🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:18:40 UTC No. 15966321
Europa Edition
Previous - >>15964295
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:21:07 UTC No. 15966326
>>15966321
How can we colonize this moon? It is in the radiation belt and large scale tunneling will be required to study the all important ocean, but at those depths theres nothing to gain from solar and we will need a power source to both farm and have light
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:22:35 UTC No. 15966329
>>15966326
how much radiation is on the surface?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:25:29 UTC No. 15966333
>tfw no spacemommy gwynne shotwell gf
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:26:09 UTC No. 15966334
Tune in to Hear NASA Discuss Artemis Moon Mission Plans
NASA will hold a media teleconference today at 1:30 p.m. EST to provide an update on the agency’s lunar exploration plans for the benefit of all under Artemis.
Audio of the briefing will stream live on NASA’s website.
In addition to NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, agency participants will include:
NASA Associate Administrator Jim Free
Catherine Koerner, associate administrator, Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate
Amit Kshatriya, deputy associate administrator, Moon to Mars Program, Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate
The following partner representatives also will be available to answer questions during the call:
Mike Lauer, RS-25 Program director, Aerojet Rocketdyne
Russell Ralston, vice president and Extravehicular Activity Program manager, Axiom Space
Dave Leeth, mobile launcher 2 deputy project manager and principal vice president, Bechtel
John Couluris, senior vice president of lunar permanence and Human Landing System Program manager, Blue Origin
Dave Dutcher, vice president and Space Launch System Program manager, Boeing
Peggy Guirgis, general manager, Space Systems, Collins Aerospace
Lorna Kenna, vice president and Consolidated Operations, Management, Engineering and Test Program manager, Jacobs
Tonya Ladwig, vice president human space exploration and Orion Program manager, Lockheed Martin
Chris Coker, vice president for civil programs, Maxar
Mark Pond, senior director of NASA programs, Northrop Grumman
Jessica Jensen, vice president of customer operations and integration, SpaceX
Daniel Neuenschwander, director of human and robotic exploration, ESA (European Space Agency)
Through Artemis, the agency will establish a long-term presence at the Moon for scientific exploration with our commercial and international partners, learn how to
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:27:48 UTC No. 15966335
>>15966326
>we will need a power source to both farm and have light
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:31:28 UTC No. 15966341
>>15966335
Nuclear is too dangerous to have constructed by colonists on site as well as without a large team backing them, and fusion is a total meme. As much as I like fission for large scale industrial societies, its just not suited for use by small groups. The only thing I can think of is nuclear submarines which I think use nuclear reactors but not sure, even then wouldnt you need shit tons of liquid water that isnt close to if not actually freezing?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:38:03 UTC No. 15966345
>>15966341
>Nuclear is too dangerous to have constructed by colonists on site
That's where SMR comes into the equation, the entire nuclear industry is moving towards standardized prefabs
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:38:18 UTC No. 15966346
NASA announces artemis II gonna be delayed to 2025 and its gonna be a uncrew mission
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:38:38 UTC No. 15966347
>>15966346
No, not yet...
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:38:41 UTC No. 15966348
>>15966346
IT'S OVER
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:39:25 UTC No. 15966349
>>15966326
Radiation levels are at about 540rem per day. So 18 hours on the surface should be enough to ensure a painful death.
In a submarine tho...
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:40:13 UTC No. 15966350
SEPTEMBER 2025 ARTEMIS II
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
ARTEMIS IV SEPTEMBER 2028
WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:40:34 UTC No. 15966351
>>15966346
Is that SpaceX fault somehow
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:40:40 UTC No. 15966352
Artemis II delayed to September 2025, Artemis III September 2026, Artemis IV 2028
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:40:49 UTC No. 15966353
>>15966346
>its gonna be a uncrewed mission
What's the fucking point
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:40:55 UTC No. 15966354
> we are adjusting the timeline of artemis 2 to September 2025 and September 2026 for artemis 3
>artemis 4 remains on track for September 2028
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:41:16 UTC No. 15966356
>>15966351
Yes. SpaceX makes NASA employees anxious.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:41:56 UTC No. 15966357
>just think back 60 years ago when...
THAT'S ALL WE EVER THINK ABOUT YOU DECREPIT FOSSIL
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:42:22 UTC No. 15966358
>>15966354
>1 year gap between AIII and AIV
Liars
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:43:37 UTC No. 15966361
There will never be an Artemis 5.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:44:56 UTC No. 15966363
artemis II still crewed
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:45:27 UTC No. 15966364
>>15966362
cancel it
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:46:28 UTC No. 15966365
talking about Starship now
>we are looking at our Starship progress, we are looking at our spacesuits
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:46:34 UTC No. 15966366
"After our completely successful Artemis I flight, we have decided to repeat the flight because we found problems."
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:46:55 UTC No. 15966368
>>15966361
Im sure they gonna cancel it after artemis II, MAYBE if were lucky aftes artemis III
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:47:35 UTC No. 15966369
>>15966363
Dream on:
Artemis 2 for Sept 2025
Artemis 3 for Sept 2026 (first crew)
Artemis 4 for Sept 2028
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:49:35 UTC No. 15966371
>>15966369
Eric updated:
A II is crewed also.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:50:06 UTC No. 15966373
This thread is full of whining zoomer newfags apparently. The first crewed landing wont occur until 2029 at the earliest, sorry.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:52:01 UTC No. 15966376
>I’ve done around 3 dozen first flights. This was amongst the smoothest ever.
>smoothest
https://twitter.com/torybruno/statu
Tory confirms that total peregrine death was not their fault after all
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:52:24 UTC No. 15966377
>>15966371
and 3 is still to the surface
I can live with that
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:52:42 UTC No. 15966378
VALVES
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:53:52 UTC No. 15966380
>>15966351
First of all, SpaceX launches within a week of the FAA granting a launch license every time. Musk is going to throw whatever he has on hand on to the pad and launch, because he knows that it is faster to iterate that way.
If NASA wanted to they could have pulled some strings in the FAA to get the environmental review, and the investigations, through the system. If you don't think the largest aviation research body in the world doesn't have connections to the FAA, you may wanna get your fucking head checked.
The reason why they didn't is simple. SLS has always been delayed, and always will be behind schedule. It's not that easy in cost-plus contractery. On a Gantt chart, the critical path always has been, and always will be SLS.
But why not help SpaceX anyway? Simple, Musk is conveniently placed as the perfect scapegoat for the general public and politicians, as NASA can simply point at starship 'exploding' as proof that they are behind. If NASA had excercised its power to get SpaceX through the development process, they would now be on this livestream explaining why SLS is delayed for another time. Congress won't touch SpaceX after the awarding of the contract (see the military industrial complex)
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:56:17 UTC No. 15966384
>>15966373
This, and its gonna be the chinese
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:56:37 UTC No. 15966385
>>15966377
>3 is still to the surface
Not without Gateway, space suits and everything else. And that assumes A II works.
