Military Review

"We need a little work on the landing": Flight tests of the prototype of the Starship spacecraft ended in an explosion

262
"We need a little work on the landing": Flight tests of the prototype of the Starship spacecraft ended in an explosion

Another prototype of SpaceX's Starship SN9 spacecraft exploded on landing after performing a test flight. The head of the company, Elon Musk, called the tests successful.


SpaceX has conducted regular flight tests of a prototype manned spacecraft Starship SN9 at the company's test site in the Boca Chica region of Texas. The ship lifted off the ground and rose to an altitude of 10 km. In the air, engine shutdown, aerodynamic braking, engine restart to return to a vertical position and landing were practiced. However, upon landing, the ship could not be returned to an upright position and it crashed.

(...) it was a great flight, just needs a little work on the landing

- said Chief Integration Engineer SpaceX John Insprucker.


Note that SN9 repeated the fate of SN8, which took off on December 9 last year. Then the prototype reached an altitude of 12,5 km, but also crashed during landing due to the failure of one of the engines.

Earlier, Elon Musk said that he is planning the first test flight in low-earth orbit of the Starship spacecraft in 2021.

In the final version, Starship will have a height of almost 50 meters, and its mass with a full load of fuel is 1400 tons. Equipped with 37 Raptor engines, it will be able to launch up to 150 tons of load into orbit or transport up to 100 people.

The Starship spacecraft is set to become the largest and most cargo-carrying manned spacecraft in stories. The main purpose of this ship is to deliver colonists to the moon and Mars. In the Starship Super Heavy version, it will be more powerful and heavier than the NASA Saturn V rocket, which delivered the Apollo astronauts to the moon.
262 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rocket757
    rocket757 3 February 2021 13: 31
    +1
    "We need a little work on the landing": Flight tests of the prototype of the Starship spacecraft ended in an explosion

    Their rocket design is strange ... will / won't fly, guess what?
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 3 February 2021 13: 36
      +16
      It already flies normally (SpaceX has made the first rocket engine successfully lifted off the ground with full gasification of the components), and does not want to land yet. But Falcon 9, too, at first could not land in one piece, and now its landing stage does not even surprise anyone. This is normal research and development - Starship lands in a different pattern than the Falcon 9, it descends horizontally and makes a perad landing maneuver.
      1. Starover_Z
        Starover_Z 3 February 2021 13: 42
        +14
        Quote: military_cat
        with full gasification of the components), does not want to sit down yet. But Falcon 9, too, at first could not land in one piece, and now its landing stage does not even surprise anyone.

        And who did it the first time? People work, experiment, until accidents, then fly ...
        It remains to envy them ...
        1. bk316
          bk316 3 February 2021 13: 58
          +41
          And who did it the first time?

          When Bulava was brought up, even here, I'm not talking about all sorts of echoes, there was a deafening screeching about the loss of competencies in the Russian Federation, and here you are envious of what these double standards are?
        2. dauria
          dauria 3 February 2021 14: 10
          +19
          It remains to envy them ...


          So buy shares, take part in the exploration of Mars and its surroundings. This is voluntary ... laughing
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 3 February 2021 14: 28
            +11
            Unfortunately, you cannot buy shares. SpaceX is a private company - it is not on the stock exchange.
            Tesla about something else. And in general, they are being bought very actively at $ 872,79 per share now - before NG there were 660 per share.
            1. dauria
              dauria 3 February 2021 15: 09
              .
              Unfortunately, you cannot buy shares. SpaceX is a private company - it is not on the stock exchange.

              What, there is no unfortunate million bucks under the pillow, or just 200 thousand in two years you can't earn? Become a Qualified Investor under US Laws
              And then Mr. Mavrodi will give you the right to become an elite sucker, and not some kind of out there. laughing The main thing is to jump off in time, before the turn
        3. Cosm22
          Cosm22 3 February 2021 14: 27
          +11
          Yeah ...
          Sadness ...
          The Chukchi would have pronounced their signature in this place - a trend, however.
          But we will not be in a hurry. From the video there is little that is clear, let's wait for the report of the specialists. So far, at first glance, the flight of the ninth prototype is identical to that of the eighth.
          The very concept of the project, calculations, assembly and welding methods were at their best. During the transition "to the horizon" and back, the hull behaved impeccably, did not fall to pieces, like the Proton-M during an emergency situation in July 2013. After successfully performing an acrobatic stunt with controlled falling and braking, it turned out that the concept itself was correct, there were no mistakes.
          The problem is seen again either in the disruption of the fuel supply at landing, or there are remarks to the Raptor (that this is ignition, the failure of the second engine - it will be found out while there is little data).
          I will not hide the fact that I have a certain degree of skepticism about this project. It is too grandiose, unusual and fantastic. It just does not fit into the head that a person can do this today. But, as you can see, the process is underway. Moreover, by leaps and bounds.
          The assembly speed is mesmerizing. The assembly of the ninth booster (by the way, the first prototype made of all 304 alloy) of the hole began on 13.09.2020/01.11.2020/25.11.2020, and already on 22.12.2020/06.01.2021/XNUMX wings were mounted on it. On XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, the prototype is assembled as a whole, all sections are connected in HighBay. On XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, the booster is already at the launch pad, and on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, a short-term fire test. And now, as we can see, the product has already flown. True, it did not run down again. Well, the Falcons didn't learn to sit right away either. Let's see what happens next.
          I just brought up an infographic on the production of Starships, it's fantastic ...
          Today, the "ten" has already been fully assembled, had time to show off along with the "nine" at the South Texas cosmodrome, only the lower wings remained on the 11th SN prototype, prototypes 12-17 at different stages of production, for the 18th the first elements are already arriving ... In addition, the BN1 assembly is almost at the final stage, and this is a slightly different level.
          We are waiting for a gypsy girl with an exit from the tenth. Although he was probably depressed yesterday, looking at the finale of his twin brother.
          In general, I don’t know ... Like any normal person, I wish the Starship project success. For this is progress. This is new.
          You can, of course, do nothing new like Roscosmos. And sit on technologies and devices sixty years ago. Then there will be almost no accidents, and this achievement will be proud.
          On the other hand, doubts gnaw ... And if the Starship project is not successful? Theoretically, after all, this can also be? We will see...
          But if it does fly, many manufacturers of rocket and space technology will very loudly say "oh!"
          In Europe. In Russia. In the States themselves.
          This will be the kind of revolution that can only be welcomed.
          1. military_cat
            military_cat 3 February 2021 14: 45
            0
            Quote: Cosm22
            So far, at first glance, the flight of the ninth prototype is identical to that of the eighth.

            I would say that the eighth prototype had a problem with the fuel supply to the engines upon landing (so the engines emitted a green flame with copper vapor), while the ninth prototype had one engine started and worked completely normally, and some piece flew off the second one when it was restarted and it didn't start.

            1. Cosm22
              Cosm22 3 February 2021 14: 47
              -2
              Perhaps, perhaps ...
              Let's wait for the Spaces report.
          2. squid
            squid 3 February 2021 14: 49
            +5
            The project is of course grandiose, reusable, methane and all that. But only ... And what is truly technologically breakthrough in this senior ship? The material is household stainless steel, a closed-cycle methane engine Glushko would have done easily 40-50 years ago, a sideways descent in the atmosphere could have been organized many decades ago ... Unless the control system is new, but the storm in the 80s flew automatically.
            If the starship flies (which I still doubt), the question remains - what have the designers been doing for the last half century? After all, the same could have been implemented back in the 70s and 80s.
            1. ZAV69
              ZAV69 3 February 2021 15: 20
              +6
              Quote: squid
              After all, the same could have been implemented back in the 70s and 80s.

              In principle, all this was in the "Technology of Youth" magazine in the early 80s.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 5 February 2021 11: 34
                0
                Quote: ZAV69
                In principle, all this was in the "Technology of Youth" magazine in the early 80s.


                In the "Tekhnika-youth" in the early 80s there were also projects of starships.
            2. military_cat
              military_cat 3 February 2021 15: 40
              +6
              Quote: squid
              a closed-cycle methane engine Glushko would have done easily 40-50 years ago

