Starship!

[smartcooky]

...but you do know he's not the first to successfully land rockets upright

Sending rockets straight up, letting them fall straight down and landing them upright - piece of cake.

Launching rockets so that they pitch over and fly 50 to 150 km downrange, deploy a payload, flipping them 180° and bringing them back, entering the earth's atmosphere at thousands of kph, and landing them upright on a predetermined point, within a few metres - not so much!

What SpaceX has done is orders of magnitude more difficult from a physics and engineering viewpoint that anything Blue Origin has done so far.... and all of this after after ignorant naysayers like Thunderf00t and CSS mocked them for even suggesting it as a possibility

"People who declare that something cannot be done should get out of the way of people who are actually doing it!"

[Peter B]

I don't hate the man and I have given Musk credit in this forum for his achievements (but you do know he's not the first to successfully land rockets upright?).

[SNIP]

I'm not involved in this argument, but I'm curious...

Who/what was the first? When was this? Are you talking about on Earth or on the Moon?

[smartcooky]

I don't hate the man and I have given Musk credit in this forum for his achievements (but you do know he's not the first to successfully land rockets upright?).

[SNIP]

I'm not involved in this argument, but I'm curious...

Who/what was the first? When was this? Are you talking about on Earth or on the Moon?

Blue Origin's New Shepard.

[12oh2alarm]

I don't hate the man and I have given Musk credit in this forum for his achievements (but you do know he's not the first to successfully land rockets upright?).

[SNIP]

I'm not involved in this argument, but I'm curious...

Who/what was the first? When was this? Are you talking about on Earth or on the Moon?

Who? McDonnell Douglas. When? 1993. Earth. Look for DC-X, e.g. here:

But when the Star Hopper does it a 27 years later, the space community goes into synchronized nerdgasm.

[12oh2alarm]

I don't hate the man

Suuure, you spend so much effort spreading baseless FUD about him for purely non-hateful reasons. Jealousy, envy? Or purely pragmatic financial gain, perhaps?

Snake oil makes a poor rocket propellant. Your characterization of Musk based on some cherry-picked comments and a completely fabricated story about Hyperloop is wildly at odds with his actual achievements and says more about your own motivations.

I don't hate the man. I ridicule him for claims he should be ridiculed about. (Racists are haters, e.g. If you think I'm a hater, please recalibrate your judgement).

Making fun of the powers that be is a well established method in all of history to separate the truth from wishful thinking.

As for baseless FUD, I have yet to see a valid technical argument against Thunderfoot's empirical experiments and calculations. So far I have seen these rebuttals (paraphrased):

• This guy likes to hear his own voice
• This guy is a naysayer
• Elon has accomplished other things
• You (seem to) hate Elon
• Are you jealous or envious of Musk?
• Are you being paid?
• Many things claimed "can't be done" were done, decorated with a witty quote
• Elon was trolling
• Don't read too much into his tweets

I'm surprised no one seems to be willing to admit that all of these are vacuous. Most address Thunderfoot or me. None is technical. They strike me as textbook ad-hominems.

Could it be because we are right that the Hyperloop and Flying Teslas are a fundamentally dumb idea and we make good arguments that are hard to counter?

I can do witty quotes, too:

It is easier to fool the people, than to convince them they have been fooled. -- Attributed to Mark Twain

[Zakalwe]

I don't hate the man and I have given Musk credit in this forum for his achievements (but you do know he's not the first to successfully land rockets upright?).

[SNIP]

I'm not involved in this argument, but I'm curious...

Who/what was the first? When was this? Are you talking about on Earth or on the Moon?

Who? McDonnell Douglas. When? 1993. Earth. Look for DC-X, e.g. here:


But when the Star Hopper does it a 27 years later, the space community goes into synchronized nerdgasm.

It may come as a massive shock to you (or maybe not) but many of us are aware of those trials.  Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing concepts existed long before DC-X (hell, the Apollo LM was a VTVL craft!).