It's never going to happen.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:57:48 UTC No. 15966387
>>15966371
>>15966377
>>15966369
>>15966350
Sucks ass and SLS should be taken out back and be shot, but why are any of you surprised??? We all knew 2024 wasn't gonna happen lmao.
Berger had it on the money in 2022 as usual >https://arstechnica.com/science/20
>Realistically, a follow-up to Artemis I is probably at least two years away. Most likely, the Artemis II mission will not happen before early 2025, although NASA is not giving up hope on launching humans into deep space in 2024.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:58:21 UTC No. 15966388
>>15966387
>why are any of you surprised?
Zero surpised here.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:59:26 UTC No. 15966392
>everything is ready
>see you in 2025
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:59:39 UTC No. 15966393
12 MONTHS FOR GATEWAY TO MAKE IT TO NRHO
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:00:28 UTC No. 15966395
CNSA is accepting proposals for international payloads to go up on the Chang'e 8 lunar exploration mission.
>scientific objectives include exploring lunar physics, studying geological profiles, observing Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field from the Moon, analyzing lunar samples, and conducting ecological experiments in a closed lunar environment.
>collaborators can utilize up to 200kg of mass resources provided by the lander, including interfaces, separation or release devices, and cables.
>the collaboration can be at the system level, where projects can detach from the lander after reaching the lunar surface, or at the individual equipment level, with projects remaining attached to the lander platform.
>priority is given to projects with the capability to interact with the Chang'e-8 mission on the lunar surface or in lunar orbit, lunar rovers with abilities such as object manipulation and soil movement
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:00:47 UTC No. 15966396
HALO+PPE FUCKING DELAYED TO 2026 PROBABLY
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:01:24 UTC No. 15966398
>partnered with BO for HLS
Didn't BO sue them repeatedly until congress threw them a freebie
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:01:28 UTC No. 15966400
knower here
spacex is going to lose the HLs contract
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:01:42 UTC No. 15966401
>>15966393
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:01:48 UTC No. 15966402
NASA REQUESTED SPECIFIC CARGO VARIANTS OF HLS FROM BOTH SPACEX AND BO!
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:02:26 UTC No. 15966403
>>15966398
They weren't thrown a freebie, they clawed a freebie from SpaceX's hands by using every political connection they could muster.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:03:14 UTC No. 15966404
> Amit Kshatriya, deputy associate administrator at NASA, also says Gateway will not launch in October 2025. That schedule will also be "updated" to give commercial partners more time.
Whenever you get around to it.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:04:10 UTC No. 15966405
SHUT THE FUCK UP INCEL CHUDS NASA IS MAKING THE CORRECT CHOICE STOP BEING BIGOTED YOU FUCKING MAGATS SCAMLON HUSK IS THE ONE THAT CAUSED ALL THIS
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:04:48 UTC No. 15966406
>>15966404
Everything with NASA is delays, delays, delays we're pushing this back, we're pushing that back
FUCK
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:07:35 UTC No. 15966408
Hello thanks for taking my question, anon here from /sfg/: Do you fear an angry mob of space enthusiasts lynching the lot of you for this insult? Followup question, what would you want on your tombstone? Thanks again
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:08:39 UTC No. 15966411
Jim Free subtly hinting at Artemis III not being the landing potentially
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:09:09 UTC No. 15966412
>Lunar Orbit a-La apollo 8???
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:09:20 UTC No. 15966413
>>15966407
>fake black axiom suits
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:09:43 UTC No. 15966414
>>15966412
lel
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:11:12 UTC No. 15966415
> Q: Marcia Dunn: With the extra time any thought of an orbital mission, and any chance of shoe horining another mission in between Artemis 2&3 - Free: No change in the mission profile, we're going to learn form these missions, planning on 3 being the landing.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:11:23 UTC No. 15966416
>>15966380
>>15966387
Where exactly is SLS cited as a cause of this delay? I only read about Orion, ESM, suits, ground systems and HLS. Is there more?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:13:06 UTC No. 15966418
Whats gonna happen:
Artemis II: 2026
Artemis III: cancelled in 2027
Spacebros... I think China is our last hope...
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:14:26 UTC No. 15966420
LMAO BILL FUCKING INTERVENED LOL
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:14:31 UTC No. 15966421
> shatriya - life support system - during acceptance for #Artemis III we noticed motor valve failures - the passed acceptance for Artemis II but not for Artemis III - there is a design flaw in control circuit. - especially CO2 scrubber.
Again with the valves?
> Kshatriya - environment for #Artemis Orion separation during escape mode - found a few cases where there could be electrical system battery performance issues.
*zap*
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:15:02 UTC No. 15966422
>>15966420
>HOW. MANY.
>"uhh i don't know"
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:15:10 UTC No. 15966423
>>15966407
>2024
Not so fast, safety is our number one priority!
>1969
Ayo here is a trillion tons of kerosene to sit on, we hope you don't run out of oxygen or waste one percent of your precious delta v or you will all die agonizing deaths lol! Gotta beat the Soviets somehow!
Fuck this timeline
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:15:30 UTC No. 15966424
>>15966422
Bill was having none of that fucking corporate redirection lmaoo
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:16:07 UTC No. 15966425
> Kshatriya mentions #Artemis I heat shield - it met requirements & performed perfect but it had unexpected phenomena that we need to understand - saw off-nominal recession of some char that came off the shield that we did not expect - pieces were liberated - did not expect that
Perfect "but" isn't a thing.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:17:19 UTC No. 15966427
>>15966425
"It went fine except for the pieces that came off"
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:17:50 UTC No. 15966430
>>15966425
>picked up some wind after the 2nd skip maneuver which liberated some charred chunks
>spooks NASA so much they delay Artemis II
I swear to fucking god, NASA's obsession with absolute perfection and matching the models 100% is so fucking annoying
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:18:29 UTC No. 15966432
>>15966426
I didn't know ULA were planning a Sea Dragon scaled rocket.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:20:06 UTC No. 15966433
>>15966426
Holy fuck, how many times Vulcan is bigger than starship
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:20:06 UTC No. 15966434
>>15966430
They have to. When you run on so little operational freedom, you have to try and hit 100% at all costs.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:20:22 UTC No. 15966435
>>15966432
Anon that rocket is 170km tall that is not Sea Dragon suze
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:20:22 UTC No. 15966436
>"The astronauts would have experienced perturbations ranging from minor discomfort to complete annihilation"
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:20:45 UTC No. 15966437
>>15966426
Starship's good to 20 tons to GTO (but nothing to Geo direct due to high stage mass), so I wouldn't say "incapable."
