Did anybody watch the SpaceX launch today?

grunge said:


the landing of the 2 side rockets... be warned its LOUD
Click to expand...

Great footage that @grunge, thanks. I have spent most of the day reviewing the footage of this tbh i do not mind admitting. Yeah the promotional gimmic of the car is fun but for me the science of it is brutal. The calculations per second needed to adjust such an object to land like that is just astounding. Ok the one landing on the ship ballsed up and the rocket is off to the asteroid belt but it diminishes nothing from the main objective.

What i would say is with the autonomous ship landings we see our current computational bottlenecks as only 1-2 have been successful thus far. They will have some seriously good coders on that as we speak.

Just seeing them both land like that could easily be a scene from a Michael Bay film.
 
TCIB said:
Great footage that @grunge, thanks. I have spent most of the day reviewing the footage of this tbh i do not mind admitting. Yeah the promotional gimmic of the car is fun but for me the science of it is brutal. The calculations per second needed to adjust such an object to land like that is just astounding. Ok the one landing on the ship ballsed up and the rocket is off to the asteroid belt but it diminishes nothing from the main objective.

What i would say is with the autonomous ship landings we see our current computational bottlenecks as only 1-2 have been successful thus far. They will have some seriously good coders on that as we speak.

Just seeing them both land like that could easily be a scene from a Michael Bay film.
Click to expand...
You're right, it's impressive footage, but remember we used rockets like that to decelerate a descending and land a spacecraft 49 years ago. Apollo 11 in 1969 when landing on the moon. There is of course no atmosphere on the moon, so the only way to land is precisely how SpaceX are doing it today.
 
SWP's back said:
Straight up is the most efficient option.

It may not be the most fuel efficient option but it is the most cost efficient option.

Seeing as the subject (that you commented on) was on the relative costs involved when comparing Space X vs the Shuttle then cost efficiency was what everyone else was discussing. You are the only one referring to fuel efficiency alone and as stated several times, the fuel costs account for around 0.3% of launch costs.

You also stated "Shoving a rocket up in the air is technically a lot more simple than flying half the way up and then taking off from there. I suspect that has something to do with it." - when it most likely hasn't. If it was cheaper then it would be the preferred option. The organisations involved aren't put off by technical difficulty are they, but by cost. Landing booster rockets back on the ground for re-use isn't simple technically but it saves a lot of money, hence Space X doing it. That's kind of the point.

So perhaps admit that a) you did say, b) don't assume that because of my job I am an idiot savant and incapable of understanding several fields, especially as I've not said anything factually incorrect and you know nothing of my understanding of the subject matter, the fact that you used to be a physicist has no bearing on that and c) it was wrong in the context as no one else was referring to fuel efficiency alone.
Click to expand...
My god you can be an arse at times. I added the "at times" out of politeness.

You stepped in with your initial oafish comment, having failed to read and properly comprehend what was being discussed (nothing new there). It was very plain that what was being discussed was the fuel efficiency, hence the rather uncryptic line "It takes a massive amount of power and fuel to take something into space and straight up is the most efficient option." If you couldn't understand that the discussion was about fuel efficiency, then you are more stupid than I imagined.

And then don't have the decency to admit you ballsed up (nothing new there either). But carry on by all means, you've behaved like this for years now, so I don't expect you'll change.
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
Musk is bringing the cost down by making his rockets reusable. In future the fuel cost is going to be the biggest factor and vertical take off is not going to be how we do it.
Click to expand...
Not according to Musk. It will still make up $200,000 on a (hopeful) $6m launch cost.
 
Chippy_boy said:
My god you can be an arse at times. I added the "at times" out of politeness.

You stepped in with your initial oafish comment, having failed to read and properly comprehend what was being discussed (nothing new there). It was very plain that what was being discussed was the fuel efficiency, hence the rather uncryptic line "It takes a massive amount of power and fuel to take something into space and straight up is the most efficient option." If you couldn't understand that the discussion was about fuel efficiency, then you are more stupid than I imagined.

And then don't have the decency to admit you ballsed up (nothing new there either). But carry on by all means, you've behaved like this for years now, so I don't expect you'll change.
Click to expand...
Fucking lol. Not a big fan or irony are you.

The discussion started with the post:

The Silver Surfer said:
It is absolutely incredible how they've managed to accomplish this yet I do wonder how much money is saved doing it this way to get a charred but reusable launch rocket back when I would've thought the way to go would be invest in a similar concept to the space shuttle but that could maybe take off like a plane as well as land like one.
You could have a fleet of them, some for delivering satellites, some for study or travel to moons/planets.
A bit like Thunderbirds.
Click to expand...

It was always about cost efficiency AND SAVING MONEY. That’s the entire point of Space X and reusable rockets. Everyone else is able to understand that but you.

Don’t get arsey that you failed to comprehend that, and you call me all these names then have the audacity to say I ballsed up.

Jog on you little no mark. There was absolutely no need for your tone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.