              Not just a "closed cycle engine" but a "full flow closed cycle engine (with full gasification of components)". Engines of this design have never flown before (on any fuel).
              1. squid
                squid 3 February 2021 17: 54
                +2
                yes, we did not fly. but the specific impulse of the raptor is 330s at sea level versus 309s of the RD-170 from the seventies. with a different, slightly more profitable fuel. I would not say that there is a cardinal difference. the same BE-4 on new glenn - not full-threaded, but quite a competitor to the raptor. and hydrogen engineers generally have 450 impulses, so the raptor is not unique here.
                well, I didn't say that Glushko would do exactly the same / better / full-threaded. but a methane engine, comparable in its final characteristics with the RD-170 (and therefore with the raptor), could have been quite capable, had such a task been set
                1. military_cat
                  military_cat 3 February 2021 17: 59
                  0
                  They tried to make RD-270 - it means that they saw the point in such a scheme.
            3. Cosm22
              Cosm22 3 February 2021 16: 48
              +8
              Oh, how everything is running ...
              But I will be brief, I do not want to waste my time on trifles.
              1. The real breakthrough in the project is that this is a completely new COP. Reusable, universal, capable of solving all space tasks. Both in LEO and up to the development of other planets.
              2. Did you get excited about household stainless steel? Are you familiar with the characteristics of this "household" stainless steel? The use of a stainless alloy for the case material is a great find for designers. Why - about this Google can tell.
              3. About methane engines Glushko never even raised the issue at the government level.
              4. In the entire history of world cosmonautics, only 3 closed-cycle liquid-propellant rocket engines with full fuel gasification have been made. In the 60s of the last century, the USSR had groundwork on the RD-270, but it never flew. In the early 2000s, Aerojet and Rocketdyne worked on IPD, which failed a test run. And only SpaceX made the Raptor - the only one in the world today with such a scheme.
              5. If a sideways descent in the atmosphere could have been organized many decades ago, why not? Are you familiar with disciplines such as strength of materials, theory of elasticity? Look at the accident of Proton, which was forced to "lay down sideways", a lot will become clear.
              6. Buran flew on a machine gun (a technology mastered in the United States in the aircraft industry decades earlier) only because he could not land otherwise. No way. Basically. Tell why?
              7. What did the designers do ... This is an interesting question ... Modernized ... modified ... improved ... And only Musk decided to make a revolution in space.
              1. squid
                squid 3 February 2021 18: 07
                +8
                1. The end result in the form of a starship is not just a breakthrough, but a revolutionary one (if it flies). Nobody argues with this. But the technologies underlying it have been quite affordable for the last 40 years.
                2. Steel is used aisi 304 (according to Musk) - pots are made from this. He also boasted that it costs $ 3 per kilo at any metal warehouse. The first prototypes seem to be even from the 301st.
                3. Glushko did not raise the issue, but he could have made a methane engine if someone had set such a goal. The same as RD-170 did.
                4. And without full gasification they fly in reusability (more precisely, they are assembled). Like New Glenn with their BE-4. Maybe a little less specific impulse, but not fundamentally. And on the falcon there is generally an open loop.
                5. What is the point of implementing sideways descent of the second stage from orbit, if at that time even the first stage was not returned? And they could, like the same mask. Why did not they do - this is what my post asks about.
                6. Buran flew. On the machine. And I said about it. And the control system of the 80s (and in the states decades earlier) coped with this, as you correctly noted. And probably would have coped with the landing of the starship steps. What are you going to tell me?
                7. So I asked this interesting (and rhetorical) question.
                1. Cosm22
                  Cosm22 3 February 2021 20: 16
                  -4
                  1. Yes, technology is available. They lie right on the ground under their feet. But for some reason, no one except Musk bent down and picked them up.
                  2. Right. So you answered the question yourself. The characteristics of stainless steel are such that it is the most suitable material for the purposes of the Mask. The main reason is that it is much EASIER to build a body from it. Than carbon material or aluminum. The second point you also voiced is cheapness. Steel is much cheaper than the same carbon fiber. But there are still a lot of factors for which the stainless steel was chosen. It tolerates temperature extremes better. It is more resistant to external loads, it minimizes the risk of microcracking. With additives, it is very resistant to ultra-low temperatures, which is important for the material of the tanks. It is more resistant to overload and such steel will withstand temperatures of 800 ° C without any problems, while aluminum will float at 660. What, no one knew this before? Everyone knew. But only Musk's engineers applied it in practice.
                  3. Glushko did not raise it, but he could have done it ... If someone had set such a goal. By analogy, I will continue: I did not lift a barbell weighing 400 kg, but I could. Glushko's horse is kerosene stoves. Here he was an ace. At that time no one thought about methane. And where would Glushko take time for various nonsense with methane, if it was necessary to urgently bring to mind the kerosene stoves? If the military was breathing in the back?
                  4. "And without full gasification they fly into reusability ..." And when and where did I say the opposite? All I said was that only the Spaces made a fully closed cycle methane engine. Nobody else.
                  5. Again they could ... If they could, then why didn't they return? And I'll tell you why: there was no need. And again I will ask the question - why? Because all Russian RD families are disposable. This is the whole trick.
                  6. You know, I really value my time. Therefore, I do not intend to enter into a long discussion. I can only repeat: Buran could not land otherwise than in automatic mode. For it was just PN for Energy. Yes, it can be called KK. But he was not standing next to the Shuttle. Even at a distance of several kilometers. Buran cannot be compared with the Shuttle even in fantasy.
                  7. Everyone knows something ... Everyone understands everything ... Everyone could have done everything much earlier ... But for some reason only Musk does it.
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 4 February 2021 00: 37
                    0
                    "Steel can withstand temperatures of 800 ° C without any problems." There is stainless steel KhN45Yu, it can keep the temperature of 1350 degrees for 100 hours. But Musk and his associates decided to take the usual 304th for the spacecraft.
                    1. Cosm22
                      Cosm22 4 February 2021 12: 24
                      0
                      There is such a term - "compromise". Check out its meaning.
                      In this case, we are talking about a compromise between performance and cheapness.
                  2. squid
                    squid 4 February 2021 03: 22
                    +4
                    1. Two explanations: 1) the rest of the fools (including such luminaries as Glushko or the Space Shuttle team) - for some reason they did it for a long time, difficult, one-time and expensive, although even then it was possible like Musk 2) Musk is an adventurer and hastily whipped up an unrealistic a project that does not fly and will not fly. This was the post that you undertook to criticize.
                    2. I don’t need to retell Musk’s words about the benefits of stainless steel. I know that myself. Yes, cheap and resistant to a wide range of temperatures. And also - HEAVY. Therefore, it was not used either in aviation or in rocketry (with a couple of exceptions). And Musk has a reusable system, where every kg should be on the account, the share of PN 2% is also used. And in disposable rockets made of light and expensive materials that do not need to be launched from orbit - the share of PN is 2-4%. Something does not fit here, talk about it.
                    3-4. About nothing.
                    5. Technically they could, but in practice they did not guess, although everybody thought about reusability a lot. More precisely, they took a different (as it turned out, more expensive) way. There is no "RD family". Specifically, the RD-170 was created with an eye to reusability (this was the task). Therefore, it is able to fly up to 10 times, if the designers of the rocket itself can return it.
                    6. I can't understand everything that you are trying to prove to me. And which of my statements to challenge.
                    7. Starship is not flying yet. If he flies, Musk will fool everyone else, starting in the 70s. If it does not fly (which in its current form is very likely in my opinion), it will be a fool. But it may still take off, but not soon, heavily altered, with a reduced PN and maybe even from other materials.
                    1. Cosm22
                      Cosm22 4 February 2021 13: 54
                      +1
                      This is for me instead of “good morning?” The stubborn opponent got caught. But I'm sorry for my time, so I'll answer for the last time.
                      1.
                      one). To do like Musk, you need to be able to think like Musk. Not everyone is given this. You need to have a head like Musk. Not everyone has it. Moreover, one should not think that the scientific, production and technological potential of that time is identical to the present one.
                      2). The prototype is ALREADY flying. Have you noticed? Urgently see an ophthalmologist. He doesn't sit down yet, that's another story. By the way, 100% of Russian launch vehicles do not sit down either.
                      2. The weight perfection coefficient of the Mask apparatus is normal. By the way, for some reason he did not care for either Glushko or the Queen. Neither in relation to the engines, nor to the steps, nor to the rocket as a whole. Space engineers have no complaints about stainless steel. No aluminum alloy will withstand the expected loads. Or do you offer titanium? Give an idea to Mask.
                      3. 4. If the points are about nothing, why did you insert them into your post?
                      5. The "RD" rocket engine family exists. It is very bad that even basic knowledge about this is not given in Russian schools. This is the famous RD-170-171 / 180/191 family. True, it is not Russian, Soviet. In the Russian Federation, this is precisely what is used. For over the years of the existence of the Russian Federation nothing new has been done in the field of rocket engines. Absolutely. Only endless "modernizations" in order to imitate design activities and justify the consumption of budget money.
                      Once again: absolutely all Russian rocket engines are disposable. Everything. Every single one. Do not confuse the concept of "on-off" and "took off and sat down". The engine can have a multiple restart function for orbit correction, burn-in operation, on the bench, etc. But this does not mean that it is reusable.
                      To take off on it a second time, you must first sit on it. And this is the problem. Soviet engines cannot do this. Basically. Why? Therefore, there is such a term as "throttling depth". Check it out. And at the same time think about how, with such throttling parameters and such dimensions of the engines, it is possible to carry out a propulsive landing of a stage without completely reworking its architecture. Then you will understand why, when asked about the reusability of Russian missiles, Mr. Rogozin shyly lowers his eyes and begins to fuss about landing like an airplane. He doesn't even stutter about jet landing.
                      7. That's right, Starship isn't flying yet. The prototype is flying. And not Starship, but its second stage. And it flies successfully. Yes, until he sits down. But a prototype is a prototype for us to hone assembly and operation methods. It should fall and explode. This is what they do. This is just a simulator. Unlike, for example, N-1, which were finished products.
                      Then be healthy.
                      Chess word, sorry to waste time on trifles, explaining elementary truths.
                      1. squid
                        squid 4 February 2021 19: 38
                        +2
                        The "prototype" flies 10 km at a snail's speed and cannot land. This is probably less than 0.01% of the final result. No one doubts that you can throw a steel barrel up and drop it on the ground. And even a successful landing from the same 10 km will be about nothing. So while the Mask has nothing to be proud of.
                        If not for Musk's name, the chosen solutions and the stated parameters for the Starship would have looked like a sheer gamble. Falcon 9 was criticized as unreal, but from the very beginning it looked quite real, for those who at least understand something. The Starship is believed from the very beginning, but it LOOKS completely unreal. But the name Musk already works wonders with the townsfolk.
                        The RD-17x / 18x / 19x family really exists. But there is no "RD family" in nature. It is a pity that some even in the gray years do not see the difference between these two combinations.
                        RD-170 was planned as reusable in terms of resource and restarts. And so it is. And the side accelerator "Energiya", on which it was installed, is made reusable. The landing pattern is a parachute landing with a horizontal landing on supports, as far as I remember. As with the space shuttle boosters, reusability has not come in, but the engine has nothing to do with it. The fact that the engine cannot be throttled 10 times is not a reason to refuse reusability. Landing patterns are different. Aerodynamic, for example, like that of the same Baikal. Yes, and no one forbids sticking a dozen single-chamber RD-191s and landing on one of them "in a mask". So teach the materiel, you are ours, before arguing until you blue in the face.
                2. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 5 February 2021 11: 37
                  0
                  Quote: squid
                  But the technologies underlying it have been quite affordable for the last 40 years.


                  At least the "underlying" computer technology was not available 40 years ago. They told you about the engines.
            4. eklmn
              eklmn 3 February 2021 17: 30
              0
              The project is of course grandiose, reusable, methane and all that.

              The Musk project has methane and all that ...
              And in the project of the private company bluShift Aerospace from Maine, fuel from corn / dung / animal_cakes. And so chemically neutral that it does not cause any reaction when it comes into contact with the skin and eyes.
              “Inventor Sasha Deri has not disclosed its composition yet, but says that the necessary components are available on farms around the world. The founder and head of venture capital firm bluShift Aerospace and his team have worked for six years to perfect the fuel formula and create an original modular hybrid engine for it. ”
              Created a rocket, launched it 1 mile so far. They plan to become a space Uber - cheaply and in a large number of them launch cube-sats measuring 10x10x10 cm at an altitude of 160 km.
              “According to some estimates, small satellite launch services could generate $ 69 billion over the next ten years.”
              https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-55887505
            5. arkadiyssk
              arkadiyssk 4 February 2021 12: 35
              0
              Do you seriously believe in this TV nonsense that Buran was a machine gun and sat down on its own?
              Please clarify the question at least for yourself.
              Not Buran landed himself, but there was a ground-based landing system - "Vympel", which measured, with a bunch of radars on the path of the ship, its location and issued correction commands. Buran was essentially a radio command missile - which is directed at the target from the ground. There is a wonderful site - Buran.ru people tried for you.
            6. Intruder
              Intruder 4 February 2021 15: 23
              +2
              After all, the same could have been implemented back in the 70s and 80s.
              and if everything is so simple, to implement, then where is it !? And the Raptor, with its design (where some composite technologies in materials, over-crap) to implement 50-40 years ago, it's like now, to implement a mini-thermonuclear reactor on the Vase ... wink
              The control system is new, but the storm in the 80s flew automatically.
              only the technology has gone a little ahead from the days of the automatic control systems of the "Buran" and the previous versions of the shuttles, where the element base was different in comparison with our present time repeat
            7. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 5 February 2021 11: 31
              0
              Quote: squid
              After all, the same could have been implemented back in the 70s and 80s.


              The novelty is that it was not implemented then, but now it may be.
          3. ALEX_SHTURMAN
            ALEX_SHTURMAN 3 February 2021 16: 55
            0
            It is not clear why you were minus. A very intelligible comment of anyone and nothing advertising, not calling for anything!
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. loki565
              loki565 3 February 2021 17: 51
              +2
              It is not clear why you were minus. A very intelligible comment of anyone and nothing advertising, not calling for anything!

              Maybe for this
              During the transition "to the horizon" and back, the hull behaved impeccably, did not fall to pieces, like the Proton-M during an emergency situation in July 2013.

              It's just that a person does not understand that the proton began to spin along a ballistic trajectory at the maximum thrust of the engines, which led to overloads many times higher than those that were formed on Starship SN9, when it essentially fell freely with the main engines turned off.
              1. Cosm22
                Cosm22 3 February 2021 21: 08
                -5
                Yes, here at least twist, at least do not twist ...
                If a long cylindrical apparatus is designed only for axial longitudinal loads, it will inevitably break, falling under transverse loads.
                In this case, we are talking about a correctly and competently made design by SpaceX engineers. Moreover, lateral loads at the moment of braking by the wings are very significant.
          4. hrych
            hrych 3 February 2021 19: 25
            +3
            Didn't you see that the engine immediately caught fire (in the small screen)? And he was immediately disconnected from the audience, from sin ... laughing Haven't seen how the fire suppression system worked? What did not immediately burst - great luck. When the fuel supply was cut off, okay, it dropped normally. When the engine was turned on, only one of them worked. What is the achievement here? Complete failure. From the beginning to the natural end. They drank the budget loot and the insurance company flew in, although in order to work with Max, you need an insurance-kamikaze wassat
        4. Alexey-74
          Alexey-74 3 February 2021 14: 28
          +1
          I agree that sooner or later everything will work out for him. The road will be mastered by the walking ...
      2. Azim77
        Azim77 3 February 2021 13: 52
        +6
        Explain, please, is this rocket "ship" single-stage, without detachable compartments? In this form, will it enter the dense layers of the atmosphere on the way back? What is it made of?
        The second question is, why is such a jet narrow and very small?
        1. Nasrat
          Nasrat 3 February 2021 13: 59
          +8
          Long remembered where I saw something like that ..?
          1. credo
            credo 3 February 2021 14: 10
            -3
            Quote: Nasr
            Long remembered where I saw something like that ..?

            This is not surprising, because the entire Western world lives exclusively on Russian (Soviet) developments. hi
        2. bk316
          bk316 3 February 2021 14: 01
          -3
          The second question is, why is such a jet narrow and very small?

          But in reality I have the same question, the torch is barely visible. You can deploy a rocket in the fall, but how to land it?
          1. Kart
            Kart 3 February 2021 14: 38
            +4
            Everything is very simple.
            This is the layout. Maximum lightweight, designed for flight at an altitude of 10-15 km.
            Rather, for testing engine management systems.
            1. bk316
              bk316 3 February 2021 14: 43
              +2
              Rather, for testing engine management systems.

              Yes, but the engine must be different ...
              1. Kart
                Kart 3 February 2021 14: 58
                +2
                Yes FIG knows them. These high-tech imitators for the public are trying to and investors.
                1. orionvitt
                  orionvitt 3 February 2021 15: 38
                  0
                  Quote: Carte
                  These hi-tech imitators for the public try and invest

                  Judging by Musk's comments and capitalization, they are good at it. The truth is not very good with the rocket, but that is, as they say, different.
            2. DymOk_v_dYmke
              DymOk_v_dYmke 3 February 2021 17: 55
              +1
              Quote: Carte
              This is the layout. Maximum lightweight, designed for flight at an altitude of 10-15 km.
              Rather, for testing engine management systems.

