site. Copy paste what you think is wrong, and we discuss.
You dont know how the rockets work from a company where you are allegedly an investor.
What on earth could you possibly know about rockets.

Zero, zero is the answer.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 10:55:29 AM
Just study what I write on my web site. Copy paste what you think is wrong, and we discuss.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 31, 2022, 10:57:09 AM
I really like the French Arianespace solid fuel rockets that lob satellites one-way into LEO and GTO at little cost. This Elon Musk and his liquid fuel rockets sound too much like NASA and its Saturn rockets of the 1960's.

Too bad Arianespace uses liquid fuel against your wishes...
Ariane-5 uses both solid and liquid fuel to propel spacecraft into space (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2003/06/Ariane-5_uses_both_solid_and_liquid_fuel_to_propel_spacecraft_into_space)

From Ariane Space:
Ariane 5 launch site (https://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-facility/operations/)

Ariane 5 missions are performed from the Spaceport’s ELA-3 launch zone, which is one of the world’s most modern facilities, and was built specifically to serve the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle.

Here the vehicle is positioned over a concrete foundation with three flame trenches. Liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen feed lines for the launcher’s cryogenic main stage are hooked up via connectors under the launch table, as are the connections for the umbilical mast.

I know. but the Ariane rocket only uses solid fuel. It sounds nice with liquid oxygen/hydrogen but it is just to impress Elon.

Why do you say this when the Ariane Space people say quite clearly that they do use liquid oxygen/hydrogen in the main stage? What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong? It's really weird of you to claim otherwise.

Lastly, why do you care what kind of propellant the 5 uses? In other words what's your point in being so obviously, blatantly wrong?
I just say that the Arianespace rockets are one way only and certainly just use solid fuel for one-way trips into space.

I know you "say" that, but that's not rooted in reality.

What makes you think you are right when the very people who designed and built the 5 say you are wrong?
Just study what I write on my web site. Copy paste what you think is wrong, and we discuss.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 11:22:54 AM
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 31, 2022, 11:30:40 AM
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 31, 2022, 11:39:50 AM
This video explains it pretty well why Venus may be a better candidate for colonisation over Mars


And we could probably terraform Venus much quicker than the dead planet Mars


And here is some info about the habitability of Titan
Venus has nice weather, temperature and pressure at an altitude of about 60-70km.

The problem is, you cant land there.

You can at best drop a very fancy light weight glider or balloon there. This glider needs to be able to return from orbital velocity. So it will need to be dropped from an orbital re-entry vehicle and exit that vehicle. If you took a vehicle like the Starship with 100t payload to Venus, it would need 100t max payload vehicle that can fly or float before you waste the starship. This means each flier or balloon's own mass needs to be account to what the actual payload to venus actually is - This is important in a later step
This means your sending one way craft to drop off relatively small gliders or balloons. Great, now how do you get back? Venus has similar gravity to earth, meaning you need a similar sized launch vehicle to get back. Think of the SLS or Starship, fully stacked with a launch tower and all that infrastructure, just its floating on a Balloon. This balloon will need to keep up a million tons of mass for not just the rocket, but all the fuel processing equipment. You can also only build this entire massive cloud city, 100t at a time AFTER you account for the fact that most of your payload your bringing down is made up of balloons or fliers to keep your equipment from sinking too low and crashing. So maybe 20-30 tons at a time.

Mars has 1/3rd the gravity, meaning a starship can return to earth without the booster stage. It needs far less fuel and infrastructure and most importantly, it has ground! You dont need to build a mega city, before you can return your first human back to earth. You land directly on the ground and most of your payload is not a giant balloon or aircraft.

Oh, and Mars has actual water on the Surface, where Venus only has hydrogen stored inside sulphuric acid as your only source of water.

Mars is a piece of cake compared to Venus.

As for terraforming Venus, That video just casually mentions shooting more mass off the surface of Venus than what an atmosphere on Mars would weigh. So I think not.

Titan is awesome, but getting there will require a new type of rocket. Trips to Mars using existing technology can be under 6 months. To Saturn, you would be lucky to make it in 6 years.

So Mars will be colonised generations before the other two. Because we have the technology to go to Mars withing the next decade or so, but not Titan or Venus.

But Venus can be terraformed. People need to stop thinking if something cant be done in their lifetime then it's not worth doing

Problem with Mars is, its geologically inactive. This makes living there somewhat a problem as it's not exactly favourable for sustaining life and eco systems. The planet is dead. The only thing you could put there are research bases but trying to make it into a 'Planet B' is doomed to failure. A planet needs more than just people living on it. It needs ecosystems and food chains. It needs to sustain life not just have life put on it and hope for the best. It is not even within the realm of imagination to kickstart Mars's core 'somehow' and make it geologically active.

I wouldn't say cloud cities on Venus make for a decent 'Planet B' either but if you are going to colonise a world, every colonist would have to understand they are pioneers leaving behind an advanced luxurious world to go on a one way trip to a very hard life and even harder work. Zero prospect of ever going back to Earth and whichever planet you go to, be it Venus, Mars or Titan - that world will be entirely dependent on Earth for resources and supplies for generations. That's just how it is.

I have an easier idea though and one that doesn't require humans at all

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if humans are living on the worlds or not. The important thing is leaving a legacy. I say we get lots of probes to start seeding these worlds that have potential. Leave our mark. So lets say we smash a shit load of biological matter, cyano bacteria, tardigrades, seeds and building blocks for protein and life all over Mars. Over the next billion years as the sun gets brighter and hotter, who knows what could come from that when Mars begins to warm? Who cares if we are extinct by that point and are not there to see it?

And do the same for Titan and other Moons further out that could support life someday as the sun gets hotter. Even Pluto will be in the 'goldilocks zone'. Just because we likely wont be around doesn't mean we shouldn't bother leaving our mark.

The 'interplanetary protection' protocol is dumb. Like we want to send people to LIVE on these planets some day. Who cares about bacteria. What are we going to do on these worlds when we want to take a shit?