Space nerds tend to know their history and many are aware of DC-X, the Roton, NASA's Morpheus, the SpaceX Grasshopper and others.  People were excited then, just as they are now. I get excited when Blue Origin flies their New Sheppard and I no doubt will be excited if and when New Glenn and New Armstrong flies. However you seem to have a bitter taste in your mouth about SpaceX, probably due to your obvious dislike of it's founder.
Starhopper was interesting for many reasons- the speed of building, the construction methods and more importantly the first flight of a Raptor engine. That engine is a groundbreaking design and exciting for space nerds. It's a bit of a shame that your bitter hatred seems to stop you enjoying the spectacle of space technology advancing.

I don't hate the man

Suuure, you spend so much effort spreading baseless FUD about him for purely non-hateful reasons. Jealousy, envy? Or purely pragmatic financial gain, perhaps?

Snake oil makes a poor rocket propellant. Your characterization of Musk based on some cherry-picked comments and a completely fabricated story about Hyperloop is wildly at odds with his actual achievements and says more about your own motivations.

I don't hate the man. I ridicule him for claims he should be ridiculed about. (Racists are haters, e.g. If you think I'm a hater, please recalibrate your judgement).

Could it be because we are right that the Hyperloop and Flying Teslas are a fundamentally dumb idea and we make good arguments that are hard to counter?

Again, you are doing a damn fine impersonation of someone who does.

You, again, have missed the point about Thunderf00t's verbose video. He, and you are bunching your panties up over what someone who you both clearly dislike said when shooting the breeze with a third party. Look at it this way, if you wandered into a pub and overheard a conversation between two people would you spend hours asking people to debate your over-long fatuous video? Would you demand a full rebuttal? Or would you be sensible and realise that two people were chewing the fat and blue-skying? To me it appears that you are doing nothing more than sea-lioning.

[12oh2alarm]

It may come as a massive shock to you (or maybe not) but many of us are aware of those trials.  Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing concepts existed long before DC-X (hell, the Apollo LM was a VTVL craft!).

Space nerds tend to know their history and many are aware of DC-X, the Roton, NASA's Morpheus, the SpaceX Grasshopper and others.  People were excited then, just as they are now. I get excited when Blue Origin flies their New Sheppard and I no doubt will be excited if and when New Glenn and New Armstrong flies. However you seem to have a bitter taste in your mouth about SpaceX, probably due to your obvious dislike of it's founder.
Starhopper was interesting for many reasons- the speed of building, the construction methods and more importantly the first flight of a Raptor engine. That engine is a groundbreaking design and exciting for space nerds. It's a bit of a shame that your bitter hatred seems to stop you enjoying the spectacle of space technology advancing.
...

I am a space nerd like everybody else here and you are attacking a straw man. I have nothing but praise for Elons rockets. I phoned my dying father to watch the first manned mission of his rocket going to the ISS this year, because in the Apollo era we did the same. History being made!

I ridicule the Hyperloop and Flying Teslas (the BFR for half orbits to the other side of the planet, hmmm). The Hyperloop is more than "shooting the breeze with a third party", right? (Maybe it is time to open a separate thread in the appropriate forum section.)

Peter B asked about the history of upright landing rockets and I provided a better answer, going further back than Smartcookie. And I'm chastised with a snide remark "come as shock" by you. But that's ok with me. Call me a hater if you want, since you are obviously capable of entering my mental inner self. If I punch hard I need to be prepared to take one.

I see my role now, after many years in this forum, as a critical thinker to hold a mirror up to some individuals. You've come close to an Elon cult that doesn't allow their leader to be called out when he hasn't done the math. You are full of confirmation bias when you only look at successes. How many ideas have failed? We don't know. Ideas that fail before the prototype stage usually are not made public. History is full of expensive bottomless technological failures. Some even consider the Space Shuttle to be one of them (I don't agree, but can see their point). When the garden variety moon landing denier pops up we hold them to account until they answer our questions and in extreme cases our great host boots them off the forum. Different standards, it seems when it comes to Elon. Then arguing on the technological issues is no longer needed. And refusal to engage in technical arguments is justified because watching videos, following the math presented there, is an offending burden. That's hypocrisy.

