Starship 12.5km launch

[wraper]

Can you walk backwards? Why do you usually go to the store, but don't come back from it in reverse? 

Yes, the steps are landing. What's unusual about this? Is it necessary? Is it safe? Do you think that all space companies would not be able to make such a landing and then some unique discovery? A man who just threw batteries from a store into a car? 
It's a good show, I think. I'm not saying that it's bad, on the contrary - it's better than many other things. But I don't see any admiration.
Maybe I'm wrong, don't worry - just my opinion. 

Do you realize that they reused Falcon 9 boosters around 50 times? Instead of building a brand new booster each time. The most used booster launched/landed 7 times already.

What's unusual about this?

Nobody ever done it. And almost everybody joked about them and told it's impossible  till the end of 2015 when they finally succeeded. Включая вашего Дмитрия Батутовича. Now Rogozin boasts they will make their own rocket which lands. Флаг ему в руки и удачи.

[S. Petrukhin]

Are modern positioning and computing tools afraid of the wind? 

If it's so easy to land 15 story building falling down from space, why nobody else did this?

I get it now, I guess we're all "mis-understood"  what S. Petrukhin intents to say, that Rusia is so rich, that throwing away such big rocket stage (pic below) is no big deal, probably for Rusia its like wiping nose with tissue paper and throw it away.

Right ? 

You'll probably be surprised. But this big rocket is cheaper than the small Falcon, as far as I know. In addition, the wreckage is collected and recycling.

By the way, the heavy Angara is being prepared for launch, already on the launch pad.

However, you can't hear me... Everyone can plant steps, but for some obviously good reason, they don't. It is possible that the reason is actually not so weighty and will continue to develop in this direction. My opinion: the Shuttle was a much-much bigger breakthrough. It would be more reasonable to make a new rocket based on its principle. This is my opinion, I'm not a rocket science professional.

[S. Petrukhin]

Now Rogozin boasts they will make their own rocket which lands. Флаг ему в руки и удачи.

You know, in Russia, thinking people are puzzled by Rogozin. During the Soviet Union, I was on a tour and met with cosmonaut Leonov. We all smelled the glove - it had the smell of space.    And even then, it was talking about cooperation in space. I listened a lot of cosmonauts stories - no one is hostile to the Americans. Moreover, the Americans have largely saved our cosmonautics and are grateful to them for this. There was competition, and there was a military side, of course. But this is not the case now. And the mentioned Rogozin... I have friends who work in the Roscosmos - all of them dissatisfied with current management. Everyone says that people of Soviet training will leave and it will be very bad. Perhaps, for the Russian cosmonautics, modern leadership is a disaster.

[Refrigerator]

You'll probably be surprised. But this big rocket is cheaper than the small Falcon, as far as I know. In addition, the wreckage is collected and recycling.

Scrap is worth nothing compared to what it once was. Buy a 1000$ GPU, smash it and sell it for scrap, you won't get even 1 dollar back.
Imagine with every trip you scrapped your car and bought a new one, instead of doing basic maintenance and using it again.

SpaceX made reusable engines and this serves more than to just lower the cost but additionally boosts development because the engines can be examined after landanding and even more data can be collected.

[S. Petrukhin]

You'll probably be surprised. But this big rocket is cheaper than the small Falcon, as far as I know. In addition, the wreckage is collected and recycling.

Scrap is worth nothing compared to what it once was. Buy a 1000$ GPU, smash it and sell it for scrap, you won't get even 1 dollar back.
Imagine with every trip you scrapped your car and bought a new one, instead of doing basic maintenance and using it again.

SpaceX made reusable engines and this serves more than to just lower the cost but additionally boosts development because the engines can be examined after landanding and even more data can be collected.

Maybe you can explain why others didn't? Don't you think you were smart enough? What reasons do you think prevented from landing earlier?
I can assume that there is a question of money: make a new car for each trip, as you put it, much more profitable for interested people.
But there were no people in the USSR who profited from space.

Or, nevertheless, space is not a supermarket and it is more reliable and even cheaper to go there in a disposable car, oddly enough?

I don't know the answer. But I'm sure any space agency could do it.