              When practicing engine control systems, it seems logical to land not on the launch pad, but at a distance from the launch complex.
              But "the giraffe is big - he knows better."
        3. military_cat
          military_cat 3 February 2021 14: 31
          +1
          Quote: Azim77
          Is this rocket "ship" single-stage, without detachable compartments? In this form, will it enter the dense layers of the atmosphere on the way back? What is it made of?
          It is a ship and a reusable second stage. The first stage will also be, it is called Super Heavy, its prototype is also being made and is being prepared for testing. Super Heavy will also be reusable, it will descend on lattice rudders, like the Falcon 9. Starship is supposed to be covered with heat-resistant tiles on the belly, like a shuttle (but six-cornered, not quadrangular) to enter dense layers. Stainless steel body.
          Quote: Azim77
          The second question is, why is such a jet narrow and very small?
          The engines for flying in the atmosphere are centered because the engines for the vacuum are located along the outer circuit. Well, methane as a fuel, its flame glows less brightly than the flame of kerosene.
          1. mojohed2012
            mojohed2012 3 February 2021 14: 44
            +3
            Reminds of the old game space engeneers, where you could have built atmospheric and space ships and engines yourself, but now it has been abandoned. Physics there, of course, was lame.
            And here in metal - possibly the future of humanity in space.
            It's not a pity, but we must wish you good luck. maybe we will learn how to make the returned elements of missiles, and will not churn out Soviet developments and listen to Rogozin's tales.
            1. orionvitt
              orionvitt 3 February 2021 15: 41
              +7
              Quote: mojohed2012
              And here in metal - perhaps the future of humanity in space

              With chemical fuel engines, humanity has no future in space. Swarming in orbit is the limit.
          2. bk316
            bk316 3 February 2021 14: 45
            -4
            its flame glows less brightly

            YOU look at the thickness of the jet - just ridiculous. Well, or there the speed of the jet is prohibitive, which is hard to believe. In the meantime, just a cake when planting is obtained. I’ll rather believe that he’s not going to sit down yet.
            1. military_cat
              military_cat 3 February 2021 14: 59
              +2
              Quote: bk316
              YOU look at the thickness of the jet - it's ridiculous. Well, or the speed of the jet is prohibitive, which is hard to believe.
              I’ll rather believe that he’s not going to sit down yet ..

              I do not see any field for faith and unbelief here. As the Starship lifts off the ground and accelerates to gain vertical speed, the motors are generating more thrust than its weight. And, therefore, they are able to stop the fall at the final (terminal) speed, if they are turned on at a certain height.
          3. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 3 February 2021 17: 43
            +1
            Quote: military_cat
            The engines for flying in the atmosphere are centered because the engines for the vacuum are located along the outer circuit.

            Ours had a development: one engine whose nozzle was lengthened at a height (an additional insert moved in) and it was effective both when working in the atmosphere and in rarefied air-vacuum. For a single-stage rocket, just right.
        4. vadimtt
          vadimtt 3 February 2021 14: 36
          +4
          Quote: Azim77
          Explain, please


          This is a ship, not a complete rocket. The heavyweight will carry him into space. But it will get to other planets / satellites on its own, after refueling in orbit.
          Most of them are made of stainless steel right on the landfill. Then they will coat the "bottom" with thermal protection while it is not there.
          The jet is narrow and invisible - a feature of the fuel vapor and engines. In addition, the launch during the day is not so effective.
          This is a prototype, it has few engines, only the minimum number required for testing. It's expensive, even for Musk bully
          1. bk316
            bk316 3 February 2021 14: 47
            -3
            The jet is narrow and invisible - a feature of the fuel pair and engines.

            Yes yes stealth laughing He's a young man on methane - it's quite obvious.
            1. Kart
              Kart 3 February 2021 14: 59
              -3
              It's Musk himself!
              He's not lying. You need to understand!
            2. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 3 February 2021 17: 56
              0
              Quote: bk316
              he's on methane - it's quite visible

              On methane - yes, on hydrogen - practically none. When the Shuttle took off, the flame of powder boosters was visible, and there was no exhaust from the Shuttle itself (hydrogen + oxygen).
        5. Errr
          Errr 3 February 2021 14: 46
          0
          Starship combines two functions - a second stage, used to achieve orbital speed when launched from Earth, and a reusable spacecraft capable of taking off, flying through space and making a controlled landing on Earth, the Moon or Mars.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship#Описание
        6. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 3 February 2021 15: 48
          +1
          This is the second stage of the rocket, it is also a ship in combination
        7. ALEX_SHTURMAN
          ALEX_SHTURMAN 3 February 2021 17: 05
          +4
          Google Starship + Super Heavy for this new transportation system. It is a two-stage first stage Super Heavy aka booster 9m diameter height approx 65m 28 engine Raptor 20 thrust of 300t 8-7 by 220-250t total thrust should be in the region of 7500 tons more than Saturn 5. In the frames the Starship ship is also the second stage 50m high 9m in diameter will be powered by 6 Raptor engines 3 atmospheric and 3 vacuum optimized. It will enter the atmosphere belly; heat-shielding tiles will be placed on it, like on the Châtelet. At the moment, the landing of the prototype is being practiced, those aerodynamic braking by the ship's hull against the atmosphere with a cold gas rcs thruster system plus aerodynamic surfaces (wings) Stable falling exit to a given landing area (concrete pad) U-turn braking and landing.
        8. Intruder
          Intruder 4 February 2021 15: 27
          0
          The second question is, why is such a jet narrow and very small?
          a peculiarity of a combustion chamber with a different gas dynamics and plus a methane-oxygen liquid-propellant rocket engine, on hydrogen and "kerosene" engines the color and appearance, so something different ...
        9. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 5 February 2021 11: 42
          0
          Quote: Azim77
          Explain, please, is this "ship" rocket single-stage, without detachable compartments?


          Then that "this rocket" is the second stage. The first stage is called Super Heavy.
      3. credo
        credo 3 February 2021 13: 58
        +1
        Quote: military_cat
        It already flies normally (SpaceX has made the first rocket engine successfully lifted off the ground with full gasification of the components), and does not want to land yet. But Falcon 9, too, at first could not land in one piece, and now its landing stage does not even surprise anyone. This is normal research and development - Starship lands in a different pattern than the Falcon 9, it descends horizontally and makes a perad landing maneuver.

        Usually, they talk about success in such an industry as space only when the number of flights is in the hundreds, so while many specialists in this area are in no hurry to applaud Musk.
        In general, against the background of how the work of other countries of the world in the space field is bypassed, many people have the idea that only the hard worker and "unsurpassed genius" Musk does something and can, and the rest, lagging behind and envy the lucky Ilona.
        It seems that not everything is as obvious as it is presented by the American media.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 3 February 2021 14: 38
          +9
          Why bypass? Rather, where ??? Lots of news. The Chinese have a dozen companies with their own launch vehicles, including both methane and landing. Some have already flown 10+ times with payload.


          In the USA, a new LV from ULA is being made on methane.


          Fireflies are coming soon. And Beck's company is going to enter a spaceport in the United States, the first returns and the first long-distance missions on its Electron.


          It's just that everyone makes classic rockets. On kerosene, hydrogen or methane. Some design returns. Only Musk started a revolutionary project. Plus, unlike many, it has a dominant working rocket market.

          Of those who are less spoken about, I repeat - Relavity. Their launch vehicle is created according to revolutionary technical processes. A minimum of people - people are not needed in production, a maximum of operations are performed by robots and 3D printers. That is, not only did they immediately choose the most promising fuel pair with methane, they also optimized production to the maximum. For robots do not demand wages, do not sleep and do not make mistakes. The main difference from all other launch vehicles is that this one is fundamentally designed for maximum production automation. In contrast to the same Mask or ULA - where only individual components and assemblies are designed for this.
          1. bk316
            bk316 3 February 2021 14: 48
            +1
            Rather, where ???

            The correct question! - We have the answer, but at least in VO.
        2. Cosm22
          Cosm22 3 February 2021 20: 37
          0
          "It doesn't seem as obvious as the American media presents it"?
          And what could be more obvious than the launch statistics?
          Take the statues of rogue, adventurer and sharper Musk's launches over the past year and superimpose it on the launch statistics of the state-owned Roscosmos.
          If even after that it will be "everything is not so obvious", then I do not know ... Then only an oculist will help.
      4. rocket757
        rocket757 3 February 2021 15: 01
        0
        Strange, this is just a deviation from the usual, generally accepted designs of products of this type ...
        When it flies or does not reach anywhere, then it will be possible not to be surprised, but to ascertain the fact of the event.
        Experiment, research, technology development ... this is a normal process. We will wait for the results.
      5. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 3 February 2021 15: 47
        +1
        He has already successfully landed when flying on one engine without a coup. Now the exit from planning cannot be done normally, the fuel system from these pirouettes is malfunctioning
      6. nov_tech.vrn
        nov_tech.vrn 4 February 2021 12: 57
        0
        That's right, he cannot land entirely, sits down in parts, everything is so successful.
    2. credo
      credo 3 February 2021 13: 44
      -2
      Quote: rocket757
      The main purpose of this ship is to deliver colonists to the Moon and Mars.

      On Earth, it became completely boring that Musk was so concerned about resettlement of people to other planets, or maybe this is just an excuse to be the first to seize the planets closest to Earth, in order to threaten unwanted countries with inevitability of destruction from there?
      1. syndicalist
        syndicalist 3 February 2021 13: 54
        +3
        It's just that Musk is bored with buying palaces and measuring yachts. Mars is a completely different matter. On this he is ready to spend all his fortune to the cent.
        1. Mouse
          Mouse 3 February 2021 13: 58
          +3
          Quote: syndicalist
          On this he is ready to spend all his fortune down to a cent.

          Yeah ... don't tell my sneakers ... laughing make money on it! And more than one cent ... rest assured ... yes
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 3 February 2021 14: 46
            +4
            He makes big money on his other projects.
            And a significant part of the profit is transferred to the Martian
            a project that does not promise profits.
            But the prestige is enormous.
            1. credo
              credo 3 February 2021 15: 36
              -2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              He makes big money on his other projects.
              And a significant part of the profit is transferred to the Martian
              a project that does not promise profits.
              But the prestige is enormous.

              The text below is from an article by BBC News Russian Service:
              "... Starship can also be used during NASA's Artemis program to ensure the continued presence of people on the moon. In 2020, SpaceX was awarded a $ 135 million contract with NASA to adapt the spacecraft for manned lunar missions ..." ...

              I don’t know where people got the belief that Musk is a philanthropist and a silversmith, and the entire Roscosmos consists exclusively of embezzlers, swindlers, swindlers and just parasites. Even from the information that comes from abroad, it is known that Musk is closely guarded by NASA and NASA provides him with multimillion-dollar contracts.

              Say that he makes big money on his other projects, but why then would such a "hard worker" get 135 million greenbacks from NASA? Socks or handkerchiefs?
              The inconsistency is obtained with the silversmith.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 3 February 2021 16: 10
                +5
                Musk is a big businessman.
                At the same time, he leads several interesting projects in various innovative industries.
                industry.
                And his projects are quickly becoming profitable.
                ----
                I did not write anything bad about Roskosmos.
                ----
                NASA organizes tenders for its projects and gives grants to participants.
                SpaceX is one of the bidders.
                1. credo
                  credo 3 February 2021 16: 22
                  0
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Musk is a big businessman.
                  At the same time, he leads several interesting projects in various innovative industries.
                  industry.
                  And his projects are quickly becoming profitable.
                  ----
                  I did not write anything bad about Roskosmos.
                  ----
                  NASA organizes tenders for its projects and gives grants to participants.
                  SpaceX is one of the bidders.

                  By the way, it was necessary about Roscosmos, because someone had already kicked him here, against the background of an article about Mask.
                  And in all other respects, Musk, as you just noted, is a businessman, not a philanthropist and a dreamer who wants to make humanity happy with resettlement to barren planets.
              2. military_cat
                military_cat 3 February 2021 16: 14
                +2
                Musk is credited with the desire to share NASA contracts and the desire to arrange "PR" and "show", but for some reason they forget that in order to share NASA contracts, PR or a show is not needed. And in some situations, even harmful. SpaceX could take the path of least resistance and become a copy of ULA with expensive disposable rockets, and the task of getting contracts from NASA would be completed completely without noise and dust.
                1. credo
                  credo 3 February 2021 16: 34
                  +1
                  Quote: military_cat
                  Musk is credited with the desire to share NASA contracts and the desire to arrange "PR" and "show", but for some reason they forget that in order to share NASA contracts, PR or a show is not needed. And in some situations, even harmful. SpaceX could take the path of least resistance and become a copy of ULA with expensive disposable rockets, and the task of getting contracts from NASA would be completed completely without noise and dust.

                  Come on. You seriously think so.
                  Then it turns out that you have never had to present your project to obtain a loan or, as it is fashionable to say now, a grant in order to implement it.
                  For your information, this is a long-established practice in the Western capitalist world. But such a practice also existed in the USSR, when, for a project of a future product, they sought funding in specialized ministries and departments, by manufacturing full-sized products and organizing their operation.
                  Therefore, PR and shows now go hand in hand with future projects of novice and existing businessmen, especially when multimillion or billion-dollar contracts are at stake.
                  1. military_cat
                    military_cat 3 February 2021 16: 41
                    +2
                    You wrote that NASA "closely takes care of" Musk - as I understand it, this implies that he does not have to beat out contracts for himself on a general basis, otherwise what is some special "custody"?
                    1. credo
                      credo 3 February 2021 17: 05
                      +2
                      Quote: military_cat
                      You wrote that NASA "closely takes care of" Musk - as I understand it, this implies that he does not have to beat out contracts for himself on a general basis, otherwise what is some special "custody"?