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:20:47 UTC No. 15966438
>>15966434
How hard is it to figure out the wind did it
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:20:57 UTC No. 15966439
>>15966426
SMART >>>>>> whatever tf space-x is shitting out. We've known this for DECADES and it's PROVEN
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:21:38 UTC No. 15966440
>>15966412
> Asked if #Artemis II can do a Apollo 8 lunar orbit thing? @JimFree - no Artemis II mission stays the same.
So II is I, but this time you get to watch astronauts die.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:21:40 UTC No. 15966441
>>15966435
If ULA builds a 170km tall Vulcan, I take everything back I said about them.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:22:27 UTC No. 15966444
>>15966426
>muh energy
How many satellites went beyond LEO last year?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:22:27 UTC No. 15966445
>>15966437
Starship 3rd stage (Mueller stage) will kill Vulcan outright
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:22:53 UTC No. 15966446
>>15966437
>nothing to Geo direct due to high stage mass
Yes, because there's no possible way that 20 tons could contain a kick stage to get to GEO.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:24:10 UTC No. 15966449
>>15966445
Orbital refueling also works if they manage to get the per-launch costs low enough.
>>15966446
There are obvious ways to optimize for a Starship mission, but 20 tons GTO is the SpaceX offered figure.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:25:14 UTC No. 15966453
70km tall fully reusable Starship of 170km tall Vulcan?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:25:26 UTC No. 15966454
>>15966449
The Shuttle did kick stage launches to GEO+ It's not some unproven tech level.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:26:21 UTC No. 15966456
>>15966453
The Vulcan would be putting up entire O'Neil cylinders at a time.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:26:51 UTC No. 15966458
> Jessica #spacex says test flight to the Moon in 2025.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:27:00 UTC No. 15966459
>Jessica Jensen of SpaceX says that hardware for Starship flight three will be ready in January, and that the company expects to receive an FAA license in February.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:27:12 UTC No. 15966461
>>15966454
No, it's not, it's just a budget question. Which is cheaper? An integrated third stage as part of the payload, or orbital refueling, and how do the mission risks compare? This doesn't have an obvious answer yet.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:27:25 UTC No. 15966462
>>15966426
>calling Starship low energy ala Trump
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:27:58 UTC No. 15966463
LOCKHEED WOMAN DOWNPLAYING
LMAOOO
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:29:25 UTC No. 15966466
>>15966459
>FAA delaying again
GOD DAMN IT THROW THEM ALL IN THE PISSLOCKS
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:30:16 UTC No. 15966467
The best part is no part
remove the government
Yes, from the Earth
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:30:24 UTC No. 15966469
>>15966461
I seriously doubt orbital refueling will be used for GTO. It will most definetly will be a kickstage. Hell you could just put a Falcon 9 upper stage on there and it would work fine.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:30:49 UTC No. 15966470
We really should just get rid of NASA as a organization all together.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:31:02 UTC No. 15966471
>>15966459
If IFT3 goes perfectly and there is no investigation, does that mean the FAA will be able to give them a new license in <30 days?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:31:17 UTC No. 15966472
>>15966459
>Jessica Jensen of SpaceX
shes a smokeshow holy shit
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:31:27 UTC No. 15966474
>september 2028
yeah the chinese will be on the moon before us lmfao
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:31:58 UTC No. 15966475
>>15966474
SpaceX blondes!
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:32:12 UTC No. 15966476
>>15966426
this is their only cope, so of course they are going to continue using it
the fact that starship architecture is designed around orbital refilling is of no concern
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:33:08 UTC No. 15966480
what are reasons for the delay?
and is artemis 2 really uncrewed?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:33:47 UTC No. 15966482
>>15966480
muh heatshield didn't deteriorate to 100% predicted specifications
no
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:34:02 UTC No. 15966483
>>15966426
>low energy: rockets only 70km tall
>high energy: rockets 170km tall
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:35:53 UTC No. 15966485
>it will take exactly one year to put gorilla glue on the heatshield so it doesn't break into pieces
If only you knew how bad things really are
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:36:56 UTC No. 15966488
>>15966461
>Which is cheaper?
>Inertial Upper Stage cost is assumed to be $4.3 million per launch whenever it is used as a kick stage.
Then year dollars. And there are cheaper kicks.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:37:44 UTC No. 15966489
TLDR SpaceX is the only thing that has their shit together. Get rid of everyone else.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:38:53 UTC No. 15966491
>>15966489
Think of how much faster they'd go if they didn't have to keep getting government permission to do their job.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:39:35 UTC No. 15966492
Artemis is synonymous with disappointment and delay
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:41:13 UTC No. 15966493
>SpaceX lady explaining to everyone they're building out the fucking Starship factory so launch cadence is not a big deal
Glad she mentioned that, people still don't understand it
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:41:31 UTC No. 15966494
>>15966491
I don't mean just the government. ULA, BO, Firefly, NASA, etc. get rid of them all.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:44:10 UTC No. 15966498
>>15966493
When she said '10 launches -- maybe more" to cert Starship, you could see the balls retract on the NASA drones.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:45:10 UTC No. 15966500
>>15966493
when old space thinks of "factory" its just a location to house their bespoke rocket manufacturing with output of once a year, not a mass production facility
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:47:15 UTC No. 15966503
>>15966342
SpaceX representative portion starts at 43:55
I only listened to about 5mins of it at the start, had to do something else
https://www.youtube.com/live/ZJVa0z
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:52:33 UTC No. 15966508
>>15966503
> we have achieved almost all of the complex parts already on our operational programs
>now it is just about piecing them together for Starship
> docked with ISS over 30 times with dragon -> Starships docking together
>launching missions with close proximity to achieve rapid refueling
> with falcon 9 we can launch missions within few hours each other, same pad within days
>cryogenic propellant part of it, we are working with ground tests right now
> on the flight test we will lean how much propellant is transferred and then iterate on the next flight to determine how many missions we need
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:53:53 UTC No. 15966510
>>15966467
based and Mileipilled
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:54:12 UTC No. 15966511
>>15966508
>Bill Nelson: the question was, how many fuel transfers?
