• tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Good thing the planet’s not warming up, or that giant fireball caused by the needless “work fast and break things” mindset would be worrying

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Better it explodes on the ground than in the sky. All that methane in the upper atmosphere surely does us no favours.

      • Tsiolkovsky’all@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Honestly curious about that. Anyone around know what the impact is? May need to get a NASA scientist involved… oh, wait, they all are getting fired. /sigh

        • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          No one knows. Probably nothing beneficial. There has recently been news about aerosolized metals in the atmosphere but it’s all new. The amount of satellites has been teeny till lately. And no one has been launching giant skyscrapers of methane and exploding them in the upper atmosphere till now either.

    • Tsiolkovsky’all@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Tough to really throw even partial blame for global warming on chemical propulsion launches. Funny thought, though. :)

      Go fast and break stuff is a viable way to rapidly iterate inside a known box, which is really what spaceX did with dragon and falcon. NASA gave them a big head start - they more or less had an engine design, more or less knew how to build a gn&c (even for propulsive return), more or less knew how to build the sticks… just wasn’t efficient or cost-effective. Cutting bits off to see if the overall system still operates is kinda how the relationship between govt and industry is supposed to work.

      Starship isn’t iterating inside a known box. It’s not a smarter cheaper version of existing tech, it’s a whole new thing that Elon just kinda spoke into existence. It must be fun to have that kind of money and power, but it doesn’t mean the idea will ever actually work - and this is where the deliberate, methodical process that NASA uses becomes more valuable.

      What’ll be interesting is when SpaceX starts missing payment milestones. I think they’ve gotten some grace in the past. Not sure the current environment is as permissive. Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s part of why Elon wants to shift the goalposts to Mars - it’d give him more time to sort out some of the fundamental challenges with his concept.

      • Tsiolkovsky’all@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Hey methane is a viable fuel for lots of stuff, no shade - it’s got lots of benefits, way easier to manage than liquid hydrogen.

        Now, if what you’re thinking about is nuclear… YES. We desperately need prop sources that aren’t locked to the rocket equation. Give me a hybrid NEP/SEP and I’ll try to colonize Mars.