                      Everything is very simple here - He who gives money controls.
                      This is a form of guardianship, when for every cent spent you need to give a report to the "sponsor".
                      I understand Musk perfectly well when he talks with a big smile about his achievements and future victories (if they are destined to come true). But I also understand that when he is filmed by dozens of journalists, he cannot speak differently, since this can negatively affect the stock quotes of his companies, the emergence of unnecessary questions from sponsors and, as a result, on his future activities.
                      The rest of NASA's contractors are doing the same. The usual thing.
                      1. military_cat
                        military_cat 3 February 2021 17: 16
                        0
                        Quote: credo
                        The rest of NASA's contractors are doing the same. The usual thing.

                        But they do not have reusable rockets and other "shows" with "PR", they are ordinary faceless managers. And that doesn't stop them from getting NASA contracts. This is exactly what I said, that Musk didn't even need half of what he does if his task was simply to get contracts.
                      2. credo
                        credo 3 February 2021 17: 42
                        +2
                        Quote: military_cat
                        Quote: credo
                        The rest of NASA's contractors are doing the same. The usual thing.

                        But they do not have reusable rockets and other "shows" with "PR", they are ordinary faceless managers. And that doesn't stop them from getting NASA contracts. This is exactly what I said, that Musk didn't even need half of what he does if his task was simply to get contracts.

                        One does not interfere with the other, just different people have different temperaments and ways of persuasion.
                        Some, like Musk or Trump, love to show off in public and “fluff up their tail,” while others do their job quietly, earning no less capital.
                        For example, according to the latest data, there are about 20 million dollar millionaires in the United States, i.e. every 17th citizen of the country, and how many do we know by name like Musk, Gates or Trump. Hardly.
                        And yet Musk turns out to be none so successful. It turns out there are others that we don't know about.
        2. bk316
          bk316 3 February 2021 13: 59
          +1
          Mars is a completely different matter.

          Yes, Mars is different for it, it is easy to build pyramids.
          However, this is a passed stage now, a new topic, cyborgization, probably with a carrot about healthy eternal life.
          1. vadimtt
            vadimtt 3 February 2021 14: 39
            +2
            Without cyborgization, other planets cannot be colonized, the sun will not allow it so easily good
            1. bk316
              bk316 3 February 2021 14: 42
              +2
              [quote] Without cyborgization, other planets cannot be colonized, the sun will not allow it so easily
              No, cyborgization is not a bad thing (look at my avatar - this is my knee). Yes, only this is also a scam, serious corporations have been engaged in this area for many years ...
              1. vadimtt
                vadimtt 3 February 2021 14: 59
                +2
                I almost have such a thing in my shoulder, they should have pulled it out this winter, but the covid made its own adjustments, they do not put it as planned hi
                Divorce is not a divorce, but gradually everything will come to this. And limbs and organs. It's a pity with the brains, not everything is so simple wassat
                1. bk316
                  bk316 3 February 2021 15: 56
                  0
                  It's a pity with the brains, not everything is so simple

                  The joke is that Musk is just doing the cyborgization of the BRAIN. laughing
                  Google: Chip Monkey Mask
          2. mojohed2012
            mojohed2012 3 February 2021 14: 45
            +2
            Mars is the question. What to do there? What is it to extract that would be economically justified to fly on it and stay there?
            1. vadimtt
              vadimtt 3 February 2021 15: 03
              +1
              Hardly to get. But a large, ideally self-reproducing colony on complete self-sufficiency is interesting. But the environment is not sugar, at this stage it is rather unrealizable.
              1. Intruder
                Intruder 4 February 2021 15: 36
                0
                But a large, ideally self-reproducing colony on full self-sufficiency is interesting. But the environment is not sugar, at this stage it is rather unrealizable.
                the main thing is that there are those who pay, or who are interested in it as other bonuses in life ... but last week Musk created a prize fund of 100 lemons - for carbon processing technology, just wink one of the basic technologies for the life of colonies under the dome or under the surface, even on Mars or the Moon!
        3. credo
          credo 3 February 2021 14: 03
          +5
          Quote: syndicalist
          It's just that Musk is bored with buying palaces and measuring yachts. Mars is a completely different matter. On this he is ready to spend all his fortune to the cent.

          I would agree with you, but somehow this does not fit with the facts, despite the fact that many of his projects in this area are funded by NASA, from what they publish.
          In the Western world, big money is not given to anyone for no reason, and it means that he definitely holds the answer at least to NASA. And NASA is the state budget and therefore it bears responsibility before the United States or those in power, and there are no altruists at all.
          So he does not look like any non-silver man or a saint, even outwardly, ready to spend all his fortune down to a cent.
        4. SAG
          SAG 3 February 2021 14: 12
          0
          Quote: syndicalist
          It's just that Musk is bored with buying palaces and measuring yachts. Mars is a completely different matter. On this he is ready to spend all his fortune to the cent.

          But what ... your fortune, don’t be a child, Musk and his company is another scam in the American way, if taxpayers knew that such a gigantic number of accidents and underdevelopment were paid at their expense, protests would not have been avoided. Who is this mask, where did he get the astronomical sums for these expensive experiments that even beat the gates would not have pulled. Just ask yourself these simple questions ...
      2. rocket757
        rocket757 3 February 2021 15: 08
        0
        Quote: credo
        On Earth, it became completely boring

        The flight of fantasy is such a phenomenon that it is better not to explain it logically ... that's what they want and that's it.
        There are many options, but the economic component is not in the last place, that's for sure!
        1. credo
          credo 3 February 2021 15: 43
          0
          Quote: rocket757
          Quote: credo
          On Earth, it became completely boring

          The flight of fantasy is such a phenomenon that it is better not to explain it logically ... that's what they want and that's it.
          There are many options, but the economic component is not in the last place, that's for sure!

          As for the flight of fantasy, you cannot argue here.
          The only difference is that the Anglo-Saxons always try to monetize their fantasies, and not throw them to the wind in the hope of ghostly dividends or a meeting with humanoids.
    3. letinant
      letinant 3 February 2021 13: 55
      +4
      Doesn't it seem strange to you the small destruction of the site after the fall? All archived videos (including FALCON 9, not more devastating). So a small "PAF" and that's it, it seems that only fuel vapors exploded. But there is kerosene and liquid oxygen.
      1. mark2
        mark2 3 February 2021 14: 40
        -1
        It does not seem.
        What rises under the starship brand is, in fact, fuel tanks. It's hard to call it a rocket. And they will not accommodate 100 people there. If only in canned food.
        Ruslan Ostashko had a YouTube video about the production of these missiles. They are produced directly on the street, in open areas and without a fairing, they look like reactors for the production of biogas from manure. How they look and fly.
        And when they fall like this and the destruction a little tin tank fell, the kerosene burned down the site was washed. Everything. Success.
        1. ironic
          ironic 3 February 2021 15: 13
          -1
          Do you know what a proof of concept is?
          1. mark2
            mark2 3 February 2021 16: 23
            0
            Proof of concept this was in the days of Tsiolkovsky, or Brown and Korolev. And this is a failure.
            1. ironic
              ironic 3 February 2021 17: 02
              +1
              Why's that? Every startup starts by testing its concept.
      2. donavi49
        donavi49 3 February 2021 14: 41
        +4
        There is methane and oxygen. Well, it was refueled for 13 km and the return is the same. That's what was left and exploded.
    4. Cympak
      Cympak 3 February 2021 15: 08
      -1
      Quote: rocket757
      Their rocket design is strange ... will / won't fly, guess what?

      They gradually bring the rocket up. The task of the latest tests was to practice supersonic flight when the rocket returned to the ground. The task of planting was optional (it will turn out good). While they are working out the landing mechanism (the last time the landing engines worked somewhat differently than the previous one), they are accumulating data. We look forward to continuing ...
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 3 February 2021 16: 28
        +2
        What can you wish, forward to your dream, to the stars.
        All this will go to the piggy bank of humanity.
    5. vkl.47
      vkl.47 3 February 2021 16: 19
      -4
      Some giant phalluses)))
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 3 February 2021 17: 22
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      Their rocket design is strange ...

      The outline is similar to this one:
  2. ccsr
    ccsr 3 February 2021 13: 33
    +5
    Note that SN9 repeated the fate of SN8, which took off on December 9 last year. Then the prototype reached an altitude of 12,5 km, but also crashed during landing due to the failure of one of the engines.

    Amazingly, two accidents in two months. And where is Musk in such a hurry, since this is happening? And it seems to me that his promises about a near-earth flight in 2021 are going down the drain, so he is in a hurry until investors run.
    I will not remember our admirers of Elon Musk, who told us how he would fly to Mars, but the next accident would greatly tarnish his reputation. Let's wait for a near-earth flight, the time has passed ...
    1. Sergeant Pavlovsky
      Sergeant Pavlovsky 3 February 2021 14: 39
      +2
      For several years now I have been sitting and waiting, they told me excitedly about the Red Dragon, which is about to fly, but no, it was canceled, about the free Internet and the selflessness of the mask, but no, pay money, and a lot. And finally, pepellats to Mars, we all waited for this, a snow-white spaceship, but this time it did not work out, an explosive tin can made of foil, the compartments of which are joined with a sledgehammer. And finally, especially fanatical ones said that the second stage of Falcon9 will be returned by 2020 fool
      Even about the love of humanity, Musk donated ventilators, "The businessman we deserve", etc. It turned out that these were not ventilators, but anti-snoring machines and not for his own money, but for the money of Tesla's Chinese employees. It seems admirers are rapidly turning into a sect. My advice - let's better go closed)
      1. ironic
        ironic 3 February 2021 15: 23
        0
        I'll ask you too, do you know what a proof of concept is? And what is it that the red dragon project was closed back in the 17th year? Have you ever heard that out of 10 startups, at best one comes to the finish line? But the rest is in the spirit of breaking up dirty laundry. Certainly not worthy.
        1. Sergeant Pavlovsky
          Sergeant Pavlovsky 3 February 2021 18: 16
          0
          proof of concept

          You'd better tell it to your colleagues in the shop lol , otherwise they (most that I have met) are not like "your proof or concept", even a spaceship from a rocket do not differ, I have already written about the second stage being returned.
          Certainly not worthy.

          Can you call Maskov's PR on the bones worthy? While New York hospitals were overcrowded and required ventilators, this 'genius' bought a bunch of useless snoring devices for the hospital (outwardly similar to ventilators, but they cost dozens of times cheaper), but he wrote that it was Ventilator: I would buy a smaller amount of normal ventilator for the same money, but no PR is more important. ”A worthy act, right?
          1. ironic
            ironic 3 February 2021 18: 21
            0
            And in general, the dumbest people come to startups, they generally do not distinguish anything from anything, especially in those that have been successful. They are immediately gouged out at the entrance, that's why you met them, they themselves cannot leave. lol

            Can you give a Western link to this? And not the yellow press?
            1. Sergeant Pavlovsky
              Sergeant Pavlovsky 4 February 2021 12: 51
              -3
              Either you don’t grasp the topic of conversation at all, or it’s me, such an old and modern youth who calls the follower a mask - a startup lol , used to be a startup called a company, not a maskophile.
              If you read what I wrote in this thread, and did not sew startups here in a rage, you would understand who I am making fun of, not startups (I did not even mention them !!!), but gullible hamsters aka the sect of witnesses the mask, who watch the video on YouTube and write
              Red dragon is about to fly, the second stage will be made returnable
              etc. These individuals are also united by the idea of ​​Musk's infallibility, the dream of Mars.
              Donated ventilator, it's perfect!
              Child rescue submarine, handsome!
              He wants to save humanity, Mars is the second home!
              ... But my thought clearly didn't reach you and you started talking nonsense about startups and concepts request ... To which I once again hinted to you that the comment is about gullible people and asked to explain to colleagues in the shop ("the sect of witnesses the mask") about "your proof or concept" and how the PH differs from the CC. But you did not understand the hint and meaning this time too, and stubbornly continued the monologue about startups and gouged eyes. I have a question. Are your eyes okay? Re-read the branch, ccsr mentions
              Quote: ccsr
              admirers
              , I tell him about them, but here you and your start-up climb it is not clear where it came from. Did what I said about the fans hurt you so much?
              Now about infallibility, here is your link to the Western edition, get, sign, Washington post, the most Western one -https: //www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/29/musk-tesla-coronavirus/, some experts even say that BIPAP can do harm, but PR is more important.
              I'm already tired of being surprised by what methods the admirers of the mask discard it from PR on the bones, they say
              he really wanted to make a submarine for children, but he accidentally insulted the diver
              и
              it is correct that he accused Tesla's employee of terrorism
              if you haven't heard about it - https://thebell.io/bloomberg-mask-presleduet-byvshih-sotrudnikov-i-shpionit-za-nyneshnimi
              I'm not interested in rummaging through his scandals, which Google gives out innumerable, that's why I sent only unsuccessful PR cases. So come on, stop your hurdy-gurdy about startups, eyes, chances, calm down, in this particular thread, no one except you came to startups and did not mention.