[cgroen]

.
.
.
However, you can't hear me... Everyone can plant steps, but for some obviously good reason, they don't. It is possible that the reason is actually not so weighty and will continue to develop in this direction. My opinion: the Shuttle was a much-much bigger breakthrough. It would be more reasonable to make a new rocket based on its principle. This is my opinion, I'm not a rocket science professional.

No shit Sherlock, I almost got the impression that you actually were a "rocket science professional", thanks for clearing that up 
PS: You got a LOT of reading and studying to do.......

[wraper]

You'll probably be surprised. But this big rocket is cheaper than the small Falcon, as far as I know. In addition, the wreckage is collected and recycling.

You'll be surprised, but launch on Falcon 9 even in fully expendable variant is cheaper than on Proton, nor it is small. And that's even after launch price on Proton was reduced multiple times by more than 30% in total already, and another 30% drop is expected, to be at least somewhat competitive. Since Falcon 9 appeared, commercial launches on Proton essentially ceased to exist. Not to say that Falcon 9 can launch larger and heavier payloads than Proton and is way more reliable. Also due to poor reliability, insurance cost for Proton launches is very high.

[wraper]

Falcon 9:
Payload to LEO
Expendable: 22,800 kg (50,300 lb)
Reusable: 15,600 kg (34,400 lb)
Payload to GTO
Expendable: 8,300 kg (18,300 lb)
Reusable: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)

Proton-M
Payload to LEO 23,000 kg (51,000 lb)
Payload to GTO 6,300 kg (13,900 lb)

Falcon 9 payload volume is about 2 times larger. There is Falcon heavy which is also reusable, so there is basically no need to launch F9 in expendable variant unless customer requires so.

Falcon Heavy:
Payload to LEO 63,800 kg (140,700 lb)
Payload to GTO 26,700 kg (58,900 lb)

[S. Petrukhin]

Falcon 9:
Payload to LEO
Expendable: 22,800 kg (50,300 lb)
Reusable: 15,600 kg (34,400 lb)
Payload to GTO
Expendable: 8,300 kg (18,300 lb)
Reusable: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)

Proton-M
Payload to LEO 23,000 kg (51,000 lb)
Payload to GTO 6,300 kg (13,900 lb)

Falcon 9 payload volume is about 2 times larger. There is Falcon heavy which is also reusable, so there is basically no need to launch F9 in expendable variant unless customer requires so.

Falcon Heavy:
Payload to LEO 63,800 kg (140,700 lb)
Payload to GTO 26,700 kg (58,900 lb)

I don't really understand why 22800 is 2 times more than 23000... I do not know what LEO is, GTO is the height of the orbit, probably?

Proton is a very old rocket that has existed since the very beginning of space exploration. I do not know the exact reliability statistics and will not argue. I'm not even interested in it. I am interested in cosmonautics out of curiosity.

But the launch of the Angara carrier is scheduled for december 14. It seems that this rocket is much more powerful than the Proton. I don't know if the Energia is still alive. I think Falson can retire old man Proton. The modern leadership of Russian space seems to be successfully destroying everything...

[S. Petrukhin]

If the Falcon is better than the Proton, why NASA still buying the Proton launch?
Why still buy RD-180 from the middle of the last century?

[wraper]

why NASA still buying the Proton launch?

I never heard NASA buying Proton launch, for what? Soyuz astronaut launches is a different thing and they are launching on Falcon 9/Crew Dragon since this year. AFAIK the last seat they booked on Soyuz launched in October, as Dragon just started to launch astronauts they needed redundancy. And Boeing CST-100 is not ready yet. I doubt they will ever launch any astronaut on Soyuz after a year, if at all, and especially once CST-100 is ready and they have a second option. BTW NASA pays almost 2 times less per astronaut seat on Dragon compared to Soyuz, and can take significant cargo as well. BTW they can launch up to 7 people on a single Dragon if they need, and it still will be way more spacious than on Soyuz.
EDIT: BTW both Crew Dragon and F9 boosters will be reused for crewed launches as well https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-allow-reuse-of-crew-dragon-spacecraft-and-boosters/

[Mr. Scram]

You'll probably be surprised. But this big rocket is cheaper than the small Falcon, as far as I know. In addition, the wreckage is collected and recycling.