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on July 31, 2022, 12:03:58 PM
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
It is better you visit my popular website.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 31, 2022, 12:04:55 PM
But Venus can be terraformed. People need to stop thinking if something cant be done in their lifetime then it's not worth doing

Problem with Mars is, its geologically inactive. This makes living there somewhat a problem as it's not exactly favourable for sustaining life and eco systems. The planet is dead. The only thing you could put there are research bases but trying to make it into a 'Planet B' is doomed to failure. A planet needs more than just people living on it. It needs ecosystems and food chains. It needs to sustain life not just have life put on it and hope for the best. It is not even within the realm of imagination to kickstart Mars's core 'somehow' and make it geologically active.

I wouldn't say cloud cities on Venus make for a decent 'Planet B' either but if you are going to colonise a world, every colonist would have to understand they are pioneers leaving behind an advanced luxurious world to go on a one way trip to a very hard life and even harder work. Zero prospect of ever going back to Earth and whichever planet you go to, be it Venus, Mars or Titan - that world will be entirely dependent on Earth for resources and supplies for generations. That's just how it is.

I have an easier idea though and one that doesn't require humans at all

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if humans are living on the worlds or not. The important thing is leaving a legacy. I say we get lots of probes to start seeding these worlds that have potential. Leave our mark. So lets say we smash a shit load of biological matter, cyano bacteria, tardigrades, seeds and building blocks for protein and life all over Mars. Over the next billion years as the sun gets brighter and hotter, who knows what could come from that when Mars begins to warm? Who cares if we are extinct by that point and are not there to see it?

And do the same for Titan and other Moons further out that could support life someday as the sun gets hotter. Even Pluto will be in the 'goldilocks zone'. Just because we likely wont be around doesn't mean we shouldn't bother leaving our mark.

The 'interplanetary protection' protocol is dumb. Like we want to send people to LIVE on these planets some day. Who cares about bacteria. What are we going to do on these worlds when we want to take a shit?


If you are putting that much energy to terraform Venus, you can do the same with Mars. The amount of energy to move that mass off Venus is truly insane. If you have that much energy, just move a small bit of mass from Europa to Mars to build its atmosphere. Once you have about 10t/m2 of atmosphere, you have 30Kpa pressure and enough radiation protection that you can live outside. You need 16kpa of pressure to get the water on Mars to start flowing.
but without a magnetic field, the atmosphere will blow away! The atmospheric losses are in the1000 or so tons a day. Mars lost its atmosphere over 3 billion years. If you can import the trillions of tons to build its atmosphere, then 1000 tons is nothing. We emit millions of times more emission on earth.

But there is an easier way. You built pressurised tents on Mars. Imagine 4 cables in a square about 10-20m apart that go about 10m deep in the ground. Those cables are tied to a transparent membrane overhead. This membrane keeps pressure inside. Then you have thousands of these together. For only a few kg/m2, you can create a tented structure on Mars that keeps a earth like pressure. This means for 100tons, you can build a massive pressurised area where you can walk, farm or do what ever, directly on Mars surface. We can do this weeks after they land on Mars. Again, no new technology needed. By the time Venus is Terraformed, Mars can have 5 Billion people living on it.

If you try to spread life on places that will kill 100% of it, you wont be adding any new life.
Europa's surface has more radiation than inside irradiation sanitizing machines. Venus has no water in the atmosphere for any life to reproduce, and below that is a powerful acid and temperatures hot enough to melt lead. Pluto has a very elliptical orbit and could conceivably be thrown out of our solar system by Neptune before the sun expands that big (which wont be for a very long time, if it ever gets that expanded). Titan is too cold for anything to survive, as is everything beyond Jupiter's orbit.

I think we should expand life, but we should probably find out of there is life there, before we kill it off with our own.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on July 31, 2022, 12:33:38 PM
Mars has the currently insurmountable problem of how to you get it to sustain life when it is geologically inactive/dead?

Maybe in a billion years when the sun warms it up to Earth like temperatures and water begins to flow again maybe something could happen. But humans wont be living there in a matter of decades, centuries or even in millennia

Look at how fragile Earths own eco system is. If the phytoplankton was killed off thanks to climate change, it would take most of the life on Earth down with it. For life to evolve and sustain the planet needs to be active. You need moving tectonic plates. You need active volcanoes and such. Mars is dead.

And a magnetosphere is more important than just keeping an atmosphere from wisping away. It deflects charged particles from impacting you or any technology you need to function.

If we worked really hard on both planets for the next several thousand years, Venus would be the better place to live. Of course it will also be the quicker planet to fry as the sun expands 8)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on July 31, 2022, 01:02:38 PM
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
It is OT.

You brought it up:

Being a share holder of French Arianeespace BV company I always recommend our one-way rockets to LEO or GEO. They have no engines but just solid fuel burning to produce hot gas through a nozzle catapulting the pay load into orbit. The best and cheapest way.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on July 31, 2022, 03:00:25 PM
Is you goal to compare re-usability to disposable when re-usability is not utilised in its best practical configuration.
Is your goal to compare re-usability to disposable when disposable is not utilised in its best practical configuration? Or are you specifically looking for scenarios where its less efficient? Because it looks like your trying to compare disposable in its less ideal scenarios to ideal re-usable scenarios.

Are you saying 8 t to GTO isn't a good measure for the Falcon Heavy reusable?
If so, why is that listed by space X as the standard?

The only time you will have some levels of transparency is from NASA, no where else. So your stuck comparing NASA built STS to the SLS, thats it. Or you end the conversation admitting that maybe the actual sources we have out there is the best we are going to get, and work off that.
Or I go based off the cost that they are charging.

There is a difference between losing ductility due to low temperature and hydrogen embrittlement.
I know, but the fact remains that those cryogenic temperatures for oxygen cause issues, just like hydrogen.
Hydrogen embrittlement is far more important to consider when you are dealing with things which aren't already brittle due to cryogenic temperatures.

The RS-25 engines each cost as much as 3 entire disposable Falcon9 rockets for a reason.
Because spaceX wants to make things cheap?
Because the engines are big and designed to operate efficiently from sea level to space, instead of a multi-stage craft which can be designed to operate in space or designed to operate in atmosphere.
And they were part of a much larger rocket, capable of lifting the F9's payload into orbit; while still taking people to orbit, and bringing the 78 t shuttle back down.
If you just wanted to launch the shuttle into LEO, that would require more than 3 disposable F9s.

