Wild guess that it might have been just tests to collect data for sub launched nukes? Maybe we already had those by then I dunno.
The Astronomy Thread
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -757
We did not. Test-firing one or two tethered 20-foot rockets with a (max) 500 pound payload capacity incapable of orbital insertion in the water is in no way, shape or form the same as having a proven and reliable mega-rocket larger than the goddam Apollo ready for use, let alone being able to say anything meaningful about its cost. I particularly like the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier suggested to run the fueling of the thing. Bet that wasnt included in the costs...
Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -757
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
Yeah, I misspoke using the word "launch". Moving from my careless use of the word "launch", do you care to debate the merits of the concept?
The theory was there, the math was there, the concept tested, etc. Is there more detailed and readily accessible info on this project besides the random collection of your typical sites? Because everything I found on it was vague, yet sounded as though it was fairly fleshed out.
Cost is actually fairly easy to estimate, esp back when expectations were regularly exceeded.
And technically, the aircraft carrier would be considered a sunk cost. Lol
Anyway, I stand by it. We had, at the very least, a concept with some testing already done for this same shit 65+ years ago. It wasn't fancy as fuck and was not pretty and special in how it landed / was recovered. But it would have been functional. And it was never perused.
The theory was there, the math was there, the concept tested, etc. Is there more detailed and readily accessible info on this project besides the random collection of your typical sites? Because everything I found on it was vague, yet sounded as though it was fairly fleshed out.
Cost is actually fairly easy to estimate, esp back when expectations were regularly exceeded.
And technically, the aircraft carrier would be considered a sunk cost. Lol
Anyway, I stand by it. We had, at the very least, a concept with some testing already done for this same shit 65+ years ago. It wasn't fancy as fuck and was not pretty and special in how it landed / was recovered. But it would have been functional. And it was never perused.
Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -757
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, until such time as you can provide something more concrete, or until I do.
Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -757
To be more clear, you are making extraordinary claims. Generally this requires extraordinary proof to be accepted, which you have not provided. I also take such things with a reality check; if there was a working design for a rocket that is superior to and cheaper than existing rockets, as well as being reusable, then I think that in the 60 years you have quoted, that *someone* would have developed it.
That not being the case, I remain *highly* skeptical.
That not being the case, I remain *highly* skeptical.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
Space x is now, that was then. People want to be a part of something special, and are reluctant to accept we had the capability decades ago, to do what we are *trying* to do now.
Human nature.
And space x lands all pretty and cool like.
Like I said, something happened. The right political contributions, sea Dragon guy fucked the wrong dudes daughter, bad luck, etc.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 49,515
- 88,286
I don't really know much about the sea dragon or rocket physics, but I do know bullshit. What you're doing is seeing credible criticism to your opinion and subconsciously undermining it by projecting an irrational motivation onto the speaker.
This is a thread of science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
The credible criticism of my opinion summarizes into "NAH, NEVER BUILT NOT READY TO LAUNCH".
Im not SUBconsciously doing anything, I was CONSCIOUSLY saying that people discount what was possible because they were not part of it, because of a shit ton of reasons.
The motivation I spoke of, could be considered irrational, or rational, depending on the PoV. And it was not projected onto the speaker, but onto the actions of a group of people a long time ago.
If he wants to debate the merits of pressurized tanks vs pumped rocketry, or welded steel tank weight vs non corrosive graphite (I think was the material considered a few years ago for big + dumb?) tank weight, or the weight / thrust produced by clusters of big + dumb vs the drop off in thrust attained by increasing the size of single rockets . . . then Im down.
Also, the motivation etc is a soft science, which is a science (brain thoughts people do cause reasons).
I welcome credible, real, material criticism. What he did, was hinge on a word I misused, piled crap on top, and you ate that shit up like it was a fucking turkey dinner.
Im not SUBconsciously doing anything, I was CONSCIOUSLY saying that people discount what was possible because they were not part of it, because of a shit ton of reasons.
The motivation I spoke of, could be considered irrational, or rational, depending on the PoV. And it was not projected onto the speaker, but onto the actions of a group of people a long time ago.
If he wants to debate the merits of pressurized tanks vs pumped rocketry, or welded steel tank weight vs non corrosive graphite (I think was the material considered a few years ago for big + dumb?) tank weight, or the weight / thrust produced by clusters of big + dumb vs the drop off in thrust attained by increasing the size of single rockets . . . then Im down.
