Your thoughts on Elon musk?

  • 1438 Replies
  • 94013 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #270 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #271 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #272 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?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 10:29:29 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #273 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #274 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?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #275 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.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #276 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.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #277 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.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #278 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.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #279 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
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.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2022, 06:53:26 AM by MaNaeSWolf »
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #280 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.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2022, 01:17:24 AM by JackBlack »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #281 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #282 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.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #283 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/
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.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #284 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.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #285 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 . . .
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #286 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.

« Last Edit: July 26, 2022, 07:07:53 AM by NotSoSkeptical »
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #287 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


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.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #288 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #289 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.

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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #290 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.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #291 on: July 26, 2022, 10:15:09 PM »
A puppet for the establishment, like Zuckerberg and such.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #292 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?
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #293 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #294 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
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #295 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.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #296 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?

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #297 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.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #298 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/
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #299 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.