> SpaceX: it will be roughly ten, would be my rough guess right now, but it could be lower depending on how the first flight test goes or it could be a little bit higher
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:55:58 UTC No. 15966512
>>15966488
Most of those stages are quite light. You'd need something bigger to do the job on a heavy satellite, and a Falcon 9 second stage is too heavy: it uses up the entire payload margin of a Starship.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:58:25 UTC No. 15966515
Why doesn't SpaceX train their own astronauts?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:58:35 UTC No. 15966516
uncrewed Starship moon landing targeted for 2025
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 19:59:36 UTC No. 15966519
>>15966515
they don't need to
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:00:34 UTC No. 15966521
NASA Artemis update + SpaceX massive progress:
>July 2024 Artemis II
>Novermber 2024 SpaceX Propellant Depot launch
>July 2025 SpaceX HLS Uncrewed demo
>November 2025 Artemis III
>December 2025 Lunar Gateway PPE+HALO launch on Falcon Heavy
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:01:16 UTC No. 15966522
>>15966519
Why not? Better than to rely on NASA for them.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:01:26 UTC No. 15966523
in 2028 they'll be complaining that spacex is sending tourists on lunar flybys while nasa is still waiting for their first lunar landing
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:03:37 UTC No. 15966529
>>15966523
kek
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:05:18 UTC No. 15966535
>>15966523
By 2028, NASA shouldn't exist as an organization.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:06:17 UTC No. 15966536
> If we had crew on Artemis-1, the lunar return velocities would have been maximal
>they would have not sensed any disturbance inside the vehicle
>there would have been any impact on crew safety
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:07:43 UTC No. 15966538
>>15966536
>however we're delaying Artemis II anyways because we have become autistic perfectionist control freaks slaved to our models and theories
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:09:09 UTC No. 15966541
>>15966512
If an IUS can kick a TDRS or a probe to Jupiter, it can handle a "heavy" sat.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:10:20 UTC No. 15966545
>>15966541
IUS is not available. You have your choice of Casters, Stars, or repurposing a second stage from another rocket.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:11:51 UTC No. 15966548
>>15966474
Yes, but they will die in luna orbit when trans earth injection fails.
Screenshot this
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:13:23 UTC No. 15966551
>>15966488
Do solids offer a better "dV per dollar" compared to liquid kick stages? Why use one over the other?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:15:07 UTC No. 15966555
>>15966474
Isn't the Chinese manned landing planned for 2030 or later?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:15:27 UTC No. 15966557
>>15966551
It offers more work per tax dollar in Utah.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:16:47 UTC No. 15966559
>>15966474
>delay SpaceX by 2 years for (((environmental concerns)))
>blame SpaceX
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:17:00 UTC No. 15966560
>>15966551
Solids have been seen as cheaper in the past due to solid fuel propulsion engineers not going into hibernation after 1979 like their liquid fuel cousins.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:17:31 UTC No. 15966561
Cost plus contracts and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:17:56 UTC No. 15966562
>>15966559
I hope the people responsible get whats coming at some point
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:19:05 UTC No. 15966564
>>15966426
>>15966432
Fixed that for him
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:20:09 UTC No. 15966566
>>15966545
Oh, is a kick stage an exotic technology that can't be recreated?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:20:19 UTC No. 15966567
>>15966515
Private crews on the Inspiration4 were trained by SpaceX team. They can make this more streamlined when there are more demands, but for now, they're just interested in simple air plane like no-training
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:21:55 UTC No. 15966570
>>15966566
When we're talking about old space products that have been retired, you're talking, at minimum, an eight figure development program because they don't know how to do it for less. Refueling Starships in orbit will most assuredly be less expensive than that.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:23:35 UTC No. 15966573
>the thing we need is prop transfer capability, there is no minimum number of flight tests necessary before non-crewed demo landing on the moon for Starship
> we are going to execute as many as possible and iterate along the way
>the prop transfer flight is really the main one
>what has really been happening during the last few years is building the machine that is building the machine
> we have been building all the infrastructure and factories so Starship has a high production rate right out of the gate, capable of reuse and high launch rate
> all of that is going to help us with prop transfer flight, uncrewed demo and finally the crewed flight
>it has really taken us a long time setting up infrastructure, but now that we are in flight test mode there is no bare minimum of flights, as many as we can get to iterate faster, but really it is prop transfer capability and then the uncrewed mission
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:25:43 UTC No. 15966574
Anyone else genuinely excited to see bugmen on the moon?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:25:58 UTC No. 15966577
>>15966426
Is that including orbital refueling?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:26:33 UTC No. 15966578
>>15966573
>>it has really taken us a long time setting up infrastructur
TANK FARM
STILL NOT DONE
AAAAAA
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:28:15 UTC No. 15966580
>>15966385
Gateway was never part of A3.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:28:43 UTC No. 15966582
damn that call was actually pretty great from a starship perspective, it seems to be along pretty well and they will start spamming test flights as much as possible
so lots of flights to see
dont really give a shit about artemis, its DOA pointless shit anyway, I just hope NASA isn't going to block SpaceX from doing crew stuff just because Artemis is delayed (such as Dear Moon, Polaris mission with transfer from a Dragon to Starship) and stop them from landing uncrewed test flights on Mars
after SpaceX gets the prop transfer tested and working, shouldn't they be able to start prepping for the next mars transfer window as well and send some uncrewed Starships there? the limiting factor here might be launch licenses from boca chica, how big of a problem is the amendment from 5 to N going to be?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:29:48 UTC No. 15966585
>>15966582
Issacman will be the first humans to ride Starship.
If NASA wants to slow down SpaceX, thats their politics.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:30:11 UTC No. 15966586
>>15966574
kind of, let the space race begin in earnest
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:32:14 UTC No. 15966588
>>15966551
you don't need to modify ground equipment to fuel a solid kick stage
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:34:48 UTC No. 15966592
>>15966574
Yes, if only to put the blame on the stupid beurocrats with an axe to grind against SpaceX/Musk because he doesn't subscribe their marxism.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:37:07 UTC No. 15966595
>>15966555
afaik its 2028 or 2029
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:39:04 UTC No. 15966599
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
> The next generation of launch would be done “in a very different way,” he said, acknowledging that this would put pressure on ArianeGroup’s owners, Airbus and Safran. “If they have a very competitive launcher, then they are in the race. But there is no guarantee.”
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:40:13 UTC No. 15966603
>>15966599
They should be worried.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:41:47 UTC No. 15966607
https://europeanspaceflight.com/the
> Founded in 2021, The Exploration Company has been developing a modular, reusable spacecraft called Nyx. The company is expected to propose a variant of this vehicle as part of the European Space Agency’s LEO Cargo Return Service initiative. With the announcement that the company will be developing a methane-powered high-thrust engine, it appears to be broadening its product offering.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:44:11 UTC No. 15966612
>>15966599
>>15966607
How to leave this godforsaken hellhole (Europe)?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:48:25 UTC No. 15966622
>>15966612
I guess you could just walk through the souther border in the USA at this point, legal immigration seems kind of difficult
that might change with the next admin though
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:00:32 UTC No. 15966640
>>15966628
yeah but he smoked weed once so it doesn't count. as simple as that
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:01:09 UTC No. 15966641
>>15966612
Earn enough money. Then just go wherever you please
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:07:23 UTC No. 15966652
>>15966599
In all seriousness, going with the Ariane 6 PPH probably would have been a better idea at this point
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:13:26 UTC No. 15966667
>>15966521
real
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:21:15 UTC No. 15966686
https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew
>STARLINER UPDATE: Teams from NASA and Boeing completed a two-parachute drop test for the modified parachute system of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft at the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. Parachute deployment and a soft landing of the test article were visually confirmed. We are now awaiting preliminary data analysis and will release more details from the test as they become available in the coming days.
