Re: Space X
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:20 pm
Leaving false strength conventions behind
https://www.exodus-strength.com/forum/
It wasn't so much to save money as it was to save TIME. This was never going to be the final iteration of the pad, it needed major renovations to handle repeated launches anyway. So they were already planning to spend that money. The rocket was ready, the pad wasn't, they didn't want to wait. And, supposing they waited 3-6 more months while finishing a more complex flame handling system, only to blow the rocket up on the pad, which was a real possibility that arguably almost happened. Okay now you have to rebuild the fancy upgraded pad instead of the bare-bones just make it work pad. Now you've wasted the time and the money.
And the fact that it is the largest rocket ever is arguably 4th or 5th on the list of things that make it impressive and important.BostonRugger wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:22 am I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.
It seems they barely eclipsed the Saturn V in some of the dick measuring metrics ....BostonRugger wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:22 am I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.
They probably fucked themselves by cheeping-out on smartly fabricating a disposable pad: Debris prolly fucked up the rocket yet they don't want to say it because it was all this "intentional smartly calculated short-cut" mikey describes.mikeylikey wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:19 amIt wasn't so much to save money as it was to save TIME. This was never going to be the final iteration of the pad, it needed major renovations to handle repeated launches anyway. So they were already planning to spend that money. The rocket was ready, the pad wasn't, they didn't want to wait. And, supposing they waited 3-6 more months while finishing a more complex flame handling system, only to blow the rocket up on the pad, which was a real possibility that arguably almost happened. Okay now you have to rebuild the fancy upgraded pad instead of the bare-bones just make it work pad. Now you've wasted the time and the money.
You have to understand that this wasn't a question of cheaping out. It's an inherent part of SpaceX's philosophy; go as fast as you can and fix problems as they come up. Which seems dumb right up until it doesn't.
lol at "Rock Tornado"Back on the ground, Musk said the booster created a “rock tornado” underneath the rocket as it was lifting off. While SpaceX has not seen “evidence that the rock tornado actually damaged engines or heat shields in a material way,” Musk noted that the company “certainly didn’t expect” to destroy the launch pad’s concrete and create a crater in its wake.
“One of the more plausible explanations is that ... we may have compressed the sand underneath the concrete to such a degree that the concrete effectively bent and then cracked,” Musk said.
I'm too dumb to even conceive of all that. Big rocket go WHHOOOOOOSHHHHHHHHmikeylikey wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:26 amAnd the fact that it is the largest rocket ever is arguably 4th or 5th on the list of things that make it impressive and important.BostonRugger wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:22 am I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.
Rockets were pretty mature technology by the late 60s. The Germans had figured out how to convert something like 85% of the energy from burning chemical fuel into thrust in the 1940s. By the Saturn V they were at about 95%. Space X today is maybe pushing 97% efficiency. Diminishing returns are the name of the game in rockets. There are limits of physics that can't be engineered around. Much Pareto.
Too much 4D chess for Musk. The ongoing Twitter saga has shown he doesn't think that far ahead. Bare in mind he had his engineers make the rocket nose more pointy after watching the Dictator. A rounded nose is better by the way.mikeylikey wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:19 amIt wasn't so much to save money as it was to save TIME. This was never going to be the final iteration of the pad, it needed major renovations to handle repeated launches anyway. So they were already planning to spend that money. The rocket was ready, the pad wasn't, they didn't want to wait. And, supposing they waited 3-6 more months while finishing a more complex flame handling system, only to blow the rocket up on the pad, which was a real possibility that arguably almost happened. Okay now you have to rebuild the fancy upgraded pad instead of the bare-bones just make it work pad. Now you've wasted the time and the money.
You have to understand that this wasn't a question of cheaping out. It's an inherent part of SpaceX's philosophy; go as fast as you can and fix problems as they come up. Which seems dumb right up until it doesn't.
Not to mention We the People were willing to accept A LOT more risk. And keep in mind Nasa was 5% of GDP for ~10 years. It is now a tenth of 1%. Unlimited funding plus disposable astronauts equals A LOT of progress.mikeylikey wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 3:49 pmRockets were pretty mature technology by the late 60s. The Germans had figured out how to convert something like 85% of the energy from burning chemical fuel into thrust in the 1940s. By the Saturn V they were at about 95%. Space X today is maybe pushing 97% efficiency. Diminishing returns are the name of the game in rockets. There are limits of physics that can't be engineered around. Much Pareto.
I don't think it is 4d chess. Elon wanted to launch as fast as possible, and factors both reasonable (overall design philosophy) and silly (4/20!), no doubt played into that decision. The outcome wasn't ideal but not as bad as some are making it out to be.
I am not sure what a "state sponsored company" is but it seems like an unnecessarily pejorative moniker. SpaceX does contract work for the federal government. So do IBM and Phizer.The $$$ is no big deal as Space X is a state sponsored company. There is more printed money to replace the printed money that just exploded. It is the lawsuit Space X and the FAA will now have to fight before they can launch again. Which will take a lot longer than 3-6 months to resolve. Please see previous GIF.
The apollo mission cost, allowing for inflation, a quarter of a *trillion* dollars. It's difficult to comprehend just how ridiculous a thing it is to have done. You can't really compare it to a contemporary effort towards a commercially viable operation.mbasic wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 11:28 amIt seems they barely eclipsed the Saturn V in some of the dick measuring metrics ....BostonRugger wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:22 am I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.
...but Saturn rockets were circa 19-fucking-60's tech, materials, engineering, etc .... drawn up with slide rulers and pencils. Seems like they should be able to do better these days.
