On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/

You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.

On May/1/2023 at 07:25, Dean Markley wrote :
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
>
> You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.

In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
also says that several important partial successes have been reached.

From the article:
« Non aver raggiunto l’elemento di successo, cioè il completamento del
« volo, non vuol dire aver fallito, perchè semplicemente un vero e
« proprio fallimento non c’era.
«
« Il test del 20 aprile quindi, poteva sicuramente andare meglio. Come
« abbiamo visto, sono molti gli elementi da correggere, e per questo
« forse non vedremo un altro test in volo di Starship neanche nel 2023.
« Ma affermare che sia stato un fallimento, è semplicemente sbagliato.»

My personal translation:
Not reaching the goal for success, the completion of the flight, does
not mean to have failed, because there simply was no true failure.

The April 20th test therefore, could have certainly gone better. As
we have said, there are many things to correct, and because of this
we may not see another flight test of Starship in all of 2023. But to
affirm that is was a failure is simply an error.

Alain Fournier

On Mon, 1 May 2023 04:25:25 -0700 (PDT), Dean Markley
<damarkley@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21?AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
>
>You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.

prooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot

On Mon, 1 May 2023 08:22:19 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On May/1/2023 at 07:25, Dean Markley wrote :
>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21?AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>>> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
>>
>> You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
>
>In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
>to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
>obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
>also says that several important partial successes have been reached.
>
> From the article:
>« Non aver raggiunto l’elemento di successo, cioè il completamento del
>« volo, non vuol dire aver fallito, perchè semplicemente un vero e
>« proprio fallimento non c’era.
>«
>« Il test del 20 aprile quindi, poteva sicuramente andare meglio. Come
>« abbiamo visto, sono molti gli elementi da correggere, e per questo
>« forse non vedremo un altro test in volo di Starship neanche nel 2023.
>« Ma affermare che sia stato un fallimento, è semplicemente sbagliato.»
>
>My personal translation:
>Not reaching the goal for success, the completion of the flight, does
>not mean to have failed, because there simply was no true failure.
>
>The April 20th test therefore, could have certainly gone better. As
>we have said, there are many things to correct, and because of this
>we may not see another flight test of Starship in all of 2023. But to
>affirm that is was a failure is simply an error.
>
>
>Alain Fournier

you'd better use Google Translate !

prooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot

Le May/1/2023 à 08:40, Doctor Who a écrit :
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 08:22:19 -0400, Alain Fournier
> <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On May/1/2023 at 07:25, Dean Markley wrote :
>>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21?AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>>>> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
>>>
>>> You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
>>
>> In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
>> to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
>> obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
>> also says that several important partial successes have been reached.
>>
>> From the article:
>> « Non aver raggiunto l’elemento di successo, cioè il completamento del
>> « volo, non vuol dire aver fallito, perchè semplicemente un vero e
>> « proprio fallimento non c’era.
>> «
>> « Il test del 20 aprile quindi, poteva sicuramente andare meglio. Come
>> « abbiamo visto, sono molti gli elementi da correggere, e per questo
>> « forse non vedremo un altro test in volo di Starship neanche nel 2023.
>> « Ma affermare che sia stato un fallimento, è semplicemente sbagliato.»
>>
>> My personal translation:
>> Not reaching the goal for success, the completion of the flight, does
>> not mean to have failed, because there simply was no true failure.
>>
>> The April 20th test therefore, could have certainly gone better. As
>> we have said, there are many things to correct, and because of this
>> we may not see another flight test of Starship in all of 2023. But to
>> affirm that is was a failure is simply an error.
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>
>
> you'd better use Google Translate !
>
>

Per cortesia, se ho fatto un errore, dimmi dove.

Alain Fournier

On Mon, 1 May 2023 04:25:25 -0700 (PDT), Dean Markley
<damarkley@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21?AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
>
>You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.

you call it a success but we have only seen fireworks again !

On 2023-05-01 08:22, Alain Fournier wrote:

> In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
> to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
> obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
> also says that several important partial successes have been reached.

I think SN15 was a greater success.

After a long pause is testing their iterative designs, what they tested
was either discontinued features or features that live on but which failed.

The OLM core design is a simple/cheap design with the 6 legs that are
closely spaced to each other. It is not clear to me that such a design
has long term future where the pad can be reused within 20 minutes of
taking off and landing. You might be able to protect the concrete base
from "rock tornado" with some steel plate, but the fact remains that the
thrust from these engines still needs to flow between those legs and
there is bound to be massive erosion. This decign will likely "iterate"
in a big way.