What do you guys think they'll take away from this?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:23:01 UTC No. 15966690
>>15966686
my tax payer’s money
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:26:34 UTC No. 15966692
>>15966686
>4 years delayed for this
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:37:08 UTC No. 15966709
>>15966672
>failed payload
Vulcan sucks.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:42:58 UTC No. 15966717
>>15966672
>C3 significantly off
Muh high energy optimization.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:44:10 UTC No. 15966720
>>15966709
Was it actually Vulcan's fault?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:46:52 UTC No. 15966726
aren't there G sensors or shit which show what happened?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:47:38 UTC No. 15966727
>>15966720
Is water wet?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:51:50 UTC No. 15966735
>>15966720
No.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:52:10 UTC No. 15966736
>>15966720
probably not, Tory has also said that it went well from their perspective
Astrobotic hasn't yet revelead (or maybe don't know) the reason for leak, but probably a valve that was stuck for a reason or another, its always a valve
the reason could still be shaking by Vulcan though but still not the the "fault" of ULA in the sense that if the shaking is within the expected margin but Astrobotic just decided to wing it or something and the system couldn't handle the shaking (expected or not)
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:53:38 UTC No. 15966741
>>15966735
https://twitter.com/astrobotic/stat
so it was a valve lol I knew it
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 21:54:49 UTC No. 15966743
IT'S ALWAYS A VALVE
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:05:07 UTC No. 15966751
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:07:46 UTC No. 15966753
>>15966349
>In a submarine tho...
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:12:51 UTC No. 15966759
>>15966753
Great game if you get a decent crew to fuck around with.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:14:22 UTC No. 15966763
>>15966741
Alexa play Vindicated by Dashboard Confessional
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:17:34 UTC No. 15966764
>>15966753
STOP shilling this gayass game in every god damn thread faggot schizo.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:20:51 UTC No. 15966766
why is eric berger so mean to nasa about launch dates
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:22:12 UTC No. 15966768
>>15966349
>540rem
I suppose you can have tech operating in those conditions?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:25:16 UTC No. 15966774
ULAnon here
Get bent SpaceX fags
I reviewed all the accels, values were well within ICD limits
>>15966735
>>15966741
>>15966743
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:27:07 UTC No. 15966776
>>15966774
>ULAnon here
Get a life man
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:28:19 UTC No. 15966778
>>15966774
and?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:36:49 UTC No. 15966788
>>15966774
Brendan is that you?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:37:18 UTC No. 15966790
>>15966776
>>15966778
Seething
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:37:26 UTC No. 15966792
>>15966345
Frankly it should have happened decades ago but regulatory fuckery got in the way.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:38:55 UTC No. 15966797
>>15966362
Get Starship crew-rated and cancel the HLS variant and SLS.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:41:43 UTC No. 15966799
>>15966735
>blown ox tank
literally Apollo 13 with robots
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:55:19 UTC No. 15966815
>>15966774
you mean they were below shaken payload syndrome threshold
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:56:04 UTC No. 15966818
>>15966790
"seething" is just "umad?" for zoomers
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:56:15 UTC No. 15966819
>>15966813
why was delta 4 heavy so expensive?
in the spacex 2017 all hands I think Musk might have said it was 800 mil per launch
what is the actual cost if that is the monopolistic max price (might not be related to actual cost much, just what they can get away with)
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:08:21 UTC No. 15966836
>>15966819
>why was delta 4 heavy so expensive?
"Boeing doesn't roll out of bed for less than $1bn"
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:11:24 UTC No. 15966843
>>15966839
"The safest launch is no launch."
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:11:24 UTC No. 15966844
>>15966326
drain the radiation belts temporarily
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:13:04 UTC No. 15966847
>>15966774
>Collision with Centaur damaged a valve
Sad!
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:15:06 UTC No. 15966851
>>15966815
Yes, if the vibration values are less than what you tell the customer the vibration values might be, you have not shaken the payload.
Whether astrobotic adequately qualified the vehicle is a whole different question.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:16:20 UTC No. 15966852
>>15966819
The more you launch a rocket the less each launch will cost because you've got more flights to spread the fixed costs of your factory, pad, etc, between. Delta IV never had a great flight rate to begin with due to the constellation collapse in the late 90s. After ULA was formed Delta IV was stuck with just the less frequent heavy missions because it actually had a heavy configuration while the Atlas V didn't. At the same time, Atlas V got all of the less demanding launches because it was a bit cheaper. That left Delta IV with a very expensive factory and launch pad with maybe one launch per year to cover the costs of.
It's also artificially inflated by having the government as its only customer. Military missions always have extra requirements that drive the price above the commercial standard.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:19:51 UTC No. 15966856
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:20:22 UTC No. 15966857
>>15966326
Callisto is a far better alternative for many reasons.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:20:30 UTC No. 15966858
>>15966852
I appreciate the copypaste even if it glosses over the ULA monopoly disincentivising lowering costs.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:21:28 UTC No. 15966859
>>15966326
in this scenario synthetic bodies will out-compete biological ones
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:27:30 UTC No. 15966872
https://youtu.be/eneGYA11CWQ?si=_nS
the nsf guy is getting extremely hard to look at
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:29:09 UTC No. 15966873
Polaris dawn and Dreamchasers maiden flight are in the same month
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:29:28 UTC No. 15966876
There are no ULA employees here
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:30:05 UTC No. 15966877
>>15966872
I think it's mostly the strange and unfortunate choice of lighting
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:32:50 UTC No. 15966886
>>15966876
Hello
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:33:31 UTC No. 15966890
>>15966877
He's a literal egg head and desperatwly needs to shave. flabby neck/chin, go to the gym
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:34:53 UTC No. 15966893
>>15966885
China is extremely fucking strong
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:38:44 UTC No. 15966898
>>15966839
Alright place your bets. Will GTA VI come out before or after Artemis II?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:38:50 UTC No. 15966899
Asking here since ChatGPT wont give good answer:
It's known that many thought Apollo was a precurser to much bigger operations,
But were any apollo missions actually tasked with things related to lunar settlement?
