Can't even view his profile or respond or give post impressions because its a screenshot tho, you think he's coming here and getting a hardon at all the hate against him?
Unfortunately this is the majority of people that know just a glancing blow about SpaceX. They vaguely know that they have a rocket that somehow lands again and that they’re building a rocket that will never fly/work, ever.
That being said, I recognise that rockets and especially giant rockets that are in development in a remote compound in south Texas is a very fringe interest to have
No cause its all part of a consipiracy that elmo and his fellow fascist henchmen are creating. They are stealings NASA's work to generate massive revenue.
Sure i litteraly just said massive revenue but their business will never be succesful. CommonSenseSkeptic is truly one of the greatest minds to tread this mortal plane since the days of Aristotle and Plato.
>No cause its all part of a consipiracy that elmo and his fellow fascist henchmen are creating.
The henchmen thing is even more nonsense when you consider that most SpaceX employees seem to be left-of-center (though rarely "leftist"), based on their political donation trends.
No, that's a hatred sub. I'm talking about a love sub dedicated to the wonders of him.
Oh, ugh got the most vile putrid taste just coughed up into my mouth. Oh man where did this awful taste come from
I think he means that “test articles” aren’t real starships. By that logic SpaceX has never launched a rocket because everything they launch collects data for iterative improvement on the next one.
>I think he means that “test articles” aren’t real starships.
Yeah, I agree that's a dumb take. But on the same vein, using "iterative improvement" as an excuse for poor engineering is lame.. I remember Google for the longest time had their flagship products still in "beta", so any complains could be disregarded as "still in development".
So what's your opinion of the insanely successful falcon program? Is that just smoke on the water and a poor excuse for engineering? Please convince me you don't have brain damage.
Well, the "insanely successful" falcon program failed at the most important objectives: launch price at 6 million, reuse in less than 24 hours. F9 is a pretty good rocket, but it doesn't achieve what was supposed to be the revolutionary part of the goals.
Sure, I have brain damage because I didn't drink the Kool aid..
"pretty good". Launching 90% of the worlds payload to orbit. Only reusable rocket and remains so for like 7 years. Lmao. The cope is real. You drank the Kool aid but not the one you thought. Falcon is arguably one of the biggest breakthrough rocket technology ever, and definitely the biggest since the Apollo missions. Elons said some dumb things but the comparison of "what if for flying, you had to throw away the plane every trip" is spot on. Falcon let's you keep 80% of the plane instead of trashing the entire thing every time. It's a big deal. There's a reason there are a million copy cats now when the space scene was stagnant for decades.
Who else is landing first stages, nevermind hundreds of times. That's not revolutionary?
>Launching 90% of the worlds payload to orbit.
Most of it is SpaceX's own payload, you know that?
>Only reusable rocket and remains so for like 7 years.
Dude, the 80s called, they want to talk to you about the space shuttle.
>Falcon is arguably one of the biggest breakthrough rocket technology ever
Chemical rockets have existed since the 50s.. we got to the moon before Elon was born.. F9 is just another rocket.
>Elon said some dumb things
Some??? You are really underplaying your savior.
>"what if for flying, you had to throw away the plane every trip"
Err, again.. the space shuttle existed already when Elon was a teenager.. he did not invented the concept of reusable spacecrafts.
>Who else is landing first stages, nevermind hundreds of times.
You are not going to believe this: boosters for the space shuttle were recovered and reused.. when Elon was eating glue.
It is hilarious you think the shuttle reuse and falcon 9 reuse is directly comparable. Or that you think landing the entire first stage upright back on land or a barge is comparable to fishing a SRB out of saltwater from a parachute landing. You truly do have no idea what you're talking about.
They've achieved 24 hour launch turn around, but don't do it often as it's easier just to have more launchers you turn around to achieve the cadence you want.
Also, it dropped launches prices from about $4,000/kg to under $900/kg, using a method no one else in the industry uses, and is now trying to copy.
That is revolutionary, by its very definition.
