Starship's full-size prototype takes off successfully


The fifth full-size prototype of Elon Musk's "Martian" spacecraft Starship SN5 has successfully completed its first "jump" today. As part of the current flight tests, the device was able to rise to an altitude of 150 meters, and then, shifting to the side, make a soft landing on another platform. Previously, SN5 has successfully passed cryogenic and fire tests.


Recall that a similar result was achieved only with a smaller version of the promising ship called Starhopper. Then four full-size prototypes were "lost" at different stages of testing, never reaching the flight.

Starship SN5 passed its first flight tests with one Raptor methane-oxygen engine. In the final version of the second stage of the Starship & Super Heavy complex, there will be six such units.


During takeoff, SN5 tilted heavily and began to shift to the side. However, the Raptor with a deflected thrust vector corrected the situation in a few seconds, and the rocket flew almost vertically. At the top point, the device hovered for a few seconds and began a smooth descent followed by a successful landing.

It's worth noting that SpaceX has high hopes for its current development. It is assumed that the Starship & Super Heavy rocket complex, consisting of two reusable stages, will be able to launch more than 100 tons of cargo into near-earth orbit and will replace the Falcon LV. In addition, the second stage of the Starship "super-rocket" is also a manned and cargo spacecraft, which NASA and Elon Musk intend to use to explore the Moon and Mars.

The first full launch of the rocket is tentatively scheduled for 2021. At the same time, SpaceX intends to use the device for suborbital commercial missions. In this case, Starship, in a passenger configuration, will fly between major cities in different parts of the planet and land on offshore platforms in a few tens of minutes.
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 14: 38
    0
    SpaceX beauties, keep it up.
  2. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 5 August 2020 15: 42
    -3
    What is the essence of the tests is not clear. request Are they taking off? Landing? So everything seems to be worked out, there are working samples. It looks like the guys are having fun, barrels are launched into the air for a bet.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 16: 03
      +1
      The purpose of this particular test is to test the launch and soft landing. The next stage is the flight of the prototype to an altitude of 20 km to test the functioning of aerodynamic surfaces and stability of the spacecraft in the atmosphere. Short "jump" flights are provided for testing any flying equipment. Any new aircraft or helicopter, despite the fact that hundreds of other aircraft and helicopters have already flown before it, also begins its tests with short climbs and landings.

      Rockets with short takeoffs have not been tested before for one simple reason - they were disposable.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 5 August 2020 16: 32
        -2
        And what do they want to check in this case? Can the barrel take off?
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 16: 37
          +1
          And what do they want to check in this case? Can the barrel take off?

          Not barrels, but a prototype spaceship. They work out the work of the propulsion system (the new Raptor is on it, not the Merlin), the strength of the structure for initial loads, the flight parameters of the sample, etc.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 5 August 2020 16: 49
            -2
            Not barrels, but a prototype spaceship.

            Yes Yes. Not a log, but an embryo of Buratino .... Drink Valerianochki, don't worry like that.

            They work out the work of the propulsion system (the new Raptor is on it, not the Merlin), the strength of the structure for initial loads, the flight parameters of the sample, etc.

            So they would say - the engine is checked. Structural strength? Will she fly like this? Was it upholstered with corrugated iron? And don't you dare call it a model No. like-minded people will not understand you. They said it was a prototype. smile
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 17: 02
              +2
              Yes Yes. Not a log, but an embryo of Buratino ...

              Well, if the word "prototype" is unfamiliar to you, these are your problems :)

              So they would say - the engine is checked.

              Not only him, the whole complex of movement and control.

              Structural strength? Will she fly like this?

              Many technical solutions applied on this prototype will be used on the final product.

              And don't you dare call this a model, like-minded people will not understand you. They said it was a prototype. smile

              Why not dare, if he is a model? The definition of this term is - "trial, an indicative example of something. "SN5 is a prototype ship" Starship ". There is a term" prototype "- this is synonymous with the term" prototype ", that is, a product for testing some technical solutions. For example, the T-50 was experimental a model of the Su-57 aircraft, although there are rather serious differences between them.
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 5 August 2020 17: 10
                -2
                Why are you lecturing me here? So they would say ... wow, they called it a barrel. laughing
                It's a shame, or what? You see, I am not a member of the Mask sect, I do not feel sacred awe before the creations of the "guru", so if it looks like a barrel, why shouldn't I call it a barrel? Go teach your sectarians life. hi
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 17: 43
                      +1
                      Here is one of the prototypes of the "Eagle" -

                      https://cdn.iz.ru/sites/default/files/styles/900x506/public/news-2019-09/TASS_20401687.jpg?itok=2VqFgp1A

                      Here is a photo of a plastic container -

                      https://polimerbak.com/image/catalog/stati-4/355-2.jpg

                      Quite similar to itself.