Did any missions recon the terrain for that purpose?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:39:09 UTC No. 15966900
>>15966885
This is like Mars in the 20th century, most of the shit doesn't work.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:53:28 UTC No. 15966923
>>15966885
Let that sink in
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:56:12 UTC No. 15966928
>>15966326
>All these worlds are yours, except Europa; make no attempt to colonize here
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:59:02 UTC No. 15966934
>>15966511
>>15966508
I wonder how many trips they could reduce if they staged SuperHeavy say 10mi higher than where it currently does hot staging in addition to the 10% length increase expected on the V2 Starship design, which brings with it more fuel to get to orbit and keep more in the tank so that less flights to full tank are necessary.
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jan 2024 23:59:43 UTC No. 15966938
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/
>Nelson says he's not concerned that China will land on the Moon before the U.S. He said they have an aggressive plan and it would be a PR coup, but he doesn't think it's a reality.
Perhaps the most important quote of the evening
Rest of that conference is meh
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:02:45 UTC No. 15966943
>>15966938
>dumb boomer thinks China bad
wow so insightful
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:03:20 UTC No. 15966944
https://democrats-science.house.gov
Congressional hearing on Artemis delays next week
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:07:33 UTC No. 15966955
>>15966405
Seething troon kek
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:08:41 UTC No. 15966958
>>15966928
Who are you quoting?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:09:07 UTC No. 15966959
>>15966938
what is so interesting about that? Heard it too but its so information free its pointless to talk about
of course he is going to say that, doesn't matter if its true or not
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:10:43 UTC No. 15966962
>>15966959
>>15966938
good thread you found though though I would say a more put together version of what was talked about is in >>15966839
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:12:29 UTC No. 15966965
>>15966944
chance someone is going to blame SpaceX?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:12:41 UTC No. 15966966
>>15966958
How do you not get that fucking reference anon?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:14:21 UTC No. 15966970
>>15966965
Artemis is a bad program, end of discussion.
But yes SpaceX will get blamed for not coming up with HLS on time.
>>15966944
No one is actually going until they have the technology base to support a regular cadence of launches to the moon and back
We're nowhere near ready yet and certainly China/Russia aren't either
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:14:32 UTC No. 15966971
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:15:35 UTC No. 15966974
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:18:16 UTC No. 15966977
>>15966966
I dont watch movies or read books other than textbooks you fat nigger
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:18:58 UTC No. 15966979
>>15966974
so the messages of children from all over the world are going to smash into Luna?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:20:05 UTC No. 15966983
>>15966977
You uncultured swine, go play in vacuum.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:23:14 UTC No. 15966988
Ahhh wishing decompression on a random for not getting a reference, never change /sfg/.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:25:30 UTC No. 15966994
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlK
READ A BOOK!
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:25:38 UTC No. 15966995
>>15966983
Lay off fiction, gaylord
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:27:46 UTC No. 15967003
>>15966995
Not before you kiss the bottom of a raptor exhaust plume.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:28:47 UTC No. 15967005
>>15966979
No, they're going to enter into a multi-thousand year orbit around the sun.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:32:49 UTC No. 15967015
SpaceX needs to launch Starship like 20 times in 2 years to make the demo possible. Unbelievable.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:34:03 UTC No. 15967023
>>15967015
Remove the FAA and they can do that in 1.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:38:09 UTC No. 15967028
>>15966974
Pittsburgh truly is the Russia of America
Leave it to Pittsburgh to fuck it up
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:44:01 UTC No. 15967042
>>15967005
Is it confirmed that Peregrine actually is in a heliocentric orbit? Or that it has moved significantly outside the initial trajectory Centaur set it on? Seemed like all they've been doing for the past couple days is burning RCS to keep it sun oriented
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 00:48:23 UTC No. 15967050
>>15967028
Sienna Miller was right
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 01:14:13 UTC No. 15967112
>>15967050
about isru?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 01:32:56 UTC No. 15967141
>>15966938
>"russia will never invade ukraine"
american politicians right up until russia actually did it. then they're like "how did we miss it?". same will happen with "china will never beat us to the moon".
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 01:45:02 UTC No. 15967159
>>15967141
>during the Cold War NASA administrators were getting frequent updates about the Soviet space program from the CIA
I assume he knows more than he's letting on
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 01:49:40 UTC No. 15967164
>>15967112
It's just a dumb boomer reference. It's an ok city but kind of depressing.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 01:49:51 UTC No. 15967165
>>15966384
I honestly hope so. That's what NASA and Congress deserve
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 01:51:42 UTC No. 15967166
>>15967141
The lunar mission plan they're following is reasonable, but their lander is still a model and they changed the size on their next gen crew capsule so that's undergoing a major if not near-complete rework. The engines for the LM-10 seem to be testing well, but progress looks like it's going at more of a Blue Origin speed than a SpaceX one. CALT hasn't shown off any test tanks, and no one's broken any ground on a launch complex, and that last item is going to take at least 24 months to finish off. They could beat Artemis to the moon, but that would be more on Artemis slow rolling their own program than China decisively progressing forward.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:01:58 UTC No. 15967182
>>15966876
Here's the box they sent us prior to launch
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:07:13 UTC No. 15967192
>>15967182
How much money does shit like this cost? Or the 10lb blocks of plastic to contain a couple metal shavings as a souvenir? All this shit adds up, for the cost of this crap you could do actual rocket science.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:08:41 UTC No. 15967194
>>15967192
Like $10? Maybe? And the acrylic things are usually made on someone's own time.
I waste more time taking a shit and posting on 4chan.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:09:26 UTC No. 15967196
>>15967182
what's inside
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:11:08 UTC No. 15967201
>>15967194
For $10 I can eat for the day with leftovers to spare, wasteful pigdisgusting companies leaking cash like water through a sieve. Not even Elon understands the true meaning of pinching pennies.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:11:53 UTC No. 15967204
>>15967196
Cheesy rocket-themed snacks & a soda. Coloring book & pencils for kids. They'll give us a challenge coin & mission patch at some point too, nothing really "special" though.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:12:46 UTC No. 15967207
>>15967204
>challenge coin
Like in AA?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:13:38 UTC No. 15967212
>>15967201
I bet the west is decadent and weak too?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:14:27 UTC No. 15967213
>>15967207
Sorta? But the MIC tradition of doing it comes from the military.
