2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I am not really interested in Elon Musk’s personality or his politics but the fact of the matter is grand visions require a commitment of capital and risk that shareholders and fund managers would never contemplate today.

Exactly.  Where would we be now without him?  Probably not making plans to land people on Mars.

"The least interesting fact about Elon Musk is that he's a billionaire."

Hook

18 hours ago, Torkermax said:

You a Rocket Scientist or good at AI copy and paste? 🙂

 

What a silly comment. Of course I'm not a rocket scantiest. But I can use the facilities Google supply to track down factual information. If you disagree that it's factual information, feel free to supply a counterargument with the relevant citation. 

15 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

In my opinion what makes him interesting is his willingness to give his engineers and designers their head and go with their ideas.

 

Yes, exactly. I'm not his biggest fan lately but this bizarre fantasy people have in that he employs 5,563 engineers, gathers them all together, ignores their expertise, and then dictates some random course of action, is just childishly silly. 

It is true that he does have technical knowledge of his own product, that's obvious if you watch Tim Dodd's videos where he is given tours around the SpaceX facility by Musk himself. Musk's knowledge of the engineering involved is quite impressive. But he doesn't employ literally thousands of engineers and scientists for then to sit on their backsides and do nothing. There are some very talented engineers that work at SpaceX.

On topic again: I'm not writing them off yet, it will take good progress from the larger version 3 of Starship that will mark the beginning of Starship's orbital test phase, but its feasible they can achieve this if all goes well. It will carry payloads to orbit and fly missions to the Moon. 

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2025Oct 24 by martin-w

18 hours ago, dave2013 said:

failures and delays are normal and expected for such a complex and dangerous undertaking.

 

Exactly... those failures are welcome. You want those failure points to be uncovered during testing, not in an operational vehicle. 

Any more "Political" comments and the fit will hit the shan! 🥷  And it will splatter in a wide pattern!

On 10/23/2025 at 2:57 AM, martin-w said:

Aluminum's limitations for Starship

I can copy and paste reasons to NOT use SS in rockets from the same Google AI.  Google AI can be helpful at times and wrong at other times or in some cases returns a Yes, then a No, and then a Maybe.  As in my recent experience with BMD Hyperdeck Shuttle 4K Pro question of will it work with 3440 x 1440 ... fortunately "returns" are options so I purchased and found out for myself.  Yes the BMD Hyperdeck Shuttle 4K Pro does indeed record HDMI output at 3440 x 1440. 🙂 

But I'm not going to post why Google AI says SS is a bad choice, from my real world experience with welding and using SS various grades as well as Aluminum various grades and mild steel for those 14 years of Auto racing with required fabrication:

 

My experience with SS is that yes it can be made "thin" to help reduce weight (great for race application), but in doing so it's usable life is reduced considerably.  Yes, it does work with high heat, although in my application that was only about 1600-1800F.  BUT, embrittlement is the issue after several high heat cycles, it is prone to cracks and failure under stress.  One of several elements that cause embrittlement in SS is Hydrogen ... and space, well, there is A LOT of there 😉 

And yes, I would perform ultrasonic testing to vital engine parts post race event.

As far as the Artemis program and Starship spacecraft being floated as fully "reusable", I'll disagree.

I'll cave on your other points, but not SS.

As far as "discovery" thru space travel, even Christopher Columbus (the illegal immigrant ... 😉 ) didn't use his own money to "discover" America (sponsored by the Catholic Monarchs of Spain).  The only reason Musk is pushing forward is because US funding for NASA ($24B yearly) is abysmal as we would rather spend tax payer money of US military ($874B yearly).  Musk would be irrelevant if we spent even just 25% of US Military budget on NASA.

 

 

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

can copy and paste reasons to NOT use SS in rockets from the same Google AI. 

 

Go on then. And of course, it has to be in the context of a space vehicles structure, capable of over 100 tons to orbit that has to withstand cryogenic to blistering re-entry tempreture swings. At the same time, fully reusable and cheaper and easier to mass manufacture at a rapid rate, than carbon fibre or composites. 

Good luck.

 

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

from my real world experience with welding and using SS various grades as well as Aluminum various grades and mild steel

 

Oh dear. Its a revolutionary space vehicle that has to cope with the conditions I spoke of above. Not one of your garage DIY projects. 

 

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

My experience with SS is that yes it can be made "thin" to help reduce weight (great for race application), but in doing so it's usable life is reduced considerably.

 

You have zero experience with this spacecraft. Or the SpaceX proprietary alloy that was specially developed to exceed the capabilities of conventional 300 series SS. This is a custom proprietary alloy formulation. SpaceX engineers are not idiots.

Edited October 24, 2025Oct 24 by martin-w

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

As far as the Artemis program and Starship spacecraft being floated as fully "reusable", I'll disagree.

