ByGoalZ

9.8K posts

ByGoalZ banner
ByGoalZ

ByGoalZ

@ByGoalZ

20, #robloxdev (80M+ visits) | CS student, Rocket nerd

Germany Beigetreten Ekim 2017
1K Folgt1.4K Follower
Angehefteter Tweet
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
Nice ending of the year!🥳
ByGoalZ tweet media
English
10
1
49
12.3K
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
Yea I disagree. Imo theres no point in going with a simple lander first. It was done with Apollo. Theres not much to gain from it compared with going all-in on a more capable lander. All these challenges need to get solved (refueling, high cadence of tankers, docking, ...) anyway so why not do it now.
English
0
0
0
11
LowIQSpaceymen🚀🛰️💫
@ByGoalZ Let me rephrase it to clarify. NASA should’ve chosen with a simple two stage lander, FIRST as a phase one vehicle, and once we finally got our feet wet THEN we can start making way up to larger more capable HLSs like Starship, while in the mean time, focus on using it for cargo.
English
2
0
0
20
LowIQSpaceymen🚀🛰️💫
Who seriously looks at this, sees where starship is currently, and says, with the most confident, straightest face imaginable, and says- “Yeah Starship HLS will be ready in time for a landing in 2028-2030!!!” Like, come on guys. 🙄😒
Everyday Astronaut@Erdayastronaut

SNEAK PEEK 👀 Here's an overview of Starship HLS's mission profile. We eventually go over all the numbers & do some calcs to see if there's ways to reduce the tankers. I'll have a full-ish 90 min rough draft review up tonight for X subscribers, Patrons & YouTube members!

English
11
3
31
9.8K
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@LowIQSpaceymen Yes, its the wrong vehicle for Artemis goals. (At least Artemis 4/5). The point is, shouldnt the goal be to move way more people/material?. And not to repeat Apollo.
English
1
0
0
20
LowIQSpaceymen🚀🛰️💫
@ByGoalZ That further proves my point Starship should be a cargo/delivery vessel, not a crew lander. You don’t take an 18 wheeler to transport 2 people across the country do you? no! you take a van, a car, or a pick up truck. If you take a bus its normally for a LARGE number of people.
English
1
0
0
29
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@LowIQSpaceymen Sounds like the real problem is that Artemis has the wrong goals. It shouldnt be to get "our feet wet again" but instead to do heavy cargo missions. And it seems like Isaacman thinks so too.
English
1
0
0
24
LowIQSpaceymen🚀🛰️💫
I should clarify, I’m not saying its impossible, rather I’m saying Starship is impractical this early on, for a few missions that are literally just trying to return humans to the moon and get our feet wet again after 50 years. Starship SHOULD NOT be that vehicle for that.
English
2
0
2
592
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@grant_melson @wholemars @StefanoBoglioni Cost of the vehicle is not as important as most people think, especially as Waymo switches to next generation vehicles with far lower cost and less sensors.
English
1
0
2
137
Grant Melson, CFA
Grant Melson, CFA@grant_melson·
@wholemars @StefanoBoglioni How much cheaper do you believe vision only, cybercab to be vs lidar jaguar ipace alternatives? Do you think they’d be perfect completion in COGS?
English
1
0
2
1.4K
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@Wishtap_ I love how they just keep adding a few new tabs every month😂 Just needs better navigation yea
English
0
0
1
26
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@Robotbeat @ramez Lidar isnt used for training as this post claims, its just validation to calibrate the cameras.
English
0
0
0
13
Robotbeat🗽 ➐
Robotbeat🗽 ➐@Robotbeat·
@ramez Yup. I think it's an unfair dunk, but I also think Elon is being unnecessarily resistant to LiDAR.
English
4
0
24
667
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@crownhuntsman @Orbital_Perigee Why would that be RLs grave? Carbon fiber has a use case. Just because Starship isnt using it, doesnt mean its doomed. There are more upcoming launchers primarily using carbon fiber
English
0
0
2
144
American Imperialist
American Imperialist@crownhuntsman·
@Orbital_Perigee I do feel kind of bad watching him dig his company's grave with carbon fiber. It's like looking at a car stuck on train tracks with all its doors welded shut, and the train horn has started blowing in the distance. Rocket Lab had promise but I don't think it survives Neutron.
English
6
0
0
846
perigeeaero.shop
perigeeaero.shop@Orbital_Perigee·
unpopular opinion Peter Beck is a souless grifter but honestly I don’t really care given he’s produced one more working rocket than Chris kemp
English
22
3
163
16.4K
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@Earlchaos1 @Elgar_M_Zeisel @Sunnymica 😭 wo hat SpaceX denn underdelivered? Die dominieren den gesamten Launch Markt, 90% der tons to LEO kommen durch SpaceX. Falcon 9 hat eine Erfolgschance von 99%.
Deutsch
0
0
0
88
Frank
Frank@Earlchaos1·
@Elgar_M_Zeisel @Sunnymica Ich würde keine Aktien kaufen von einem Unternehmen, das seit 10 Jahren overpromised und underdelivered und bisher 1 Banane ins All geschossen hat und 95% der Raketen explodiert oder beim Wiedereintritt verglüht sind. Da wird nur US Steuergeld verbrannt.
Deutsch
4
0
6
558
💙💛 Regina Laska
💙💛 Regina Laska@Sunnymica·
Ihr habt euer Geld in Fonds angelegt? Dann Vorsicht! Elon Musk plant mit SpaceX den größten Börsengang der Geschichte – 1,75 Billionen Dollar Bewertung, möglicherweise schon im Juni. Und was macht die Nasdaq? Sie ändert gerade für ihn ihre Regeln. Neu börsennotierte Unternehmen müssen normalerweise bis zu einem Jahr warten, bevor sie in den Leitindex aufgenommen werden. Diese Wartezeit schützt Anleger: Der Markt braucht Zeit, um einen fairen Preis zu finden. Für SpaceX soll diese Wartezeit auf 15 Handelstage schrumpfen. SpaceX hat das zur Bedingung gemacht. Was das bedeutet: Jeder Fonds, der den Nasdaq-100 abbildet – und das sind Billionen Dollar – wäre dann gezwungen, SpaceX-Aktien zu kaufen. Egal zu welchem Preis. Ohne dass der Markt Zeit hatte, den echten Wert zu ermitteln. Die Regeln des Spiels werden umgeschrieben. Für jemanden, der selbst spielt.
George Noble@gnoble79