[Zakalwe]

I ridicule the Hyperloop and Flying Teslas (the BFR for half orbits to the other side of the planet, hmmm). The Hyperloop is more than "shooting the breeze with a third party", right? (Maybe it is time to open a separate thread in the appropriate forum section.)

I was referring to the cold-gas thrusters on the upcoming Roadster, not Hyperloop.

You've come close to an Elon cult that doesn't allow their leader to be called out when he hasn't done the math. You are full of confirmation bias when you only look at successes.

Not at all. I've called out your obvious disdain for the man, your errors relating to the "sale of Hyperloop" and the basis for Thunderf00t's video.

And refusal to engage in technical arguments is justified because watching videos, following the math presented there, is an offending burden. That's hypocrisy.

And you've refused to address the point that the Thunderf00t video is pointless. You are also building a strawman when you try to make pout that everyone is saying that all of Musk's ideas succeed. No-one other than you is trying to propose that
Anyhoo, I think we've taken this particular seam to its finish.

By the way, I am deeply impressed with the work you do on the video interpolation and the recovery of other NASA data. Keep up that great work as it's impressive and adds to the canon.

[12oh2alarm]

By the way, I am deeply impressed with the work you do on the video interpolation and the recovery of other NASA data. Keep up that great work as it's impressive and adds to the canon.

Sorry mate, these kudos should go to someone else. Peace!

[smartcooky]

I hear you guys making all sorts of excuses why you don't want to engage in Thunderfoot's video contents instead of attacking the arguments he brings forward

I did.

I gave you a specific example of where he has the engineering and physics wrong. You ignored it!

against cold gas thrusters for flying cars.

You're the only one who want to talk about flying cars.

Personally, I can't ever see it happening (at least not privately owned, self flown ones), but Musk is NOT the first person to propose them, and he won't be the last. I think the nearest we'll get is something like the air taxi currently under trials in New Zealand

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/113451046/the-flying-taxi-being-tested-in-new-zealand

34s to bypass the intro...

Let me add another non-technical one: regulation. You think authorities would allow flying cars to contain 1000 psi pressure vessels? Hell no!

They already do!

This may come as a shock to you, but in this country, for at least 30 years, we have had warranted, registered, Land Transport Authority approved cars on the road that run on CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). The vehicle tank pressure is over 3,000 psi - and this is not an inert gas like nitrogen we're talking about here... CNG is highly combustible.

[Zakalwe]

By the way, I am deeply impressed with the work you do on the video interpolation and the recovery of other NASA data. Keep up that great work as it's impressive and adds to the canon.

Sorry mate, these kudos should go to someone else. Peace!

Ah, my apologies. Mistaken identity.

Anyhoo, Happy Christmas.to you and yours.

[Zakalwe]

I hear you guys making all sorts of excuses why you don't want to engage in Thunderfoot's video contents instead of attacking the arguments he brings forward

I did.

I gave you a specific example of where he has the engineering and physics wrong. You ignored it!

against cold gas thrusters for flying cars.

You're the only one who want to talk about flying cars.

Personally, I can't ever see it happening (at least not privately owned, self flown ones), but Musk is NOT the first person to propose them, and he won't be the last. I think the nearest we'll get is something like the air taxi currently under trials in New Zealand

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/113451046/the-flying-taxi-being-tested-in-new-zealand

34s to bypass the intro...

Let me add another non-technical one: regulation. You think authorities would allow flying cars to contain 1000 psi pressure vessels? Hell no!

They already do!