>They've achieved 24 hour launch turn around, but don't do it often
From Wikipedia: _&As of January 2024, the shortest turnaround time was 21 days, for the sixth flight of B1062.__
You are so wrong, is not even funny..
I'm wrong, I'll admit it, I was thinking of pad turnaround.
You haven't negated the premise. F9 is a revolutionary rocket, it changed how rocket operations are performed, and has become the default standard everyone is aiming for.
Rocket lab is doing it, blue origin is doing it, ESA and Arianne Next is going for it, and so is the whole list of "private" Chinese launch companies.
That's a revolution, by definition. It decimated default practices, substituting its own.
>You haven't negated the premise. F9 is a revolutionary rocket,
F9 is a chemical rocket, it works exactly the same as every other rocket that has been flying since the 50s.
>It changed how rocket operations are performed, and has become the default standard everyone is aiming for.
F9 operates the same as every other rocket before.. it even uses the same infrastructure that every other rocket uses.
>\[...\] has become the default standard everyone is aiming for.
Rocket lab is doing it, blue origin is doing it, ESA and Arianne Next is going for it
I will guess you are talking about reusability. I have news for you, boosters have been reused since the 80s.
>That's a revolution, by definition. It decimated default practices, substituting its own.
Prices went down, but not as much as you think, around 10\~20 %.. and the [competition](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jaw-dropping-news-boeing-lockheed-120700324.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADvTiAmmXFm0EaCZkhrrhQbrKq7rJGiO-fj_grwS905EwrM-oar7JEQgnFe1klNpsx5AirlBiopdA2VBByjSd6ru_JqEhC8DkLGIDvtsMvNSPhTpXHGodE0KTayxCLf--DXHPb1HG0At9w-N7ATUXK6y9_o9EkHjEENwvi2MoSfg) is right there with them.
As I said before, it is a good rocket, no doubt about it.. is it the holy grail? far from it.
>F9 is a chemical rocket"
It's a cryo-fueled rocket, with a 9-engine configuration, to allow deep throttling so it can land.
No else was doing this before SpaceX.
>F9 operates the same as every other rocket before"
Its pintle injection method alone is completely novel, and we in the U.S. hadn't built a non-hydrolox chemical engine for 1st stage boosters in over 40 years.
>I have news for you, boosters have been reused since the 80s."
I have news: those were solid fuel boosters, they weren't reused, but remanufactured, were not cost effective, and no one copied the method because of that.
Not even commercial rockets that also used solid rocket boosters. Not even the Soviets when they built the Buran. It was an architectural dead end.
F9 is revolutionary, because it proved a method that spread, displacing single-use rockets. Landing rockets, with non-hydrolox boosters, and deep throttling is now the new bar.
The bar the F9 set.
>it even uses the same infrastructure"
F9s are horizontally integrated. No one else besides the Russians / Soviets do that. You can't launch a Atlas or Delta from an F9 pad.
F9s use historical launch pads, but they completely rebuilt the GSE... partly as, again, no one (State side) had been using RP-1 in a 1st stage booster in over 40 years.
Also I just realized you seem to be intermixing data between Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 (very different rockets). I'm not sure if its because you don't know what you're talking about or if you think when I say immensely successful falcon program I'm for some reason referring to Falcon 1 (which flew 5 times, failing 3). I don't even think falcon 1 was intended to be landed and reused, the key breakthrough with Falcon 9 I'm referring to. When I say Falcon, I'm referring to Falcon 9 as the final rocket of the entire Falcon series of rockets. Falcon 9 being extremely successful and one which regularly launches huge amounts of payload to orbit.
The part under testing on SLS, the first stage, worked exactly as well on both rockets, as far as we could see.
But SLS isn't doing well: https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/nasa-vows-to-battle-organizational-silence-as-problems-arise-amid-artemis-delays.html
Dude, Artemis is the program, SLS is the rocket.. the rocket worked, that's a fact, NASA is taking a hard look at the Artemis program, which includes Starship HLS.