Raptor2 may be amazing engine when tested at McGregor, but they still
need to deal with the design of having 33 engines within a cylinder 9m
across. And Husk even mentioned that they need to work on ensuring
failure of an engine doesn't cause nearby engines to also fail.
So to all those who claim that there were no needs for real test firings
on the pad because of McGregor, this is why. System integration is far
more important than individual component testing.

The one succcess Husk mentioned is the pressursation of tanks during
flights. (he even mentioned that Helium is used for Falcon and confirmed
Helium is harder and harder to get now since it isa rare gas).

In an iterative design mentality, this was a very informative test to
point to what needs to change. Alas, many items that were tested in
this flight ate moot because they have already been changed for the next
flight (such as going from hydraulic pumps to electric for thrust
vectoring). So thrust vectoring tests start from scratch at the next
test since totally new system.

It is interesting that originally, it was mentioned a Starship should be
able to take off and reach LEO without payload. But with this test
flight, it was revealed that even at speed/altitude when Stage0 ceased
to accelerate, Starship didn't have enough fuel/power to reach the
semi-orbit to have it splash down at a beach resort in Hawaii. (so
doing premature stage separation to let Starship di its test was not
possible since its landing spot couldn't be properly controlled).

So now, what remains to be seen is just how much the architecture of
stage and 0 stage 1 change before next test flight, or whether next
flight will be like this one where they test only a portion of
improvements already being integrated into subsequent builds.

Will they retrofit booster 9 or just ditch it and use a more recently
built one that incorporates lessons learned from ths failed flight from
a week or two ago?

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:22:22 AM UTC-4, Alain Fournier wrote:
> On May/1/2023 at 07:25, Dean Markley wrote :
> > On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
> >> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
> >
> > You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
> In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
> to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
> obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
> also says that several important partial successes have been reached.
>
> From the article:
> « Non aver raggiunto l’elemento di successo, cioè il completamento del
> « volo, non vuol dire aver fallito, perchè semplicemente un vero e
> « proprio fallimento non c’era.
> «
> « Il test del 20 aprile quindi, poteva sicuramente andare meglio. Come
> « abbiamo visto, sono molti gli elementi da correggere, e per questo
> « forse non vedremo un altro test in volo di Starship neanche nel 2023.
> « Ma affermare che sia stato un fallimento, è semplicemente sbagliato.»
>
> My personal translation:
> Not reaching the goal for success, the completion of the flight, does
> not mean to have failed, because there simply was no true failure.
>
> The April 20th test therefore, could have certainly gone better. As
> we have said, there are many things to correct, and because of this
> we may not see another flight test of Starship in all of 2023. But to
> affirm that is was a failure is simply an error.
>
>
> Alain Fournier

Alain, you are correct however I was referring to his post title. I don't know what the Ukrainian war has to do with this but his use of "Musk Astronautics" is clearly meant as sarcasm at the very least. Musk may not be a likeable character but no one can deny that his spacecraft have revolutionized the industry. PNN has not even managed to demonstrate their device works, much less used it to propel a spacecraft into orbit.

Dean

On Tue, 2 May 2023 04:32:05 -0700 (PDT), Dean Markley
<damarkley@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:22:22?AM UTC-4, Alain Fournier wrote:
>> On May/1/2023 at 07:25, Dean Markley wrote :
>> > On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21?AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>> >> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
>> >
>> > You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
>> In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
>> to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
>> obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
>> also says that several important partial successes have been reached.
>>
>> From the article:
>> « Non aver raggiunto l’elemento di successo, cioè il completamento del
>> « volo, non vuol dire aver fallito, perchè semplicemente un vero e
>> « proprio fallimento non c’era.
>> «
>> « Il test del 20 aprile quindi, poteva sicuramente andare meglio. Come
>> « abbiamo visto, sono molti gli elementi da correggere, e per questo
>> « forse non vedremo un altro test in volo di Starship neanche nel 2023.
>> « Ma affermare che sia stato un fallimento, è semplicemente sbagliato.»
>>
>> My personal translation:
>> Not reaching the goal for success, the completion of the flight, does
>> not mean to have failed, because there simply was no true failure.
>>
>> The April 20th test therefore, could have certainly gone better. As
>> we have said, there are many things to correct, and because of this
>> we may not see another flight test of Starship in all of 2023. But to
>> affirm that is was a failure is simply an error.
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>
>Alain, you are correct however I was referring to his post title. I don't know what the Ukrainian war has to do with this but his use of "Musk Astronautics" is clearly meant as sarcasm at the very least. Musk may not be a likeable character but no one can deny that his spacecraft have revolutionized the industry. PNN has not even managed to demonstrate their device works, much less used it to propel a spacecraft into orbit.
>
>Dean

you are wrong too, on the whole line, because PNN has ALREADY managed
to demonstrate that it works, not demonstrated to you in person, but
others have seen it in action.