If instead you want to focus on the SLS, that uses 4 of these engines and is claimed to be able to launch 130 t into LEO, which is equivalent to roughly 5.7 F9s.

And of course, this isn't an honest apples to apples comparison.
You are comparing the marginal cost of producing 3 disposable F9 rockets, which using the cost for a consumer of space X would be $67 million each or $201 million for the 3.
You are comparing this to the cost of setting up the facility to produce the RS-25 engines and produce a certain number of them. But even then, the cost I find is only $146 million each, closer to 2 F9s. And it only cost $40 million each for the shuttle. So what is the marginal cost for 1 RS-25 engine?

And before you even suggest I should be comparing how much it costs SpaceX to produce a disposable F9, that would only work if you are looking at the cost to produce an RS-25 engine, rather than how much NASA would pay for one.

And none of that indicates it cost so much because it uses hydrogen.

This is a whole topic by itself.
That's right. It is a complicated issue of choosing the best fuel.
It isn't a simple case of hydrogen bad, RP-1 good and doesn't have issues.
The point was that all rocket fuels have issues associated with them.
So switching to RP-1 doesn't magically solve all their issues.

EVERY STAGE.
- Launch
- Orbit
- Return to orbit (even lunar orbit!!!)
 I never said there is a reusability that combines all stages into one LV.
Well that is quite a dishonest twisting of your claim.
"Every stage" when referring to a rocket, especially in the discussion of a reusable second stage, should indicate the different stages of the rocket.
Not "hey look they recovered a sub orbital booster, so that means launch is covered"; "hey look, they recovered something in orbit, so that means orbit is covered".

It is a way to ignore the main issue.
Having enough mass in the form of rocket engines and fuel tanks to get a craft up to orbital speed, and then slow it all back down without a massive payload penalty.
The best comparison you have is to the shuttle, which ditched the main fuel tank before getting into orbit and made no attempt to recover it.

F9 R - 16.2t - $50m - $3086$/kg
Stick to a single company, and try to find all prices from the same time.
F9 R (2021) - 16.2 t - M$50 - $3086 /kg.
F9 D (2021) - 22.8 t - M$62 - $2719 /kg
F9 D GTO (2022) - 8.3 t - M$67 - $8072 / kg
FH R GTO (allegedly) - 10 t - M$97 - $9700 / kg
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 31, 2022, 07:55:57 PM
Mars has the currently insurmountable problem of how to you get it to sustain life when it is geologically inactive/dead?

Maybe in a billion years when the sun warms it up to Earth like temperatures and water begins to flow again maybe something could happen. But humans wont be living there in a matter of decades, centuries or even in millennia

Look at how fragile Earths own eco system is. If the phytoplankton was killed off thanks to climate change, it would take most of the life on Earth down with it. For life to evolve and sustain the planet needs to be active. You need moving tectonic plates. You need active volcanoes and such. Mars is dead.

And a magnetosphere is more important than just keeping an atmosphere from wisping away. It deflects charged particles from impacting you or any technology you need to function.

If we worked really hard on both planets for the next several thousand years, Venus would be the better place to live. Of course it will also be the quicker planet to fry as the sun expands 8)
You don't need evolutionary life on Mars to be able to live on Mars. Your talking about a process that is millions of years. Im talking about a process that happens in decades and centuries. The only planet that can sustain life on our solar system is Earth, and only through incredible luck did it happen.

Venus does not have a magnetosphere or plate tectonics either, its not different to Mars in this instance.

Not that you really need it, but you can make an artificial magnetosphere.

Our atmosphere provides the vast majority of our radiation protection from space. The magnetosphere only blocks charged particles which are mostly from the sun. These charged particles dissipate very quickly in an atmosphere.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on July 31, 2022, 08:43:37 PM
Is your goal to compare re-usability to disposable when disposable is not utilised in its best practical configuration? Or are you specifically looking for scenarios where its less efficient? Because it looks like your trying to compare disposable in its less ideal scenarios to ideal re-usable scenarios.

Are you saying 8 t to GTO isn't a good measure for the Falcon Heavy reusable?
If so, why is that listed by space X as the standard?
Can a disposable F9 launch more than 8.3t? No
Can a reusable FH launch more than 8t, yes. 10 tons as shown.

Or I go based off the cost that they are charging.
Which says that reusability is better for the customer in 99% of cases.

I know, but the fact remains that those cryogenic temperatures for oxygen cause issues, just like hydrogen.
Hydrogen embrittlement is far more important to consider when you are dealing with things which aren't already brittle due to cryogenic temperatures.
Your making the same mistake that you did when comparing aluminium to stainless steel in terms of handling temperature.
This is another factor that makes Hydrogen HARDER to work with. Its not the same issue, its an additional issue on top of existing issues.
Going to space is already hard. Making it harder is not a good idea.

Because spaceX wants to make things cheap?
Because the engines are big and designed to operate efficiently from sea level to space, instead of a multi-stage craft which can be designed to operate in space or designed to operate in atmosphere.
And they were part of a much larger rocket, capable of lifting the F9's payload into orbit; while still taking people to orbit, and bringing the 78 t shuttle back down.
If you just wanted to launch the shuttle into LEO, that would require more than 3 disposable F9s.

If instead you want to focus on the SLS, that uses 4 of these engines and is claimed to be able to launch 130 t into LEO, which is equivalent to roughly 5.7 F9s.

And of course, this isn't an honest apples to apples comparison.
You are comparing the marginal cost of producing 3 disposable F9 rockets, which using the cost for a consumer of space X would be $67 million each or $201 million for the 3.
You are comparing this to the cost of setting up the facility to produce the RS-25 engines and produce a certain number of them. But even then, the cost I find is only $146 million each, closer to 2 F9s. And it only cost $40 million each for the shuttle. So what is the marginal cost for 1 RS-25 engine?

And before you even suggest I should be comparing how much it costs SpaceX to produce a disposable F9, that would only work if you are looking at the cost to produce an RS-25 engine, rather than how much NASA would pay for one.

