Search Results
6/29/2025, 9:45:37 PM
>>16701781
I posted this many months ago. Once I posted it on /sfg/ and got a three day ban for "trolling"...
>Threadly reminder that raptor engines are simply too pussy to boost the Starship to orbit. Clustering them doesn't "increase" the thrust, it only creates interference patterns in the exhaust and inevitably creates a bottleneck in the fuel supply...this is why green exhaust from cooked, exploding engines or fuel line blowouts are a routine on every flight to date. The efficiency takes a huge hit that the quantity of engines cannot possibly compensate for.
>The net result is that a dead-empty Starship is still unable to achieve orbit and can only fly on a parabolic arc into the Indian Ocean, its maximum possible range. Landing the booster in Mechazilla is a hollow victory, because it's impossible to know the capacity of that given booster...it may actually be weaker than the Falcon Heavy or New Glenn, due to mounting inefficiencies.
>To effectively test ANY rocket system, a ballast "dummy" load is typically used. Additionally, if Starship were capable of reaching orbit, this would be the best place to "park" it so its systems can be reviewed and a closer landing site can be prepared and the vehicle examined, post-reentry. Musk fans need to ask themselves why neither of these tasks are occurring.
Paragraph 3 was "addressed" by attempting to load dummy Starlink satellites to test the deployment system in-flight, before attaining stable orbit. The result is that Starship starts tumbling like a badly thrown hammer the instant its thrust is shut off. It's not that Block 2 is particularly worse, it's just that the entire design is ass...Starship is a rocket that carries its second stage into orbit instead of jettisoning it in the hopes that it can be recycled. In the absence of maneuvering thrusters, that empty weight becomes the handle on a thrown hammer.
The entire design is fundamentally flawed.
I posted this many months ago. Once I posted it on /sfg/ and got a three day ban for "trolling"...
>Threadly reminder that raptor engines are simply too pussy to boost the Starship to orbit. Clustering them doesn't "increase" the thrust, it only creates interference patterns in the exhaust and inevitably creates a bottleneck in the fuel supply...this is why green exhaust from cooked, exploding engines or fuel line blowouts are a routine on every flight to date. The efficiency takes a huge hit that the quantity of engines cannot possibly compensate for.
>The net result is that a dead-empty Starship is still unable to achieve orbit and can only fly on a parabolic arc into the Indian Ocean, its maximum possible range. Landing the booster in Mechazilla is a hollow victory, because it's impossible to know the capacity of that given booster...it may actually be weaker than the Falcon Heavy or New Glenn, due to mounting inefficiencies.
>To effectively test ANY rocket system, a ballast "dummy" load is typically used. Additionally, if Starship were capable of reaching orbit, this would be the best place to "park" it so its systems can be reviewed and a closer landing site can be prepared and the vehicle examined, post-reentry. Musk fans need to ask themselves why neither of these tasks are occurring.
Paragraph 3 was "addressed" by attempting to load dummy Starlink satellites to test the deployment system in-flight, before attaining stable orbit. The result is that Starship starts tumbling like a badly thrown hammer the instant its thrust is shut off. It's not that Block 2 is particularly worse, it's just that the entire design is ass...Starship is a rocket that carries its second stage into orbit instead of jettisoning it in the hopes that it can be recycled. In the absence of maneuvering thrusters, that empty weight becomes the handle on a thrown hammer.
The entire design is fundamentally flawed.
Page 1