                      1. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 5 August 2020 17: 54
                        -2
                        I express my opinion. I don't belong to any sects. You are fixated on them.

                        Your opinion? "Everyone knows" Do you have delusions of grandeur?

                        Here is one of the prototypes of the "Eagle"
                        Here is a photo of a plastic container -
                        Quite similar to itself.

                        Nothing of the kind, "Eagle" has the shape of a truncated cone, and in the second picture the shape of the object is cylindrical. I hope you can understand the differences between a cylinder and a cone from the image below. I hope the presence of a pyramid in the picture will not mislead you.


                        Barrels are usually cylindrical in shape.



                        Just giving you the opportunity not to look like an idiot. But, if you like ...

                        Prefer to be the only one? Your right hi
                      2. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 18: 04
                        0
                        Nothing of the kind, "Eagle" has the shape of a truncated cone, and in the second picture the shape of the object is cylindrical.

                        The container in the photo shown by me has the shape of a connected cylinder and a truncated cone. Well, if you don't like the photo of that model, here is another image of the Federation with a service compartment -
                        https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/3HnJrikeuang9_9yg6tw7-xh2BRhlfLSe0-5pOcyxq0wnH3nyNoF_PUJUtZZegNf_n4e9NK120MNkM_pc9rTUqAYeS8jBpEZ

                        The same cylinder and truncated cone. Will you call the "Federation" flying plastic containers now?
                        By the way, the shape of the barrel is not necessarily cylindrical - it depends on the purpose.
                      3. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 5 August 2020 18: 23
                        -1
                        The container in the photo shown by me has the shape of a connected cylinder and a truncated cone. Well, if you don't like the photo of that model, here is another image of the Federation with a service compartment -
                        The same cylinder and truncated cone.

                        A connected frustoconical cylinder does not look like a barrel. "Federation" and together with the service compartment does not have a cylindrical shape, the service compartment is yes, the ship itself is not. By the way, why did you stop at the service bay? Maybe we'll see a photo with the cosmodrome right away?

                        Will you call the "Federation" flying plastic containers now?

                        Are you persuading me? belay I won't, of course, I'm not crazy. I used the word "barrel" to describe the appearance. If you believe that the description of the "flying plastic container" is unmistakable for someone to identify "Federation", I suppose you will be disappointed. Not everyone's imagination can be compared to yours. laughing

                        By the way, the shape of the barrel is not necessarily cylindrical - it depends on the purpose.

                        Have you blurted out another stupidity and are trying to get out? Basically, you have nothing to say and, as usual, go into terminology. negative
                      4. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 19: 14
                        0
                        A connected frusto-cone cylinder does not look like a barrel.

                        Firstly, the barrels are different. Not necessarily cylindrical. Secondly - okay, call it "tub" or "bucket" - they have the shape of a truncated cone. laughing

                        By the way, why did you stop at the service bay? Maybe we'll see a photo with the cosmodrome right away?

                        Because the service compartment is part of the structure of the ship, if anything.

                        Are you persuading me?

                        I'm just testing the extent of your hypocrisy.

                        If you believe that the description of the "flying plastic container" is unmistakable for someone to identify "Federation", I suppose you will be disappointed.

                        And according to the description of the "flying barrel", very few people (well, except for you) will unmistakably guess the prototype of the "Starship".

                        Have you blurted out another stupidity and are trying to get out? Basically, you have nothing to say and, as usual, go into terminology

                        Me?) It was you who began to pickle that the barrel is necessarily a cylinder. Now you're trying to keep a good face on a bad game.
                      5. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 5 August 2020 19: 38
                        -1
                        Firstly, the barrels are different. Not necessarily cylindrical. Secondly - okay, call it "tub" or "bucket" - they have the shape of a truncated cone

                        You, like a beggar, name and name. laughing Shame on you? sad

                        Because the service compartment is part of the structure of the ship, if anything.

                        Even with the service bay, it doesn't look like a barrel. request With a very big stretch, the shape can be called mushroom-shaped, but not barrel-shaped.

                        And according to the description of the "flying barrel", very few people (well, except for you) will unmistakably guess the prototype of the "Starship".