And none of that indicates it cost so much because it uses hydrogen.
RS-25's are very efficient at the loss of a lot of thrust. Because they have such low thrust they have to have side boosters. (this is by design, as they needed to keep funding those contractors) SLS is a 2.5 stage rocket. The RS-25's simply cant lift the vehicle off the ground by themselves, so they need a lot of help. Efficient at sea level is really not even a consideration, its only at altitude where the ISP becomes useful.
And I find it interesting that your comparing the cost of ONLY the 4 engines to the cost of a Falcon9, while ignoring the rest of the vehicle costing another $1-2B you need to launch something to space. (I also meant 2 DF9 not 3)
NASA is paying $3.5B for 24 engines, thats how much they are paying.

That's right. It is a complicated issue of choosing the best fuel.
It isn't a simple case of hydrogen bad, RP-1 good and doesn't have issues.
The point was that all rocket fuels have issues associated with them.
So switching to RP-1 doesn't magically solve all their issues.
Hydrogen 1st stages tend to cost more as you need larger tanks and either a lot more engines due to low thrust or side boosters.
DeltaH costs $350-$450m.
Hydrogen is great once you are out of the atmosphere and are not fighting gravity.
You want hydrogen in space and another fuel on the ground. The issue comes in additional complexity in handling more than one fuel on the ground. This is why its generally not mixed.

Well that is quite a dishonest twisting of your claim.
"Every stage" when referring to a rocket, especially in the discussion of a reusable second stage, should indicate the different stages of the rocket.
Not "hey look they recovered a sub orbital booster, so that means launch is covered"; "hey look, they recovered something in orbit, so that means orbit is covered".

It is a way to ignore the main issue.
Having enough mass in the form of rocket engines and fuel tanks to get a craft up to orbital speed, and then slow it all back down without a massive payload penalty.
The best comparison you have is to the shuttle, which ditched the main fuel tank before getting into orbit and made no attempt to recover it.
That was my original claim, literally what else could I have meant?
And again, for the 10 millionth time, who gives a crap about losing unused payload capacity?

Stick to a single company, and try to find all prices from the same time.
F9 R (2021) - 16.2 t - M$50 - $3086 /kg.
F9 D (2021) - 22.8 t - M$62 - $2719 /kg
F9 D GTO (2022) - 8.3 t - M$67 - $8072 / kg
FH R GTO (allegedly) - 10 t - M$97 - $9700 / kg
Great, now go find what the customers are flying. And why.
Because by your rational, F9 would only fly in disposable mode. Why has it not done this in over a year?
Your cost per kg as the only metric to measure a rocket by is idiotic, as it actually increases how much clients pay per launch for 99% of launches.
Does a F9 D still cost $2719$/kg to LEO at 10t? No
Does a F9 D still cost $8072$/kg to GEO at 8.4t? No
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on August 01, 2022, 03:59:22 AM
Can a disposable F9 launch more than 8.3t? No
Can a reusable FH launch more than 8t, yes. 10 tons as shown.
As claimed.
Where has it actually been shown?

Likewise, can a reusable F9 launch more than 17 t? No.
Can a disposable F9 launch more than 17 t? Yes.

Which says that reusability is better for the customer in 99% of cases.
When using an oversized rocket.

Your making the same mistake that you did when comparing aluminium to stainless steel in terms of handling temperature.
No I'm not.
I am pointing out there are comparable issues regardless of which you use.
Removing hydrogen doesn't magically fix it so you no longer need to consider the issue of embrittlement.
Going down your path seems to be if there was an alternative which behaved just like hydrogen, but isn't hydrogen, then it woudln't have to deal with "those issues" even though the issues it had to deal with would be virtually identical.

And I find it interesting that your comparing the cost of ONLY the 4 engines to the cost of a Falcon9
You are the one wanting to compare it to the cost of the Falcon 9. I just continued with that.

Hydrogen 1st stages tend to cost more as you need larger tanks and either a lot more engines due to low thrust or side boosters.
And a similar argument could be made the other way.
Ultimately it will depend on the specifics of each rocket.

You want hydrogen in space and another fuel on the ground. The issue comes in additional complexity in handling more than one fuel on the ground. This is why its generally not mixed.
Which allows either to be the better choice, depending on the specifics.

That was my original claim, literally what else could I have meant?
Your original claim was:
The fundamental issues are still there.
You are taking a craft and accelerating it to orbital speed at orbital height.
You then need to slow it down, get it through the atmosphere without burning up and being destroyed, and then recovering it.
This is like explaining how a car and horse are fundamentally the same because they accelerate you through the landscape, can be steered and can drop you off at your house.
All stages you just described have craft that can be reused for that stage. Starship is just putting all those stages together in 2 (Booster and SS) components.
Which in turn came from a direct reference to spaceX abandoning second stage reusability for the F9.
And this was from discussing starship, where it would be the second stage that is accelerating to orbital speed and then slowing back down to return to Earth.

So it certainly seems like I was talking about a stage which goes to orbit and then comes back to Earth. Not a stage which goes to orbit, then discards a large portion of it, for some of it to come back to orbit.

And again, for the 10 millionth time, who gives a crap about losing unused payload capacity?
The issue is for people that want to use it, or need to pay more for that unused capacity.

Again, how much cheaper would an F9 be if it was appropriately sized?

Because by your rational, F9 would only fly in disposable mode.
Based on what?
We have already covered that the F9 is ridiculously oversized for the majority of the payloads it carries.
I also wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX is trying to force people to reusable to boost their image.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on August 01, 2022, 04:46:56 AM
As claimed.
Where has it actually been shown?

Likewise, can a reusable F9 launch more than 17 t? No.
Can a disposable F9 launch more than 17 t? Yes.
I showed you the source with one of the Chief SpaceX engineers presenting that information.
But its fairly obvious that a FH returning to down range will have more capacity than returning to launch site.
Your comparing the best of a F9 D to a less ideal FH R.
What exactly are you trying to show?

When using an oversized rocket.
Define what this means. Because its not oversized for reuse.
An AtlasV is sized at a F9 R and costs a lot more even than a disposable.

You have additional issues that for every rocket you reuse, you dont need to build an additonal booster.
This means lower fixed cost, which adds to the picture.
Your ignoring that SpaceX can launch 60+ rockets a year because of reuse while keeping fixed cost low.