By the way, the heavy Angara is being prepared for launch, already on the launch pad.

However, you can't hear me... Everyone can plant steps, but for some obviously good reason, they don't. It is possible that the reason is actually not so weighty and will continue to develop in this direction. My opinion: the Shuttle was a much-much bigger breakthrough. It would be more reasonable to make a new rocket based on its principle. This is my opinion, I'm not a rocket science professional.

The point is derived from basic physics. Take a good look at the rocket equation and tell us what you see. To launch a small payload you need a big rocket. Now imagine a scenario where instead of throwing almost the entire rocket away you can recover and comparatively trivially rebuild and refuel it. It completely changes how much stuff you can launch at what cost and rate completely. It makes space flight much more mundane, which has been Musk's goal from the start.

The Space Shuttle promised to do something similar, but was an utter failure in the sense of cost and turnaround. It was a woefully expensive and finicky spacecraft. It also should be noted that what SpaceX is doing has not been done before. Landing a small craft on the Moon isn't the same game as landing a huge craft through an atmosphere. The challenges involved are nowhere near similar and the maths involved are a recent development. We literally could not do this before.

[S. Petrukhin]

I try to write in detail, but you don't read or I don't explain well... I will write briefly.

I wish success to all who work in space and to all engineers in general.
While Russian space is still needed. But there are concerns.
I don't see complex tasks solved in SpaceX, normal work, repetition of the past, but a lot of shows.

By the way, if I had my own rocket, I would be the first to fly into space. 

[wraper]

I try to write in detail, but you don't read or I don't explain well... I will write briefly.

When I read what you write about rockets, my first thought is you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Such as: Falcon 9 is a small rocket, NASA buys Proton launches, landing a rocket is easy, and so on. Simply

[Monkeh]

I don't see complex tasks solved in SpaceX, normal work, repetition of the past

Then you're not looking. You're dismissing out of ignorance.

[Mr. Scram]

I try to write in detail, but you don't read or I don't explain well... I will write briefly.

I wish success to all who work in space and to all engineers in general.
While Russian space is still needed. But there are concerns.
I don't see complex tasks solved in SpaceX, normal work, repetition of the past, but a lot of shows.

By the way, if I had my own rocket, I would be the first to fly into space. 

You seem to reduce and simplify to the point of all detail being lost, to then claim two detailless things are the same. You've been explained in some detail why and how things are different and you choose to just repeat earlier statements, ignoring any input. People aren't going to go into more detail when even broad basics are ignored. Folks here seem to be making some effort to explain things and ignoring any and all of it is honestly a bit rude.

Tl;dr when you put your fingers in your ears, all arguments sound the same.

[S. Petrukhin]

All I can do is congratulate the Americans on returning to their launch vehicles. I don't know why NASA hasn't done this for years.
And I wish to myself that our launch vehicles were also good and useful.

Guys, this is not a scientific forum on cosmonautics, I don't understand why I - a simple spectator of cosmonautics-have such complaints. I express my humble opinion, write some arguments, you don't read them, write your arguments.

Why are you so aggressive? What do you have to do with these successes? Why do you so zealously defend the sacredness of the event?
I'm tired of this unfriendly communication.

[wraper]

Why are you so aggressive? What do you have to do with these successes? Why do you so zealously defend the sacredness of the event?
I'm tired of this unfriendly communication.

Because you mostly wrote arguments which are completely false. And diminish landing of what will be a truly reusable spacecraft with 100 tonne carrying capacity to anywhere in the Solar system, as if it was some reiteration of old technology. Also it's powered by rocket engines made by themselves. About engine, nobody ever before made any of this: 1. full-flow staged combustion engine which actually worked and left Earth surface, 2. operates on methane, 3. >300 atmosphere chamber pressure.

[Mr. Scram]

All I can do is congratulate the Americans on returning to their launch vehicles. I don't know why NASA hasn't done this for years.
And I wish to myself that our launch vehicles were also good and useful.

