this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
193 points (97.5% liked)

News

23367 readers
3014 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rImITywR@lemmy.world 31 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Saying a suborbital flight is a partial orbit is like saying a cessna can partially achieve hypersonic velocities

Starship reached over 26000km/h, it had enough energy to be in orbit if it was in a circular orbit. The orbit was intentionally left eccentric enough that the perigee was within the atmosphere, so that a deorbit burn was not required.

This is a cessna going mach 4.99 and you're being pedantic enough to say it was not hypersonic.

I agree with the rest of what you say though. As fun as it is to watch, Starship is over budget and behind schedule. Elon has over promised (pronounced "lied to get government subsidies") on timelines and capabilities so much that it may jeopardize the Artemis program. Which makes me mad.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 days ago

I fell asleep after making my original comment, but you are correct that the velocities and altitude achieved are indicative of something capable of achieving orbit.

So for that, thank you for the correction.

I will caveat that with: We still have literally no idea what this things LEO payload capacity is.

Up until a few months ago, Musk was saying its 100 tons. Then he says its more like 50 tons, and we're gonna make Starship+Booster 2 and 3, 2 will be capable of 100 tons, 3 will be even more.

So far its proven payload capacity is 'banana'.

=/

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

so much that it may jeopardize the Artemis program.

Which means he's successfully cornered the market and he hasn't even launched his product yet! What a great billionaire, I'm sure he's a great fit for a government position.

[–] dellish@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're being pedantic enough to say it was not hypersonic

That's not what OP was saying at all. He/she was pointing out calling the $100 in your pocket a "partial $1000" is just silly. So instead of saying "partial orbit" , the author should have I stead said "sub-ortial flight". Their words, not mine - although I do agree. The tendency for journalists to over-exaggerate anybody's claims is infuriating.

[–] rImITywR@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

My point is that this flight wasn't $100 out of $1000. It was $999 out of $1000. If the engines burned for a couple of seconds longer, it would have been a stable orbit. But their intended orbit was eccentric and had a low perigee, so that it would reenter after half an orbit.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The hardest part of a real orbit is not burning up on re-entry. They skipped that part so far, for their most fragile rocket.

[–] rImITywR@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Are we talking about the same flight I watched today? It made it through re-entry and made a controlled, powered, soft splash down exactly where it was supposed to.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago

It was a suborbital flight. They never accelerated to the orbital speed, hence the apogee was ballistic and upon "reentry", the vehicle only experienced negligible heatup. A real atmospheric reentry from orbit is the biggest technological challenge in return vehicles, and they still have to do that with Starship