So removing reusability would mean you need to increase the price for disposable launches as you increase your fixed cost. Or massively decrease your launch rate.

Its a business model, not just a rocket.

No I'm not.
I am pointing out there are comparable issues regardless of which you use.
Removing hydrogen doesn't magically fix it so you no longer need to consider the issue of embrittlement.
Going down your path seems to be if there was an alternative which behaved just like hydrogen, but isn't hydrogen, then it woudln't have to deal with "those issues" even though the issues it had to deal with would be virtually identical.
Hydrogen means you cant use certain materials that could be used for other fuels. Its not a cold problem, its a Hydrogen problem.
Almost all launches that are held during countdown for hydrolox rockets are due to Hydrogen leaks.
You even get issues like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D)
"While evacuating the shuttle, the crew was doused with water from the pad deluge system, which was activated due to a hydrogen fire on the launch pad caused by the free hydrogen (fuel) that had collected around the engine nozzles following the shutdown and engine anomaly.[8] Because the fire was invisible to humans, had the astronauts used the normal emergency escape procedure across the service arm to the slidewire escape baskets, they would have run into the fire"
I am not even sure why your arguing against this, its a well recorded issue that has caused loads of issues on the STS.

And a similar argument could be made the other way.
Ultimately it will depend on the specifics of each rocket.
I just said hydrogen is not the all and be all of rocket engines. Its just a thing, im not even making a specific arguement here.

Your original claim was:
This is like explaining how a car and horse are fundamentally the same because they accelerate you through the landscape, can be steered and can drop you off at your house.
All stages you just described have craft that can be reused for that stage. Starship is just putting all those stages together in 2 (Booster and SS) components.
Which in turn came from a direct reference to spaceX abandoning second stage reusability for the F9.
And this was from discussing starship, where it would be the second stage that is accelerating to orbital speed and then slowing back down to return to Earth.

So it certainly seems like I was talking about a stage which goes to orbit and then comes back to Earth. Not a stage which goes to orbit, then discards a large portion of it, for some of it to come back to orbit.
You have very badly misunderstood what I was saying here.
So im going to leave this and only circle back if you really want to.

The issue is for people that want to use it, or need to pay more for that unused capacity.

Again, how much cheaper would an F9 be if it was appropriately sized?
According to all other rockets given as examples, it would cost more.
Its not just the fact that reusability is cheaper for the targeted payloads.
Its that the entire business model allows it to be cheaper.

Lets expand this
F9 booster and upper stage use the same tooling to make.
They are the same size, use the same engines and fuel. And share a lot of other components.
SpaceX can keep a small team to just make F9 2nd stages and engines that never return. There is fixed cost and variable cost attached to this.

Now, if they can produce 10 upper stages and 1 boosters a year, then they have a cost of X
To produce a 2nd booster would mean they need to expand their factories, tooling and team. But your booster is about 3times bigger with 9 times more engines.

Lets look at what a reusable factory needs to produce a year vs a disposable for 10 launches a year

Reusable
1 Booster stage + 9 engines
10 Upper stage + 10 engine
Total of 19 engines and 11 boosters + upperstages

Disposable
10 Booster stages + 90 engines
10 Upper stages + 10 engines
Total 100 engines and 20 boostes + upperstages
You have now more than doubled or trippled the factory (boosters are bigger than upper stages) that produces boosters + upperstages and made your engine factory 5 times bigger.

At the very least, your launching for 3 times the price as previous, which is what we see if we look at other rockets.
Yes, we now have a 16t to orbit craft and not a 28t to orbit, but most customers want 16t or less tonnage.

So now you have the same amount of launches
can launch 30% more mass that no one is asking for
for 3 - 5 times the price

To make a 16ton Disposable rocket is not half as big or complex, its maybe 3/4 as big and complex.
AtlasV is about 58m in height vs F9's 71m but they weight very close to the same.

They can afford a extra disposable here and there as they are still producing boosters. Especially disposing of well used rockets which have paid for themselves over multiple times. But moving to a disposable rocket business model dramatically increases the cost of your launches.

You have to see this in context. And the context is why ULA and the others have taken so long to adjust to the new market.

It really comes down to one thing more than actual cost/kg for the makers of these rockets

Cadence

Reusability depends on a high flight rate. This model falls apart if you only fly a few times a year, as your fixed cost stays the same, even if you only fly one rocket a year. For disposable rockets, low flight rates dont matter as much. For high flight rate, you want re-usable rockets.

Based on what?
We have already covered that the F9 is ridiculously oversized for the majority of the payloads it carries.
I also wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX is trying to force people to reusable to boost their image.
Clients can use all those other cheaper disposable rockets, oh wait, they dont exist.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 07:01:34 AM
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
No, it is better you copy and paste from my website what makes you think is wrong.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on August 01, 2022, 10:43:48 AM
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
No, it is better you copy and paste from my website what makes you think is wrong.

What makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built? Or did you design and build the Ariane 5?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 11:00:04 AM
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
No, it is better you copy and paste from my website what makes you think is wrong.

What makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built? Or did you design and build the Ariane 5?
I just think solid fuel is best. Only NASA believes in crazy liquid hydrogen and oxygene.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on August 01, 2022, 11:47:50 AM
My thoughts on Elon Musk (topic) is on my website since many years. Lone Skum is just a joke.

Just copy and paste from your website here what makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built.
No, it is better you copy and paste from my website what makes you think is wrong.

What makes you think Ariane Space is wrong about what they've designed and built? Or did you design and build the Ariane 5?
I just think solid fuel is best. Only NASA believes in crazy liquid hydrogen and oxygene.

You deciding what you think is best is entirely irrelevant to reality. And no, not only does NASA use liquid fuel, so does Ariane Space. They don't share what YOU, a lone conspiracy theorist with zero expertise in space engineering, think is best.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on August 01, 2022, 12:19:47 PM
I just think solid fuel is best. Only NASA believes in crazy liquid hydrogen and oxygene.
And by NASA you mean ESA, Roscosmos, CCP and everyone else. Although NASA does have the most history with Hydrogen, Ariane 5's core stage is hydrogen and oxygen . . . You really should learn something about these rockets that you supposedly have shares in.