On May/2/2023 at 07:32, Dean Markley wrote :
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:22:22 AM UTC-4, Alain Fournier wrote:
>> On May/1/2023 at 07:25, Dean Markley wrote :
>>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>>>> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
>>>
>>> You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
>> In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
>> to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
>> obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
>> also says that several important partial successes have been reached.
>>
>> From the article:
>> « Non aver raggiunto l’elemento di successo, cioè il completamento del
>> « volo, non vuol dire aver fallito, perchè semplicemente un vero e
>> « proprio fallimento non c’era.
>> «
>> « Il test del 20 aprile quindi, poteva sicuramente andare meglio. Come
>> « abbiamo visto, sono molti gli elementi da correggere, e per questo
>> « forse non vedremo un altro test in volo di Starship neanche nel 2023.
>> « Ma affermare che sia stato un fallimento, è semplicemente sbagliato.»
>>
>> My personal translation:
>> Not reaching the goal for success, the completion of the flight, does
>> not mean to have failed, because there simply was no true failure.
>>
>> The April 20th test therefore, could have certainly gone better. As
>> we have said, there are many things to correct, and because of this
>> we may not see another flight test of Starship in all of 2023. But to
>> affirm that is was a failure is simply an error.
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>
> Alain, you are correct however I was referring to his post title. I don't know what the Ukrainian war has to do with this but his use of "Musk Astronautics" is clearly meant as sarcasm at the very least. Musk may not be a likeable character but no one can deny that his spacecraft have revolutionized the industry. PNN has not even managed to demonstrate their device works, much less used it to propel a spacecraft into orbit.
>
> Dean

I agree with you. I think he wanted to denigrate SpaceX. My point was
simply that the link he provided, which was the totality of his post,
does not do so. Therefore, he failed in his attempt to denigrate SpaceX.

Alain Fournier

On Tue, 2 May 2023 06:37:17 -0700 (PDT), pnn calmagorod
<calmagorod@gmail.com> wrote:

>Il giorno martedì 2 maggio 2023 alle 14:43:25 UTC+2 Alain Fournier ha scritto:
>> On May/2/2023 at 07:32, Dean Markley wrote :
>> > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:22:22?AM UTC-4, Alain Fournier wrote:
>> >> On May/1/2023 at 07:25, Dean Markley wrote :
>> >>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21?AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
>> >>>> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
>> >>>
>> >>> You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
>> >> In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
>> >> to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
>> >> obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
>> >> also says that several important partial successes have been reached.
>> >>
>> >> From the article:
>> >> « Non aver raggiunto l’elemento di successo, cioè il completamento del
>> >> « volo, non vuol dire aver fallito, perchè semplicemente un vero e
>> >> « proprio fallimento non c’era.
>> >> «
>> >> « Il test del 20 aprile quindi, poteva sicuramente andare meglio. Come
>> >> « abbiamo visto, sono molti gli elementi da correggere, e per questo
>> >> « forse non vedremo un altro test in volo di Starship neanche nel 2023.
>> >> « Ma affermare che sia stato un fallimento, è semplicemente sbagliato.»
>> >>
>> >> My personal translation:
>> >> Not reaching the goal for success, the completion of the flight, does
>> >> not mean to have failed, because there simply was no true failure.
>> >>
>> >> The April 20th test therefore, could have certainly gone better. As
>> >> we have said, there are many things to correct, and because of this
>> >> we may not see another flight test of Starship in all of 2023. But to
>> >> affirm that is was a failure is simply an error.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Alain Fournier
>> >
>> > Alain, you are correct however I was referring to his post title. I don't know what the Ukrainian war has to do with this but his use of "Musk Astronautics" is clearly meant as sarcasm at the very least. Musk may not be a likeable character but no one can deny that his spacecraft have revolutionized the industry. PNN has not even managed to demonstrate their device works, much less used it to propel a spacecraft into orbit.
>> >
>> > Dean
>> I agree with you. I think he wanted to denigrate SpaceX. My point was
>> simply that the link he provided, which was the totality of his post,
>> does not do so. Therefore, he failed in his attempt to denigrate SpaceX.
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>
>By a law of physics, the velocity of the gases in any rocket goes with the square root of the temperature. So if you want to double the speed of the expelled gases you have to quadruple the temperature. Since the combustion chamber resists up to 3000 degrees Kelvin, rocketry has an efficiency limit. For this Artemis and Spacex whatever they do have no future in colonizing something.
>Amen

But we can't change donkey's mind !