>>15967201
$10 won't buy you lunch in a first world country. I love you Anon, but you've gotta do better than that.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:14:54 UTC No. 15967214
>>15967204
coins are nice
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:16:18 UTC No. 15967218
>>15967213
>$10
yeah that's like a shawarma here, no drinks. or maybe if you get a small one you can fit a soda or smth
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:19:14 UTC No. 15967222
>>15967214
One of my coworkers has an NROL-39 coin. He worked on the mission. I am insanely jealous
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:20:45 UTC No. 15967226
>>15967213
it easily buys you two lunches in Japan
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:20:58 UTC No. 15967227
>>15967222
whoa that looks nice
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:22:01 UTC No. 15967229
>>15967226
If you consider instant ramen lunch then sure
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:22:36 UTC No. 15967230
>>15967213
>>15967218
eh, just had a set meal(sandwhich, regular fries and drink) in jack-in-the-box for 7 bux here in socal
though i suppose regular size is not really considered a meal here in the USofA
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:23:42 UTC No. 15967233
I spent twelve dollars and change on a chicken sandwich, fries, and a drink at wendys today
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:24:36 UTC No. 15967234
>>15967229
instant ramen isn't even $1
Big bowls of ebi ramen at local restaurants are $4
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:30:54 UTC No. 15967241
>>15967234
Assuming a $10 a day budget and assuming you can rollover leftovers into the next day (buy a loaf of bread on monday, you still have some of it on tuesday) you can absolutely feed yourself sufficiently. Decadent eaters will be a liability on Mars until such time as there is abundance again.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:33:12 UTC No. 15967242
Unless the FAA fucks off I don't see spaceX allowed enough launches to complete fuel transfer testing this year.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:39:09 UTC No. 15967249
>>15967207
>going on 1 day(s) since I shook a payload to death
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:39:48 UTC No. 15967250
Let's say hypothetically, if I went to Mars, what alcoholic beverages should I bring assuming I never return?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:40:19 UTC No. 15967251
>>15967234
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Nissin-F
30 cents a piece. Thats just walmart. If you goto a local food store, it will be 10-20 cents and bulk discounts too
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:41:39 UTC No. 15967253
>>15967242
Biden's NASA wants SpaceX to be regulated so it could slow down SpaceX.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/stat
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:43:04 UTC No. 15967256
>>15967241
well going that way 10$ can get me like 30 eggs and maybe some beans or rice
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:47:04 UTC No. 15967258
>>15967242
The FAA is hardly delaying SpaceX and if SpaceX stops having mishaps during launches they'll get their licenses much faster, too. If the next Starship launch happens in February without a bigger issue than the last one I expect all five launches to happen this year.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:52:48 UTC No. 15967262
>>15967230
>>15967229
>>15967233
>>15967234
>>15967241
>>15967251
>>15967256
>/sfg/
>spacefood general
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:53:24 UTC No. 15967263
>>15967258
Sure they might get a single prop transfer test done this year, but they would be blocked from testing a full 10 tanker mission.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:55:47 UTC No. 15967265
>>15967262
I love the freeze dried ice cream they sell at museum gift shops
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:00:06 UTC No. 15967269
>>15967250
have greenhouse
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:01:36 UTC No. 15967271
>>15967249
One day at a time
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:02:56 UTC No. 15967272
how scrambled are the astronauts going to get that ride on top of SLS?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:04:10 UTC No. 15967273
>>15967258
>The FAA is hardly delaying SpaceX
Fuck you I remember the last 4 years
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:05:59 UTC No. 15967275
>>15967258
The FAA can GO FUCK YOURSELF
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:07:00 UTC No. 15967276
>>15967258
They delayed the initial environmental review by 2 years lmao. Then few more months after IFT-1, then few more months now.
Its a fucking joke.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:13:26 UTC No. 15967280
If the Republic of Texas seceded do you think President Abbot would let SpaceX do whatever they want on the beach?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:19:50 UTC No. 15967284
>>15967280
No because they would be immediatly invaded and overthrown by the cartel.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:20:58 UTC No. 15967285
>>15967258
>mishaps
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:25:07 UTC No. 15967290
>>15967273
>>15967276
Not the FAA's fault SpaceX started the EA so late, they should've done it way earlier (ideally just a new EIS for 2016 ITS back when still nobody cared and all this wouldn't be an issue because they'd be cleared for a much larger rocket). Also not the FAA's fault SpaceX take so long with their mishap investigations, if they're done earlier they can get their license earlier.
>>15967285
referring to the first two full stack Starship flights and the FAA calling it a mishap investigation
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:31:45 UTC No. 15967297
>>15967290
Fuck you
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:47:04 UTC No. 15967316
>>15967290
Also I hope they are in preliminary discussions for extending the number of launches because that WR/probably EA is gonna be a bitch to get with how the last one went and things have been going. Hope they've been enabling lots of check ups on animals and stuff because the more data they have that the animals don't fucking care the easier it'll be to argue they won't care with 10, 15, 25 launches either. I'd guess you'd want to have one or two more smooth launches for data and then go for it? Or maybe that's when they'll finally go for KSC (start on LC-49 already cowards) because honestly I'm not sure if they can get away with much more at Boca Chica before getting EIS'd.