ICBM are mostly solids because they are easy to store with no maintenance. Most rockets with solid stages share heritage with some ICBM.
The Minotaur IV is the biggest rocket that is all solids that I can think of, its also American, expensive and does not put a lot in orbit.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 12:28:43 PM
I just think solid fuel is best. Only NASA believes in crazy liquid hydrogen and oxygene.
And by NASA you mean ESA, Roscosmos, CCP and everyone else. Although NASA does have the most history with Hydrogen, Ariane 5's core stage is hydrogen and oxygen . . . You really should learn something about these rockets that you supposedly have shares in.

ICBM are mostly solids because they are easy to store with no maintenance. Most rockets with solid stages share heritage with some ICBM.
The Minotaur IV is the biggest rocket that is all solids that I can think of, its also American, expensive and does not put a lot in orbit.
Well, the Saturn 5 liquid fuel rockets were just balloons full of helium taking off to impress/fool the TV audience. NASA got away with it and Elon Musk just copies the nonsense with his SpaceX shit flying nowhere.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on August 01, 2022, 12:37:32 PM
Well, the Saturn 5 liquid fuel rockets were just balloons full of helium taking off to impress/fool the TV audience. NASA got away with it and Elon Musk just copies the nonsense with his SpaceX shit flying nowhere.
You really pivot quickly.
You clearly dont know the first thing about rockets. You dont know how the very ESA rockets that you like so much are made, or how they work.
I very much doubt you know the first thing about SaturnV or SpaceX.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on August 01, 2022, 03:14:29 PM
I showed you the source with one of the Chief SpaceX engineers presenting that information.
A source with incorrect numbers for F9.

But its fairly obvious that a FH returning to down range will have more capacity than returning to launch site.
And as I said, that would require moving the drone ship (or both depending on the direction) to a different ocean.

Define what this means. Because its not oversized for reuse.
According to your prior claim it certainly is oversized for reuse as well. Remember you claimed the majority were less than 5 t, which is much less than the ~16 t for LEO.
I would define it where the actual payload is less than 90% of the capacity.

An AtlasV
Is from a different company, significantly complicating the comparison.

You have additional issues that for every rocket you reuse, you dont need to build an additonal booster.
This means lower fixed cost, which adds to the picture.
For a model of reuse.
For a model of disposable, that would not be part of the fixed costs.

Your ignoring that SpaceX can launch 60+ rockets
Another hypothetical "can"?
Rather than what they have actually done?
in 2021, their best total year, they launched 31 rockets. Roughly half of your claim of 60+.
In 2022, so far they have launched 33, with more planned, noting that several of those planned have been delayed from prior years, and don't have definitive dates.

Hydrogen means you cant use certain materials that could be used for other fuels. Its not a cold problem, its a Hydrogen problem.
Almost all launches that are held during countdown for hydrolox rockets are due to Hydrogen leaks.
And you have similar issues of leaks, even those causing explosions:
https://spacenews.com/spacex-narrows-down-cause-of-falcon-9-pad-explosion/

You have very badly misunderstood what I was saying here.
Or have you very badly stated what you meant to say?

According to all other rockets given as examples, it would cost more.
Again, how much would a theoretical smaller rocket cost?
One more appropriately sized for the payloads?

Lets look at what a reusable factory needs to produce a year vs a disposable for 10 launches a year
And don't forget what is needed for the refurbishment either, and all the additional components required for landing.

You are acting like reuse needs nothing extra so it is just a case of make the booster once and you can then just use it as many times as you want with no additional costs.

Reusability depends on a high flight rate. This model falls apart if you only fly a few times a year
So imagine how much worse off SpaceX would be if they weren't continually launching starlink or other useless space junk?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on August 01, 2022, 03:17:19 PM
Well, the Saturn 5 liquid fuel rockets were just balloons full of helium taking off to impress/fool the TV audience. NASA got away with it and Elon Musk just copies the nonsense with his SpaceX shit flying nowhere.
So what was providing all the fire?
It certainly didn't look like a helium filled balloon floating away.

So it seems like you are the fool here.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2022, 05:53:09 PM
Define what this means. Because its not oversized for reuse.
According to your prior claim it certainly is oversized for reuse as well. Remember you claimed the majority were less than 5 t, which is much less than the ~16 t for LEO.
Here is a list of F9 and FH launches with payload masses.  You decide if the majority of the boosters were oversized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2010_to_2019

I would define it where the actual payload is less than 90% of the capacity.
Have you checked with any other medium and heavy lift satellite launchers to see how many of their rockets are oversized for their payloads?  In fact, have you checked with any of the other satellite launch providers for their price/kg to orbit?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 01, 2022, 06:43:30 PM
Well, the Saturn 5 liquid fuel rockets were just balloons full of helium taking off to impress/fool the TV audience. NASA got away with it and Elon Musk just copies the nonsense with his SpaceX shit flying nowhere.
You really pivot quickly.
You clearly dont know the first thing about rockets. You dont know how the very ESA rockets that you like so much are made, or how they work.
I very much doubt you know the first thing about SaturnV or SpaceX.
But how could a Saturn 5 rocket lift off at all? The ones I have seen on film looked like balloons flying away and disappearing in the sky with a smoke generator attached to the bottom ŕ la Stanley Kubrick.
Elon Musk uses the same tricks with his rockets landing on barges far away out a sea.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2022, 07:10:30 PM
But how could a Saturn 5 rocket lift off at all?
Pretty much the same way that an Ariane 5 lifts off; more thrust than weight.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on August 01, 2022, 08:32:33 PM
At this point, Black Jack I think you are just being argumentitive vs actually having an issue with the argument itself.

I mean, do you really think 4 legs, 4 fins, some RCS thrusters and a bit of fuel costs more than 10 rocket boosters and 90 engines? They have multiple boosters with more than 10 flights now.
Quote
And don't forget what is needed for the refurbishment either, and all the additional components required for landing.
Do you really think this, or are you just argueing for the sake of it?

If you have actual points you want to continue discussing, let me know. But the discussion is overly fractured now.