                        Are you sure? Look again at the photo at the beginning of the article. winked

                        It was you who began to pickle that the barrel is necessarily a cylinder. Now you're trying to keep a good face on a bad game.

                        And why should I delve into what else they are? Ask any first grader what shape the barrel is. laughing
                      6. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 19: 43
                        +1
                        You are like a beggar, name it and name it

                        And you are a hypocrite :)

                        Even with the service bay, it doesn't look like a barrel. With a very big stretch, the shape can be called mushroom-shaped, but not barrel-shaped.

                        Well, the excuses began :)

                        Look again at the photo at the beginning of the article.

                        I looked. Normal cylindrical shape, no associations in appearance with the barrel.

                        And why should I delve into what else they are? Ask any first grader what shape the barrel is.

                        Yes, delving into the essence of things is not your trait, here you are right)

                      7. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 5 August 2020 19: 48
                        -1
                        I looked. Normal cylindrical shape, no associations in appearance with the barrel.

                        Try to describe the subject in the photo with two words (noun and adjective) without using technical terms. winked
                        Are you really funny hi
                      8. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 19: 54
                        0
                        It's simple: a cylindrical object. And no technical terms. It's strange that you don't know these words :)
                      9. The comment was deleted.
                      10. The comment was deleted.
                      11. The comment was deleted.
                      12. The comment was deleted.
                      13. The comment was deleted.
                      14. The comment was deleted.
            2. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 5 August 2020 21: 58
              0
              You fight so hard for the "correct terms" when you mention Musk's products, it's a good idea for this liar to learn how to use them himself. laughing Maybe you redirect the violent energy in his direction?
              Now if I hear about the prototype, I think it's not even a barrel, but rather a trash can. There is no faith either in him or in his followers. negative

              The German authorities banned Tesla from mentioning autopilot in its advertisements. A local court ruled that the ads mislead buyers by calling the driver assistance system a full-fledged autopilot. As a result, companies were banned from using a number of phrases in advertising that mention autonomous driving and autopilot operation.

              http://autodr.ru/news/avtomir/11651-reklamu-avtopilota-tesla-priznali-vvodyaschey-v-zabluzhdenie-video.html
            3. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 5 August 2020 22: 49
              +1
              You fight so hard for the "correct terms" when you mention Musk products, this liar will learn how to use them well.

              Autopilot is a system that provides autonomous (without human intervention) driving a vehicle. The system on board "Tesla" fully corresponds to this term - to the same extent that the autopilot of a passenger aircraft corresponds to this term. There are quite real videos where this system works. The only moment is that while she drives worse than a person, but nevertheless, she can drive a car on her own. This is exactly what autopilot is.

              Now, if I hear about a prototype, I think it's not even a barrel, but rather a trash can.

              And "Federation" in a tub when it flies :)
            4. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 6 August 2020 11: 24
              0
              Autopilot is a system that provides autonomous (without human intervention) driving a vehicle. The system on board "Tesla" fully corresponds to this term - to the same extent that the autopilot of a passenger aircraft corresponds to this term.

              The adherent of the witness sect Musk cannot have a different opinion, because he draws his opinion exclusively from advertising. negative

              There are quite real videos where this system works.

              This is another confirmation of this. yes Fortunately, people with critical thinking have survived.
              But the Munich District Court does not think so and tries to save naive and gullible idiots from the troubles associated with the acquisition of this "miracle of hostile technology." laughing
              Decision dated July 14, 2020 Az. 33 O 14041/19. Details on the link.

              https://www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2020/7.php

              The decision is not final, it will probably be challenged, maybe you should take part in this? You will surely smash the arguments of your opponents to smithereens by showing them your wonderful video. winked

              Musk's activities raise a lot of doubts in his statements, which are often far from reality. For example such:



              Such facts give me reason to be skeptical about any "achievements" of this citizen with an ambiguous reputation.

              That is why I reserve the right to compare overseas "masterpieces" with a barrel or a trash can.
              What are your motives in relation to the Federation? Whitewash the cult of the Mask by any means?
              Hello sectarians hi
            5. Arkharov Offline Arkharov
              Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 6 August 2020 15: 30
              0
              Oh, how much black, unveiled envy. You would still not be satisfied with any of the known geometric shapes. But I can imagine how you would probably praise the wooden model of the square "Federation". Which is, here ...
            6. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 6 August 2020 16: 12
              +1
              Oh, how much black, unveiled envy. You would still not be satisfied with any of the known geometric shapes. But I can imagine how you would praise the wooden model of the square "Federation". Which is, here ...

