Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdza5zc wrote

It is insanely so. x100 more difficult. If it wasn't, someone else would have landed an orbital rocket by now, when they landed a suborbital in the 90s.

What many different methods of landing the rocket did they try? Does Rocket Lab knows all of them?

Oh wow, SpaceX secret sauce is getting things done and execute!! Wow that's not what we call secret sauce!

I'm not sure you've noticed, that Gwenn and Elon have both said they will do around 100 Starship launches before land on the moon with HLS. So...that kind of mean a hell of a lot of launches with Starlink and customer's sats. And they don't need orbital refilling for that.

Cause SpaceX does know how to land and reuse. And Starship's design is made with lessons learned from F9. Rocket Lab and Neutron don't have lessons learned. That's why so many people believe Starship is easier for SpaceX than Neutron for Rocket Lab. And SpaceX does work faster. Rocket Lab will need at least 3 years for first launch, another 2 for first landing, another 2 for first reuse. So 7 years to make reusability and that's the minimum time. Starship will fly in a couple of months. So....


Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdussoh wrote

Does Rocket Lab have access to internal SpaceX documentations of the software and rocket parts/materials that make F9 land and reused? No? Then watching them on YouTube doesn't really matter. They will have to learn to do it by themselves.

SpaceX has no reason to go slow with Starship. They can launch many Starlink flights before a customer if they want, but they need the experience sooner rather than later. Customers also don't care much about reuse at first, only for their payload to go to orbit, as they didn't care with F9 landing attempts.

Or Rocket Lab may move slower than expected, since even from first successful landing to reuse it took SpaceX 2 years time... And Starship can go a lot faster since its design has lessons learned from F9 landings and reuse.


Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdusci8 wrote

Also a helicopter does vertical landings. Does this count? We are talking about orbital rockets. Not suborbitals.

Unless Rocket Lab have stolen the source code and trade secrets of the materials etc, they will have to pass the same amount of time of trial and error.

If Rocket Lab lands rocket on first landing attempt, then they definitely would have stolen some F9 trade secrets.

So? SpaceX is the fastest moving aerospace company. It will take sooner than you realize.

Literally no one has said that they will retire F9 immediately. No one. Starship has hype cause it's revolutionary rocket and people notice that. It will transform humanity's access to space. And that's not hyperbole.

And don't forget the important thing. SpaceX knows how to execute landings and reuse. They've been doing this for years, getting better and better. Starship's design is based on lessons learned from F9 landings and reuse. So most likely they will land and reuse it sooner rather than later. Much sooner than competitors like Neutron.


Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdoobox wrote

Until now SpaceX is the only provider who lands and reuse rockets. They only one who knows how to do that. Do you know how I call it, when someone else says that it's going to do it better? I call that BS. Rocket Lab should first attempt to land a rocket successfully, then relaunch it, and then they can talk. Until then...

Yeah,it does mean that exactly. Starship is about to launch in less than 2 months and then cadence will increase. Neutron is at minimum 2 years away, possibly 3-4, and then a few flights until they start landing attempts, another few to land, and another 2 years to relaunch that and then another 2 to increase launch cadence. Good luck.


Charming_Ad_4 t1_jdonllf wrote

Rocket Lab doesn't know yet how to land and reuse rockets. It took SpaceX almost 10 landing attempts, and when they did land it another 2 years to reflight that booster. And many years after that to increase cadence. Rocket lab will have to get the same learning period and they move slower than SpaceX. And Starship will fly at minimum 2 years before Neutron 1st launch attempt. Where exactly do you see them have time to catch up?


Charming_Ad_4 t1_j5oiolo wrote

Quotes to what Musk said:

""Musk wrote on Twitter today (May 27) that he's already instructed teams to look into making future Starlink internet communications satellites less shiny to lower their "albedo," or reflectivity. He pointed that out in response to a direct call from a com menter on Twitter. ""

"Exactly, potentially helping billions of economically disadvantaged people is the greater good," Musk wrote in response to a comment on the service Starlink's constellation would provide. "That said, we'll make sure Starlink has no material effect on discoveries in astronomy. We care a great deal about science."

“I am confident that we will not cause any effect whatsoever in astronomical discoveries,” Musk said. “Zero. That’s my prediction. We’ll take corrective action if it’s above zero.”

Musk went on to add that SpaceX was “running a bunch of experiments to paint the phased array antenna black instead of white,” a possible reference to the so-called “darkened satellite” launched by the company earlier this year.

He also noted the company was working on a “sunshade” for the satellites, adding: “There are certain angles where you can get a reflection.

“We’re launching a sunshade, changing the color of the satellite… aesthetically this should not be an impact.”

From 2019.

Proves my point, that

A. The article is misinformation.

B. Musk said they'll make sure to not mess with astronomy, doing a variety of measures on the sats. He never claimed that such effects as light pollution wouldn't happen in the first place.


Charming_Ad_4 t1_j5ocs46 wrote

That's Bullshit. From the first Starlink batches launched, SpaceX started talking to astronomers and began mitigating the light caused from Starlinks. They did a variety of measures, like dark paint or changing the inclination of the sats. That's been going on for years now. They didn't got forced to do it, cause there is no law or rule that says so. They did it cause they wanted to mitigate the effects willingly, from the beginning.

This is just media misinformation.