Mastodawn

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

👾 Artemis I

reporters: NASA’s huge waste of money “exceeded all expectations and all systems functioned perfectly” in completely pointless and unimpressive Earth-Moon L2 Distant Retrograde Halo Orbit mission that wasted a hundred trillion taxpayer dollars

Starship catastrophic launch failure

reporters: SpaceX breaks spaceflight records by not exploding their Starship for four whole minutes, “almost” passes major milestone of stage separation, revolutionizing spaceflight as we know it. “Literally ten times as good as the Saturn V” says experts. Here is our interview with elon musk who did not sponsor this article

toastergirl Apr 20, 2023

this is so real haha

toastergirl Apr 20, 2023

I swear starship is a deathtrap tiles fell of that shit like a shedding dog even with 6 engines offline and losing 3 on the way up

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@AGP_and_ASD what did they duct tape them on?

toastergirl Apr 20, 2023

Whatever mechanical attachment they use is clearly not strong enough and their workmanship is very shoddy

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@AGP_and_ASD holy shit what, that just looks embarrassingly bad, all kinds of shit going on in these images

toastergirl Apr 20, 2023

it gets worse- keep in mind this is with 6 engines dead on arrival and with the failure of 3 more

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@AGP_and_ASD did they even static fire test this booster?

toastergirl Apr 20, 2023

Yeah and tiles falling off has been an issue consistently- I think they're relying on the stainless construction to keep it together on re-entry

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@AGP_and_ASD this problem was solved 40 years ago! How are they this bad?

toastergirl Apr 20, 2023

it's a deliberate design decision to make them easily replaceable iirc but they really need to work on the strength of those fasteners

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@AGP_and_ASD 👾 they can have easily replaceable or they can survive re-entry stress

toastergirl Apr 20, 2023

well, in theory mechanical fasteners can be stronger, in practice however, spacex seems to be using packing tape and bubble gum to hold them on

Tröglödÿt Apr 20, 2023

@winter @AGP_and_ASD

if i was in a musky corporation a year ago i would have left it before the t witter deal went through, maybe that was a sentiment shared by some important people at spa cex

toastergirl Apr 20, 2023

worked on (some of) the STS missions (barely)

toastergirl Apr 20, 2023

baby grid fin :)

Cynthia loves masks Apr 21, 2023

@winter @AGP_and_ASD what the everloving fuck?! May the ghosts of Columbia's crew and all the others who have died going to space scream at them for eternity. This is a death trap waiting to burn people up.

MOVED TO @[email protected]Apr 20, 2023

@AGP_and_ASD @[email protected] the classics youve come to expect from spacex

Virginia S. O'Possum Apr 21, 2023

@AGP_and_ASD @winter Kinda like the cars, then? I mean, it did catch on fire ...

@winter woah so many likes you are a celebrity now

T0╳F01Æ Apr 20, 2023

@winter I remember hearing that their UI is written in react once....

If that doesn't scream death trap I don't know what does.

(no offense to react developers I just wouldn't trust JS my life)

Ella Fox Apr 20, 2023

@winter can't land a spaceship on chopsticks if you don't have a spaceship left to land 🤣

🦊 🍸Faux around & find out⚠️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Apr 20, 2023

@winter - If you look at Artemis I - you just see a lot of re-engineered Apollo and Space shuttle kludge bits duct taped together. For me, when I saw the plans 15 years ago - I thought it was a huge step backward from the Shuttle - unlike the X-37B. Few lessons were learned, and largely a "death trap," say if a SRB had issues. Starship at least has some "reusability" potential. Might still be a death trap... but compared to Artemis I -And IIRC - NASA didn't share much on tile development.

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@camstonefaux 🪐 They had one SRB failure in thirty years of operation. They fixed the o-ring issue and never had another problem with them. There never was a single failure of an RS-25. The SLS also has a launch escape system the STS lacked, the Challenger disaster is survivable for an Artemis crew.

The heat shield was the biggest weak point of the shuttle. The Orion uses an ablative heat shield, the type which has never failed in sixty years of use. The Starship uses a worse version of the shuttle heat shield, and has no launch escape capability.