Quote
But how could a Saturn 5 rocket lift off at all? The ones I have seen on film looked like balloons flying away and disappearing in the sky with a smoke generator attached to the bottom ŕ la Stanley Kubrick.
Elon Musk uses the same tricks with his rockets landing on barges far away out a sea.
Here is a challenge for you Heiwa, seeing that you like those.
How big a balloon do you need to lift 200 000kg's at 3g's of acceleration?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: JackBlack on August 02, 2022, 12:06:14 AM
But how could a Saturn 5 rocket lift off at all?
By using a rocket, projecting a lot of hot gases at high velocity out the base.

Just what do you think is the problem?
That it lifted up slowly due to how heavy it was compared to the thrust it was producing, instead of acting like a toy that rapidly accelerates?

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on August 02, 2022, 12:28:46 AM

But how could a Saturn 5 rocket lift off at all?

NASA lights a fire and blows some smoke then switches off gravity to allow the paper mache prop to levitate into space. Then NASA switches gravity back on before anyone notices.  You're awesome, buddy.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 02, 2022, 04:44:23 AM

But how could a Saturn 5 rocket lift off at all?

NASA lights a fire and blows some smoke then switches off gravity to allow the paper mache prop to levitate into space. Then NASA switches gravity back on before anyone notices.  You're awesome, buddy.
I know. NASA balloon spaceships lifting off with smoke generators at the bottom live on TV are impressive.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on August 02, 2022, 01:59:01 PM
I know. NASA balloon spaceships lifting off with smoke generators at the bottom live on TV are impressive.
Actually, the big cloud during a Saturn V lift off isn't smoke.  Most of it is actually steam from the water based sound suppression system.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sound-suppression-system.html

If you look at liquid fuel rockets in flight, you will generally see very little smoke.  It's the solid rocket motors that produce most of the smoke.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 03, 2022, 10:28:34 PM
I know. NASA balloon spaceships lifting off with smoke generators at the bottom live on TV are impressive.
Actually, the big cloud during a Saturn V lift off isn't smoke.  Most of it is actually steam from the water based sound suppression system.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sound-suppression-system.html

If you look at liquid fuel rockets in flight, you will generally see very little smoke.  It's the solid rocket motors that produce most of the smoke.
Yes, that's what I like. Solid, simple, cheap, European fuel rocket engines! Elon Musk loves liquid fuel engines that cost more paid for by NASA and US tax payers.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on August 03, 2022, 11:50:25 PM
I know. NASA balloon spaceships lifting off with smoke generators at the bottom live on TV are impressive.
Actually, the big cloud during a Saturn V lift off isn't smoke.  Most of it is actually steam from the water based sound suppression system.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sound-suppression-system.html

If you look at liquid fuel rockets in flight, you will generally see very little smoke.  It's the solid rocket motors that produce most of the smoke.
Yes, that's what I like. Solid, simple, cheap, European fuel rocket engines! Elon Musk loves liquid fuel engines that cost more paid for by NASA and US tax payers.

European rocket engines like liquid fuel as well, because they use it:
(https://i.imgur.com/xLcE1E4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/VXnM105.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3xa8bXa.png)
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 04, 2022, 12:56:40 AM
Thanks. I know. But it is a joke to keep Elon Musk happy.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on August 04, 2022, 10:35:17 AM
Thanks. I know. But it is a joke to keep Elon Musk happy.

Ariane 1 first successfully launched and delivered a satellite to orbit in 1979:

Ariane 1 was liquid-fueled; it originally used a mixture of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UMDH) and nitrogen tetroxide. However, after a launcher exploded in May 1980, the fuel mixture was changed to the more stable mixture of UMDH and hydrazine.

Elon Musk was 8 years old in 1979.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on August 04, 2022, 06:54:12 PM
Yes, that's what I like. Solid, simple, cheap, European fuel rocket engines!
How many Europeans do those rocket motors burn?

BTW, in the rocket industry, solid propellant rockets are generally referred to as rocket motors.  Liquid propellant rockets are generally referred to as rocket engines.  Just thought that you ought to know.

Elon Musk loves liquid fuel engines that cost more paid for by NASA and US tax payers.
And NASA is getting a real bargain compared to their usual launch providers.

Thanks. I know. But it is a joke to keep Elon Musk happy.
Why would Arianespace care about keeping Elon Musk happy? ???
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 04, 2022, 07:46:27 PM
Yes, that's what I like. Solid, simple, cheap, European fuel rocket engines!
How many Europeans do those rocket motors burn?

BTW, in the rocket industry, solid propellant rockets are generally referred to as rocket motors.  Liquid propellant rockets are generally referred to as rocket engines.  Just thought that you ought to know.

Elon Musk loves liquid fuel engines that cost more paid for by NASA and US tax payers.
And NASA is getting a real bargain compared to their usual launch providers.

Thanks. I know. But it is a joke to keep Elon Musk happy.
Why would Arianespace care about keeping Elon Musk happy? ???
Thanks for comments. Personally I consider the whole "space business" a hoax and fraud since the mid 1950's with communist satellites and Gagarin orbiting Earth and NASA trying to win the war about it. All of it.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: markjo on August 04, 2022, 07:59:39 PM
Personally I consider the whole "space business" a hoax and fraud since the mid 1950's with communist satellites and Gagarin orbiting Earth and NASA trying to win the war about it. All of it.
And personally I consider you to be the living embodiment of the phrase "ignorance is bliss".
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 04, 2022, 08:14:09 PM
Personally I consider the whole "space business" a hoax and fraud since the mid 1950's with communist satellites and Gagarin orbiting Earth and NASA trying to win the war about it. All of it.
And personally I consider you to be the living embodiment of the phrase "ignorance is bliss".
I know. But I have been around an checked "history" on the spot and talked to people involved. Take e.g. this Gagarin story and his trip in space - orbiting Earth - April 1961. It was fake news! 
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on August 05, 2022, 01:05:49 AM
. . . I have been around an checked "history" on the spot and talked to people involved. Take e.g. this Gagarin story and his trip in space - orbiting Earth - April 1961. It was fake news!
Who in their right mind would believe that shit?It had never been done before therefore it was impossible. 

Simple logic. Nothing is possible that has not been done before.
Just GEENUSE LOGKIC!!!1!!1!  (remember him?)   ;D




Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 05, 2022, 01:17:40 AM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Bullwinkle on August 05, 2022, 01:38:49 AM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
I was 2 in 1963.  I didn't love her.  She was not young and beautiful to me.
I understand, life through your lens is distorted by dementia, general malaise
and lack of basic cognitive skills. 