Amen

JF Mezei submitted this gripping article, maybe on Monday:

> So to all those who claim that there were no needs for real test firings
> on the pad because of McGregor, this is why. System integration is far
> more important than individual component testing.

There was someone claiming that?

> It is interesting that originally, it was mentioned a Starship should be
> able to take off and reach LEO without payload. But with this test
> flight, it was revealed that even at speed/altitude when Stage0 ceased
> to accelerate,

Stage 0 had 0 acceleration during the entire flight. Stage 1 didn't
cease to accelerate until the FTS was activated, and stage separation
with the booster still powered seems to be a no-go, whether or not
there are hydraulic latches involved.

> Starship didn't have enough fuel/power to reach the
> semi-orbit to have it splash down at a beach resort in Hawaii. (so
> doing premature stage separation to let Starship di its test was not
> possible since its landing spot couldn't be properly controlled).

Are you extrapolating data you don't have?

/dps

--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15

On 2023-05-03 07:49, Snidely wrote:

>> Starship didn't have enough fuel/power to reach the
>> semi-orbit to have it splash down at a beach resort in Hawaii. (so
>> doing premature stage separation to let Starship di its test was not
>> possible since its landing spot couldn't be properly controlled).
>
> Are you extrapolating data you don't have?
>

In Melon Husk's discussion on his Twitter thing, he mentioned that doing
stage separation at 39km would have left Starship without enough delta-V
to reach intended landing in Hawaii.

So so much for Starship being able to lauch from ground and reach LEO
with no payload which was said to be possible in the early days of project.

JF Mezei explained on 5/7/2023 :
> On 2023-05-03 07:49, Snidely wrote:
>
>>> Starship didn't have enough fuel/power to reach the
>>> semi-orbit to have it splash down at a beach resort in Hawaii. (so
>>> doing premature stage separation to let Starship di its test was not
>>> possible since its landing spot couldn't be properly controlled).
>>
>> Are you extrapolating data you don't have?
>>
>
>
> In Melon Husk's discussion on his Twitter thing, he mentioned that doing
> stage separation at 39km would have left Starship without enough delta-V
> to reach intended landing in Hawaii.
>
> So so much for Starship being able to lauch from ground and reach LEO
> with no payload which was said to be possible in the early days of project.

I'd hold that thought, because configuration matters in these things,
and that may well include needing a different trajectory for the single
stage effort then where the second stage was at the 39 km point of the
two-stage effort. Without running the numbers, we're just guessing,
and I haven't done enough with Kerbal Space Academy to model either
flight.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

On May/7/2023 at 03:17, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2023-05-03 07:49, Snidely wrote:
>
>>> Starship didn't have enough fuel/power to reach the
>>> semi-orbit to have it splash down at a beach resort in Hawaii. (so
>>> doing premature stage separation to let Starship di its test was not
>>> possible since its landing spot couldn't be properly controlled).
>>
>> Are you extrapolating data you don't have?
>>
>
>
> In Melon Husk's discussion on his Twitter thing, he mentioned that doing
> stage separation at 39km would have left Starship without enough delta-V
> to reach intended landing in Hawaii.
>
> So so much for Starship being able to lauch from ground and reach LEO
> with no payload which was said to be possible in the early days of project.

Reaching orbit from ground with a single stage would probably mean doing
so with very little payload, essentially no payload at all. In the case
of the Starship/Super Heavy launch (SpaceX should really give a
different name for the whole spaceship and the second stage), there was
a lot a instruments to measure all kinds of things that wouldn't be
there in a normal launch. There probably was also a dummy payload (bags
of sand or something).

Alain Fournier

On 2023-05-07 07:56, Alain Fournier wrote:

> Reaching orbit from ground with a single stage would probably mean doing
> so with very little payload, essentially no payload at all. In the case
> of the Starship/Super Heavy launch (SpaceX should really give a
> different name for the whole spaceship and the second stage), there was
> a lot a instruments to measure all kinds of things that wouldn't be
> there in a normal launch.

I would think such instrumentation would be present for generations of
Starship to come especially since much of it is needed for landing. And
considering the massive vehicle built of steel, I doubt sensors and the
wiring would be a major weight.

Due to high risk of the stack not making it, I am not sure there would
be any payload, especially as SpaceX hasn't yet figured out how to make
a door (remember they tried the pez dispenser door/slot thinking that
could start launching soon, but engineers then reminded Musk that such a
large slot in fuselage left the fuselage unsupported on one side so they
ended up removing the door and welding plates to restore structureal
strength of the steel cylinder.