              I am very surprised by your appearance, you don’t read more than 3-4 lines. belay
              In what and to whom is envy manifested? If you think a critical attitude to information is envy, then look at your comments, judging by them, you have long been gnawing from the inside with blackened envy. Here on the site there is a recent article about "Eagle", in fact, this is one project. Why guess? Open the article and read the "praises":

              https://topcor.ru/15887-ne-lunoj-edinoj-rossijskij-orel-smozhet-letat-k-asteroidam-i-marsu.html

              You can score "Eagle" in the search and see all my comments on this ship. In general, I see no reason to go deep into the topic at the current stage of the project. Here's how to start testing or launching then and discuss.
              And you are still sitting by yourself about people, making unsubstantiated assumptions and relying on them to pour slop. negative Where does so much negativity come from in you? Maybe you should sprinkle holy water on you?
            7. The comment was deleted.
            8. The comment was deleted.
      2. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 7 August 2020 02: 15
        -1
        The adherent of the witness sect Musk cannot have a different opinion, because he draws his opinion exclusively from advertising.

        Listen, did you just come out of a totalitarian sect, and that's why you see sectarians everywhere?)

        Fortunately, people with critical thinking have survived.

        They have survived, of course. But you are not one of them)

        But the Munich District Court does not think so and tries to save naive and gullible idiots from the troubles associated with the acquisition of this "miracle of hostile technology."

        Read what an "autopilot" is, for example, in an airplane)) And then carefully read the initial functions incorporated into the Tesla's driving system, indicated in the info on their website. As I already said, according to the declared functions, this is an autopilot. Another point is that in reality these functions may be imperfect / incomplete.

        Musk's activities raise a lot of doubts in his statements, which are often far from reality.

        Some of Musk's statements, indeed, are often either too optimistic or later are not justified at all. However, apart from the statements, there are Musk's specific cases:

        Development of a reusable rocket (in heavy and super-heavy versions) - done.

        Development of a reusable ship (cargo and now manned) - done.

        The launch of the Starlink system is being implemented.

        Serial production of electric vehicles - done.

        Reducing the cost of space launches - done.

        The ousting of Roskosmos, ESA and ULA from the commercial launch market is done.

        At the very least, these real and accomplished accomplishments are indeed a normal reason to take Musk seriously.

        Such facts give me reason to be skeptical about any "achievements" of this citizen with an ambiguous reputation.

        Yes, quit clowning :) The only reason that moves you is the awl that revolves at your fifth point :)

        That is why I reserve the right to compare overseas "masterpieces" with a barrel or a trash can.

        Well, if you want to look gifted with an extra chromosome - please, your right)

        What are your motives in relation to the Federation? Whitewash the cult of the Mask by any means?

        I have no motives in relation to "Federation" - I have a completely normal attitude towards it. My skepticism concerns only the timing of its implementation, but this skepticism in relation to people, and not to the ship.

        Using the Federation as an example, I just made sure once again how you twirl around like a frying pan when you are being dipped into the truth with a pug :)
      3. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 7 August 2020 16: 00
        +1
        Nothing except - it's not me, it's you yourself, but Musk is still good and I didn't see any attempts to offend in your answer. request
        Negotiating in style is not smart myself (there could be another word here) I do not intend to talk to you, because a dispute with a sectarian simply does not make sense.

        Some of Musk's statements, indeed, are often either too optimistic or later are not justified at all. However, apart from the statements, there are Musk's specific cases:

        They can be called too optimistic and subsequently not realized, but they can be called utopian projects and empty promises. I will not argue about the wording. Let's try to talk objectively.
        Musk had many plans for the future, some of the projects have sunk into oblivion, some are being implemented with varying degrees of success, some have been implemented. They gave examples of what you consider his success. What unites them in the group and distinguishes them from other Musk projects? Are they all implemented in the space industry? Not. No. Have they all been successfully implemented? Not. No. Are these technical achievements that are being implemented exclusively for the benefit of humanity? Also no. No. There is only one thing left, this is a sample of what, in your opinion, can be credited to him, then he succeeds.
        For comparison, you often cite the example of Roskosmos, they say, see what Musk does and Rogozin does not. But there is one nuance here, the activities of Roscosmos are much wider than the examples you cite. You are comparing the part that "worked out" by Musk and compare with the part that "did not work" with Rogozin. Based on this, you conclude that Musk is a fine fellow, and Rogozin is a mediocrity.
        The trip is extremely tendentious and not objective. request That is, you consciously or subconsciously stick out its "bright side" and stubbornly do not notice the "dark" side, in relation to Roscosmos you act exactly the opposite. This is what allows me to conclude about your bias, lack of critical thinking about information, and rather the emotional coloring of your conclusions and beliefs. Which is typical for members of sects. Surely you will not agree with this, but the "Musk Fan Club" is much more than a community of people passionate about technological progress and peaceful space exploration.
        Apple fans are organized in a similar way, they are not just fans of "technically advanced devices", everything is much broader, starting with ideology. Yes Yes…. ideology. In this community, it is there, starting with the company logo (Remember what it symbolizes? Do you need details? I don't want to stretch the answer too long), promoting a certain lifestyle, views, political preferences, and so on. Often, the presence of an iPhone is a kind of friend or foe password. Something similar happens with Musk fans.
        First, they are indoctrinated with the idea of ​​a "shirt-guy" with a halo over his head, who has achieved everything in this life exclusively with his mind and work, all whose aspirations are aimed exclusively at the development of technical progress, peaceful exploration of space, and all this, of course, is done for the good of everything humanity.
        Private business, it turns out, is wonderful, because state-owned enterprises are losing compared to Musk, and the emphasis is on our state, the American is not of interest to anyone in this context.
        Then they cease to be confused by the methods by which they achieve results. This is me about the fresh scandal, the correspondence between Musk and Armani. At first, Musk spoke out with the spirit - the new incentive measures are not in the interests of the people. This is after Musk, in the company of other oligarchs close to the White House, received huge financial injections, capitalization is growing despite the downturn in the economy.
        Then he was rebuked with Bolivian lithium. It's not a secret to anyone that the Mask needs a lot of lithium for the batteries, and the fate of the Bolivians does not bother anyone. Then it turned out that the tweeter should be taken away not only from Rogozin, but also from Musk. laughing Armani, he answered something like the following - "We overthrow everyone we want! Accept it" belay He subsequently deleted the tweet, but the sediment remained repeat

        https://citizentruth.org/we-will-coup-whoever-we-want-elon-musk-and-the-overthrow-of-democracy-in-bolivia/

        After some details begin to emerge that cast a shadow on the light appearance, the members of the sect meet with hostility. It turns out that the “dove of peace”, which is exploring space exclusively for peaceful purposes, is quite fruitfully cooperating with the Pentagon and is hardly disinterested. Such news causes rejection, in response we hear - So what? The militarization of outer space is good, the war moves progress. And it doesn't even bother us that the military infrastructure is being built against us, for our own murder. The people involved in the group see nothing wrong with being subordinate to a foreign army and state. So lackeys are brought up for new overseas owners.
        As for, in fact, Musk's "achievements".

        Development of a reusable rocket (in heavy and super-heavy versions) - done.

        Yes, indeed, and it flies.

        Development of a reusable ship (cargo and now manned) - done.

        Rather yes than no. Let me explain. The ship flies, but it is precisely its intended use more than once that makes it reusable, not its name. As soon as Dregon flies into orbit for the second time, all doubts will disappear. Moreover, it is the very same ship, and not its "system".

        The launch of the Starlink system is being implemented.

        Yes, they are working, how the project will develop - time will tell. Betta testing is promised by all, and the military component of the project should be tested at least twice. This clearly shows the priorities of the project, so to speak, who is "dancing the girl".

        Serial production of electric vehicles - done.

        I do not see any transcendental achievements in this. This is far from the first electric car, what is the achievement? Serial production? A lot of things are mass-produced in the world. The characteristics and cost of the car are far from ideal.

        Reducing the cost of space launches - done.

        You may be surprised, but this is quite an ordinary event. Reducing the price of a product is a common occurrence. This has happened many times and will be repeated more than once.

        The ousting of Roskosmos, ESA and ULA from the commercial launch market is done.

        This is only a stage in the competitive struggle, today he ousted, tomorrow it. I will not focus on the methods by which this is done.
        As you can see, he did not succeed so much.

        I have no motives in relation to "Federation" - I have a completely normal attitude towards it. My skepticism concerns only the timing of its implementation, but this skepticism in relation to people, and not to the ship.