              PS Or maybe ironic sneers at the fans of the mask?
              1. ironic
                ironic 4 February 2021 17: 43
                +1
                I, too, will not waste time analyzing all the scandals around Musk and his actions, but when you cite something, then look at at least what they write more carefully, otherwise, in the revelations, it may suddenly show up, as in the article given to you:

                They can aid in coronavirus treatment but typically don't work for the sickest patients ....

                Although hospital executives said they were grateful for the mechanical reinforcements bought by Tesla ...

                Now why I brought parallels with startups. Firstly, because a startup is not only a company operating in a certain mode for someone's investment, but with the same success a project in a company that is not a startup as a whole, for example, Intel has, and this Musk project undoubtedly has all the features of a startup, therefore all my reasoning about him is legitimate.


                It doesn't matter to me how many hamsters Mask has in followers and forums. I'm only interested in what he is developing and what comes out of it. The reusable rocket turned out to be a fact. The car turned out, fact. Some projects did not work out, it's also a fact. It is not a fact that he will succeed with this project, but the progress is very interesting. Failed landing is a fact. You can't argue with that, his opinion "needs to work a little with the landing", despite the fact that he is generally pleased with the progress, is quite adequate for a project in startup mode. And what nonsense in my words you must convey so probably and forgot in your sacred battle with the hamsters Mask.
      2. Azim77
        Azim77 3 February 2021 15: 35
        +1
        And to become the richest person in the world in such a short time - there are no comments at all)) You involuntarily remember the classic: "I am an ideological fighter for banknotes!"
        We must give credit - Musk has surpassed Ostap many times! But still to come, so "The meeting continues, gentlemen of the jury."
      3. ccsr
        ccsr 3 February 2021 18: 22
        +1
        Quote: Sergeant Pavlovsky
        It seems admirers are rapidly turning into a sect.

        I think they still do not know what the MMM of the American Spill is, and in fact it started so well with us ...
    2. ironic
      ironic 3 February 2021 15: 14
      0
      You probably have a bad idea of ​​how a technology startup is developing, and even more so in a project of such complexity.
    3. orionvitt
      orionvitt 3 February 2021 15: 55
      +2
      Quote: ccsr
      until the investors ran

      Under the tail of the Mask, it is already baking specifically. Considering his statements that he is ready to sell all his shares in order to "invest" the proceeds in the "Martian project". laughing Capitalization is not money or wealth. Today she is, and tomorrow another "Black Thursday" on the stock exchange and Ilosha will remain, naked and barefoot, also with billions of dollars in debt. In the meantime, you can let the dust in your eyes. Like you see, "business" is going on. laughing
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 3 February 2021 18: 30
        -2
        Quote: orionvitt
        In the meantime, you can let the dust in your eyes. Like you see, "business" is going on.

        I, too, have long suspected this, especially after the stupid launch of Tesla into space - well, what sane businessman would think of so stupid to spend money on a useless project.
        Quote: orionvitt
        Capitalization is not money or wealth.

        Unfortunately, our hamsters do not understand this - one here has already agreed to the point that he began to assert that Musk with Tesla overtook Toyota in value and this is the main criterion for his success. Well what can I say - blatant illiteracy when discussing even the simplest issues of economics and business.
        1. ironic
          ironic 4 February 2021 18: 03
          -2
          Musk has overtaken Toyota technologically, even here you cannot help but lie yourself and build a falsehood that exists only in your fabrications.
      2. ironic
        ironic 4 February 2021 18: 01
        -2
        And that he was missing a share after Tesla took off by 1200%? fellow I wish you one million such baking under your tail, and this is a good wish. Well, of course capitalization is not wealth, Musk's mom forbids selling shares and dividends are not paid per share. belay And even if the stock market is blown out by half, Musk from a multi-billionaire will become ... what is still a multi-billionaire? Oh, how will he live on? ... request
  3. Baloo
    Baloo 3 February 2021 13: 34
    +13
    The budget was successfully used.
    A joke from Odessa: a man stumbled in the dark, fell, grabbed a shiny thing, it turned out to be a bottle. He began to rub. Suddenly a gin flies out from there and solemnly says: oh, lord, I will fulfill any three of your wishes! Overlord: Bath, vodka and naked women. Jin: oh lord, everything will be done. Give me the money ... yes wink
    1. Kushka
      Kushka 3 February 2021 14: 39
      +5
      From the same place: a new Russian visiting another, and there,
      pool, indoor court. Inject bro, where from? Yes
      from gin. And share? Don't mind taking it. I took it, brought it
      bottle home, opened and shouted loudly - a lot of bucks!
      Faxes fell from the sky, the whole yard fell asleep. The one to
      to a friend with love. So the gin is old, deaf, I have it
      do you think that big TENIS asked?
      1. Baloo
        Baloo 3 February 2021 15: 25
        0
        Quote: Kushka
        big TENIS requested?

        wassat good
  4. Guru
    Guru 3 February 2021 13: 37
    +2
    (...) it was a great flight, just needs a little work on the landing
    A file to help you. laughing
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 3 February 2021 13: 54
      -2
      Quote: Guru
      (...) it was a great flight, just needs a little work on the landing
      A file to help you. laughing

      Alas, it's not funny anymore. a few years ago, the NTV channel showed the phenomenon of high officials at one of the factories related to the production of missiles. So there, right in the frame, they showed the processing of metal blanks with hammers and files ... (((It was not at all funny ...
      1. Guru
        Guru 3 February 2021 13: 59
        +2
        (((It wasn't funny at all ...
        I know from my own experience, because I served at Baikonur and saw the assembly process myself at the MZK and MIC.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 3 February 2021 18: 34
        0
        Quote: Starover_Z
        So there, right in the frame, they showed the processing of metal blanks with hammers and files ...

        What shop was it, if you understand something in this? Do you think they will take you to the assembly shop for television filming?
      3. loki565
        loki565 3 February 2021 20: 00
        +3
        several years ago, the NTV channel showed

        Do you know how television shoots? come to the object and ask to simulate a stormy activity, and then it turns out like this)))
  5. svp67
    svp67 3 February 2021 13: 37
    +3
    Equipped with 37 Raptor engines, it will be able to put into orbit up to 150 tons of load or transport up to 100 people.
    Is this an attempt to replicate the Royal H-1?
    1. Robocat
      Robocat 3 February 2021 13: 50
      +7
      Is this an attempt to replicate the Royal H-1?

      No, this is some kind of jamb in numbers. The stratum mass is twice that of the operating heavy-class launch vehicles, and the payload is 7 times more?
      Hard to believe.
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 5 February 2021 12: 27
      0
      Quote: svp67
      Is this an attempt to replicate the Royal H-1?


      N-1 was never done.
  6. Alien From
    Alien From 3 February 2021 13: 39
    -2
    They have up to (a lot) money, unfortunately they will finish it ...
    1. askort154
      askort154 3 February 2021 14: 00
      -1
      Alien From ....They have money up to (a lot), unfortunately they will finish it.

      If they "cut" like the destroyer Zumwalt, or the F-35, the printing press may break. good hi
      1. ironic
        ironic 3 February 2021 15: 31
        0
        Well, yes, the Zumvolts will be sawing, the sea wolves were also sawed for excessive dough, but so far these three boats have no equal even at home. Above the front line and in reconnaissance, so far the F-35 has not been better yet, as the printing press continued its work under Biden. So what is it about?
    2. bk316
      bk316 3 February 2021 14: 05
      +4
      Roofing felts will finish it or not, but it is ABSOLUTELY certain that if they finish it, it will be a completely different rocket.
      In general, there is an opinion that all this fuss in order to debug a new engine, and a flying water tower just so that ordinary people do not pester. After all, MARS! The engine will then be used on conventional heavy rockets.
      1. ironic
        ironic 3 February 2021 15: 34
        -2
        So it doesn't have to be the same. A technical concept is being worked out, the so-called. Betta, then a preliminary copy and only then a working copy for production.
        1. bk316
          bk316 3 February 2021 16: 01
          -3
          so called betta,

          Sasha, before you speculate about PoC, first learn the word BETA correctly laughing
          And then, sometime in 10 years, someone will tell you about the development cycle.
          This is what I mean beta version implies the implementation of the main functionality of the system... A 10 KM jump and falling into a cake are by no means the main functionality of a flight to Mars. Although, who knows his Mask ... wassat
          1. ironic
            ironic 3 February 2021 17: 08
            -4
            Are you the head of software at an active startup that has gone through alpha, beta, pre-production and is about to release products? What is not? And I am. So Vovochka, you are writing the beta correctly, and I am already carrying out a cycle about which you are only writing posts, and to a large extent on Russian investments, by the way.

            PS Do you know how our alpha differs from beta and beta from preproduction? Like BMP from a tricycle and ten meters of barbed wire.
      2. orionvitt
        orionvitt 3 February 2021 16: 08
        0
        Quote: bk316
        all this fuss in order to debug the new engine

        Fairy tales. To debug engines, there is a thing called bench tests. If you constantly destroy rockets to debug engines, then who would call them smart? laughing The answer is simple, mastery finance. And for this, you need a beautiful picture. And it doesn't matter that everything is shattered, the main thing is to call all this fireworks a success.
        1. loki565
          loki565 3 February 2021 20: 07
          0
          There, the problem is not in the engines, but in the fuel lines, which need to be constantly cooled, and if heating occurs during the flight, bubbles form that clog this line, in general, the problem is in restarting the engine and it is difficult to work out at the stand.
    3. Roman123567
      Roman123567 3 February 2021 14: 40
      0
      And what to regret ??
      Vaughn Hubble flies, pleases us with pictures .. all sorts of rovers, probes study distant planets - is all this bad for us ??

      Well, let's regret then that the Germans drank their Mercedes to their senses, and the Koreans Hyundai .. and now we are forced to ride on all this .. because we ourselves could not finish their own ..))

      Shl .. if you sit and wait by the sea weather Rogozin .. then there won't be much sense ..
    4. ironic
      ironic 3 February 2021 15: 26
      -3
      Why unfortunately? What are you regretting?
    5. orionvitt
      orionvitt 3 February 2021 16: 01
      -2
      Quote: Alien From
      They have up to (a lot) money, unfortunately they will finish it ...

      The budgets will finish, there is no doubt about it. But the product is a big question. Considering that the project itself is from a technical point of view, absolutely unfeasible.
  7. michael2000
    michael2000 3 February 2021 13: 41
    +4
    Looking at Musk's ships, one always remembers the science fiction writers of the 70s; such ships were also painted on the covers there. I'm wondering if the laws of physics have already been canceled or Musk has a trick that will allow him to bring enough people and equipment to Mars to organize a colony.
    After all, if you just figure it out, then only the fuel for landing on the red planet will need to take a carriage and a small cart. How much water do people need? After all, to fly to Mars (when the planets approach) at least 210 days. People will not last so much, but how will their rehabilitation go after weightlessness? In short, many questions arise, but Musk has no answer to any of them.
    1. Hog
      Hog 3 February 2021 13: 47
      -4
      Looking at Musk's ships, one always remembers the science fiction writers of the 70s; such ships were also painted on the covers there. I'm wondering if the laws of physics have already been canceled or Musk has a trick

      And how do they contradict the laws of physics?
      After all, if you just figure it out, then only the fuel for landing on the red planet will need to take a carriage and a small cart.

      And where did the "carriage" come from?
      How much water do people need? After all, to fly to Mars (when the planets approach) at least 210 days. People will not last so much, but how will their rehabilitation go after weightlessness?

      Ask on the ISS.
      In short, many questions arise, but Musk has no answer to any of them.

      So you asked him?
      1. bk316
        bk316 3 February 2021 14: 07
        +3

        And where did the "carriage" come from?

        Not a wagon train of wagons. And for all your love for Musk, you don't know what to say. The answer is simple
        THIS rocket will not fly to Mars. It is for delivering cargo to orbit for assembling a Martian ship there.
        It's just that this honest answer makes it clear that Mars is still decades away, and not a couple of years as Musk promised. This is the best case.
      2. loki565
        loki565 3 February 2021 20: 12
        0
        Ask on the ISS.

        Trucks are constantly flying there and restocking
        In addition, the ISS has no problems with solar radiation, since it is protected by the earth's field, and during a flight to Mars, one flash in the sun and radioactive corpses will arrive.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 3 February 2021 13: 50
      +3
      Quote: michael2000
      How much water do people need?

      And also zhrachi, two cars. Fantastic!
      1. Guru
        Guru 3 February 2021 13: 57
        +3
        And also zhrachi, two cars. Fantastic!
        And besides, there are two more cars of equipment, one of the tractor is Martian; Total ECHELON! laughing laughing Have survived lol 21st century and we send Echelons to Mars and measure them in wagons.
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 3 February 2021 15: 03
          0
          Quote: Guru
          The 21st century has survived and we send Echelons to Mars and measure them in wagons.

          Even Jules Verne never thought of that.
    3. Nasrat
      Nasrat 3 February 2021 14: 07
      +3
      The main question is how to protect a living organism from hard radiation in deep space?
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 3 February 2021 15: 04
        +1
        Quote: Nasr
        The main question is how to protect a living organism from hard radiation in deep space?