The question is whether Starship was fully fueled or only fueled for its
non-orbital hop. And from comments made by Musk, it also appears this
was a "blind" programmed flight without ability to change its profile on
the fly (such as ordering stage separation prematurely and firing
engines prematurely).

But it is strange that Musk stated Starship didnt have the delta-V to
reach Hawaii , he didn't mention lack of ability to change flight
profile on the fly;

https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/

Il giorno lunedì 1 maggio 2023 alle 14:22:22 UTC+2 Alain Fournier ha scritto:
> On May/1/2023 at 07:25, Dean Markley wrote :
> > On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
> >> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
> >
> > You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
> In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
> to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
> obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
> also says that several important partial successes have been reached.
>
> From the article:
> « Non aver raggiunto l’elemento di successo, cioè il completamento del
> « volo, non vuol dire aver fallito, perchè semplicemente un vero e
> « proprio fallimento non c’era.
> «
> « Il test del 20 aprile quindi, poteva sicuramente andare meglio. Come
> « abbiamo visto, sono molti gli elementi da correggere, e per questo
> « forse non vedremo un altro test in volo di Starship neanche nel 2023.
> « Ma affermare che sia stato un fallimento, è semplicemente sbagliato.»
>
> My personal translation:
> Not reaching the goal for success, the completion of the flight, does
> not mean to have failed, because there simply was no true failure.
>
> The April 20th test therefore, could have certainly gone better. As
> we have said, there are many things to correct, and because of this
> we may not see another flight test of Starship in all of 2023. But to
> affirm that is was a failure is simply an error.
>
>
> Alain Fournier

Of Artemis 1, about 0.3% of the departure spaceship returned to earth..... 99.7 was lost. The same reports in practice of the Apollo missions. You cannot physically colonize anything with rockets. Nor create any trade in minerals. Virtually the entire spaceship is lost in each mission. Those who believe in rocket science do not count and are crazy

Il giorno martedì 2 maggio 2023 alle 14:43:25 UTC+2 Alain Fournier ha scritto:
> On May/2/2023 at 07:32, Dean Markley wrote :
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:22:22 AM UTC-4, Alain Fournier wrote:
> >> On May/1/2023 at 07:25, Dean Markley wrote :
> >>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:50:21 AM UTC-4, pnn calmagorod wrote:
> >>>> https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
> >>>
> >>> You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
> >> In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
> >> to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
> >> obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
> >> also says that several important partial successes have been reached.
> >>
> >> From the article:
> >> « Non aver raggiunto l’elemento di successo, cioè il completamento del
> >> « volo, non vuol dire aver fallito, perchè semplicemente un vero e
> >> « proprio fallimento non c’era.
> >> «
> >> « Il test del 20 aprile quindi, poteva sicuramente andare meglio. Come
> >> « abbiamo visto, sono molti gli elementi da correggere, e per questo
> >> « forse non vedremo un altro test in volo di Starship neanche nel 2023.
> >> « Ma affermare che sia stato un fallimento, è semplicemente sbagliato.»
> >>
> >> My personal translation:
> >> Not reaching the goal for success, the completion of the flight, does
> >> not mean to have failed, because there simply was no true failure.
> >>
> >> The April 20th test therefore, could have certainly gone better. As
> >> we have said, there are many things to correct, and because of this
> >> we may not see another flight test of Starship in all of 2023. But to
> >> affirm that is was a failure is simply an error.
> >>
> >>
> >> Alain Fournier
> >
> > Alain, you are correct however I was referring to his post title. I don't know what the Ukrainian war has to do with this but his use of "Musk Astronautics" is clearly meant as sarcasm at the very least. Musk may not be a likeable character but no one can deny that his spacecraft have revolutionized the industry. PNN has not even managed to demonstrate their device works, much less used it to propel a spacecraft into orbit.
> >
> > Dean
> I agree with you. I think he wanted to denigrate SpaceX. My point was
> simply that the link he provided, which was the totality of his post,
> does not do so. Therefore, he failed in his attempt to denigrate SpaceX.
>
>
> Alain Fournier

By a law of physics, the velocity of the gases in any rocket goes with the square root of the temperature. So if you want to double the speed of the expelled gases you have to quadruple the temperature. Since the combustion chamber resists up to 3000 degrees Kelvin, rocketry has an efficiency limit. For this Artemis and Spacex whatever they do have no future in colonizing something.
Amen