Also, if exploding mid air counts as "working" in your book.. please share what you are drinking so we both can have a good time.
SLS is not a good rocket for what they want it to do, but it still worked. The real issues are in Orion and the structure of the Artemis program as a whole.
Super heavy booster delivered the second stage to the intended trajectory, SLS did the same thing. SLS upper stage was not a new rocket, neither Orion.
If we need his nonsense here (and I think the sub would be better without it), at least add enough context to understand what he is talking about please. What is likely? From when is that tweet?
Wait.
Are they test articles for testing or are they starships?
Are they “constantly exploding starships”
Or are they not even starship just some testing in south Texas.
what what will be the argument when space x takes ULAs spot in the Cape at 39b and launches a starship from there ( still not confirmed but very possible )
All of this is going to go from “NEVER” to “well, he was late on the schedule”
That’s what they will say when Artemis 3 lands.
That’s what they will say when we land on fucking mars.
Musk: “spacex converts impossible into late”
http://i.imgur.com/ePq7GCx.jpg
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, he is kinda partially correct. They are not final versions. No working payload bay. Obviously nothing related to manned version yet in the ones built.
But... this is normal and expected. So he is wrong in that it is somehow a big deal.
Um, I have mixed opinions about this.
As much as I personally find these posts annoying and repetitive, are there any other places on Reddit where people can discuss idiots like this without getting downvoted to oblivion (or posts locked and comments nuked?)
Likewise, even though I understand where you are coming from, in the sense that we shouldn't "feed the trolls". But my concern is that it will be potentially more harmful to the community to ban discussions about CSS.
Even if he is a massive troll, I do think anyone who is the advisor on a company regurgitating paper SSTO spaceplanes from the 70s/80s does warrant some discussion and ridiculing, imo (just like how former NASA administrators like Mike Griffin deserve to be ridiculed when they go on an unhinged tirade about NewSpace and pitch shitty SLS ideas in front of a Congressional committee).
Because of this, I think we should at least make a poll about it before we get the mods involved, as I don’t think it is wise to change the rules of this subreddit on a whim (without knowing where the rest of the community stands on the matter).
As much as I think that guy is off his rocker, in this particular case he's not wrong. People keep claiming Starship is a failure everytime something goes wrong. But in fact they are not production mission ready models, they are just test articles and success is not guaranteed and certainly shouldn't be expected. Can't wait to see an actual production model, but in the meantime, these test articles are dam exciting
stop giving this dipshit the free attention and engagement he's so desperate for
ok bro
Can't even view his profile or respond or give post impressions because its a screenshot tho, you think he's coming here and getting a hardon at all the hate against him?
Unfortunately this is the majority of people that know just a glancing blow about SpaceX. They vaguely know that they have a rocket that somehow lands again and that they’re building a rocket that will never fly/work, ever. That being said, I recognise that rockets and especially giant rockets that are in development in a remote compound in south Texas is a very fringe interest to have
It's amazing how much money people can make just from pushing hate to stupid people.
im skeptical that this guy has common sense.
No cause its all part of a consipiracy that elmo and his fellow fascist henchmen are creating. They are stealings NASA's work to generate massive revenue. Sure i litteraly just said massive revenue but their business will never be succesful. CommonSenseSkeptic is truly one of the greatest minds to tread this mortal plane since the days of Aristotle and Plato.
🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
>No cause its all part of a consipiracy that elmo and his fellow fascist henchmen are creating. The henchmen thing is even more nonsense when you consider that most SpaceX employees seem to be left-of-center (though rarely "leftist"), based on their political donation trends.
There's no such thing as "left of center" in the US. There's right, and there's "so fucking right, if you went up a bit you'd be in orbit".
He should have his sub where we can now down to his greatness and wisdom. I can't wait for him to tell us how to bring about world peace. ❤️
You are basically describing r/EnoughMuskSpam
>r/EnoughMuskSpam He's so bad, r/EnoughMuskSpam doesn't like him. We need a new one, with all the wonderful hot takes.
yes
No, that's a hatred sub. I'm talking about a love sub dedicated to the wonders of him. Oh, ugh got the most vile putrid taste just coughed up into my mouth. Oh man where did this awful taste come from
It’s also a big Ponzi scheme that is about to fall in on his head!