        This is not a settled issue yet, and for a long time.
      2. loki565
        loki565 3 February 2021 20: 23
        0
        Well, there are two ways, either to generate a magnetic field like the earth, or to come up with materials that can reduce such an impact)))
    4. Simon schempp
      Simon schempp 3 February 2021 14: 22
      +3
      I'm wondering if the laws of physics have already been canceled or Musk has a trick

      Yes Yes. Type Falcon9 in your search engine and open articles from 2017 and earlier. There, experts almost swore by their mother that the project of the reversible stage was unrealizable in principle. They also broadcast about the laws of physics.
      And where is Falcon9 now and where are the experts? Well, experts know where. They continue with an imperturbable face in the vastness of VO telling what Musk is a swindler.
      1. FrankyStein
        FrankyStein 3 February 2021 15: 23
        +2
        Yes, there was no such thing. Even to me, a sofa man, it was clear that the return of the stage is a purely technical issue, even students of some specialized university will do it for you. If automatic stations landed on the moon, Mars, Venus, if the capsules return from the ISS, what could be the problem with the return of the stage? Doubts were about expediency. And they are still present with many specialists.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 5 February 2021 12: 41
          0
          Quote: FrankyStein
          Even to me, the man in the armchair, it was clear that the return of the stage is a purely technical issue


          Reminded "The most beautiful goal is scored by the one who sits on the couch."
    5. Intruder
      Intruder 3 February 2021 14: 26
      -1
      People will not last so much, but how will their rehabilitation go after weightlessness?
      if you recruit half of a hundred with a life sentence, with a rehabilitating sentence in absentia, if the mission is successfully completed, and then throw it out on the way to the airlock, the problem with mass can be solved, although it is somehow cruel ... but the rest of the Martian astronauts with a nondisclosure agreement, can there be !? wink and rehabilitation, well, first, all sorts of androids will support the handle and carry all sorts of gravity for a month, and then they will recover, gravity is less than on Earth and ... winked
    6. mark2
      mark2 3 February 2021 14: 48
      +2
      In short, many questions arise, but Musk has no answer to any of them.

      Strange, you have, but the commentator above does not. And the sect of Maskophiles does not have the same.
      You have to believe. Believe. Only faith will lift IT into space.
      In general, no one will fly to any Mars. It's one thing to deliver a cube of iron with a facet of 2.5 m, that's the same 100 tons, and another 100 people. How to place them there? Straight imperial cruiser
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 3 February 2021 15: 06
        +1
        Quote: mark2
        You have to believe. Believe. Only faith will lift IT into space.

        Yes, we have half the population, they believe something unrealizable. But the unrealizable happens only in the fairy tale "About the Fisherman and the Fish".
        1. mark2
          mark2 3 February 2021 15: 10
          +3
          Half? Take the larger part above.
      2. loki565
        loki565 3 February 2021 20: 28
        0
        Of course, no one will fly to Mars, or rather they can send some robots. It is logical to make the first base on the Moon, so to speak, to work out the technology, and human flights to Mars are fantastic)))
  8. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 3 February 2021 13: 42
    -1
    If you play badly - smile ... You can work on the landing. Give out a rocket explosion as a success ... It's called "poker face" ...
    1. syndicalist
      syndicalist 3 February 2021 13: 58
      -5
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Give out a rocket explosion as a success ... It's called "poker face" ...

      This is probably why we will not try to launch something new. No one will blame Rogozin's cartoon projects for failure.
      1. loki565
        loki565 3 February 2021 20: 31
        +1
        No, rather, after the first accident, such a howl will start that you have to turn everything down))) Although the Queen's P7 did not immediately fly either)))
    2. cniza
      cniza 3 February 2021 13: 58
      +2
      Here it comes more from logic that any result, negative or positive, can be assessed by dividing it into stages and the smaller these stages are, you can find all the errors and shortcomings ...
      1. orionvitt
        orionvitt 3 February 2021 16: 17
        0
        Quote: cniza
        Here it comes more from logic that any result, negative or positive, can be assessed by dividing it into stages and the smaller these stages are, you can find all the errors and shortcomings ...

        Logically, the main mistakes and shortcomings should be assessed already at the stage of project justification, and not at the testing stage. I mean, all this fuss of the Mask with a flight to Mars, from a technical point of view, is absolute nonsense. With the current level of technology. Moreover, in this area (comic), over the past 60 years, apart from computers, nothing essentially new has been invented.
    3. Simon schempp
      Simon schempp 3 February 2021 14: 26
      -2
      If you play badly - smile ... You can work on the landing. Give out a rocket explosion as a success ... It's called "poker face" ...

      A. And here is the expert.
    4. donavi49
      donavi49 3 February 2021 14: 45
      +3
      Well, I disagree here. On experienced rockets, any result, except for an explosion on the table, is a success. This is an opportunity to collect information and fix jambs.

      The problem is only when there is stagnation or an unforgettable problem. For Starship, this is bringing the engines to full thrust in the last 10 seconds. And then and now one engine stalled, and the second did not come out on traction.

      On the other hand, I repeat, if the starship collapsed in a coup, it would be a fundamental problem. I would have to recount everything, redo and + 2-3 years. But the second device can withstand peak overload. It's kind of positive.
    5. ironic
      ironic 3 February 2021 15: 37
      -3
      Depends on what you expected to get. But this is for those who are really engaged in startups, and not only write comments.
  9. Orange bigg
    Orange bigg 3 February 2021 13: 44
    +6
    The head of the company, Elon Musk, called the tests successful.

    We wish further such successful tests to Elon Musk.
    1. Dodikson
      Dodikson 3 February 2021 13: 56
      -7
      and for what minus?
      I don’t like mattresses, but what to do if, apart from ragosen, space does not develop in our country, and with ragoseny and in the 3rd millennium it will fly on protons and no further than the moon.
      Musk pushed progress forward and that's a fact. and good luck to everyone who moves him forward, even if he is not Russian.
      computers, too, were not developed by Russians, and what would minusers choose - sit on 4046 with 4kb of RAM and have a maximum command line and text games or sit at a modern computer and surf the Internet?
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Professor
      Professor 3 February 2021 13: 56
      -2
      Quote: OrangeBigg
      The head of the company, Elon Musk, called the tests successful.

      We wish further such successful tests to Elon Musk.

      Envy is a bad life partner. negative

      The nine has been successfully planted for a long time and then many times (EMNIP is already 8 times) are re-launched. So Musk broke the record for the low cost of launching a payload into orbit and for the number of simultaneous launches. Thanks to Musk for making space accessible. For providing fast internet anywhere in the world.
      1. loki565
        loki565 3 February 2021 20: 39
        -5
        Well, yes, yes, how is the moon hopper doing there, and could not repeat the success of 50 years ago?)))
        1. Professor
          Professor 3 February 2021 22: 01
          -1
          Quote: loki565
          Well, yes, yes, how is the moon hopper doing there, and could not repeat the success of 50 years ago?)))

          Duc and you have not repeated this success since then, and if nothing else, repeat it. ... And here they are preparing a second attempt and not at all for the funds that were invested in the project 50 years ago. wassat
          1. loki565
            loki565 4 February 2021 01: 47
            -3
            So why repeat what you have already done?))) Here the Americans, too, do not fly to the moon anymore, it’s probably boring to run around there, everyone has already looked)))
      2. Disant
        Disant 4 February 2021 02: 22
        0
        Musk broke the record for the lowest cost of launching a payload into orbit

        very controversial, I think such documents and agreements are closed from prying eyes
        1. Professor
          Professor 4 February 2021 07: 21
          -2
          Quote: Disant
          Musk broke the record for the lowest cost of launching a payload into orbit

          very controversial, I think such documents and agreements are closed from prying eyes

          There is nothing controversial. Clients come to it in a crowd, and they are attracted primarily by the low cost of launch.
  10. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 3 February 2021 13: 55
    +6
    The 9th crashed, but the 10th is already under steam. I can't help thinking that it looks like the spaceships of the illustrators of fantastic stories from the 50s. And this "bandura" will have to return from space? Really fantastic project! Even interesting.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 3 February 2021 14: 46
      0
      11 and 12 in operation.
  11. cniza
    cniza 3 February 2021 13: 55
    0
    In the final version, Starship will have a height of almost 50 meters, and its mass with a full load of fuel is 1400 tons. Equipped with 37 Raptor engines, it will be able to launch up to 150 tons of load into orbit or transport up to 100 people.


    Serious application ...
  12. Ros 56
    Ros 56 3 February 2021 14: 00
    0
    Let him fly, Musk will not live to the Moon or Mars, and then there is nothing to jump.
  13. smaug78
    smaug78 3 February 2021 14: 04
    -2
    Let it fly wherever it goes ...
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 3 February 2021 15: 17
      0
      Quote: smaug78
      Let it fly wherever it goes ...

      If we fly, we'll clap. Now we haven't flown - we'll clap too, it's still not ours.
  14. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 3 February 2021 14: 07
    +3
    Some kind of stillborn project. This rocket seemed to be drawn by a science fiction writer of the 50s))

    Everything constantly explodes, the design is dubious.
    And also chemical engines, when a nuclear tug is being built with might and main.
    1. Simon schempp
      Simon schempp 3 February 2021 14: 28
      -5
      And also chemical engines, when a nuclear tug is being built with might and main.

      Ahah. Well yes. The first batch of nuclear tugs has already rolled off the assembly line. laughing
    2. Roman123567
      Roman123567 3 February 2021 14: 51
      -3
      we are building a nuclear tug with might and main.


      You - on Alpha Centauri ??)
      1. Sergeant Pavlovsky
        Sergeant Pavlovsky 3 February 2021 16: 16
        +1
        Please - https://lenta.ru/news/2020/09/17/nucleon/
        Speech at the RAS, where they talk about the reactor and other ALREADY proven solutions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GGMOOulEfc&t=16800s
        Look at your health. The management is interested in its creation, so it is only a matter of time.
        1. Simon schempp
          Simon schempp 4 February 2021 00: 56
          +2
          Look at your health. The management is interested in its creation, so it is only a matter of time.

          How is the base on the moon by 2015? smile
          1. Disant
            Disant 5 February 2021 00: 13
            0
            How is the base on the moon by 2015?

            it was a great speech from 2006! excellent work of the head of RSC Energia and the entire team!
            And now, after 15 years, we see our partners, spurred on by this speech about the creation of a Russian lunar base and persistently going to create their own circumlunar and alunar base, which devours and will devour their resources and time.
            And we will go north - towards the creation of a nuclear tug.
            We will also throw a speech about a trampoline in the piggy bank - if it were not for the speech about a trampoline, the Americans would have been sawing their krudregon for another 15 years and would have doubts about investing resources in lunar scams.
            Excellent special operation.
            Trampoline - POWER
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Disant
        Disant 4 February 2021 02: 38
        +1
        You - on Alpha Centauri ??)

        launch vehicle ready, reactor, coolers, engine ready
        news about the beginning of assembly of a sample for vacuum blowing for six months.
        Now they are solving the issue with the load: send it to Jupiter for scientific purposes immediately or wait until the combat laser is finished to match the parameters of the reactor and launched into the Moon's orbit to protect the borders of the Moon from the encroachments of foreign powers.
        Don't you even watch the Internet?
  15. tarabar
    tarabar 3 February 2021 14: 08
    +3
    (...) it was a great flight, just needs a little work on the landing

    I can't even imagine such an assessment from the lips of Sergei Pavlovich Korolev after an unsuccessful test flight. And here, piss in the eye - God's dew, loot wins ...
  16. yehat2
    yehat2 3 February 2021 14: 11
    +6
    this project has several obvious problems.
    1.flying to Mars - this is not close in terms of difficulty with flying even to the Moon, to which questions also remain, were they previously manned at all
    2. Completely insufficient system reliability. Any failure, even a small one = zeroing the device. Such devices should have much more systems of passive or easily duplicated action (for example, a parachute)
    3. As Kanonikhin said, "hipster design" that does not take into account the basic requirements for operation and reliability
    4. Large dimensions are still in demand only by the military. And the senior ship, no matter what anyone says, is not for Mars, but for them.
    5. have questions about the manufacturability of the design.
  17. yehat2
    yehat2 3 February 2021 14: 14
    +6
    Quote: Professor
    So Musk broke the record for the low cost of launching a payload into orbit and for the number of simultaneous launches.

    it is not true. indeed, the rocket returned several times, but NOT THE SAME AND THE SAME.
    Because there remain intractable problems with reliability testing and defect fixing.
    therefore, the calculation of the cost price is completely different, and not advertising.
    In general, Musk has a lot of strains with real profits, except for his first speculatively promoted projects.
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 3 February 2021 15: 17
      0
      Quote: yehat2
      it is not true. indeed, the rocket returned several times, but NOT THE SAME AND THE SAME.
      Because there remain intractable problems with reliability testing and defect fixing.
      Stage B1051 successfully completed 8 launches and made 8 successful landings. And the total number of launches in different stages exceeded a hundred.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 3 February 2021 15: 21
        +1
        you don't seem to be 5 years old to believe in fairy tales
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 3 February 2021 15: 26
          0
          I don't see any indication in this information that it is a fairy tale. Yes, and you, as I understand it, also have no reason to assert this, except for the subjective confidence that the problems that arise in this case are insoluble?
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 3 February 2021 15: 38
            +4
            to answer you reasonably, you will have to stretch out the story about flaw detection for a couple of hours. I can only say this - I do not believe that Musk's team solved the flaw detection problems in a year, which the recognized world leader of the USSR did not cope with for many years.
            Boeing, which boasts so much about its aircraft diagnostics technologies, did not solve this problem either, and it also has many times more resources and time than Musk.
            1. military_cat
              military_cat 3 February 2021 15: 47
              -3
              Quote: yehat2
              I do not believe

