SpaceX Is Launching a Rocket the Size of the Statue of Liberty...

Sea Dragon was bigger. And why does Virginia already have 1/2 a spaceship that can be reused time and time again and Musk is still prototyping? Dude..

Imagine the cost

How big was sea dragon???

This???
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

490 feet and would launch from the sea. That was the concept but was never launched. But it would have worked.

Yeah

And the secret space program laughs.

[imgur] [link to imgur.com (secure)]

D o g e rocket

Actually he said the empire state building, which is much larger. He was referring to what it would take for a single stage rocket to get all the way to the moon and back. Carrying all that extra weight for the entire journey is wasteful. Not even Starship will operate that way; starship is the second stage of the super heavy rocket and will be refueled on orbit.

It's coming!

NASA: "Should we tell the public about this?"

Just slightly taller than Saturn V (Apollo missions) which was 363 ft. 110 meters.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Maybe he needs to speak with NASA since they were able to get a rocket to the moon with a land rover in an oversized tin can.

I wouldn't call the Saturn V an oversized tin can. Lunar orbit rendezvous proved to be a more efficient way of doing it as well, and even the lunar lander was a two-stage vehicle itself.

So is it the empire state building as quoted or The empire state building like Astor said ?

Never underestimate NAZI I mean NASA... weird how the leaders and the name are so close

I've done it in KSP so it has to be true !

When you say that, 99.99999% of Americans
will picture a "n-word".

Elon compensating?

Something that doesn't exist can't be bigger.

Yeah, i meant Virgin’s spaceship is kind of cool. They need to go with that, but bigger and better, without needing to released by plane. Wake me up when that happens.

"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons."
Conquest of the Moon by Wernher von Braun, published in 1953.

He's talking about what it would take for a single stage rocket to make it all the way to the moon's surface and back. A single stage rocket with engines as efficient as the space shuttle main engines (452s ISP), weighing 800,000 US tons on earth (725,747,792 kg) and assuming that the rocket is 99% fuel would have a delta-V budget of 9.81*452*ln(725,747,792/7,257,478) = 20.4 km/s. The delta-V required to go from earth's surface to the moon's surface and back to a re-entry trajectory is about 19 km/s:
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Slightly more advanced than KSP.
[link to nassp.sourceforge.net]
In any case, see my post above for the exact math on why it's so much less efficient with a single stage rocket. You're carrying a ton of dead weight with you through the entire journey, that's why it would require an 800,000 ton rocket, and that's assuming you develop the equivalent of Space Shuttle main engines that are way more efficient than what they used on the Apollo Saturn V first stage. Von Braun was probably being too optimistic about what it would really take for a single stage moon rocket.

Its all a big lie for retarded children to be mesmerized by.

should be interesting based on if they are using the same trajectories they usually use..

wonder why they don't mix it up?

I'm sorry astro just busting chops, however KSP does teach you a ton. I just hate project paperclip.

I went to Cape Canaveral a few times as a teenager in 1980s. After seeing "Eagle"/Apollo 11 (or what NASA claims was teh lunar capsule), not one student in our physics class believed that the US went to the moon. We used to watch space shuttle takeoffs from our high school football field. If the Challenger couldn't get to the moon, how did Apollo 11, smaller than the space shuttle, get there? NASA cannot tell us. Remember when asked about the Van Allen belt, they said that they threw away the research notes because they were no longer needed.

Last Edited by Happy in Nature on 07/07/2021 09:15 AM

Challenger? The space shuttle was never designed to go to the moon. The orbiter had to carry a LOT more non-fuel mass to orbit than Apollo.

Because that is a lie. The Saturn V was much larger than the shuttle and the CSM/LM stack had a lot less non-fuel mass than the shuttle.

Don't know where you got that notion, but that's also absurd. They avoided the most intense region of the belts by taking an inclined trajectory to the moon.