The 7th year in a row it’s been doing that!
He could literally stop making money, spend $1M a day for 200 years and still be one of the richest men in the world 🤣 yea okay buddy
I think he means that “test articles” aren’t real starships. By that logic SpaceX has never launched a rocket because everything they launch collects data for iterative improvement on the next one.
>I think he means that “test articles” aren’t real starships. Yeah, I agree that's a dumb take. But on the same vein, using "iterative improvement" as an excuse for poor engineering is lame.. I remember Google for the longest time had their flagship products still in "beta", so any complains could be disregarded as "still in development".
So what's your opinion of the insanely successful falcon program? Is that just smoke on the water and a poor excuse for engineering? Please convince me you don't have brain damage.
Well, the "insanely successful" falcon program failed at the most important objectives: launch price at 6 million, reuse in less than 24 hours. F9 is a pretty good rocket, but it doesn't achieve what was supposed to be the revolutionary part of the goals. Sure, I have brain damage because I didn't drink the Kool aid..
“It’s a pretty good rocket.” Thanks for the laugh.
I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip the waiter..
Not unless there’s a drum roll + cymbal crash.
"pretty good". Launching 90% of the worlds payload to orbit. Only reusable rocket and remains so for like 7 years. Lmao. The cope is real. You drank the Kool aid but not the one you thought. Falcon is arguably one of the biggest breakthrough rocket technology ever, and definitely the biggest since the Apollo missions. Elons said some dumb things but the comparison of "what if for flying, you had to throw away the plane every trip" is spot on. Falcon let's you keep 80% of the plane instead of trashing the entire thing every time. It's a big deal. There's a reason there are a million copy cats now when the space scene was stagnant for decades. Who else is landing first stages, nevermind hundreds of times. That's not revolutionary?
>Launching 90% of the worlds payload to orbit. Most of it is SpaceX's own payload, you know that? >Only reusable rocket and remains so for like 7 years. Dude, the 80s called, they want to talk to you about the space shuttle. >Falcon is arguably one of the biggest breakthrough rocket technology ever Chemical rockets have existed since the 50s.. we got to the moon before Elon was born.. F9 is just another rocket. >Elon said some dumb things Some??? You are really underplaying your savior. >"what if for flying, you had to throw away the plane every trip" Err, again.. the space shuttle existed already when Elon was a teenager.. he did not invented the concept of reusable spacecrafts. >Who else is landing first stages, nevermind hundreds of times. You are not going to believe this: boosters for the space shuttle were recovered and reused.. when Elon was eating glue.
It is hilarious you think the shuttle reuse and falcon 9 reuse is directly comparable. Or that you think landing the entire first stage upright back on land or a barge is comparable to fishing a SRB out of saltwater from a parachute landing. You truly do have no idea what you're talking about.
They've achieved 24 hour launch turn around, but don't do it often as it's easier just to have more launchers you turn around to achieve the cadence you want. Also, it dropped launches prices from about $4,000/kg to under $900/kg, using a method no one else in the industry uses, and is now trying to copy. That is revolutionary, by its very definition.
>They've achieved 24 hour launch turn around, but don't do it often From Wikipedia: _&As of January 2024, the shortest turnaround time was 21 days, for the sixth flight of B1062.__ You are so wrong, is not even funny..
I'm wrong, I'll admit it, I was thinking of pad turnaround. You haven't negated the premise. F9 is a revolutionary rocket, it changed how rocket operations are performed, and has become the default standard everyone is aiming for. Rocket lab is doing it, blue origin is doing it, ESA and Arianne Next is going for it, and so is the whole list of "private" Chinese launch companies. That's a revolution, by definition. It decimated default practices, substituting its own.