I can compare with basic tech problems and logistical mistakes.convergentsum wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 3:46 amThe apollo mission cost, allowing for inflation, a quarter of a *trillion* dollars. It's difficult to comprehend just how ridiculous a thing it is to have done. You can't really compare it to a contemporary effort towards a commercially viable operation.mbasic wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 11:28 amIt seems they barely eclipsed the Saturn V in some of the dick measuring metrics ....BostonRugger wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:22 am I think launching the largest rocket ever is cool and good.
...but Saturn rockets were circa 19-fucking-60's tech, materials, engineering, etc .... drawn up with slide rulers and pencils. Seems like they should be able to do better these days.
Acktchually, as with Start Wars, they started with #4.mbasic wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 5:22 am Dickipedia tells me 165 Billion-2021-dollars for a ten year program that was like 20-some-odd launches (test flights and 17 Apollo space missions).
This is what I was getting at a couple posts back;Some of this stuff is funny.
They really can't improve things too much beyond a certain point because physics.
B-52 is still a pretty impressive and useful platform even today.
Yes and no. The basic physics of converting heat to thrust is pretty simple and has been well understood for 100 years. This is why you shouldn't expect huge improvements in the "dick measuring" metrics. There is just not enough meat left on the bone."Space Rockets" are fairly basic lowbrow technology: throw a projectile and hard as possible with a controlled explosion to escape earth's gravity.
What are you getting at here? That I should cut them some slack because we are comparing quasi-reuseable rockets with one time use units of the 60's?mikeylikey wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 7:02 am Until you stop throwing away a 9-plus-figure $$$ rocket after every use the rest is mostly academic.
Uh, I guess? You were complaining that it's not that much bigger than Apollo. I think that misses the point.mbasic wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 10:58 amWhat are you getting at here? That I should cut them some slack because we are comparing quasi-reuseable rockets with one time use units of the 60's?mikeylikey wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 7:02 am Until you stop throwing away a 9-plus-figure $$$ rocket after every use the rest is mostly academic.
So what, nobody should try because you heard it was hard?As an aside, I thought/heard the whole re-useable aspect is a joke.
By the time you have recover, inspect, certify, refurbish a re-useable rocket .... the cost and "turn-around" time doesn't make sense.
Especially if you are putting people on them.
Reuseable rockets are ... to your point I think .... harder to engineer and make, and more expensive than disposable rockets.
They still only will have so many launches in them.
If something fucks up on the reentry/landing part .... ooof, that's a huge loss and really fucks up The Books.
mikeylikey wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 11:26 am We all remember the famous JFK quote, "We do these things because they are easy. To hell with things that are hard."
50 October 26, 1963 Austin, TX Texas 10–6
51 October 24, 1964 Houston, TX Texas 6–3
52 October 23, 1965 Austin, TX Rice 20–17
53 October 22, 1966 Houston, TX Texas 14–6
54 October 28, 1967 Austin, TX Texas 28–6
55 October 26, 1968 Houston, TX Texas 38–14
56 October 25, 1969 Austin, TX Texas 31–0
57 October 24, 1970 Houston, TX Texas 45–21
58 October 23, 1971 Austin, TX Texas 39–10
59 October 28, 1972 Houston, TX Texas 45–9
60 October 27, 1973 Austin, TX Texas 55–13
61 October 26, 1974 Houston, TX Texas 27–6
62 October 25, 1975 Austin, TX Texas 41–9
63 October 2, 1976 Houston, TX Texas 42–15
64 October 1, 1977 Austin, TX Texas 72–15
65 September 16, 1978 Houston, TX Texas 34–0
66 October 6, 1979 Austin, TX Texas 26–9
67 October 4, 1980 Houston, TX Texas 41–28
68 September 12, 1981 Austin, TX Texas 31–3
69 October 2, 1982 Houston, TX Texas 34–7
70 October 1, 1983 Austin, TX Texas 42–6
71 October 6, 1984 Houston, TX Texas 38–13
72 October 5, 1985 Austin, TX Texas 44–16
73 October 4, 1986 Houston, TX Texas 17–14
74 October 3, 1987 Austin, TX Texas 45–26
75 October 1, 1988 Houston, TX Texas 20–13
76 October 7, 1989 Austin, TX Texas 31–30
77 October 6, 1990 Houston, TX Texas 26–10
78 October 5, 1991 Austin, TX Texas 28–7
79 October 3, 1992 Houston, TX Texas 23–21
80 October 2, 1993 Austin, TX Texas 55–38
81 October 16, 1994 Houston, TX Rice 19–17
82 October 7, 1995 Austin, TX Texas 37–13
83 September 27, 1997 Houston, TX Texas 38–31
84 September 26, 1998 Austin, TX Texas 59–21
85 September 18, 1999 Austin, TX Texas 18–13
86 September 20, 2003 Houston, TX Texas 48–7
87 September 25, 2004 Austin, TX Texas 35–13
88 September 17, 2005 Austin, TX Texas 51–10
89 September 16, 2006 Houston, TX Texas 52–7
90 September 22, 2007 Austin, TX Texas 58–14
91 September 20, 2008 Austin, TX Texas 52–10
92 September 4, 2010 Houston, TX Texas 34–17
93 September 3, 2011 Austin, TX Texas 34–9
94 September 12, 2015 Austin, TX Texas 42–28
95 September 14, 2019 Houston, TX Texas 48–13
96 September 18, 2021 Austin, TX Texas 58–0