Also, the motivation etc is a soft science, which is a science (brain thoughts people do cause reasons).
I welcome credible, real, material criticism. What he did, was hinge on a word I misused, piled crap on top, and you ate that shit up like it was a fucking turkey dinner.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 49,515
- 88,286
If your mental model of your understanding of your opponent's argument is a dumb statement in all caps you should probably just save yours and everyone else's time and give up the argument.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
Fuk, was going to edit into my last post, but Itzena showed up so just going to reply it up. Saw this earlier today, I had no idea we had not done end to end production in 30 years. Yay! We have gotten back to where we were 3 decades ago in something else! But it does hearken back to what i was speaking about, most of the posters in this thread (if not all, and I would wager large sums on ALL) have zero clue what expertise and ideas have been shuttered / ignored / lost since when the space program was in full swing.
Space Fuel: Plutonium-238 Created After 30-Year Wait
Itzena, from what i understand, we have spent decades refining the science behind pumped fuel / non pressurized tanks, and have milked it to just about its limit in proficiency. I would think, when Space X started, they hired people with experience in rocketry, and the experience would have been non pressurized etc etc rockets. To go back to an idea from half a century ago, you would have to build the tech from the ground up, and have zero experience to draw from (unless you dig up some 100yr old engineer and wheel him out of his retirement home).
Add in god knows what issues with maritime law, EPA regs, etc for the ocean (could use a lake, but then you still have EPA regs, the problem of getting a nuclear reactor there to provide the fuel production), potential for storms, production / logistics etc could be problematic for a private company but fairly simple for the gov't, etc etc.
Fuk, in all honesty, I have NO idea. Thats why I wish there was readily accessible information on those tests, it would be easier to discern the reasons why it was abandoned when it did show promise (whether or not it could be realized, fuk I dunno. But I am not dumb enough, sheltered enough etc, to think cause the funding was pulled that means it was 100% not viable or possibly better than the tech we have been using).
Space Fuel: Plutonium-238 Created After 30-Year Wait
Itzena, from what i understand, we have spent decades refining the science behind pumped fuel / non pressurized tanks, and have milked it to just about its limit in proficiency. I would think, when Space X started, they hired people with experience in rocketry, and the experience would have been non pressurized etc etc rockets. To go back to an idea from half a century ago, you would have to build the tech from the ground up, and have zero experience to draw from (unless you dig up some 100yr old engineer and wheel him out of his retirement home).
Add in god knows what issues with maritime law, EPA regs, etc for the ocean (could use a lake, but then you still have EPA regs, the problem of getting a nuclear reactor there to provide the fuel production), potential for storms, production / logistics etc could be problematic for a private company but fairly simple for the gov't, etc etc.
Fuk, in all honesty, I have NO idea. Thats why I wish there was readily accessible information on those tests, it would be easier to discern the reasons why it was abandoned when it did show promise (whether or not it could be realized, fuk I dunno. But I am not dumb enough, sheltered enough etc, to think cause the funding was pulled that means it was 100% not viable or possibly better than the tech we have been using).
Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -757
I did try to talk with you in a reasonable way, but you've turned out to be crazy. Time to lock you in with Furry in the ignore box.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
That works, skip all the viable arguments he could have made that i presented in the earlier post, and continue to think that because it was not funded means it was not viable. So lemme do it point by point for you, since I assume you have already started drinking cause you sure seem a bit lacking today.
Nuc aircraft carrier, sunk costs, there are naval bases near the coasts, its not like NASA would have built one from scratch to use solely for this. Might have cost a large chuck to fit it with whatever was required to produce the fuel, but its not req'd to build from the ground up. So that point is dumb.
Cost accounting, was not hard back then. Cause people produced, and were competent. We have another thread talking about how incompetent the workforce is today (well, a few posts in a thread). This applies to the difficulty of cost accounting. Which back then, it was a lot easier to do. Less red tape, less variance, etc etc, more skilled / motivated work force, etc etc. Add in, you can only go off estimates until its built, so saying you dont know how off the estimate was from what the actual would have been is pointless, you can say that about anything. So thats kinda dumb.
And literally, the rest of his post with criticism hinges on the word "launch". Which I admitted yesterday? I misused.
The fuck is wrong with you Tuco?
Mudcrush, your assumption is based on the idea that the gov't and its execution / adoption of anything, is ideal. And it isnt. So I dunno what else to tell you. I said that earlier.
meStevo
I think your wife's a bigfoot gus.
- 6,594
- 4,884
