https://www.astrospace.it/2023/04/23/starship-un-successo-o-un-fallimento/
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 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 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 !
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.
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 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 Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:22:22 AM UTC-4, Alain Fournier wrote: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.
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/ >>>In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
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
Dean
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:22:22?AM UTC-4, Alain Fournier wrote: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.
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:In this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
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.
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
Dean
On May/2/2023 at 07:32, Dean Markley wrote :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.
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/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
You'd do better to prove your own theories and practice instead of denigrating those who have demonstrated success.
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
DeanI 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
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 :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.
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: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
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.
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
degrees Kelvin, rocketry has an efficiency limit. For this Artemis and Spacex whatever they do have no future in colonizing something.I agree with you. I think he wanted to denigrate SpaceX. My point was
Dean
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
Amen
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.
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).
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 113:49:39 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,336,158 |