In what way exactly is the SLS or the Orion a deathtrap?

Mintz🍹🦌Apr 20, 2023

@winter Also, SpaceX is so brilliant, you learn more from a failure than a success!

Malkit Foxdale Apr 21, 2023

@winter it's getting painful to watch people defend the richest being ever to exist.

Ψ*Ψ Apr 21, 2023

@winter YES. That monster is a spin machine.

@winter Saw commentary to the effect of "The rockets are tons cheaper than NASA's. So they launch 10 and the first 5 explode, but the next 5 don't! Yeah!"

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@tob spoiler: the next five 💥💥💥💥💥

Star Group (worm edition)

verifiedtransmasc

verifiedxenogender

@winter @tob pretty sure that if there is supposedly a 50% chance of something exploding but 5 of them explode in a row, it is extremely statistically unlikely that the next 5 in a row will all be fine, if it was a 50% explosion rate then surely at least 1 or 2 out of the first 5 attempts owuld have been fine

Manifest Irony Apr 21, 2023

@winter
10 x Saturn V = Saturn L

kira :3 Apr 21, 2023

@winter everything the government spends money on (besides police & military) is a waste and everything billionaires spend money on (especially money they got from the government) is 999iq galaxy brain future society

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@requiem I bet the cost of those programs are several orders of magnitude different by the time they're done. The Starship will be a whole lot cheaper because they're willing to test, test, test, on novel designs rather than sticking with proven systems, and overdesigning everything. I'd be surprised if the Starship costs even 50 billion by the end, let alone 100 trillion. Artemis also is going to ultimately give us a disposable rocket with barely any reusable components, while Starship should be extensively reusable.

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@requiem (Of course, both of those costs are exaggerated.)

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@kazriko @requiem where do you people even come from everytime someone dissents against elon musk

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@winter @requiem I really don't care about Musk at all. I pretty much hate all of his companies and his opinions on things, but I'm a fan of space flight, and the way to do it is through re-usability, rather than bespoke 4.1 billion dollar launch platforms that are tossed every time.

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@winter (As for how I find it? I follow people on every end of the spectrum, and people just randomly reboost things that are silly.)

requiem 🦫Apr 21, 2023

@kazriko starship won’t give “us” anything, it’s private property.

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@requiem @winter Us as in humanity, all of the airplanes that we ride around in to travel around the country and between countries are private property as well, and yet they give us the ability to get to Japan the next day.

requiem 🦫Apr 21, 2023

So the rich, got it.

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@requiem @winter Normally when someone says "the rich" they are implying something that costs $50k or more, rather than being able to go around the planet for $1.5k, or go to the other end of the country for $200.

requiem 🦫Apr 21, 2023

@kazriko Sorry, that was a bit curt.

But what I mean is that when NASA goes to space it is at least theoretically owned by the (American) public, when private companies do it it is theirs, not ours.

Musk is building rockets so he and other billionaires can bail on this planet before they destroy it. They are building rockets which blow-up and scatter garbage on threatened ecosystems and joking about it. They are failing to do now what NASA did 50 years ago using slide rules.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s not impressive, and not valuable to humanity.

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@requiem @winter This seems like more of a rant against Musk than against Starship. Again, I don't care at all for the guy, all I want to see is results.

Nasa did not make a rocket this large 50 years ago with slide rules. Nasa did not make a full cycle engine 50 years ago with slide rules, Nasa did not make a rocket that could land back at its tower 50 years ago with slide rules. These are all novel things that they're experimenting with here. Russia did try to make a full cycle engine and failed, and Russia tried to make rockets this powerful and failed.

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@kazriko @requiem Raptor 1 has 1.81MN thrust (unclear what altitude). RS-25 (Space Shuttle, SLS) has 1.86MN at sea level, 2.2MN in vacuum

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@winter @requiem And were there 27 RS-25's on the shuttle or SLS? That's what would be required to equate the thrust of the Superheavy booster, and this is what I'm talking about, total thrust of the rocket.

