User talk:Kerry, Son of Spyro
Welcome!
[edit]
|
May 2022
[edit]
Hello, I'm Nythar. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to SpaceX Starship have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nythar (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at SpaceX Starship, you may be blocked from editing. Nythar (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello! I would like to be allowed the opportunity to prove what was saying about SpaceX Starship is not disruptive editing or vandalism. Here are a number of reports that indicate what I am saying is true.
- AC No: 450.108-1 (faa.gov)
- Part 450: Streamlining of Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements | Federal Aviation Administration (faa.gov)
- In short, Part 450 of the FAA regulations state that "A launch abort system is a required part of any and all manned space flight systems. Not having one prohibits any and all launches of that system."
- I paraphrase of course. Kerry, Son of Spyro (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- We would need direct sources that this applys to Starship (but apperently did not to the Space Shuttle) and that there is nor way to circunvent that. Just citing thos very complex regulation and assuming it applies to Starship violantes WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. By the way, I seached for the term "lauch abort" in the linked document and found zero results. Gial Ackbar (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you search for the terms "Flight Abort"? Because that exact term is listed multiple times. 
- Also, the Shuttle did have a launch escape system. Link to the official NASA webpage coming up.
- NASA - Emergency Egress System This is a link to the launchpad Emergency Egress System which was an Apollo-era apparatus that later got reused for the shuttle. The M-113 the page mentions, was upgraded to a surplus Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle as well.
- According to Tim Dobbs, Starship won't even have that.
- Here's a link to Tim Dobbs' video on the subject: 
- (3) Why won’t Starship have an abort system? Should it?! - YouTube
- This is the very reason no Starship launches will ever take place with a crew. Because without any means for the astronauts to escape, the spacecraft is illegal to operate with a crew. This is why the Crew Launch and HLS versions of Starship are, as I said in my edits, useless and worthless: They're strictly illegal for use. Kerry, Son of Spyro (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally, here is the specific Flight Abort regulation in Advisory Circular (AC) 450. 
- AC 450.108-1 - Flight Abort Rule Development – Document Information (faa.gov)
- AC No: 450.108-1 (faa.gov) Kerry, Son of Spyro (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where does it state that a flight abort is always necesary. As far as I see it, it states: "An operator must use flight abort as a hazard control strategy if the consequence of any reasonably foreseeable vehicle response mode, for any significant period of flight, is greater than 1 × 10-3 CEC for uncontrolled areas, unless § 450.101(c)(3) is satisfied". Maybe they find a way to stay below 1 × 10-3 CEC. Furthermore, the first page f the document states "It presents one, but not the only, acceptable means for demonstrating compliance with the associated regulatory requirements." So appearently, this is just one way to proof that the vehicle can be human ratet, not the only one. That's why I keep insting for a source that definitly states that Starship would be illegal without a LES. Furthermore, I don't think SpaceX is stupid. They would not develope a Crew Starship if they knew they could never fly it. Gial Ackbar (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe SpaceX is stupid either, yet they developed not one but TWO Starship models that they could never fly. The lack of flight abort means both the Crew Starship AND the HLS Starship are illegal to operate.
- No crewed rocket is allowed to operate without a means for the crew to escape in an emergency. That includes NASA-controlled rockets as well - and it's been a hard-coded requirement for all spacecraft since the Mercury program.
- Even the Lunar Expeditionary Module had not one but two flight abort systems. The "fire in the hole" in-flight emergency maneuver where the lower part of the lander could be cut loose and the ascent stage fired before the ship even landed, and there was a second abort mode that the LEM crew could use once on the surface.
- SpaceX knows a flight abort is absolutely required, that's why they included it on Crew Dragon. Kerry, Son of Spyro (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's still an unsourced claim that a LES is aboulutly necesary, with no exceptions possible. Furthermore, why could Starhip not sepearate from the booster in case of a launch failure and performe an emercancy landing. And even if all this is not possible, there would still be the option to fly Starship to oribt uncrewed, launch the crew in Dragon capsules and use Crew Starship only for missions above LEO. Gial Ackbar (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- The furthermore part is as stated in Mr. Dobbs' video I mentioned and linked before. I'll link it again below:
- Why won’t Starship have an abort system? Should it?! - YouTube
- As per the video, Starship is incapable of separating from the booster in case of a launch failure. That would be a launch abort system (flight abort system) which is not included in the Starship design. Also according to Dobbs, there is no way to escape from Starship in case of emergency during any stage of the flight.
- Crew Starship could potentially launch uncrewed, to act as a mothership much like the command and service module for the Apollo missions. However that still leaves the HLS as being illegal. An emergency abort/escape system of some kind is required in order for any rocket to be human-rated, and Starship will not have one according to Dobbs and SpaceX itself.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Going back to what you said before about SpaceX not being stupid, I can agree with that. They aren't stupid. But they certainly are irresponsible and in some cases, even incompetent. That's one way a spacecraft that they will never be able to use, could get designed and built.
