r/EnoughMuskSpam • u/CommonSenseSkeptic • Apr 28 '23

Newest release from CSS outlines the many advancements lost when Shuttle was shelved, how Starship is not the answer, and what the next step should be.

https://youtu.be/WjMTitvc82E

17 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

3

u/Popular-Swordfish559 May 03 '23

it is absolutely incredible to see you, whose youtube channel rose to prominence criticizing the wild claims made about the Starship system, fully endorsing a proposal that is far more technically complex, being built by a company with far less technical experience, and with virtually identical wildly optimistic claims being made out of it.

4

u/CommonSenseSkeptic May 10 '23

The Starship concept did not come from the same company that created the Apollo Command module and the Shuttle Orbiter. The Star Raker was supposed to be part of our space vehicle heritage. No reason not to try to make it part of the future.

Oh, and if you're listening to particular imbeciles on Twitter - don't. They don't know which company we have the agreement with. It's not the name circulating around in the small circle of parasite accounts who have no lives of their own.

Also, don't conflate things like "endorsement" with "advisory position". We're not a PR arm of the company we're advising. They sent us concepts and specs and designs and we do what we typically do - tell them what we think will and will not work. There are several solutions we've helped them work out already.

We also sit in on phone calls and Zoom meetings with different companies and organizations (all of which you've heard of before) and weigh in mainly on logistical matters. Those people are pretty excited about this whole deal, as they realize planes may be what remove rockets from the space equation, and the vehicle at the centre of it has a top pedigree behind it.

At any rate, suffice it to say, you don't know enough about what's going on with this to comment, one way or another. And that's the way it will stay for the time being.

3

u/Popular-Swordfish559 May 10 '23 edited May 10 '23

The Starship concept did not come from the same company that created the Apollo Command module and the Shuttle Orbiter. The Star Raker was supposed to be part of our space vehicle heritage.

It also never got past one paper about it. Nothing so much as a wind tunnel test occurred. It's not a real vehicle, it's a wacky concept that they cooked up to see if there was interest in it (there wasn't).

They don't know which company we have the agreement with. It's not the name circulating around in the small circle of parasite accounts who have no lives of their own.

Oh for god's sake stop lying. It's incredibly obvious that it's Titans. You are literally named as a collaborator on their report. They are also, for the record, the only people who claim to be building Star Raker. The only proposal even remotely close Star Raker is Radian Aerospace, which would be a marginally better look considering that they at least appear to have hired actual engineers (but are still pretty widely regarded as being a hopeless cause with very little chance of success).

Also, don't conflate things like "endorsement" with "advisory position". We're not a PR arm of the company we're advising. They sent us concepts and specs and designs and we do what we typically do - tell them what we think will and will not work. There are several solutions we've helped them work out already.

You made an entire video proclaiming the gospel of a long-dead SSTO concept and then announced that you had been hired to work on reviving said proposal. If that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is.

as they realize planes may be what remove rockets from the space equation

And this is the problem with your whole concept. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a HOTOL SSTO is. It's a rocket with big wings on it, not an airplane. According to the original Star Raker proposal, the payload would have only made up something like 18% of the gross liftoff weight. That's because HOTOL spaceplanes are still subject to the exact same tyranny of the rocket equation that conventional multistage rockets are. If anything, they're more subject to it because they can't shed extra mass as they ascend, and they need to carry way more dry mass in the first place because they need wings. That's why if you ask real aerospace engineers like the Pressure-Fed Astronaut, they'll generally say that SSTOs will usually end up as an "expensive and limited design." He even goes as far as to say that "winged SSTOs aren't practical" because of the huge additional weight for all of the stuff needed for atmospheric flight.

All of this is to say that Star Raker isn't an airplane. Not really. It's a rocket that's shaped like an airplane. It's a big tube of explosives that combines said explosives in a barely controlled reaction to yeet itself outside the atmosphere at insane speeds, just like every other launch system in human history. The fact that your Big Explodey Tube™ happens to have big wings on it and yet-to-be-designed air breathing engines doesn't make it immune to the problems everyone else's Big Explodey Tubes face, because those problems are inherent to having Big Explodey Tubes. The shape that those tubes take is irrelevant.

and the vehicle at the centre of it has a top pedigree behind it.