Guys, this is not a scientific forum on cosmonautics, I don't understand why I - a simple spectator of cosmonautics-have such complaints. I express my humble opinion, write some arguments, you don't read them, write your arguments.

Why are you so aggressive? What do you have to do with these successes? Why do you so zealously defend the sacredness of the event?
I'm tired of this unfriendly communication.

Who is being aggressive? People are trying to be helpful, but are unfortunately ignored. People not only read and understand your comments, but also explain why your comments may represent an overly simplistic view. People are only disappointed that you don't seem to want to read, understand or address any of the points that were made. That's got nothing to do with any event, but simply with disappointment regarding behaviour and common courtesy.

[olkipukki]

But there were no people in the USSR who profited from space.

 

Is it came from the same proverb list that famous "There is no sex in the USSR"? 

[wraper]

Is it came from the same proverb list that famous "There is no sex in the USSR"? 

Almost everyone is oblivious that the complete phrase was "There is no sex in the USSR... on TV". Poor woman who became a joke with no fault of her.

[wraper]

I don't really understand why 22800 is 2 times more than 23000... I do not know what LEO is, GTO is the height of the orbit, probably?

Do you not understand that volume != mass? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_transfer_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Proton is a very old rocket that has existed since the very beginning of space exploration.

And that's why Russian space industry sucks. The only new thing that was made is Angara that does not have anything truly innovative, nor makes any economic sense as it's more expensive. An old horse beaten to death is still used because of that.

I do not know the exact reliability statistics and will not argue.

It sucks. Both in USSR and more modern times. IIRC about 1 in 10 Proton launces resulted in failures. Was especially bad in 2010-2014. Do you not remember fiasco with 3 out of 6 angular velocity sensors mounted upside down?
 

[jogri]

It sucks. Both in USSR and more modern times. IIRC about 1 in 10 Proton launces resulted in failures. Was especially bad in 2010-2014. Do you not remember fiasco with 3 out of 6 angular velocity sensors mounted upside down?

To be fair, Vega VV17 was also a thing... ESA rocket were someone switched the cables for two thrust vectoring actuators. Or Starliner who was launched with software that would rival Cyberpunk2077 on the PS4 in the category of "most tested/best performing software". The problem of underfunding/lack of quality control is plaging the entire industry, Russia is just the most extreme example (nearly all problems with Protons could have probably been prevented with more thorough testing).

And the Proton has one huge issue when it comes to launch failures: It still uses the N2O4/UDMH combo. Ivan sees a thing he likes, Ivan uses it. When Ivan needs more thrust, he builds himself a bigger rocket with the same propellants.
That stuff might be a nice propellant, but the cleanup following a launch failure is a royal PITA. Hydrazine is not the tamest chemical, and the N2O4 will corrode everything in sight (that's the orange clouds in the video).

Falcon 9 uses oxygen and jet fuel, so the cleanup is rather tame in comparison.

Btw, don't be too hard on Angara when we still have SLS on the table...

[wraper]

don't be too hard on Angara when we still have SLS on the table...

SLS is waste of money and resources on a grand scale. Actually Dragon and CST-100 were severely delayed exactly because most of the money/resources had gone to that junk based on old technology. And even when it's design is finished, it's will be not sustainable because of it's huge price.

Cost per launch Over US$2 billion excluding development

Hell yeah, 

[rdl]

Please, explain what makes SpaceX so happy?

What makes SpaceX "so happy" is that this event was progress toward people living on Mars. Everything they do is focused on that goal. And just about everything that they do has required going where no one has gone before. Not just "inventing the wheel" as you seem to think. I've never believed that goal was realistic, but as more and more progress is made my opinion slowly changes. This test flight of Starship will probably prove to be an epic milestone.

I didn't really take to Elon Musk at first and I'm still not a fan, but his company SpaceX has been one of the best things that has happened for America, everyone really. If nothing else, they have made 2020 much less miserable than it would have been.

I would suggest that you educate yourself on the current state of space technology before making additional comments. There are many excellent resources available. Watch some of the spaceflight related videos on youtube by Scott Manley and Tim Dodd and others. It will be time well spent.