I would still enjoy spending a day with you.  I feel it would be fascinating. 
I would even be willing to sign a NDA and NSA. 

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 05, 2022, 03:17:38 AM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
I was 2 in 1963.  I didn't love her.  She was not young and beautiful to me.
I understand, life through your lens is distorted by dementia, general malaise
and lack of basic cognitive skills. 

I would still enjoy spending a day with you.  I feel it would be fascinating. 
I would even be willing to sign a NDA and NSA.
Thanks, but I prefer a date with Valentina Tereshkova.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on August 05, 2022, 04:04:39 AM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
I was 2 in 1963.  I didn't love her.  She was not young and beautiful to me.
I understand, life through your lens is distorted by dementia, general malaise
and lack of basic cognitive skills. 

I would still enjoy spending a day with you.  I feel it would be fascinating. 
I would even be willing to sign a NDA and NSA.
Thanks, but I prefer a date with Valentina Tereshkova.

What happened to your offer for anyone to come over to your office for a chat?
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 05, 2022, 08:38:26 AM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
I was 2 in 1963.  I didn't love her.  She was not young and beautiful to me.
I understand, life through your lens is distorted by dementia, general malaise
and lack of basic cognitive skills. 

I would still enjoy spending a day with you.  I feel it would be fascinating. 
I would even be willing to sign a NDA and NSA.
Thanks, but I prefer a date with Valentina Tereshkova.

What happened to your offer for anyone to come over to your office for a chat?
It still stands. My full style is at my website. No mask or vaxx pass is required.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on August 07, 2022, 11:35:53 PM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
His source . . . none.

Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 08, 2022, 10:18:02 PM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
His source . . . none.
Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova . There is no evidence that Valentina was in space 16 June 1963 except some info from Tass and Pravda known for being truthful.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on August 08, 2022, 11:47:57 PM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
His source . . . none.
Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova . There is no evidence that Valentina was in space 16 June 1963 except some info from Tass and Pravda known for being truthful.

Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulombi_Egg_Tanker . There is no evidence that a Coulombi Egg Tanker was ever built except for some info from a lone conspiracy theorist.

The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built.[1]
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 09, 2022, 10:36:07 AM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
His source . . . none.
Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova . There is no evidence that Valentina was in space 16 June 1963 except some info from Tass and Pravda known for being truthful.

Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulombi_Egg_Tanker . There is no evidence that a Coulombi Egg Tanker was ever built except for some info from a lone conspiracy theorist.

The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built.[1]

Thanks for the link. Yes, the Coulombi Egg tanker design was approved by the United Nation's  IMO September 1997 and anyone could build it by paying a fee to me holding the patents. The patents are now expired and anyone can use the concept. I explain the full story at my website.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on August 09, 2022, 10:45:41 AM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
His source . . . none.
Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova . There is no evidence that Valentina was in space 16 June 1963 except some info from Tass and Pravda known for being truthful.

Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulombi_Egg_Tanker . There is no evidence that a Coulombi Egg Tanker was ever built except for some info from a lone conspiracy theorist.

The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built.[1]

Thanks for the link. Yes, the Coulombi Egg tanker design was approved by the United Nation's  IMO September 1997 and anyone could build it by paying a fee to me holding the patents. The patents are now expired and anyone can use the concept. I explain the full story at my website.

Am I missing something? We have a thread exactly about the shitty and failed and never built Coulombi Egg tanker. This thread is about how much of a dickhead Elon Musk is. So how about we talk shitty Coulombi Egg tankers in its dedicated thread, and talk about what a dick Elon is, in this thread

Does that seem fair? YOU Heiwa, can spam your shitty tanker design all you want in that thread. Leave this thread for people to spam how shitty Elon is
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 09, 2022, 10:16:21 PM
On 16 June 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel into space. We all loved her. She was young and beautiful then and still alive today. But she never traveled in space. It was fake news!
His source . . . none.
Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova . There is no evidence that Valentina was in space 16 June 1963 except some info from Tass and Pravda known for being truthful.

Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulombi_Egg_Tanker . There is no evidence that a Coulombi Egg Tanker was ever built except for some info from a lone conspiracy theorist.

The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built.[1]

Thanks for the link. Yes, the Coulombi Egg tanker design was approved by the United Nation's  IMO September 1997 and anyone could build it by paying a fee to me holding the patents. The patents are now expired and anyone can use the concept. I explain the full story at my website.

Am I missing something? We have a thread exactly about the shitty and failed and never built Coulombi Egg tanker. This thread is about how much of a dickhead Elon Musk is. So how about we talk shitty Coulombi Egg tankers in its dedicated thread, and talk about what a dick Elon is, in this thread

Does that seem fair? YOU Heiwa, can spam your shitty tanker design all you want in that thread. Leave this thread for people to spam how shitty Elon is
I agree that Elon Musk is an American fraud kept alive by US MSM. It has some similarities with the US treatment of the CE tanker.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Stash on August 09, 2022, 11:04:25 PM
I agree that Elon Musk is an American fraud kept alive by US MSM. It has some similarities with the US treatment of the CE tanker.

Zero similarities.
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Heiwa on August 10, 2022, 04:50:59 AM
I agree that Elon Musk is an American fraud kept alive by US MSM. It has some similarities with the US treatment of the CE tanker.

Zero similarities.
No, Musk is a fraud today like the USCG admiral that suddenly outlawed the CE tanker . I am happy not to live in USA
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on August 10, 2022, 06:13:30 AM
Just google ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova . There is no evidence that Valentina was in space 16 June 1963 except some info from Tass and Pravda known for being truthful.
I See over 100 sources there. I see nothing from you.

but here https://zoharesque.blogspot.com/2022/06/valentina-tereshkova-and-double.html (https://zoharesque.blogspot.com/2022/06/valentina-tereshkova-and-double.html) this is a surprisingly fitting source for you
Title: Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
Post by: Masalang the Torpedo on August 10, 2022, 06:15:26 AM
I am happy not to live in USA

You and me both!