• 0 Posts
  • 56 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle


  • The trajectory was chosen by NASA because the Orion capsule on top of the SLS rocket do not have enough efficiency to be on a low regular lunar orbit while landing and bringing back astronauts. This trajectory has nothing to do with SpaceX.

    Nor did I say it did, I said some brain dead idiots sent the contract off to a company who designed a craft incapable of doing what we have done previously, congrats Lockheed for fucking up our next moon program. It’s you who equated that to SpaceX lmaoo

    When comparing the one rocket to land on the moon to the 15 launches (thank you for writing launches and not rockets, as Destin Sandlin wrongly did) is because the mass delivered to the surface is gigantic compared to Apollo. Why? Because we do not want to say “we did it!” We want to say “we live there!”.

    I mean it really doesn’t matter are you going to have astronauts just chilling for like a year in orbit waiting for those launches, racking up radiation? Saying the reason we need 15 launches for starship is specifically due to mass is such a cop-out. It’s due to how limited the amount of fuel we can send up to refuel in orbit is, it’s fucking stupid at our current level of space infrastructure. We still haven’t even tested it, what we need another 4 decades for this terrible plan to come to fruition? Take note of what the Apolo engineers stated as far as stepping stones in development. If you take too big of leaps, you will not adequately be able to evaluate what when wrong if something does, take to small of steps and you will never reach the goal. We decided to take such massive leaps with no forethought on its efficiency.

    Can people stop saying SpaceX rockets explode? They do not.

    No, that is precisely what occurred with starship. You can see the Shockwave from the explosion, which means you had the oxidizer mix with the propelent before exploding during the flip phase, that’s a major fucking failure. It was not a rupture like previous issues nor was it terminated, it fucking exploded lmao. The worst part all that lovely telemetry that’s gonna help them out gave zero indication of said catastrophic failure so that’s gonna be such great info for them right? Just like the first test that failed when they knew the pad wouldn’t be strong enough and caused damage to the rocket, meaning they got no actionable data?

    As of now, and evolving for Starship:
    $7B cost, 4 from NASA for the first 2 missions
    11 years for the first tests, still no rocket
    Can bring 220,00lb and 35,000ft³ to the moon
    And they still and up with a rocket NASA can continue to use at very low price (less than 25% than SLS per mission)

    Star ship has not been a proven concept and is still actively in development, these numbers mean nothing right now. With massive issues looming and 90% of what’s needed not even tested yet but go ahead keep riding daddy musk as if he isn’t killing good ideas with lofty moving goal posts and a complete lack of understanding for what’s being developed.




  • this enables the company to raise more capital by borrowing against its equity

    You can always get asset backed loans, even as a company, why should we be welfare for businesses?

    Also you would need an uncaptured market for anything you said to even have an effect, when 90% of trades are completed off market not effecting the price on the tape are we really doing anything but getting fleeced by market makers? You aren’t signaling anything when your trade data is being bought and hidden from the market using PFOF techniques.

    In light of the objective failures of our market it’s extremely fair to say shareholders have no contribution to the delivery of goods and services. Could they in a perfect market sure, but I could have everything in utopia, to bad that doesn’t exist.


  • Apolo program with 60s tech: we will send one rocket per mission to the moon, and it will work.

    Brain dead idiots parroting off spaceX as some savior: it will only take at least 15 rocket launches per mission to the moon. We will use the worst trajectory possible because we sold the contract for the lander to a company who can’t figure out low moon orbit. 2 years out and our rocket still blows up when attempting launches.

    But sure spaceX is a marvel of private industry, shudders


  • Yeah that’s why we were supposed to have made it back to Mars this year with SpaceX right? Thats why it took them over 3 minutes to even realize their ship blew up most recently, but that telemetry that took 3minutes to realize a catastrophic failure occurred is really gonna make this great, right? That’s why Apolo sent one rocket per mission to the moon and with that amazing SpaceX tech…we need to send at least 15 per mission? The public sector did take risks and by doing so in the past we got the Apolo program. Today we have constant failures by spaceX being touted as successful missions with about 10billion in public funding being evaporated. Now, it’s more important that private business sells you on some bs hype train to rake in funds till they drop the next hype train without realizing their earlier goal and distracting you about it with leaks about hype train 3.

    Where are the fully reusable falcon 9s? That second stage is still not reusable, the crew capsule will never be landing without parachutes now, and they still take about the same amount of time to turn around that the space shuttle did. SpaceX is objectively a failure, selling the next big thing as a means to hide what did not come to fruition. If you honestly think the new rocket is gonna be flying in under a decade or before spaceX goes bankrupt. You’re an idiot.


  • A progressive society does not need to retroactively change history, it can accept the imperfections of the past in the knowledge that we’ve already changed.

    How is pointing out the heinous shit changing history? If anything, it’s accepting the imperfections of the past and acknowledging we have changed by calling out the callousness of its prior implementation and calling out what to avoid… you are literally contradicting yourself.






  • I completely disagree with you about the status of humanity.

    Why because we happened to evolve to think? Given enough time something else would of if not us. Given we may end up causing our species to go extinct due to careless disregard for our environment and even human life in general. We really are not that special and it would serve us to treat the ecosystems, which enable life on this planet to thrive and evolve, with respect if we want to live long enough too see other stars or at least leave the planet in a decent state for the next species if we all die from pointless wars like humanity seems to love doing regardless of if we treat our environment better.


  • I mean I had to deal with all the bs indoctrination of Christianity when I was growing up, but I definetly wouldn’t assign those barbaric constraints as the motive behind a highly advanced alien species, religion was a blight from power hungry authoritarian people in the past. As I’ve stated I don’t believe a society which has not mastered harmony with its own species and planet as capable to be that advanced. A greedy authoritarian society will tear itself apart before it ever reaches a “highly advanced” society. You could commit genocide and given enough time different races will be born again, bringing you into a repeating cycle of chaos. Look at how unstable any extremely religious area is on earth, you think that’s going to create advanced societies? I sure as hell don’t nor would I attribute such nonsense to a being capable of traversing the universe, one who understands the principles of physics and can unify them with the quantum mechanics is not going to assign unkowns to a god, they would investigate the mechanisms behind them and try to define them. That’s a step above what we have rationally discovered and I don’t attribute religion to rational beings, it’s completely at odds.


  • And I’m saying how that being such a common interpretation is disheartening. It should be more apt to apply that any sufficiently advanced being is going to value harmony not disorder which would lead to instability and eventual collapse, hence why it would be an apt litmus test to see if a society would be capable of responsibly utilizing any of their technology. The fact so many are just like “well I like tech” and someone’s gonna say a group so I should say a small minority is extremely sad to see being a common take. I would hope more would recognize the implications behind such an ask, but I guess in this small sample size that’s not the case.