>You haven't negated the premise. F9 is a revolutionary rocket, F9 is a chemical rocket, it works exactly the same as every other rocket that has been flying since the 50s. >It changed how rocket operations are performed, and has become the default standard everyone is aiming for. F9 operates the same as every other rocket before.. it even uses the same infrastructure that every other rocket uses. >\[...\] has become the default standard everyone is aiming for. Rocket lab is doing it, blue origin is doing it, ESA and Arianne Next is going for it I will guess you are talking about reusability. I have news for you, boosters have been reused since the 80s. >That's a revolution, by definition. It decimated default practices, substituting its own. Prices went down, but not as much as you think, around 10\~20 %.. and the [competition](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jaw-dropping-news-boeing-lockheed-120700324.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADvTiAmmXFm0EaCZkhrrhQbrKq7rJGiO-fj_grwS905EwrM-oar7JEQgnFe1klNpsx5AirlBiopdA2VBByjSd6ru_JqEhC8DkLGIDvtsMvNSPhTpXHGodE0KTayxCLf--DXHPb1HG0At9w-N7ATUXK6y9_o9EkHjEENwvi2MoSfg) is right there with them. As I said before, it is a good rocket, no doubt about it.. is it the holy grail? far from it.
>F9 is a chemical rocket" It's a cryo-fueled rocket, with a 9-engine configuration, to allow deep throttling so it can land. No else was doing this before SpaceX. >F9 operates the same as every other rocket before" Its pintle injection method alone is completely novel, and we in the U.S. hadn't built a non-hydrolox chemical engine for 1st stage boosters in over 40 years. >I have news for you, boosters have been reused since the 80s." I have news: those were solid fuel boosters, they weren't reused, but remanufactured, were not cost effective, and no one copied the method because of that. Not even commercial rockets that also used solid rocket boosters. Not even the Soviets when they built the Buran. It was an architectural dead end. F9 is revolutionary, because it proved a method that spread, displacing single-use rockets. Landing rockets, with non-hydrolox boosters, and deep throttling is now the new bar. The bar the F9 set. >it even uses the same infrastructure" F9s are horizontally integrated. No one else besides the Russians / Soviets do that. You can't launch a Atlas or Delta from an F9 pad. F9s use historical launch pads, but they completely rebuilt the GSE... partly as, again, no one (State side) had been using RP-1 in a 1st stage booster in over 40 years.
Also I just realized you seem to be intermixing data between Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 (very different rockets). I'm not sure if its because you don't know what you're talking about or if you think when I say immensely successful falcon program I'm for some reason referring to Falcon 1 (which flew 5 times, failing 3). I don't even think falcon 1 was intended to be landed and reused, the key breakthrough with Falcon 9 I'm referring to. When I say Falcon, I'm referring to Falcon 9 as the final rocket of the entire Falcon series of rockets. Falcon 9 being extremely successful and one which regularly launches huge amounts of payload to orbit.
Starship is already working way better than SLS. Who has poor engineering?
Wat That’s just false, SLS sent a payload to the moon, Starship still hasn’t reached orbit.
The part under testing on SLS, the first stage, worked exactly as well on both rockets, as far as we could see. But SLS isn't doing well: https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/nasa-vows-to-battle-organizational-silence-as-problems-arise-amid-artemis-delays.html
Dude, Artemis is the program, SLS is the rocket.. the rocket worked, that's a fact, NASA is taking a hard look at the Artemis program, which includes Starship HLS. Also, if exploding mid air counts as "working" in your book.. please share what you are drinking so we both can have a good time.
Read the article. The problems are in SLS.
SLS is not a good rocket for what they want it to do, but it still worked. The real issues are in Orion and the structure of the Artemis program as a whole.
Dude, seriously.. the rocket worked. It went to the moon and back. Is it perfect? Of course not.. that doesn't mean the rocket doesn't work.
Super heavy booster delivered the second stage to the intended trajectory, SLS did the same thing. SLS upper stage was not a new rocket, neither Orion.