- This isn't the first time SpaceX has shown irresponsibility and/or incompetence. For example, in the Ukraine there have been reports that the unsecured Starlink antennas provided by SpaceX for cities have served as great big targeting beacons for Russian missiles, essentially putting a bullseye where-ever they are deployed, putting thousands of lives in extreme danger.
- Also, you'll forgive me for bringing up the near-collisions between Starlink satellites and the Chinese Tiangong-1 space station. If SpaceX has guidance systems on rockets capable of landing them on a barge in rough weather and open sea, they have guidance systems capable of maneuvering around a manned space station long before that station even came into sighting range. SpaceX is wholly at fault for those near-collisions; which serve as yet another example of their extreme irresponsibility and incompetence.
- Further speaking of Starlink, there have been reports that on the website for Starlink, merely moving the icon for your installation from a barn or the end of your driveway to your house, which is a total of a few measly feet, racks up a multi-thousand dollar charge. This leads many people, including myself, to believe the whole Starlink operation is a scam.
- Personally, I wouldn't trust SpaceX or Elon Musk, any more than one would trust a pathological liar or serial con artist not to lie or con you out of your hard-earned cash with his or her very next breath. Kerry, Son of Spyro (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- You still don't answer the main question: Where does it state in a reliable source (understandable by the average reader, not just by lawyers or engineers) that Starship will need a LES and that there is no way around that. You have answered some of the lesser important question, but the requirement of a reliable source is one of the main principals of Wikipedia. Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I only have my direct-from-the-government sources that I gave you already, as well as the Everyday Astronaut/Angry Astronaut video I sent you. It's reliable, but it may not be something that the common man can understand.
- And I wouldn't say that a reliable source is one of the main principals of Wikipedia, considering that that principal is disobeyed on a regular basis on this site. It's a major controversy surrounding Wikipedia and is a reason that it's not trusted as a source for academia and multiple other professions.
- Some people, including myself, have gone so far as to state that "If your source is Wikipedia, it's as bad as not having a source at all." Kerry, Son of Spyro (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- By the way Wikipedia is also not trusted in my profession, which would be "railroad/aviation/space/military historian".
- I like what Wikipedia tries to do, which is why I chose to edit it. But it's not a trusted source for historians, like me. Kerry, Son of Spyro (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Mr. Ackbar, Wikipedia use is grounds to ignore anything you've ever written for college or academia and discard it as “something pulled out of the answerer’s ass.”
- IMHO, any student of any discipline or field of study caught using Wikipedia should get instantly kicked out of their college or university with an academic dishonesty notation in their file, same as the harshest penalty for plagiarism.
- They should also go back to 2001 and revoke the diplomas of any alumni caught using Wikipedia at any time as well.
- Wikipedia is not a source for truth. It's as bad as trusting Donald Trump - and we ALL know how he loves to lie like a rug. So you really can't claim that reliable sources are a requirement for Wikipedia; as that is something that really hasn't been a thing since this site was founded. Kerry, Son of Spyro (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- You still don't answer the main question: Where does it state in a reliable source (understandable by the average reader, not just by lawyers or engineers) that Starship will need a LES and that there is no way around that. You have answered some of the lesser important question, but the requirement of a reliable source is one of the main principals of Wikipedia. Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's still an unsourced claim that a LES is aboulutly necesary, with no exceptions possible. Furthermore, why could Starhip not sepearate from the booster in case of a launch failure and performe an emercancy landing. And even if all this is not possible, there would still be the option to fly Starship to oribt uncrewed, launch the crew in Dragon capsules and use Crew Starship only for missions above LEO. Gial Ackbar (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where does it state that a flight abort is always necesary. As far as I see it, it states: "An operator must use flight abort as a hazard control strategy if the consequence of any reasonably foreseeable vehicle response mode, for any significant period of flight, is greater than 1 × 10-3 CEC for uncontrolled areas, unless § 450.101(c)(3) is satisfied". Maybe they find a way to stay below 1 × 10-3 CEC. Furthermore, the first page f the document states "It presents one, but not the only, acceptable means for demonstrating compliance with the associated regulatory requirements." So appearently, this is just one way to proof that the vehicle can be human ratet, not the only one. That's why I keep insting for a source that definitly states that Starship would be illegal without a LES. Furthermore, I don't think SpaceX is stupid. They would not develope a Crew Starship if they knew they could never fly it. Gial Ackbar (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- We would need direct sources that this applys to Starship (but apperently did not to the Space Shuttle) and that there is nor way to circunvent that. Just citing thos very complex regulation and assuming it applies to Starship violantes WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. By the way, I seached for the term "lauch abort" in the linked document and found zero results. Gial Ackbar (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
March 2023
[edit] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Talk:SpaceX Starship, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. This isn’t the page for rants. Especially not silly ones. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
[edit] Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at SpaceX Starship, you may be blocked from editing. McSly (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)