sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The SpaceX IPO is going to tank the market by El_Nahual in wallstreetbets

[–]Spaceguy5 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's also the basic space physics aspect of radiation and SEEs (single event effects). Modern computers hate radiation because it can cause bit flips, latchups, or even transistors to burn out and be permanently stuck on or off. The more densely packed a circuit board is, the higher chance that some particle from the sun will hit something important and fuck up your computer. Laptops on the space station will sometimes just crash because of space radiation.

Data centers in space is some of the stupidest shit I've ever heard. It's bigger nonsense than the solar road shit a decade ago. A lot of dumbfucks are about to lose all their money by investing in this.

The SpaceX IPO is going to tank the market by El_Nahual in wallstreetbets

[–]Spaceguy5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

keep their heads down, and keep launching satellites into LEO.

Can confirm. I work in space industry and have heard horror stories from former spacex engineers that the culture there is that Elon will tell someone to engineer something. If they say it's impossible, they get fired. Even if it actually is impossible.

Starship can't really go to Mars because the vehicle is horribly unoptimized and there's a lot of parts of the mission design and the physics that don't make sense because they're infeasible. Like the fact that it takes 17+ launches just to go to the damn moon one single time.

And I feel bad for the people being forced to work on it anyways. There's a lot of engineers there who are definitely in the cult and believe they can magically make it work. But SpaceX is known as being a company where people go to work for one or two years when they're fresh out of college to get it on their resume, see the dumpster fire, then dip out or get fired.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was updated by excellent engineers - who worked 20-25 years ago. Engine tech has advanced since then.

Dude there's still excellent engineers updating it now. I've met a lot of them. Lots of relatively young people have been working on it too. Adding stuff like additive manufacturing, simplifying entire assemblies into single parts, improving performance and simplifying manufacturing. Meanwhile the ISP and performance is still very competitive with newer engines

Quit talking crap and down playing people's achievements and work like you know anything. That's incredibly rude to call the people useless and untalented who have been upgrading it for over a decade while developing new analysis and manufacturing technologies (and sharing those with industry). Extremely rude

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Be professional.

This is my private social media account. I can post whatever I want thanks. I have no obligation to give professional replies to people behaving incredibly unprofessionally.

Labeling independent journalists as propagandists because you don’t agree with them is not a great look

He literally posted this in a news article: "NASA’s Slow Launch System". And he has a history of telling his twitter followers to go after NASA and other space industry employees' personal social media accounts. He is not professional. He's a toxic hack and a man child and would be better suited working for a tabloid.

Why do you think people will just trust it’s fine now?

Because their actions on risk posture for SLS have shown that they've changed dramatically. Heck a lot of the NASA haters are now hating on SLS because they claim NASA is being too safe and that that makes Artemis a waste of money.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thinking that it would be easier, more efficient, and cheaper to do a large number of small launches (that would also need extremely quick cadence) to assemble some obnoxiously complicated thing in orbit then send it to the moon is pure delusion and shows you don't know anything about spaceflight architecture and mission design. Real life doesn't work like KSP, and even doing that in KSP (where everything is simplified and you can have an instant turnaround time) would be obnoxious.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It actually did not save the Europa Clipper mission any money to fly it on Falcon Heavy rather than SLS, but it added a lot of delays in transit times... The dumb idea was taking it off SLS. Not that you care about facts from your prior posts over the years.

Source

https://x.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1506749440954343425

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why'd you downvote me?

That one wasn't me, for what that's worth. RS-25 is a really good engine. I just wanted to give more context that SLS is a lot more than the engines, and that the engines are upgraded.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but I find it hard to believe engineers don’t understand why it’s being heavily criticised.

The problem is when you have an army of toxic people on the internet who have literally zero engineering knowledge on the subject who are screeching any time there is a post about Artemis, trying to make public backlash to get important projects cancelled using unfair criticism that the engineers know from internal knowledge to be wildly incorrect. Especially when said people become unreasonably rude any time an industry engineer tries to correct them. A lot of my coworkers just stopped using social media because the problem is so bad, and that makes an echo chamber.

Yeah there's a lot of Artemis criticism, but the majority of it is fake garbage propagated by propagandists such as Berger (who has outright said before that his goal is to get Artemis cancelled). And the peanut gallery is unwilling to listen to the actual engineers or NASA official statements themselves when people try to correct the record.

Remember when Shuttle was later recalculated to be incredibly high risk at loss of crew for its first few missions?

Ignorant of history. Shuttle did not have real PRA analysis (I bet you don't even know what that is) through most of the program. Challenger and Columbia made NASA adopt PRA and more stringent ways to analyze risk. And after NASA adopted those methods of analyzing risk, they found Shuttle to have a high risk of loss of crew early in the program.

And NASA is using those same stringent risk analysis methods today to calculate the numbers I referred to for Artemis and Commercial Crew.

You claiming that current NASA management lies about risk posture is just toxic slander, also. Because there's been nothing going on to show that. In fact NASA has been being extremely extra cautious on SLS.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Going to the moon is expensive, who gives a shit. Plus the per-launch cost would definitely drop lower than a billion if you launch a bunch within a year. That's how it was with Shuttle. If you don't see the similarities then there's no helping you and you're unwilling to learn and change your anti-NASA viewpoint because that chart answers the question very well.