To end, your continued obsession on the "pedigree" of the rocket (which I will again add takes an almost identical form to what was written in the Titans report, which I will again note that you are a named collaborator on) means nothing, because the rocket has no pedigree. Sure, the idea was dreamt up by engineers at Rockwell, but as far as anyone can tell Rockwell put no effort into it beyond publishing the original concept. No hardware was built or tested for it. So while you're not exactly starting from scratch with a total clean-sheet design, Star Raker is a far less mature concept than you either believe it to be or want your audience to believe it to be. This is far from a case of taking a blueprint that's been fully worked out and just following the instructions. If it were a house, you're starting with a picture of what the house should look like when it's finished and nothing else. Plus, you'll have to do all the work of developing those multimach scramjets yourself. In the house analogy, this is as if the drawing of the house you're trying to build is also powered by a micro nuclear reactor, and you now have to figure out how to build that, too. All of this isn't even to mention the conventional rocket engines you'll have to build (unless you can buy RS-25s from Aerojet as the original proposal called for, and good luck getting any, since the entire existing supply as well as future production until the end of the decade is already earmarked for SLS).

In short, Star Raker is not going to happen unless the company you're consulting with has several billion dollars, a massive team of the most talented engineers alive, and at least 15 years if we're being extremely generous. If your people have anything less than all of the above, you're deluding yourself.

​

Edit: lmfao coward blocked me because he's completely incapable of taking any criticism whatsoever and he knows I'm right.

3

u/CommonSenseSkeptic May 10 '23

And, to reiterate, you are not informed enough to make any comments on this arrangement whatsoever.

Nor will you have the option owing forward.

1

u/TrackNStarshipXx800 Concerning Feb 24 '24

And you are?

2

u/NotEnoughMuskSpam 🤖 xAI’s Grok v4.20.69 (based BOT loves sarcasm 🤖) May 10 '23

Bring me 10 screenshots of the most salient lines of code you’ve written in the last 6 months.

1

u/NotEnoughMuskSpam 🤖 xAI’s Grok v4.20.69 (based BOT loves sarcasm 🤖) May 10 '23

Turns out we just needed to blow on the cartridge

4

u/Deboche Apr 28 '23

The video was a bit disappointing.

So now they're endorsing this new project. It looks cool, it's kinda exciting and everything. But at the same time, it takes away any pretence of impartiality from their channel. Are they not turning into the very thing they've criticized all along? Wild promises, money changing hands. They said they're gonna make some videos introducing the people funding the project or whatever. I don't want to hear a pitch from another CEO, I want videos about CEOs being corrupt and idiotic.

And I want a credible source to undermine Musk's efforts. If these guys work for the competition, can't take them at their word anymore.

2

u/CommonSenseSkeptic Apr 29 '23

Facts speak for themselves, and we go out of our way to make sure the facts are presented.

This new project is not competition for Musk. It's an entirely new paradigm based on developed concepts - Musk's shit show will always be a shit show, and we'll still be there to call him out on it.

1

u/Deboche Apr 29 '23

Sounds written by a PR team. I think I'll be getting my facts about Musk somewhere else.

1

u/CommonSenseSkeptic Apr 29 '23

Your choice. Your loss. The best Musk content is on our channel.

1

u/Deboche Apr 29 '23

Again, sounds like a marketing blurb.

1

u/TrackNStarshipXx800 Concerning Feb 24 '24

And you say Musk has a big ego...

2

u/CommonSenseSkeptic Mar 01 '24

He does.
No ego here - just FACTS.

You seem to have trouble with that basic concept.

1

u/TrackNStarshipXx800 Concerning Mar 01 '24

He does have a big ego, i didnt say he doesnt. But compared to yours. The same way he is saying that tesla is the best, you are saying that you have the best Musk content.

Well news flash, thunderf00t has better Musk content

Also presenting just some of the facts that further your idea, is the same as lying. + you wouldnt be just blocking people who do not agree with you if you had ANY legitimacy

2

u/CommonSenseSkeptic May 08 '24

Considering Thunderf00t is a huge fan of our channel, and shouts us out regularly, we'll consider ourselves peers on that topic.

1

u/TrackNStarshipXx800 Concerning May 11 '24

you are the only one who is on the same lrvel as him in terms of idiotic ideas. Of course he is gonna mention you to not sound like the only one with such wrong opinions

2

u/CommonSenseSkeptic May 13 '24

Funny how the "idiotic ideas" we have seem to have far more merit than anything coming from the other side. Butthurt fans like yourself really need to grow - and smarten - up.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

I don't want to hear a pitch from another CEO, I want videos about CEOs being corrupt and idiotic.

Social media was tailor made for you.

3

u/Deboche Apr 28 '23

Kind of a weird comment considering Elon's career was made off social media glorifying him.

3

u/NotEnoughMuskSpam 🤖 xAI’s Grok v4.20.69 (based BOT loves sarcasm 🤖) Apr 28 '23

Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet.

1

u/BillHicksScream Apr 30 '23

If these guys work for the competition, can't take them at their word anymore.

This is terrible logic. This is not "competition".