1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. sci.astro.amateur

  • Musk's rocket fails, there are only so many billions to squander

    From Rich@rander3128@gmail.com to sci.astro.amateur on Sat Nov 18 14:31:51 2023
    From Newsgroup: sci.astro.amateur

    What is it, 33 engines?? Diff. between it and the Saturn V (which NASA could have simply rebuilt) is the Saturn V worked.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67462116

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From StarDust@csoka01@gmail.com to sci.astro.amateur on Sat Nov 18 17:29:18 2023
    From Newsgroup: sci.astro.amateur

    On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 2:31:53rC>PM UTC-8, Rich wrote:
    What is it, 33 engines?? Diff. between it and the Saturn V (which NASA could have simply rebuilt) is the Saturn V worked.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67462116
    This was only the second try, third will be better?
    First stage blew up after separation, later communication was lost with the main capsule.
    I think, overall it was a success!
    EfaiEfno
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Chris L Peterson@clp@alumni.caltech.edu to sci.astro.amateur on Sun Nov 19 07:07:48 2023
    From Newsgroup: sci.astro.amateur

    On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 14:31:51 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    What is it, 33 engines?? Diff. between it and the Saturn V (which NASA could have simply rebuilt) is the Saturn V worked.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67462116

    The difference is a smarter design approach. It's cheaper to let
    rockets fail, and to not invest so much in making them perfect. It's
    the future of commercial space.

    You can blow up a lot of rockets and still be cheaper than one Saturn
    V (which is obsolete technology, in any case). And you can sacrifice
    rockets designed for humans during testing and it's still cheap.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2