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@kazriko @requiem 👾 and I'm addressing the engine itself. it's impressive sure, a full flow staged combustion engine, it's the most successful attempt at one yet, but musk thinks he can do literally anything with this engine that primarily suited to first stage launch. last I checked it can't throttle down under 40%. their own Merlin is a vastly superior landing engine and didn't have anywhere near this kind of problems in testing (because they developed and tested it in normal ways and not in all-up tests that are definitely going to fail, cost the entire vehicle and usually the launchpad, and pollute a threatened ecosystem

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@winter @requiem The merlin using Kerosene is far more polluting though than Methane. In the long run, it will be less polluting than the SLS. After all, every SLS launched will drop debris into the ocean, while once they get the design down, no more SH boosters will do the same.

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@kazriko @requiem SLS uses hydrolox, the most environmentally friendly fuel there is. the SRBs are another story, but it isn’t finished with development either and they intend to use full Hydrogen and Oxygen with liquid boosters. the exhaust gas from a Starship launch pollutes Earth much more than dropping some metal in the ocean. if he’s really about innovative new technology, why the obsession with burning methane in this day and age of the climate crisis?

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@winter @requiem SLS may have an advantage on fuel cleanness, but the costs of building a new one, such as the pollution released while mining the minerals required to build it, and smelting them probably exceeds the pollution released by a SH launch.

I believe though that part of it is that it's easier to produce methane from solar power and CO2 in the martian atmosphere than it would be to produce other fuels there.

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@kazriko @requiem NASA also isn’t talking about doing what, 17 refueling launches of a super heavy lift vehicle for one single Lunar mission? the environmental cost of producing the SLS doesn’t even begin to compare to the kind of launch schedule musk is talking up. if they could ever possibly achieve that fast of turnaround time on reusable launch vehicles which is very doubtful.

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@winter @requiem Eh, we'll see. I guess you'll never see more than one or two SLS launches per year because of how ridiculously expensive it is.

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@kazriko @requiem that's a government problem, not an engineering problem

requiem 🦫Apr 22, 2023

@winter @kazriko damn, I don’t even remember where this started…

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@winter @requiem (It makes sense that they wouldn't put 27 RS-27s on a disposable rocket, especially when they cost 146 million each, compared to Raptor 2's 250k each.)

requiem 🦫Apr 21, 2023

@kazriko all that novel stuff hasn’t made it out of LEO yet (unless you count that car he flung into space, maybe that go somewhere).

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@requiem @winter Still early days on that, SH is too early, and Falcon 9 is a medium lift, it was revolutionary when it was made for its low cost and reusability, but it's fairly pedestrian beyond that. SH will be where they actually move ahead when it's complete.

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@requiem @winter Falcon 9 is private property, and yet it gives NASA the capabilities to get humans to the space station at much lower prices than before. Besides, with a commercialized reusable rocket, we're more likely as civilians to be able to get to space, than with 4.1 billion NASA rockets that are public property, but still built by private companies.

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@kazriko @requiem the Falcon 9 isn't remotely comparable to the Starship, it's an actual good launch vehicle that was developed in a sensible way and only has had a normal number of launch failures.

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@winter @requiem If you look at its early days, it also had quite a few launch failures, it was also significantly less aggressive. Falcon 9 had numerous failures in their landing system for example before they got it right. Starship is both trying to make a viable full cycle engine, and trying to make the largest, highest thrust rocket ever made, but also trying to get the landing system that requires higher precision than the Falcon with a larger rocket down at the same time. It's not the least bit of a surprise that it's going to take it more trial and error before it is finished. They are following the same method they used for the Falcon though, with their destructive tests on Landing until they get it right.

Women Interface Network

flagLesbianBreizh

@kazriko @requiem it had 2 launch failures in 13 years. one in flight one on pad.

Kazriko Apr 21, 2023

@winter @requiem You're forgetting all of their experiments with Falcon 1 getting the engine design down, The stuff that they're experimenting on with Starship and Superheavy are more akin to their first Falcon 1 launches trying to get the engine design down, and again, this is a much more aggressive and novel engine design than the fairly pedestrian engine that the falcon designs use. You also have to remember all of the landing failures before they had a success. They were planning on doing Soft landing attempts in the water with the booster in this case.