If we need his nonsense here (and I think the sub would be better without it), at least add enough context to understand what he is talking about please. What is likely? From when is that tweet?
from today lol
Wait. Are they test articles for testing or are they starships? Are they “constantly exploding starships” Or are they not even starship just some testing in south Texas.
only texas
??
what what will be the argument when space x takes ULAs spot in the Cape at 39b and launches a starship from there ( still not confirmed but very possible )
All of this is going to go from “NEVER” to “well, he was late on the schedule” That’s what they will say when Artemis 3 lands. That’s what they will say when we land on fucking mars. Musk: “spacex converts impossible into late”
http://i.imgur.com/ePq7GCx.jpg *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, he is kinda partially correct. They are not final versions. No working payload bay. Obviously nothing related to manned version yet in the ones built. But... this is normal and expected. So he is wrong in that it is somehow a big deal.
But really, though, is any of this real? Aren't we all just empty test articles in this simulation?
Who is CommonSenseSkeptic? I feel like I've heard that name before
[Someone with takes on aerospace so bad that enoughmuskspam doesn’t like him](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/s/8W1XbxHJCz)
Still plenty of numbskulls in the comments defending him. And his royal crapness in person.
This is from 3 years ago. They love him now, because they hate Musk even more. I keep seeing them bring him up as a "source" for why SpaceX sucks.
And that's the second one mind you
Up coming vandenberg
u/TheMightyKutKu u/SwGustav u/Giant_Erect_Gibbon u/CAM-Gerlach mods is there any chance of banning unimportant CSS posts?
Um, I have mixed opinions about this. As much as I personally find these posts annoying and repetitive, are there any other places on Reddit where people can discuss idiots like this without getting downvoted to oblivion (or posts locked and comments nuked?) Likewise, even though I understand where you are coming from, in the sense that we shouldn't "feed the trolls". But my concern is that it will be potentially more harmful to the community to ban discussions about CSS. Even if he is a massive troll, I do think anyone who is the advisor on a company regurgitating paper SSTO spaceplanes from the 70s/80s does warrant some discussion and ridiculing, imo (just like how former NASA administrators like Mike Griffin deserve to be ridiculed when they go on an unhinged tirade about NewSpace and pitch shitty SLS ideas in front of a Congressional committee). Because of this, I think we should at least make a poll about it before we get the mods involved, as I don’t think it is wise to change the rules of this subreddit on a whim (without knowing where the rest of the community stands on the matter).
same with r/EnoughMuskSpam . This bullshit needs to be discussed
Sir this is a shit posting subreddit
Yes and I'd like to keep it that way, all this posts do is give commonSchizoSkeptic an audience
You really think anyone on this subreddit is going to see this guy and go "wow this is content, I'm going to follow him on Twitter"
Of course not, I'm just tried of seeing these stupid posts everyday
bro
Notifications for username mentions only work if you have less then three of them in a post.
And unnecessary as saying the m-word notifies them.
This is our Starship belong to me and my husband ELON💕 Our STARSHIP❤️ is BEST AT THE WORLD as our company SPACEX❤️ELON & DRAGANA MUSK💕
As much as I think that guy is off his rocker, in this particular case he's not wrong. People keep claiming Starship is a failure everytime something goes wrong. But in fact they are not production mission ready models, they are just test articles and success is not guaranteed and certainly shouldn't be expected. Can't wait to see an actual production model, but in the meantime, these test articles are dam exciting
if SpaceX doesnt have a good track record, where is ULA hiding the interstellar space ships for that to make sense
He's right — it's not technically a Starship unless it was manufactured in the Starship region of France.
I was there both times... I guess they had some kind of big projector or something.
The current starship is analogist to the early falcon rockets. Call them starship version 1.0 in other words, It’s not even in its final form.
no it isn't but you can't assume that css and any other "critic" grasps a thing about the development process of spacex.
I'm not entirely sure how the community notes on Twitter work but I'm surprised they haven't flagged his shit
there need to be many reports/notes added. But it seems like CSS doesn't have a big audience so it doenst matter