        People do not work in a vacuum. The general economic situation in the country, the consequences of political cataclysms, the level of funding. All this is reflected in the work of specific people.
      4. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 9 August 2020 17: 28
        -1
        Nothing except - it's not me, it's you yourself, but Musk is still good and I didn't see any attempts to offend in your answer.

        So buy eyeglasses)) Maybe at the same time you will see a log in your own eye, otherwise I, they say, offend you, but when you rank me among some sectarians, this is probably a compliment?)

        Musk had many plans for the future, some projects have sunk into oblivion, some are being implemented with varying degrees of success, some are being implemented.

        Like any other constructor. Korolev, von Braun (their "greatness" you will not deny, will you?) - also had a lot of such unrealized ideas.

        For comparison, you often cite the example of Roskosmos, they say, look what Musk does and Rogozin does not. But there is one nuance here, the activities of Roskosmos are much wider than the examples you give... You are comparing the part that "worked out" by Musk and compare with the part that "did not work" with Rogozin. Based on this, you conclude that Musk is a fine fellow, and Rogozin is a mediocrity.

        I comment on the highlights. The first. Yes, the activities of Roscosmos are indeed broader - only the organization itself is much broader. If SpaceX is one enterprise, then Roskosmos is a complex of enterprises of different directions within the framework of a single space activity.

        Second. Not this way. I compare one of the main directions of the two space organizations - namely, the creation of launch vehicles and spacecraft. And according to this paragraph, Musk with his Falcons and Dragons is ahead of Roskosmos with its Angara and Federation.

        Next, I will briefly comment on some points from your next sheet.

        That is, you consciously or subconsciously stick out its "bright side" and stubbornly do not notice the "dark" side, in relation to Roscosmos you do exactly the opposite.

        No, I compared the effectiveness of two space organizations in the same direction - the creation of launch vehicles and spacecraft.

        Next, about "sectarianism". You have invented some kind of cult around Musk and Apple and you yourself successfully expose it)) It does not exist - there are only your stereotypical ideas about some kind of cult. I don’t presume to talk about Apple, but Musk is respected, first of all, for his ideas and for his achievements. Yes. Not all of his projects have been fully implemented, however, what has been implemented is worthy of respect and admiration.

        First, they are indoctrinated with the idea of ​​a "guy-shirt" with a halo over his head, who has achieved everything in this life exclusively with his mind and work.

        So this is quite true. Neither mom, nor dad, nor other relatives (only a partner-brother, and even then only in the early years), nor some patron helped him in his achievements.

        all aspirations of which are aimed exclusively at the development of technical progress, peaceful exploration of outer space, and all this, of course, is done for the benefit of all mankind.

        Why not? Cheap carriers and spaceships, satellites for the global Internet coverage, eco-friendly cars are both technical progress and the blessing of mankind.

        This is after Musk, in the company of other oligarchs close to the White House, received huge financial investments, capitalization is growing despite the downturn in the economy.

        What are these "huge"?) Could you bring documents again?)

        The company's capitalization may well grow against the background of a general economic decline. Depending on what the company is doing.

        It turns out that the “dove of peace”, which is exploring space exclusively for peaceful purposes, is quite fruitfully cooperating with the Pentagon and is hardly disinterested.

        Hello, we arrived)) Nowhere has anyone ever said that Musk does not cooperate with the Pentagon - he has been taking military and reconnaissance satellites into orbit since 2016, hello :)

        And it doesn't even bother us that the military infrastructure is being built against us, for our own murder.

        So what? Korolyov created ballistic combat missiles, von Braun not only created, but also launched through the streets of London. Are now both Korolev and von Braun unworthy to be respected as people who have contributed to astronautics?

        Rather yes than no. Let me explain. The ship flies, but it is precisely its intended use more than once that makes it reusable, not its name. As soon as Dragon flies into orbit for the second time, all doubts will disappear. Moreover, it is the very same ship, and not its "system".

        Well, first of all, Freight Dragons flew repeatedly. Second, NASA has officially approved the reuse of manned Dragons. I think they don’t sit there, right, and they didn’t approve of it?

        Yes, they are working, how the project will develop - time will tell. Betta testing is promised by all, and the military component of the project should be tested at least twice. This clearly shows the priorities of the project, so to speak, who is "dancing the girl".

        This does not indicate the priority of the project. This shows the more stringent requirements of the military and that's it.

        I do not see any transcendental achievements in this. This is far from the first electric car, what is the achievement? Serial production? A lot of things are mass-produced in the world. The characteristics and cost of the car are far from ideal.

