José Ramírez Moreno

@ScottLikedSLS N1 second and third didn’t get the chance of proving their worth

god i hate second stages, they have and forever will be the most shit parts of rockets as its ALWAYS them causing issues sionce the beginning of orbital rockets. that would have been such a beuatiful launch (and it was on the Boosters part) and now its a sour taste

I think most people are missing the point here. Maybe a little bit more context was needed. It might be super obvious to some but not to all. New Glenn’s development pace has been historically slow. We’re not discussing which one is better or heavier or more complex. It’s just a matter of surprise. Surprise about the recent speed of the New Glenn program. That’s all.

This post is straightforwardly false. SpaceX has been recovering and reusing rockets multiple times for about a decade. When he was called out on this, he walked it back by saying he was only talking about rockets under active development. Basically, Blue Origin is ahead if you don't count the rockets SpaceX has finished developing. By that analysis, if SpaceX had developed Falcon Heavy more slowly so that it was still in development now (though had still been recovered twice) Blue Origin would not be ahead. Ridiculous.

@ApoStructura @RotemGolan22 Clearly

Meet booster B1067: As of today SpaceX has recovered this booster 34 times.

@Sweigart_Ian27 You didn’t get the news, apparently. HLS development is complete now

yeah a4 is gonna be blue moon unless that fucking tent has a whole HLS in it or they show some crazy shit on flight 12

@mcrs987 @torybruno You may say whatever you want but leave my friend @torybruno out of it

Sooo @torybruno, Are we getting your famous orbital insertion accuracy graphics for this one?

@Orbital_Perigee @DarthMac_OG 💀

Hey. It was only ASTS. Nothing of value was lost

@dpoddolphinpro @ARealRocketMan An

SpaceX doesn't think Super Heavy or New Glenn are orbital-class rockets

I think most people are missing the point here @CSI_Starbase maybe a little bit more context. It might be super obvious to you but not to all. New Glenn’s development pace has been historically slow. We’re not discussing which one is better or heavier or more complex. It’s just a matter of surprise. Surprise about the recent speed of the New Glenn program. That’s all.

@CSI_Starbase Yeah I mean it’s impressive I just think comparing them in that sense is a little obscure. I still need to watch the second part of your pad GSE video, first was amazing!

Come on Zack, this is not a flex lol. We understand you were referencing New Glenn Booster vs Superheavy Booster and not Falcon 9; however, context matters here. BO has landed the same New Glenn rocket twice; however, they never reused any of the engines. At that point, can you even consider it fully reused? SpaceX has caught 3 boosters: B12, B14, and B15. They then reused engines on both B14 and B15, something NG has not done yet. As you know, SpaceX V3 Ship and Booster are significant upgrades that will increase reliability and performance, and the new Pad, GSE, and OLM will increase launch cadence. Apples to oranges.

@Urbis1 @dragofly42 @RaulTorresPLD You’re probably right

@josramirezmor @dragofly42 @RaulTorresPLD If this is true, we can easily make reusable boosters for Ariane 6. But I do not believe that. For all proposals that were done for Ariane 6, the reusable boosters look the least cost-efficient or promising.

With SpaceX #Falcon9 and Blue Origin #NewGlenn reusable launchers, Europe is totally out of the game and European mid and heavy launchers are extremely commercially compromised. #MIURANext will solve this huge distance in performance, price, cadence and reusability.

All that you said about Ariane 6 is true and it is doing much better than Vulcan. It is indeed a great launcher. However, they went for the safe and tried option. They didn’t risk enough. If all the money, effort and talent invested in Ariane 6 had been devoted towards developing a reusable platform, it would probably be in conditions for competing with Starship or New Glenn

@RaulTorresPLD Oui il faut un lanceur réutilisable mais Ariane 6 est un très bon lanceur d'une précision redoutable avec une assurance moins cher car fiable et une charge utile conséquente.

@HalcyonHypnotic Why stream on a different YT channel?

Can YouTube fix this please, Btw blue origin still has no live stream scheduled which is insane because the launch is in 2 hours… like bruh can we get our stuff together

Those are very good points indeed BUT it’s an extremely complex endeavour. SpaceX will certainly make it easier for those who intend on following the super heavy launch business because they are the ones trying, failing and testing. Taking the bigger risks. It’s not all about the money poured into this specific program or the time. It’s the people, the mission and the lessons learned. They didn’t start precisely from zero on starship. SpaceX already had valuable experience and data. They knew roughly what it would take to develop a fully reusable system, completely new engines and lots of other unprecedented solutions. If you combine all that with an extremely capable management and workforce, an owner more than willing to take big risks and spend loads of money, do whatever it takes to speed things up (politically, economically, regulatory). With all those factors combined it still hasn’t been easy, quite the opposite. Optimizing the whole launch system (vehicles and ground systems) to achieve that utopic goal of price per kilogram you mentioned is really really difficult. It is great to see optimistic people like yourself about the matter and indeed having trillions of tons in orbit, moving all heavy industry to orbit and Moon is probably the best way forward for our civilization and planet. Starship is the first real step towards that and hopefully others will follow.

@josramirezmor I disagree. We don't actually know what the secondary markets could be if access to space goes below ~200$/kg I'm a bit overly optimistic but we have done a lot on a finite world without yet really using its infinite sky

Assuming Starship cost $10B-$20B to develop when its in service and that it took 10 years start to end, with what it enables for ISPs, Defense, and other fields, why aren't Apple, Boeing, Lockheed, other nations, etc building their own? $1-2B a year for a decade seems worth it

@IEnjoyStarshi That’s a good question

Do y’all think B19 will do another static fire?

@mcrs987 @r3a9an_k_ There’s probably one or two people outside of SpaceX that might have a pretty good idea. @mcrs987 is one of them.

@r3a9an_k_ "But I don't feel like it"

Is there an explanation anywhere of how the plumbing on the exterior of the Booster works? It looks straightforward to figure out but I don't feel like it.

@megagoose11 @Sweigart_Ian27 Incredible new developments

Wow HLS changed A LOT since I last saw it

@CJHandmer 💀

How are they going to fly it with such an incomplete set of engines?

@CyberWiz_YT @jrxcket No

@jrxcket This is definitely something HLS. This may seem like a naive question but could this be a vacuum chamber?

The mysterious tent structure at SpaceX's McGregor site is..... venting?

@megagoose11 @Pilotdude22 @CSI_Starbase I was going to mention @CSI_Starbase video but you already did

@Pilotdude22 @CSI_Starbase Yeah I somehow forgot I watched that whole thing

Did we ever get an explanation for this

@Arkypatriot That’s been thoroughly described since 2013

I don’t agree with universal high income A paycheck may keep the lights on, but it does not give a person purpose. People need more than comfort and idle distraction. They need something that makes them feel useful, needed, and alive, whether that is work, family, faith, service, building something, or striving toward a goal. When people have no sense of meaning, no responsibility, and no reason to get up with intention, frustration and emptiness can turn into anger, restlessness, and destructive behavior. A life without fulfillment is not really living at all. People need a reason to matter, because purpose is what keeps both individuals and society steady.