 

Again you demonstrate no knowledge of Artemis. NASA SLS is not reusable, SpaceX Starship is, thats the whole point. The HLS will not be.

Let's not make this the screenshot forum, please!

1 hour ago, charliearon said:

Let's not make this the screenshot forum, please!

Agree completely, especially as I can't see them....🤷‍♂️

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

At the same time, fully reusable and cheaper and easier to mass manufacture at a rapid rate, than carbon fibre or composites.

and ... 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

SpaceX proprietary alloy that was specially developed to exceed the capabilities of conventional 300 series SS.

first time I've hear "proprietary" and "cheaper" ... so you know exactly what this "proprietary" alloy consists of ... or you just assuming it's up to the task?

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

NASA SLS is not reusable, SpaceX Starship is, thats the whole point.

Ok, and?  My reference was Starship will not be as "reusable" as SpaceX/Musk are projecting.  They had 3 failed Starship reentries Jan 2025, March 2025, May 2025.  They had 2 successful Starship reentries August 2025 (was not controlled and sustained damage), and October 2025 was a controlled splashdown with minimal damage.  So far, not a single controlled splashdown without some damage.

Lets compare to NASA, 133 successful Shuttle missions, and 2 failed Shuttle missions.

Quote

In his conversation with Burrows, Musk explained that they initially experimented with standard market-grade series 300 steels, including austenitic grades like 301 and 304 (the most widely used stainless steel). Eventually, they added a “small tweak” that raises the cost slightly above €3.6/kg, which they patented as 30x steel (also used in Tesla vehicles).

Musk’s approach is reminiscent of chefs adding a “special ingredient” to enhance flavor without fundamentally altering the dish—an innovative touch to the material for patenting purposes.

While carbon fibre and aluminum-lithium are favored in the innovative aerospace industry...

source: https://materials.imdea.org/why-elon-musk-uses-stainless-steel-for-his-new-spacecraft/

 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Not one of your garage DIY projects. 

Haha ... true, and Musk is doing the same, just on a bigger budget.

@SayAgain, be aware that because of a new law in the UK no one in that country will see your screenshots. This is how they appear.

You need to find another host such as Dropbox that will show them.

9 hours ago, SayAgain said:

and .

 

Starship WILL be fully reusable. The Moon lander is being developed by SpaceX, for NASA, for that specific mission. And it seems my assumption re the Moon lander variant was wrong, apparently it is going to return to Earth for reuse. Quite an achievement if they pull it off.

 

"Yes, the SpaceX Starship lunar lander is designed to be reusable, with the goal of bringing both the booster and the upper stage back to Earth after its mission. This is a key part of SpaceX's strategy to create a fully reusable transportation system capable of carrying crew and cargo to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. "

 

 

10 hours ago, SayAgain said:

first time I've hear "proprietary" and "cheaper" ... so you know exactly what this "proprietary" alloy consists of ... or you just assuming it's up to the task?

 

Yes, its the first time you've heard that the alloy is a proprietary formula... like I said, your knowledge of Starship is minimal, and you have made numerous claims about the inferiority of the stainless steel being used without bothering to do some research and fact check yourself.

As for assuming it's up to the task, a bit like you assuming it isn't up to the task. So far, in testing, it has been up to the task and handled the huge swings in tempreture and other factors well. 

 

10 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Lets compare to NASA, 133 successful Shuttle missions, and 2 failed Shuttle missions.

 

Your logic doesn't work. The Shuttle was a finished working vehicle. Not a TEST vehicle, a prototype. We had Starship V1, where much was learnt, then V2 which was much more successful. Next testing program ( next flight) will be prototype V3, which will be bigger and more powerful and more capable with heat shield and numerous other improvements. Again.... these are test vehicles, prototypes, and the largest rocket ever created, and not just the biggest rocket ever created (V3 IIRC will have double the thrust of Saturn V). We won't see a finished Starship, a working product fit for humans to travel in until the specific HLS variant has been developed and tested. Beyond that, Starship V4 will have an even larger capacity and may be utilised in a future HLS roles.

You could have researched this yourself.

Thus far...

"Using stainless steel for Starship appears to be a successful and deliberate engineering choice for SpaceX, providing key advantages over the more traditional aerospace materials it was initially planned to use."

So far the only Starship failure related to stainless steel was a weld on version V1. Thus the steel was modified and different welding techniques adopted... and further failures have been caused by other factors.

in short... stainless steel is working.

Despite this FACT, you will keep arguing.

This is not a competitive event. Your are arguing just for the sake of it. If you want to compete with me for the sake of it, join chess.com

I can think of another subject where you would be deriding certain individuals for this approach. 

 

Edited October 25, 2025Oct 25 by martin-w