        Tesla was the first to release a large series of an electric car, which is not inferior to cars with internal combustion engines either in terms of technical characteristics (acceleration, speed, mileage), or in convenience and design (yes, it is also important). And their cost is not budgetary, of course, but quite comparable to cars with internal combustion engines.

        You may be surprised, but this is quite an ordinary event. Reducing the price of a product is a common occurrence. This has happened many times and will be repeated more than once.

        Oh, the cost of launching Protn ROSLA during the 2000s and the first half of the 2010s, and only after the release of the competitor in the form of Falcon, "suddenly" fell sharply from 1000 million to 65-70. And, which is characteristic, at the same time the manufacturer of "Protons" began to experience enormous financial difficulties :)

        The same applies, by the way, to the cost of American Deltas and Atlases with Antares.

        This is only a stage in the competitive struggle, today he ousted, tomorrow it.

        Everything is correct. But so far it was he who ousted, and not him :) And he ousted due to the technical superiority and low cost of his launch vehicles.

        I will not focus on the methods by which this is done.

        Because there is nothing to focus on :) Only about "dumping" is not necessary, you have no proof)

        The general economic situation in the country, the consequences of political cataclysms, the level of funding. All this is reflected in the work of specific people.

        A comparable amount of funds went to Angara and Falcon. Falcon is ready in 4 years, Angara is not ready in 25 years. It's the same with "Dragon" and "Eagle".
      5. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 9 August 2020 21: 50
        +1
        So buy eyeglasses)) Maybe at the same time you will see a log in your own eye, otherwise I, they say, offend you, but when you rank me among some sectarians, this is probably a compliment?)

        This is not an insult, but rather a statement of fact. The answer lists the reasons that allow me to draw this conclusion. In your answer, except - this is not, everything, everything was invented, everything that he did is admirable - I do not see. request

        You have invented some kind of cult around Musk and Apple and you yourself successfully expose him)) He is not - there are only your stereotypical ideas about some kind of cult... I don’t presume to talk about Apple, but Musk is respected, first of all, for his ideas and for his achievements. Yes, not all of his projects have been fully implemented, however what is implemented - worthy of respect and admiration.

        We have a denial of everything that has been said about Musk; as a justification for your point of view, you are guided only by emotions. Think you don't have a stereotypical view of Musk? You admire everything he has done. What objectivity can we talk about? The argumentation is extremely weak and points have nothing to do with it. It's hard to see the arguments if they don't exist and font size has nothing to do with it.

        Like any other constructor. Korolev, von Braun (their "greatness" you will not deny, will you?) - also had a lot of such unrealized ideas.

        Korolev and von Braun are not "any other" designers, the fact that they had unrealized ideas is the only sign by which Musk can be compared with these great designers. Do you boil it down to achievement as a constructor? But Rogozin is not a designer. Comparing them, we speak more like project managers.

        I comment on the highlights. The first. Yes, the activities of Roskosmos are indeed broader - only the organization itself is much broader. If SpaceX is one enterprise, then Roskosmos is a complex of enterprises of different directions within the framework of a single space activity
        .
        But Musk's activities are much broader and SpaceX is not limited. But you brush aside the rest of his projects, isolate the one that you consider the most successful and compare with Roskosmos. Moreover, I do not see it as saying that civil space was acquired for Roscosmos.

        Not this way. I compare one of the main directions of the two space organizations - namely, the creation of launch vehicles and spacecraft. And according to this paragraph, Musk with his Falcons and Dragons is ahead of Roskosmos with its Angara and Federation.
        No, I compared the effectiveness of two space organizations in the same direction - the creation of launch vehicles and spacecraft.

        This is what I'm talking about, you have chosen everything that Musk has done most successfully and compare it with Roscosmos. What makes you think that the creation of launch vehicles and spaceships is a priority task? At the moment we have something to fly, we have a rocket and a ship. The military direction is of higher priority for Roscosmos. If Musk is such a genius, why wasn't he tasked with developing hypersonic missiles, and continued funding less cost-effective firms?

        So this is quite true. Neither mom, nor dad, nor other relatives (only a partner-brother, and even then only in the early years), nor some patron helped him in his achievements.

        What gives you reason to say this? Closed Information?
        I fully admit that in the first years no one really helped him, but the results were not impressive either. But later, something in his life changed, as with a wave of a magic wand, unclear amounts of money began to appear, an auction of unprecedented generosity from the state began, NASA suddenly decided to share free technologies, and so on.