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

Deutsch
50
482
1.5K
115.2K
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@thunderf00t @lewisknaggs42 You are really good at dodging his questions and talking about smth completely unrelated. Kinda behaving like the man you love to criticize so much, I wonder why.
English
0
0
0
30
thunderf00t
thunderf00t@thunderf00t·
@lewisknaggs42 ...... on a non-conman related note. Which scientific goal are you most looking forward to with Artemis? Polar volatile analysis? something that could be done with an unmanned rover for 1% the cost? Tell me what goal u want it to achieve the most!
English
2
0
5
156
thunderf00t
thunderf00t@thunderf00t·
the hardcore delusion of spacex fans, thinking that musk gets money for 'milestones'! Hey, moron, riddle me this, how can they have achieved enough milestones to unlock 90% of the money wihtout having even made orbit. They are gaming the system to milk the us taxpayer.
Lewis Knaggs@lewisknaggs42

They get paid when they complete milestones, the only money they have received is because they have made progress on the lander. The lander is targeted to be ready for Artemis 3 (mid 2027) so it is no surprise that SpaceX has not delivered on the full lander over a year in advance.

English
23
22
196
7.5K
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@Starship_20 Its not a full heat shield yet. Lots of ablative segments still missing
English
0
0
0
221
Ship 20
Ship 20@Starship_20·
It’s so nice having a ship with a full heat shield and aft flaps for cryogenic proof testing.
Ship 20 tweet mediaShip 20 tweet media
English
8
20
313
8.7K
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@Mewious @sleitnick Ofc they are used but LQR can be an improvement especially if you need multivariable control. Also generally reduces oscillations and you could optimize it for efficiency as well (as few control inputs as possible).
English
0
0
1
36
Mew
Mew@Mewious·
@ByGoalZ @sleitnick PIDS are more used in airplanes you seem to have alot of rockets on ur profile
English
1
0
1
39
sleitnick
sleitnick@sleitnick·
Autonomous airliner! This is what I spent last night doing. This is using Roblox's aerodynamics too, along with a good dose of automation using behavior trees and PIDs. It can't land yet...but maybe I'll build that out this weekend (No gen AI; that's boring) #RobloxDev
English
13
3
182
9.1K
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@lewisknaggs42 @ThreeDeDaniel Ohh, I misunderstood. I didnt realize you were talking about a hypothetical Starship only mission. Yea then it makes sense
English
0
0
1
15
Lewis Knaggs
Lewis Knaggs@lewisknaggs42·
@ByGoalZ @ThreeDeDaniel 1 depot 8 tankers 1 HLS lander 8 tankers 1 crew ship to dock with lander in Lunar Orbit. This assumes Block 4 tankers - 200t to LEO. Block 3 crew ship and HLS - 1600t propellant capacity. And assumes a full tank is needed for both HLS and Crew Ship.
English
1
0
0
66
ByGoalZ
ByGoalZ@ByGoalZ·
@sleitnick Yea its not as easy as PIDs but makes way more sense if you have multiple control goals at once
English
0
0
0
59
sleitnick
sleitnick@sleitnick·
@ByGoalZ First I've ever heard of it! I'll look into it
English
1
0
2
233
Lewis Knaggs
Lewis Knaggs@lewisknaggs42·
Keep in mind SLS has flown once so there will be issues with it, Starship had issues on it's first flights which resulted in scrubs. SLS is actually a pretty good rocket, when SLS 1B comes online (Artemis 4) it will be more capable than any rocket apart from Starship (which needs to refuel). I very much doubt Starship will be human rated in 1-3 years (meaning launching and landing, you can land humans on moon without crew rating on Starship), IMO it will not be in this decade. When Starship is crew rated, you would probably need a total of 19 launches to land on the Moon (using Block 4 - 200t to LEO - and a Starship lander). That vs 1 SLS & a few launches for Blue Moon or 10 for Starship lander. Starship can definitly do this but it depends on the cadence. Also Starship is really over powered for this, there would be no point if they are going to dock with the Blue Moon lander. You could use new glenn 9x4 with Orion to get it to Lunar Orbit I just think Starship is too much for now. What I think should happen is you Block buy SLS 1B so you can launch potentially multiple times a year and it will bring down the cost per launch. It will also put their $2B mobile launcher into use rather than it just being wasted money. Then in maybe 10 years, get rid of SLS and launch humans on New Glenn with Orion and then whenever you need to send like 10+ people to the moon in one mission you use Starship.
English
4
0
7
1.2K
TheSpaceEngineer
TheSpaceEngineer@mcrs987·
S35's Liquid Methane header tank washed up in Madagascar two days ago.
TheSpaceEngineer tweet media
English
90
157
2.5K
201.5K