              Relying on faith is a bad method. A person is inclined to believe in what is more pleasant for him. The only alternative to this is the empirical approach and Occam's razor. That is, to look at the facts with your eyes and not to multiply essences beyond what is necessary, while it is possible to do without it.
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 3 February 2021 15: 49
                +3
                I advise you to believe in greed. This works stably.
                And when you read Musk's ad, remember this belief too.
                1. military_cat
                  military_cat 3 February 2021 16: 03
                  0
                  Greed exists, but it is not equivalent to the desire to stage a massive hoax in order to deceive the whole world. A large-scale hoax aimed at deceiving the entire world needs additional justification, good enough to justify the complexity of organizing such a deception without the margin for error or leakage from the vast multitude of involved participants.
                  1. yehat2
                    yehat2 3 February 2021 16: 09
                    +5
                    this is a standard deception by investment companies in the United States. especially common in Texas is the forgery of work results. Musk is acting quite typical of Americans. He does not deceive the whole world, but delays an objective analysis of what is happening in order to achieve today's goals.
                    Musk's capital in his Tesla is an anomaly in the auto industry.
                    Its capitalization is 20 times that of Toyota, although it is absurd to even think that it is even close in terms of results. And everywhere is exactly the same approach.
                    The mask is called a genius - yes. But this is not a genius in organization and an outspoken fuck in technology, he is a genius in persuading investors.
                    1. military_cat
                      military_cat 3 February 2021 16: 16
                      0
                      But SpaceX is not a public company, its shares are not traded on the stock exchange.
                      1. yehat2
                        yehat2 3 February 2021 16: 19
                        +4
                        it doesn't change much. just the main investor - the pentagon
                      2. military_cat
                        military_cat 3 February 2021 16: 27
                        0
                        Yeah, and the Pentagon, of course, will not find out that they launch a different stage eight times under the guise of one. Despite the fact that it hardly matters to him at all how many times a stage has flown, but attempts to pass off as results that which are not, will be very much interested.

                        It started that same multiplication of entities without need - trying to think out of my head on the fly, based only on my opinion, some props for the version. And this is a sure sign that the version is not aligning itself into a logical and clear picture, but is spreading at the seams.
                      3. yehat2
                        yehat2 3 February 2021 16: 32
                        +3
                        I'm not an investigator to prove everything to you with documents.
                        I gave an overall assessment based on what Musk is doing and what I know about rocketry. I have no desire to prove something to you in detail, I just offered the readers the existence of another version. Do whatever you want with her. You call it an entity - I don't care. However, I will add on my own - try to analyze what you heard.
                        Although I suspect that you are from the cohort who believe in iPads, iPhones, iPhones and iPhones, and even a can opener and hammer with a stub logo will be looking for.
                      4. military_cat
                        military_cat 3 February 2021 16: 35
                        -1
                        I warned you right away that faith does not fit well with the empirical approach and Occam's razor.
                      5. yehat2
                        yehat2 3 February 2021 16: 38
                        +1
                        I need to give you a Koran and a couple of concubines.
                        you will immediately forget about the razor and about Occam
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 3 February 2021 18: 46
      -3
      Quote: yehat2
      it is not true. indeed, the rocket returned several times, but NOT THE SAME AND THE SAME.

      They shyly keep silent about this, and this was a huge problem for shuttles, the operating experience of which showed that a second launch requires a lot of money for testing and eliminating defects that appeared during the previous launch and landing. As a result, it turned out that the cost of a kilogram of the removed cargo turned out to be practically the same as in our Unions. I think Musk will step on the same rake ...
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 3 February 2021 20: 07
        +3
        on shuttles, the cost was 3 times more expensive
        partly because of the returnable ballast, partly because of other problems.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 4 February 2021 10: 15
          +1
          Quote: yehat2
          on shuttles, the cost was 3 times more expensive

          There are different calculation methods, I will not argue, but the very fact that cheap delivery did not work out just proves that at the current stage this system is not so effective that the whole world will switch to it.
          Quote: yehat2
          partly because of other problems.

          Losing two ships with crews is generally on the verge of madness.
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 4 February 2021 10: 18
            +1
            Quote: ccsr
            Losing two ships with crews is generally on the verge of madness.

            Well, strictly speaking, Challenger was lost due to neglect of the weather.
            If we followed the designers' recommendations and prepared the start better, there would be no accident.
  18. squid
    squid 3 February 2021 14: 17
    +6
    I watched this on the air .. This whole starship looks extremely suspicious - the ship, hastily assembled from household stainless steel, swings at full reusability, previously unattainable by anyone (even when using real aerospace super-materials). At the same time, the appearance of the ship changed every year, the redesign took a few months, and in general everything was somehow home-made in appearance. Compare this to decades of work by NASA engineers even on much less complex projects. And at the same time, the specific share of the payload is 2%, which is fantastic for full reusability.
    If it weren't for Musk, he would say that this is a poorly thought-out adventure of amateur engineers in the spirit of "maybe it will fly." But this is Musk, so I won't yet)
    Although the previous achievement - Falcon 9 - was orders of magnitude less ambitious and took much longer to develop. In fact, the falcon is an ordinary kerosene stove, which does not reach the level of the same "zenith", but only with the returnable first stage (which, by the way, did not give such a gain in the unit cost of launching into orbit). In my subjective opinion, Falcon 9 does not contain something so revolutionary, while the project was assessed as real from the very beginning. Starship is completely revolutionary and personally I don't see anything really feasible in it. I would like to be wrong.
    If it doesn't work out with the starship, then the spaces will have to move a lot from the space launch market. Or even leave altogether. Bezos breathes in the back with his New Glenn - a radically innovative development, at a level somewhere between the heavy falcon and the starship. But unlike the starship, it looks completely feasible.
    If the starship nevertheless takes off (although according to all accounts it should not), of course, it is into orbit and with a load (and generally confirms the declared characteristics), then it will be unclear what all the previous generations of rocket scientists did - there is nothing fundamentally new in the technologies used, all the same could have been done back in the 70s and 80s.
    1. Hog
      Hog 3 February 2021 15: 05
      +1
      This entire starship looks extremely suspicious - the ship, which has been hastily assembled from household stainless steel, swings at full reusability, previously unattainable by anyone.

      And nothing that these are just experimental rockets made in essence from the very same substance and sticks, but they are needed to work out the technology and nothing more.
      1. squid
        squid 3 February 2021 18: 19
        0
        But what experienced, Musk promised to launch the entire system this year. This is for the time being working out the upper stage separately, but this is exactly what it is supposed to be in the end, unless life forces something to change.
        And the substance there is exactly the same as on the final ship - stainless steel aisi 304, the most ordinary one from which pans are made.
    2. Polymer
      Polymer 3 February 2021 17: 56
      -2
      Quote: squid
      This whole starship looks extremely suspicious - a ship hastily assembled from household stainless steel.

      I will not find fault with the term "household stainless steel" - it is clear what they wanted to say. In my opinion, this is not even a ship yet, but only a mass-dimensional model. And if you can somehow see and evaluate with dimensions, then with weight everything is very doubtful. With such dimensions, taking into account the internal structure, heat-resistant lining, etc. - the real mass may turn out to be such that these gas burners, which are now raising it to an altitude of more than 10 km, will not even be able to tear it off the ground. However, I am not privy to the details of the calculations, so I will not say anything. However, in my opinion, the ascent rate in the video is much less than the first space one.
      1. squid
        squid 3 February 2021 18: 15
        +2
        So this is the second step)
        And "household stainless steel" is a very clear definition. They make from such a frying pan.

        > With such dimensions, taking into account the internal structure, heat-resistant lining, etc. - the real mass may be
        But with this I just agree.
        Moreover, I remember Musk puffed up about some kind of innovative thermal protection with double walls made of pure stainless steel. But in fact - all the same ceramic tiles. That little design change, right on the fly, yeah.
        1. Polymer
          Polymer 3 February 2021 18: 26
          0
          Quote: squid
          And "household stainless steel" is a very clear definition.

          Well, I don’t know ... for me, “alloyed corrosion-resistant and heat-resistant steel” is more common. hi
  19. Roman123567
    Roman123567 3 February 2021 14: 19
    -1
    The scale of the tests, of course .. the USSR would have envied such a pace ..

    And what surprised me was that they were not even afraid to keep the second missile nearby.
  20. Sergeant Pavlovsky
    Sergeant Pavlovsky 3 February 2021 14: 23
    +3

    (...) it was a great flight, just needs a little work on the landing

    Now imagine if Rogozin had said this, it would have been howling until the very alpha centauri, but when Musk says, it's different, everything will work out, just wait a little and then ... Well, or in this form
    And who did it the first time? People work, experiment, until accidents, then fly ...
    It remains to envy them ...

    ... This is normal research and development

    In the meantime, we have such a situation
    1. Hog
      Hog 3 February 2021 15: 09
      -2
      Now imagine if Rogozin had said this, it would have been howling until the very alpha centauri

      Rogozin will not say so, because of the new projects he has only pictures (and a 30-year-old Angara with three launches). The difference in approaches, a bunch of prototypes are launched over the hill, and we all invest in one pre-production model.
      1. Sergeant Pavlovsky
        Sergeant Pavlovsky 3 February 2021 16: 10
        -5
        we all invest in one pre-production model.

        If you think so, then you probably have very scanty knowledge about the space industry in Russia, very scanty. The name of the Hangar is really 30 years old, but between the first hangar thirty years ago and the now flying abyss the size of a grand canyon, do you see the suspended fuel tanks at the new hangar? That's right, you don't see, they were in an old hangar, a big-eared Cheburashka. Now I will list the most obvious reasons why it is needed:
        1) All normal Proton launch pads in Kazakhstan, this is the risk of completely losing the ability to launch heavy rockets
        2) Proton fuel is poisonous and cannot be launched from Russia. And Angara is environmentally friendly.
        3) The military needs launches from the Russian Federation, they will receive them with this rocket.
        and so on.
        Now about "Nightmare, stop investing in one pre-production model." Do you seriously think that you are investing only in the Angara? I have to disappoint.
        1) Krylo-SV, the second birth of Baikal, or rather the first time it was not born. Believe it or not, the first tests will be carried out soon, or have already been carried out, because, unlike some, they do not expose a prototype made of foil and rusty beams.
        2) Irtysh, also in development, your favorite pictures with the details of this rocket surfaced on the net.
        3) Super-heavy or Yenisei, the beginning of its flight tests is postponed, because there is no need for it either now or in the near future, the first stage of the LP can be done using the multi-launch scheme of the same Angara (this is a turn). The production of the first sample is underway, Rogozin published the "picture" on Twitter - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ETaW3S7WoAA74Vd?format=jpg&name=large
        4) Cupid or the concept of a reusable carrier of a normal person, with methane and stable engines, the first rocket that was initially created as a commercial one, the contract was signed only recently, so there are no "pictures".
        There are a couple more carriers, but I think this is enough to make sure that they invest not only in the Angara. By the way, about it, Angara-A5M and Angara-A5B are being developed on its basis, read.
        And now the final question, what do you like best when a hastily assembled tin can of foil flies or a sample that has been worked out over time and minimally different from the serial one, which has less chances to arrange fireworks at the cost of its life, on takeoff. In addition to the launch vehicle, there are still other promising programs, such as a nuclear tug and an eagle.
      2. loki565
        loki565 3 February 2021 20: 48
        0
        As for me, a nuclear tug is much more promising than all chemical missiles combined.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 4 February 2021 00: 43
          0
          Unfortunately, on plasma engines that will power the nuclear power plant, a high speed cannot be developed - which means that the flight will be long now, the nuclear rocket engine remains promising with which you can accelerate the ship to a speed of 10000 kilometers per second.
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 5 February 2021 12: 22
      0
      Quote: Sergeant Pavlovsky
      Now imagine if Rogozin said this


      Due to the fact that Rogozin has a reputation for being a cheap talker. And Musk is a man of action.
  21. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 3 February 2021 14: 30
    +1
    It's a pity that we have been developing innovative projects for a very long time, you can often read that Russia is losing leadership in the space race to the United States and the same China ...
  22. vit670
    vit670 3 February 2021 14: 43
    -8
    Well done Americans! And we can only hiss from around the corner ... under the wise leadership of "United Russia" headed by our no less wise President V.V. Putin. It's a shame, you understand ...
    1. loki565
      loki565 3 February 2021 20: 50
      0
      Well done Americans! And we can only hiss from around the corner ... under the wise leadership of "United Russia" headed by our no less wise President V.V. Putin. It's a shame, you understand ...

