Bensemus

Bensemus t1_j81w3ve wrote

It didn't fail. The test was full duration meaning it lasted for the specified amount of time. That was the main thing. Testing the rocket and the OLM during startup.

Having issues with two engines will be investigated but it's unlikely they will do another static fire. They will either green light both engines or replace one or both and then move on to the launch.

It's estimated Starship can lose up to 7 engines total and around 3-5 on launch and still make it to orbit. Musk tweeted that had this been a launch it would have made it to orbit.

2

Bensemus t1_j7we29w wrote

They need multiple engines for landing. An empty Falcon 9 is already too light to hover or descend on a single Merlin engine at minimum throttle.

Both Starship and SuperHeavy can hover and descend with multiple Raptor engines firing. This gives them engine out capability while landing and a much safer landing profile. There's no need to perform a suicide burn where you only have a brief moment to get it right or you are crashing.

2

Bensemus t1_j7wdlho wrote

> If not takeoff and max q, for sure during landing.

They aren't turning any engines off during launch. Max Q doesn't' require a greater than 40% reduce in thrush.

Engines are turned off during separation. Then some are turned back on for the boost back burn and maybe a reentry burn. Then finally some are used for the landing burn.

1

Bensemus t1_j7wbprq wrote

You have no idea what you are talking about. SpaceX is looking to restrict Ukraine from using their terminals in guidance systems. THAT IS IT. They are restricting NOTHING ELSE.

If the US government likes use of the terminals in guidance systems then they can give SpaceX the OK to keep allowing that. It seems actually likely the US doesn't like it as NATO has been very careful about giving Ukraine weapons that allow them to attack Russia in its own territory.

Ukraine and NATO have different but very similar goals in this war. NATO's goals win out as they are the sole reason Ukraine is still able to fight. This sucks for Ukraine so they are being very creative in using what they do have to achieve their own goals.

4

Bensemus t1_j6p7lj4 wrote

Kessler Syndrome has no real bearing on stuff traveling through a orbit.

It's about a cascading series of crashes in an orbit that create a dangerous debris field. This cascade can take decades or centuries. It also doesn't make the orbit unusable, just a bit more dangerous.

Wall-E and Gravity are not real depictions of what it could be like.

1

Bensemus t1_j6p6nm2 wrote

Walking within 5 meters as you walk past it won't do anything. If you pick it up then you are starting to get a concerning dose and need to get it at least 5m away from you and now that you know where it is you need to remain 5m away.

With how radioactive it is if it's along the road they will easily find it with radiation meters. If someone has stolen it then it will be hard to find, but not impossible.

1

Bensemus t1_j5zmhmr wrote

A single power plant isn't responsible for 0.1% of CO2 and we've been dumping CO2 for over a century. So how could a single scrubber remove that much? We have millions and millions of sources of CO2 that when all added up have created the climate change problem. It's going to take a similar number of sinks to start rectifying the problem.

−1

Bensemus t1_j5k6xgj wrote

If insurance companies never turned a profit they would leave the area. That's not what you want. As an individual you can't personally insure your home or car unless you are extremely wealthy. Excessive profits are an issue but profits in general aren't.

26

Bensemus t1_j2co8yg wrote

This is just the difference between dealership repairs and independent garage repairs. Tesla isn’t interested in diving super deep and doing a one off fix. They do high level repairs which cost more.

It also shows that Teslas aren’t locked to Tesla like so many claim. You can bring it to other people to get it fixed.

1