        Why not? Cheap carriers and spaceships, satellites for the global Internet coverage, eco-friendly cars are both technical progress and the blessing of mankind.

        Quite a strange point of view. What is good for the USA, good for all of humanity? "Cheap" carriers and spaceships? What is the use of Dragon for all mankind? Americans use it. Satellites for Global Internet Coverage? The Internet is secondary there, the main purpose is military. It is rather strange to consider this a blessing for humanity. Eco-friendly cars? What is environmental friendliness? Electricity for them is still burned with hydrocarbons, battery disposal is not at all environmentally friendly. Lithium for them is saturated with Bolivian blood. And after all that has been said, you take offense at the sectarian? You consider US domination to be a blessing for all mankind. This is the psychology of a slave. negative

        What are these "huge"?) Could you bring documents again?)
        The company's capitalization may well grow against the background of a general economic decline. Depending on what the company is doing.

        Do you like documentaries? First, show Musk's economic activity. He did it all himself, didn't he? Show me how, where is the information? Forgive me, but I am not a sectarian, I do not believe in such statements.
        Why should capitalization grow if the economy is collapsing? During the pandemic, everyone urgently needed electric vehicles?

        Hello, we arrived)) Nowhere, no one has ever said that Musk does not cooperate with the Pentagon - he has been taking military and reconnaissance satellites into orbit since 2016, hello :)

        Throw the fuss. The conversation is not about the delivery of satellites, but about the global satellite system. It was originally designed for military purposes and, by the way, you did not believe in it.

        And it doesn't even bother us that the military infrastructure is being built against us, for our own murder.

        So what? Korolyov created ballistic combat missiles, von Braun not only created, but also launched through the streets of London. Are now both Korolev and von Braun unworthy to be respected as people who have contributed to astronautics?
        What does Korolev have to do with it? The question was about something else. So it doesn't bother you? Hopefully, you will be the first victim of this system. Are you a real traitor, are you not ashamed to say such things at all? negative

        Well, first of all, Freight Dragons flew repeatedly. Second, NASA has officially approved the reuse of manned Dragons. I think they don’t sit there, right, and they didn’t approve of it?

        To approve and fly into space is not the same thing. Let's wait until it flies again, it's too early to draw a conclusion. The requirements for cargo ships are lower, because people are not at risk.

        Tesla was the first to release a large series of an electric car, which is not inferior to cars with internal combustion engines either in terms of technical characteristics (acceleration, speed, mileage), or in convenience and design (yes, it is also important). And their cost is not budgetary, of course, but quite comparable to cars with internal combustion engines.

        Design? Are you laughing? Is Musk's Achievements Design? laughing By design, the assessment is always subjective, some like it, some don't. Are you trying to prove to me that you are a genius because you like design? I'm not sure about the characteristics either. Autopilot was discussed recently. I have no confidence in this office, because it misleads people.
  • Oleg Shlyapin Offline Oleg Shlyapin
    Oleg Shlyapin (oleg shlyapin) 8 August 2020 21: 23
    -2
    Well, not really. For example, Apollo spacecraft were launched on Little Joe 2 rockets for atmospheric testing. Also, the flight of the Ares-5 rocket was suborbital and involved testing not the entire rocket, but its first stage, separation from the second stage and the operation of the flight interruption system. Also in the atmosphere on the rocket engine from the MX ballistic missile was tested the command module of the Orion spacecraft. There were other similar tests.

    By the way. The USSR planned to bring the N-1 rocket to mind by successive launches. When the first stage failed at an altitude of 15 km and the rocket crashed, the flight was generally considered successful. Because a number of procedures were worked out right before the rocket left the launch pad. True, they did not bring it to mind. The Americans went by creating expensive stands for testing the operation of engines, propulsion systems and rocket stages. The USSR came to this when the Energia rocket was created. And when the Zenith rocket was being created, the first stage was launched independently to test it in flight. Now a new stage - "jumping", and then suborbital flights of blocks and missiles, because they become reusable.
  • margo Offline margo
    margo (margo) 6 August 2020 16: 01
    -2
    At least not axes with cutlets.
  • Wooh Offline Wooh
    Wooh (Barmaley) 14 September 2020 16: 17
    0
    And what happened in the 40th second for the fire in the hoses? It's good that a little bit remained to the ground, otherwise it would have been uuh-zero or barmaley !!!. But the Muscophiles did not notice this.
    No. recourse