moggedbyspacex.bsky.social

27 July 2026 05:18

the tower literally catches the incredibly large booster, which must precisely guide itself to the chopsticks, the second stage has a novel TPS and landing design, using mass-produceable tiles, as well as actuated flaps to guide Ship to a precise landing zone. None of this has ever been done before.

moggedbyspacex.bsky.social

27 July 2026 05:18

Also forgot to mention Falcon Heavy, which has a very similar number of engines as N1. Either you ignored its existence, or you don’t know that it exists. Either scenario is embarrassing given the claims you’re making. So I repeat: Educate yourself.

moggedbyspacex.bsky.social

27 July 2026 05:18

Finally, you’re acting as if Starship hadn’t demonstrated reliable ascent multiple times now, so yeah, I already know how that one went. Perhaps you should do a tiny bit of research before making comparisons you don’t understand, because you’re embarrassing yourself.

moggedbyspacex.bsky.social

27 July 2026 05:18

You idiots see a rocket with more than 20 engines and decide that all rockets with a large engine count must be the same. You don’t know shit about rocketry. Are all kerolox rockets stolen? Did NASA copy the USSR’s staged-combustion cycle engine when they flew the space shuttle?

moggedbyspacex.bsky.social

27 July 2026 05:18

lmao N1 wasn’t reuseable, it’s not a methalox rocket, it doesn’t use full-flow staged combustion cycle engines, it’s not even a two stage rocket, it’s a completely different vehicle.