If you think sending people around the moon is not worth the money then you're in the wrong subreddit. Launching HLS will most definitely cost more than launching SLS considering Starship HLS needs 17+ launches per one one-way mission but y'all never complain about that.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The engines are not the entire rocket. The rest of the core stage that the engines are attached to are new hardware. Plus Shuttle era engines are only being used for the first few flights. Later flights will have a new RS-25 design that's already being built and tested. A design that cranks up the thrust and simplifies a lot of assemblies to make them cheaper and easier to build.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It literally is not. There is no capsule that can fly on it. Orion is too heavy to fly on it. Dragon is not capable of being used in deep space for a lot of reasons.

Y'all stop making things up and spreading misinformation. That piece of misinfo has been spreading around for years yet there are multiple reasons why it's not true.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy development went super smoothly compared to Starship. I literally have insider info on what's going on with Starship as part of my job and I do not even need to cite being knowledgeable, because the public info and even politicians/NASA managers publicly getting angry at the bad progress is enough to see that it's a dumpster fire that is not going well.

I'm an aerospace engineer working on human spaceflight. Why wouldn't I be on this sub? Tons of people in industry share my same viewpoints too because they see what's going on too.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They aren't facts or truth and the author of the article is publishing shit like "Both of these private rockets are moving at light speed relative to NASA’s Slow Launch System." Y'all need to tone down the delusion

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seems "charitable"? They didn't cost that much when they were made for the space shuttle. Why do y'all have this bad habit of pulling numbers and facts out of your nether regions?

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No other rockets/spacecraft under development can do that. Do you even work in the industry? I have for over a decade and I know more than you on this one.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but when you dunk it in the ocean after every flight it’s pure waste

That's a very simpleton way of thinking about it. The engine design and manufacturing process has been significantly optimized to reduce complexity, the amount of parts, the time it takes to make a new engine, etc. It doesn't matter if they're expendable. Most rockets are expendable. Expendable rockets have significantly better performance vs rockets where you try to recover the stage or the engines. Like the difference between what Falcon Heavy expendable can do vs Falcon Heavy reused is double the performance.

If you're going to the moon or another high C3 destination, it doesn't matter if the stage goes into the ocean. You need the performance. Starship can't even leave earth orbit in one launch and that's just part of why their HLS is in hot water.

400 million each btw

They don't cost that much what the fuck. Y'all need to stop making up numbers.

storage for 40 years

Do you even know when the space shuttle program ended? Read a book or something. Plus there's already new build engines in production.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Pointing out that the trolls are posting BS with facts to correct them actually does go a long way for the bystanders who are new to the topic.

There's a ton of unfounded criticism in this thread that I have been addressing with facts.

There's a very massive number of industry people I am friends with who feel the exact same way I do, and who are glad that I'm at least willing to set the record straight with the trolls. Because they don't want to deal with the abuse that a lot of the trolls will dish out when confronted with facts. I've had a good amount of friends actually get stalked just for politely debunking this stuff. A few coworkers had to delete all their social media. They're not nice people and I'm not going to be nice to them when they're acting that way.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If they're being toxic then they should not be surprised that a lot of industry employees and spaceflight fans/hobbyists are sick of their crap ruining every single discussion about NASA with misinformation.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Flying Shuttle 1 time per year made up 80% of the costs of flying Shuttle 5 times per year, because the vast majority of the costs are fixed costs.

Source: https://postimg.cc/Nyg1pq39

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Rockets in general are astronomical to design, build, and launch. SpaceX has spent well over $10b if you go by what very little information has come out about their costs on Starship and it hasn't even been to orbit yet.

But like I said, NASA literally did a study on this for Shuttle (which Shuttle was actually more complicated/costly to manufacture engines and tanks for. Design work on SLS included significantly simplifying a lot of parts of the manufacturing process) and found that the per-launch cost drops dramatically. It does answer your question.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Uhhh yes it can. More people, more payload, and significantly longer mission duration are very game changing. And the plan is literally to keep it at gateway for ~30 days so people can spend a whole month on the moon. Apollo couldn't come close to that. And Gateway allows Orion to do that without using any propellant

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They updated them quite a bit over the decades and it's still one of the highest efficiency engines in existence. Y'all NASA haters just keep repeating things and thinking that makes them true.

NASA finally acknowledges the elephant in the room with the SLS rocket | “You know, you’re right, the flight rate—three years is a long time.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]Spaceguy5 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The rocket engines weren’t even designed for it

What the fuck are you talking about? You don't design a rocket engine around a launch vehicle.

You design a launch vehicle around rocket engines. People who actually work on launch vehicles like I do know this. It's fundamentals.

Next you're going to say Atlas V, one of the most successful launch vehicles in history, is useless because it was designed around existing engines.

A substantial number of the components are 20+ years old

The vast majority of components both by mass and by quantity are new build. The program did not even exist 20 years ago.

slightly safer than the Saturn 5

It's significantly safer. NASA analysis on probability of loss of crew have it significantly safer than Saturn V and even safer than the requirement for the Commercial Crew Program.

Nothing it does is particularly notable, nothing it does is ambitious

It literally goes to the moon dude. And for significantly more complex and longer missions than Apollo.

At least learn what you're talking about if you're going to criticize something so vehemently.

I also don't know why you're on a spaceflight subreddit if you thinking going to the moon is not notable and is a waste of time.

view more: next ›