      Well, your last name is clearly not Korolev)))
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 3 February 2021 22: 45
        0
        Quote: loki565
        Well, your last name is clearly not Korolev)))

        Who knows. Sergei Pavlovich himself despised the communists, but hated the CPSU. Regarding the oligarchic-KGB authorities, this man was definitely not shy in obscene expressions.
  23. Vadim237
    Vadim237 3 February 2021 14: 48
    -2
    Such a concept in a manned version is a rather extreme execution, small supports, the absence of SAS, for landing on other planets for such ships, even transport ones, even cargo ones, you will need to make landing sites, because if the ship sits on an unprepared site, there is a high risk of soil sinking under the supports and the ship can collapse, again the Starship cannot take off from the surface of Mars, since the thrust of three Raptors will not be enough, for this it will be necessary to build launching pads and send Super Heavy rockets to Mars or build them on the surface, as well as build infrastructure there to extract fuel and, again, send fuel tankers from Earth or create them on Mars to refuel the ship in orbit, and the very use of the space of the ship in an upright position on other planets is so-so decision on this at the moment Starship is a dead-end concept, there are so many disadvantages vryatli who will give a certificate for manned flights, which in the future will have to be changed to the concept of a new aerospace aircraft in the same dimensions in conjunction with Super Heavy with the possibility of independent takeoff and landing both from concrete surfaces and from unpaved runways.
    1. Hog
      Hog 3 February 2021 15: 13
      -1
      Such a concept in a manned version is a rather extreme execution, small supports, the absence of SAS, for landing on other planets for such ships, even transport ones, even cargo ones, you will need to make landing pads, because if the ship lands on an unprepared site

      What is the SAS on a prototype that has almost nothing in common with a serial rocket (except for its appearance), and is intended for technology development?
      PS: It's essentially a barrel (some don't even have a bottom) and its essence is to act as a fairing for tanks and engines.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 3 February 2021 18: 22
        -1
        SAS, even in the project, is not constructively provided for on this ship, if it is necessary to do it, the whole ship will have to be redone.
        1. Hog
          Hog 3 February 2021 18: 24
          +1
          САС, even in the project, is not constructively provided for

          And, so you saw the project, then everything is clear, I did not know.
    2. squid
      squid 3 February 2021 18: 26
      0
      Why can't the starship take off from Mars in the presence of gravity there? And there will be more raptors. The main thing is that it all take off from the ground
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 4 February 2021 00: 56
        -1
        Yes, from the same that Mars has 50% less gravity than on Earth, but in order to reach the first spacecraft, you need to accelerate the spacecraft to 3,5 kilometers per second. The first spacecraft on Mars, according to the project, will have only 3 raptor steering engines and 3 cruise engines for work in space - you can't put more engines on it all the space is occupied, these six engines will not be enough to accelerate an 800 ton ship to the first spacecraft and take off from the surface, this will require a rocket or the creation of more powerful engines and an increase in engine power leads to an increase in their size a as well as a greater mass of fuel, which in turn leads to the alteration of the entire ship to increase size and mass. And yes, without the necessary infrastructure on Mars, in particular, runway-prepared fuel factories, flights to the red planet will be one-way.
        1. squid
          squid 4 February 2021 02: 40
          +2
          The thrust of one raptor is 200 tons. Why three should not be enough to launch a ship from Mars, according to you, weighing 800 tons with a gravity of 0.5? Although actually 1320 tons and 0.38 from the earth. But still 200 * 3> 1320 * 0.38. Yes, they will be on Mars. Musk stated this directly.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 4 February 2021 17: 08
            0
            In any case, there is nowhere to take such a large amount of fuel on Mars, and the construction of factories for its production there is a very distant prospect for now, we will have a one-way flight. The mask will have to send to the red planet and the ships are tankers, and two of them will have to be in orbit, the second will land on to refuel a manned spacecraft for takeoff and exit to LEO where it will once again be refueled by a ship in orbit so that it will fly to Earth - that is, in order for the Starship to fly to Mars, it took off. from Mars and returned to Earth, you need three refueling ships and two more to refuel the refueling ships themselves in Earth orbit for a flight to Mars and that 6 launches of Superhavey rockets 5 refuelers per 1 piloted Starship - in this situation about cheap flights to Mars and back you can forget.
            1. squid
              squid 4 February 2021 19: 48
              0
              Check out Musk's own plans before arguing. And also look for why, in addition to simplified reusable maintenance, the Raptor engine is made with methane. There is methane on Mars. CO2, from which oxygen can be obtained, is also there. So refueling a rocket on the surface is a matter of technology and time. And that is exactly what is planned. Whether it will work is another matter. And whether the starship itself will succeed, at least for LEO, which is still in great doubt.
        2. squid
          squid 4 February 2021 03: 33
          +2
          About "prepared runways" is also not a fact. In the Martian version, the surface area of ​​the supports can be significantly increased. And in general, the Martian starship will have to be very different from the reversible-terrestrial one - at least it would be nice to saw off the aerodynamic rudders, you would have to make other internal equipment, and I would remove non-vacuum raptors from it. Return to earth - with a transfer in orbit to another, normal, starship.
  24. ironic
    ironic 3 February 2021 14: 58
    -3
    They work. A project of great complexity, high requirements. Not everything works out. Not everything and does not always go according to plan. Fine.
  25. FrankyStein
    FrankyStein 3 February 2021 15: 05
    +1
    If there are 37 engines, as written in the article, it will be a fiasco. There will be no talk of any stability and security. 100 "colonists" will be guinea pigs at each launch.
    1. squid
      squid 3 February 2021 18: 24
      +2
      37 as I understand it at both levels in total. And that's not a fact. At the first, 28 engines were planned, then it seemed like they decided to reduce the number.
      For comparison, the first stage of the falcon heavy has 27 engines. Nothing flies. Musk says so even more reliably - if one fails, the rocket will fly further.
  26. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 3 February 2021 15: 17
    +2
    The main purpose of this ship is to deliver colonists to the Moon and Mars. In the Starship Super Heavy version, it will be more powerful and heavier than the NASA Saturn V rocket that carried the Apollo astronauts to the moon.

    Something prevented the use of Saturn 5, which could deliver the colonists and the space station to Earth's orbit 50 years ago.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 February 2021 18: 23
      0
      It will be very expensive for the price of 1 kg of payload - and Saturn 5 is not a reusable rocket.
      1. loki565
        loki565 3 February 2021 20: 56
        0
        It will be very expensive for the price of 1 kg of payload - and Saturn 5 is not a reusable rocket.

        And if you count how much money will be spent on development, emergency launches and very dubious prospects? And here is a ready-made proven technology.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 5 February 2021 12: 35
          -2
          Quote: loki565
          And if you count how much money will be spent on development, emergency launches and very dubious prospects?


          Well, count it.

          Quote: loki565
          And here is a ready-made proven technology.


          It was worked out 50 years ago. Now even the equipment on which it was made is sold for scrap.
  27. orionvitt
    orionvitt 3 February 2021 15: 27
    +1
    Elon Musk called the tests successful
    Yes, the success is deafening, you will not say anything.
  28. pytar
    pytar 3 February 2021 16: 13
    +1
    Starship is not just a rocket. This is a whole concept, a complex of interconnected elements that should make the settlement of Mars possible.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 February 2021 18: 26
      +1
      With this concept, there will be no colonization of Mars - here cargoes to Mars will be sent in unmanned mode, but only the ships will fly one way after landing on Mars, they will no longer be able to take off.
      1. pytar
        pytar 3 February 2021 21: 43
        -1
        With this concept, there will be no colonization of Mars ...

        Something about Elon Musk's missiles has been constantly said for many years. That is not so, that is not so ... Now, the Falcons plow the Cosmos! Beauty! good Man Musk, who managed to do as much as he has already done, will undoubtedly be able to do what he is going to do!
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 4 February 2021 01: 14
          0
          Something about Elon Musk's missiles has been constantly said for many years. In this case, about the fact that someone said something has nothing to do with the current project, Musk immediately grabbed the super-difficult task of an interplanetary spacecraft with an extreme concept for manned flights, a spacecraft without SAS with small supports, a dangerous landing system and many other things, it could have been better to start with an easy one, namely, the creation of Martian habitable modules of orbital stations of the same communication system in the form of a satellite constellation of robotic construction vehicles for the preparation of sites for landing ships and components of fuel factories so that when the ship is brought up to standard for the arrival of people on Mars, everything is partially prepared he has rockets to send to Mars all of the above in terms of elements, and he rested his forehead on the Starship, which at the current pace and in 10 years will hardly fly with a man on board - he had previously promised to send the Red Dragon to Mars on Falcon Havey as a demonstrator of the fact that his epic with Mars is real but n Why refused, although it would be an excellent advertisement for him and his office - and so he wastes time and opportunities.
  29. Sergey Kulikov_3
    Sergey Kulikov_3 3 February 2021 17: 05
    0
    The essence of these experimental launches is not clear, if we wanted to work out the rocket turn and pre-landing braking, it would be easier to do this at an altitude of at least 500 m and control the entire process of turning and braking, but the rockets hit the ground for something incomprehensible. No need to write about sensors and telemetry, it's stupid.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 3 February 2021 22: 35
      -1
      There are standard throw tests at a height of 10 km, landing is optionally practiced. What do you want to do at 500 meters? They have already passed bench tests.
  30. evgen1221
    evgen1221 3 February 2021 17: 16
    -2
    Throwing 150 tons, it's cool. So the new super ISS can playfully deliver a lunar sorting room with a hotel for VIPs easily.
    1. squid
      squid 3 February 2021 18: 21
      +1
      Already 100t)
      A small change in characteristics, during the construction process)
  31. The comment was deleted.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 February 2021 18: 32
      -2
      So he talked about the tile, but stainless steel in case of destruction of this tile will be able to keep heating up to 1300 degrees for several minutes. And steel itself provides the best protection against proton radiation, which in outer space is 97% of all radiation.
  32. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 3 February 2021 18: 18
    +1
    Starship is not just a rocket. This is a whole concept, a complex of interconnected elements that should make the settlement of Mars possible.

    This is great. The concept is stunning. But in these long 50 years, while a new wunder concept was being developed, nothing prevented him from flying to Mars to Saturn 5 several times. Didn't you like flying to Saturn 5 in the USA?
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 3 February 2021 22: 30
      -1
      What for ?
      Flying to the moon is pretty expensive.
      During the Cold War, money was spared for such projects, and then funding for space programs was reduced by several times.
      At that time, they did not really know anything about Mars, it was dangerous to launch people, and super-heavy launch vehicles are not needed for Mars rovers.
  33. hydroy
    hydroy 3 February 2021 18: 28
    +1
    Bounced well)
  34. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 3 February 2021 19: 22
    +1
    In the final version, Starship will have a height of almost 50 meters, and its mass with a full load of fuel will be 1400 tons.
    belay Alan, take the Zumvolt and launch it into space, the Navy still don’t know where to put this masterpiece. request
  35. Selevc
    Selevc 4 February 2021 00: 08
    -1
    The modern United States is similar to the late Soviet Union when the sucky affairs in the country were covered with beautiful videos with Soviet rockets launched, weekly reports about USSR records in space and Hollywood smiles of Soviet cosmonauts.
    Now the same thing is happening in the USA - Musk is a swindler who is put by the puppeteers in order to drown the rest of the world with his continuous space victories !!! This already happened in the 80s in the Union - everyone knows well how it ended.

    Show-off and lies in the field of space exploration are bad - apparently the United States will never understand this without stepping on this rake properly !!!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 4 February 2021 01: 19
      -3
      Show-off and lies in space exploration are bad. Show-off and lies with promises as long as we only have the United States ahead of the rest of the planet on research missions to launch vehicles for manned ships and with the USSR there is no comparison there the state created and launched everything - and in the United States, both the state and private traders do not need to lump everyone together everyone does their own thing. And yes for crooks - rockets do not fly like manned ships.
      1. Dmitry V.
        Dmitry V. 4 February 2021 15: 44
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        Show-off and lies in space exploration


        Musk has set a goal - $ 50000 tickets to orbit - available space, going towards his goal.
        Well done.
  36. avaks111
    avaks111 4 February 2021 08: 51
    +1
    Our H-1 with 30 engines and a mass of 95 tons put into orbit never went ...
  37. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 4 February 2021 15: 42
    0

    Well done.

    Ibu ibudi - huidao mudi

    Chinese aphorism
    Translation into Russian - "Step by step you can achieve the goal"
  38. EvilLion
    EvilLion 4 February 2021 17: 00
    0
    You do not understand,
    it's different!
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 5 February 2021 12: 13
      0
      Yes, everything is the same as with Falcon.
  39. rjpthju
    rjpthju 5 February 2021 07: 19
    -1
    It remains only to envy. Failure? This they will heal. And our astronauts were left without food on the ISS. The amers have reserves, they feed ours ... But our trampoline didn't work, they didn't give us a lift. But there are no stocks and you can't run to the store ... And the Main Trampoline is still in charge ... We got what we deserved. Life goes on
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 February 2021 12: 27
      0
      Failure? This they will heal.


      You do not understand,
      it's different!