This may come as a shock to you, but in this country, for at least 30 years, we have had warranted, registered, Land Transport Authority approved cars on the road that run on CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). The vehicle tank pressure is over 3,000 psi - and this is not an inert gas like nitrogen we're talking about here... CNG is highly combustible.

The handful of hydrogen fuel celled cars carry the H2 at huge pressures too. I believe that we are talking in the region of 10,000 Psi.

[12oh2alarm]

Let me add another non-technical one: regulation. You think authorities would allow flying cars to contain 1000 psi pressure vessels? Hell no!

They already do!

This may come as a shock to you, but in this country, for at least 30 years, we have had warranted, registered, Land Transport Authority approved cars on the road that run on CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). The vehicle tank pressure is over 3,000 psi - and this is not an inert gas like nitrogen we're talking about here... CNG is highly combustible.

This may come as a shock to you, but these cars don't fly, not even in your country. Lithobreaking incidents will be highly unlikely.

The danger/risk of high pressure containers in flying vehicles for the mass market is considerably different for regulators to be treating them differently (I would hope). Compare the average speed of CNG driven car collisions with the average terminal velocity of flying cars in trouble. Risk assessment for anything flying is by nature very different from assessment for road vehicles. Flying objects can go down anywhere (residential areas, stadiums, munition depots, nuclear power plants) while road vehicles typically don't stray too far from the sidewalk. We only let pilots fly after thorough training and exams, but allow any average Joe to drive a car if he can spell his name for a reason.

[12oh2alarm]

By the way, I am deeply impressed with the work you do on the video interpolation and the recovery of other NASA data. Keep up that great work as it's impressive and adds to the canon.

Sorry mate, these kudos should go to someone else. Peace!

Ah, my apologies. Mistaken identity.

Anyhoo, Happy Christmas.to you and yours.

No need to apologize. I need to apologize. The strict lockdown in my corner of the globe sometimes gets on my nerves. Yeah, lame excuse for riling you guys. But the mindless uncritical Musk worshipping can trigger me at times. I value scientific literacy as a foundation for judging claims, and more people need to be taught to be critical. It's okay to be critical of Thunderfoot as well, but what I have seen, more often than not he makes valid points and he's not a physics ignoramous. He knows limits imposed by thermodynamics and the rocket equation. His sarcastic style may not please everyone but I consider it fair game when he is up against star-struck interviewers and marketing departments with millions for snazzy CGI movies.

Thanks for the Christmas wishes, it means something to me. Wherever you are, all the best!

[Zakalwe]

By the way, I am deeply impressed with the work you do on the video interpolation and the recovery of other NASA data. Keep up that great work as it's impressive and adds to the canon.

Sorry mate, these kudos should go to someone else. Peace!

Ah, my apologies. Mistaken identity.

Anyhoo, Happy Christmas.to you and yours.

No need to apologize. I need to apologize. The strict lockdown in my corner of the globe sometimes gets on my nerves. Yeah, lame excuse for riling you guys. But the mindless uncritical Musk worshipping can trigger me at times. I value scientific literacy as a foundation for judging claims, and more people need to be taught to be critical. It's okay to be critical of Thunderfoot as well, but what I have seen, more often than not he makes valid points and he's not a physics ignoramous. He knows limits imposed by thermodynamics and the rocket equation. His sarcastic style may not please everyone but I consider it fair game when he is up against star-struck interviewers and marketing departments with millions for snazzy CGI movies.

Thanks for the Christmas wishes, it means something to me. Wherever you are, all the best!

You make a good point re Coronavirus lockdowns. I've been working from home since mid-March and I've also been very strict on staying at home. 9 months of that allied.with the damp dark days here in Lancashire has had an effect on me. I've always prided myself on my mental strength but I can feel the grinding effects of dealing withCovid lockdown. I've receny taken a couple of weeks off work as I could feel my patience wearing thin and I knew that I may regret saying what I think.

Everyone take care in these times. Chill, have a break and stay safe.