>>15967297
Cogent argument
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:49:59 UTC No. 15967319
>>15967317
I don't understand this reusable bicycle meme
do you recover the tires and attach them to a new frame?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:58:40 UTC No. 15967327
>>15967284
>Implying that the cartel won't just use starship to land 100tons of drugs wherever they want to sell it
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:06:33 UTC No. 15967342
>>15967332
they don't have a winch, he's the chain puller
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:08:07 UTC No. 15967347
Should next OP be a Vast shill thread or a Stoke shill thread?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:09:19 UTC No. 15967349
>>15967347
Stoke is cooler
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:10:14 UTC No. 15967352
>>15967347
SLS a shit - thread
but it won't be necessary to make one for like half a day
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:10:20 UTC No. 15967353
>>15967332
This is the guy inside the Spinlaunch accelerator actually throwing the rockets
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:10:29 UTC No. 15967354
>>15966362
Space X sends a crew to the moon to test HLS
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:13:48 UTC No. 15967364
>>15967352
Strongly considering this
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:15:26 UTC No. 15967367
>>15967347
Should be a Vulcan bad vibes thread
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:15:29 UTC No. 15967368
>>15967347
Gravitics! :3
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:25:01 UTC No. 15967383
is the romanian guy still grifting?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:25:56 UTC No. 15967384
>>15967367
I already made the Total Peregrine Death edition youre kicking a dead horse at this point
>>15967383
Yes and the ARCA twitter account got hacked KEEEEEEEK
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:27:09 UTC No. 15967388
>>15967368
Definetly not, and yes you can thank that trans emoticon there. VASTGODS RULE LEO GTFO
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:32:25 UTC No. 15967394
>>15966326
this needs to wait until there's more off earth infrastructure
until then this is Robert DeNiro territory
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:35:31 UTC No. 15967396
>>15967388
Vast! (｀・ω・´)
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:36:21 UTC No. 15967400
>>15967396
>resorting to falseflagging
kek
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:37:16 UTC No. 15967402
>>15966362
A friendly executive branch unhobbling SpaceX, SpaceX doing the whole mission without NASA, and equal parts talent, good luck and hard work.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:38:18 UTC No. 15967404
>>15966384
I'll post in this thread from the Chinese moon base
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:38:33 UTC No. 15967405
>>15967402
And relieving the FAA of the duty of regulating spaceflight and leaving it to a new dedicated branch that is actually FRIENDLY to ambition.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:38:41 UTC No. 15967406
>>15967290
FAA determination of whether or not to do EIS took 2 years. Thats the fucking stupid part. They should have sped up the process because its a fucking national security program. Instead they decided to play politics with castration ideology
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:39:18 UTC No. 15967407
>>15967405
agreed
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:41:17 UTC No. 15967411
>>15967405
let SpaceX self-regulate, I'm sure they would do it more effectively and faster
probably develop some system that could be adopted widely
total bureucracy death
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:44:15 UTC No. 15967417
>>15967411
US government would never let go of any fraction of power they have, ESPECIALLY to a company that is literally saying it wants to colonize Mars, not for the US but for themselves. Obviously I would prefer SpaceX to self regulat but lets not fool ourselves into believing the government arent a bunch of power bungry bastards.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:44:18 UTC No. 15967418
>>15967405
>and leaving it to a new dedicated branch
Anyone who thinks you can fix old bureaucracy by giving its responsibility to new bureaucracy doesn't really understand the problem
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:47:22 UTC No. 15967421
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:49:38 UTC No. 15967425
>>15967405
>REGULATE
Remove the regulation as commercial space venture is extremely nascent and has no room for 2-3 years of regulatory delays for a new project. Its just insane.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:54:06 UTC No. 15967432
>>15967425
Again, you fucking morons, read >>15967417. The US government would never give up their power over AAAAANNNYTHING willingly, MOST DEFINETLY INCLUDING any sort of homeland regulation, especially for a company they directly work with via USSF where they want quality control and for other companies, even if their track record is good theyre a bunch of stingy bastards who will always keep an eye on everything you do.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:57:28 UTC No. 15967437
>>15967432
laws can be changed and it seems like Musk is interested in affecting policy now
maybe the 2 year EA was part of the reason to buy Twitter
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:57:29 UTC No. 15967438
>>15967432
Time to remove the US gov and replace it with something less restrictive.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 04:57:44 UTC No. 15967439
shit in my moith
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:01:41 UTC No. 15967445
>>15967439
What is a moith and why do you own one.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:04:20 UTC No. 15967450
>Let SpaceX self-regulate!
lmao
The only thing the FAA requires is to not kill anyone and to unfuck your shit when you fucked it. They have been extremely accommodating to SpaceX and only resulted in minimal delays that weren't SpaceX's own fault.
>>15967406
Yes, that's how long a PEA usually takes. Again, not the FAA's fault SpaceX started the process so late, they knew it'd take this long so they should've started earlier, like when they started bending metal there and shit would've been done way early and with less enviro screeching because nobody cared yet. The military goes through these processes as well, there's no accelerating and Starship is years from being relevant for national security anyways. Also SpaceX wasn't even able to launch until shortly before the PEA conclusion anyways.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:07:29 UTC No. 15967452
The FAA must be conpletely dismantled and their employees rounded up and executed (lawfully).
Journalists must be rounded up and executed (lawfully).
These are just suggested enforcements of the exectutive that must occur to ensure a prosperous space future. This is not investment advice
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:10:09 UTC No. 15967461
>>15967450
Theyve been very accomodating with the resources they have, their stretched too thin across aerospace and spaceflight, the branch needs to be subdivided so the spaceflight sector can have more resources to have the regulatory proceedings dealt with quickly. I know theyve been accomodating but its still hostile to ambition with how slow and little resources they get from congress.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:10:27 UTC No. 15967463
>>15967455
Built in dilator
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:11:43 UTC No. 15967465
>>15967463
Built in dick chopper
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:13:47 UTC No. 15967469
>>15967452
Gov bootlickers also needs to be sent to gulag and be re-educated on the merits of bootlicking
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:14:08 UTC No. 15967470
>>15967465
Built in noose
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:17:13 UTC No. 15967475
>>15967455
Looks like the suit Collins is working on. Wonder if NASA will alternate between it and the Axiom suit for Artemis missions.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:19:07 UTC No. 15967478
>>15967475
haha it looks a little like the amogus guys
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:21:05 UTC No. 15967481
>>15966515
>They don't wanna deal with an Astronauts Union.
Jokes aside that's something commercial space flight providers may have to reckon with eventually
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:22:23 UTC No. 15967482
>>15967481
If what they are selling is livings on Mars they won't worry about that for a long while.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:24:54 UTC No. 15967486
>>15967452
Or Elon could get his head out of his ass, have his companies take one step back from the edge of legality and stop blaming regulations for delays they are responsible for themselves.
>>15967461
They already have the AST division for all things commercial space, congress could easily just give them more resources which they have surely been requesting. That's not exactly the FAA's fault either, they have no control over how much they get. That recent congressional panel (that they weren't invited to for whatever reason) pretty much had that purpose, to try and get congress to take note and give AST more funding. Although looking at >Boeing I'd say the rest of the agency could probably use more funding too lel
Also I don't think a couple of weeks of review after a mishap can be considered hostile to ambition, once the kinks are worked out I expect licenses to come as smoothly as for F9. SpaceX has to do those investigations anyways to figure out what went wrong and having someone looking over their shoulder may motivate them to get it fixed properly more quickly.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:25:10 UTC No. 15967487
>>15967461
They usually don't need to do that much, and lean heavily on SLD30 and 45 to any of the actual heavy lifting when it comes to design certification. When SpaceX all of the sudden starts launching rockets with faulty flight termination systems from a pad that SLD30/45 don't care about, the FAA has to take up all that slack.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:29:22 UTC No. 15967491
>>15966574
Yes. Congress needs to wake the fuck up and actually demand something of NASA with a deadline that isn't perpetually 2+ election cycles away
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:29:56 UTC No. 15967493
>>15967486
having fish and wildlife do some absolute bullshit month long review is hostile to ambition
what kind of fucking bullshit was that? absolutely ridiculous
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:40:47 UTC No. 15967504
>>15967493
That's part of the NEPA process that the FAA has no influence over and also one of those things SpaceX could've had done earlier by assessing it properly in the PEA (or alternatively avoided completely by not discharging water in the wetlands but that's not really an option at that location). SpaceX was just lazy/fucked around and found out by trying to get away without a flame deflector, that was all entirely of their own making.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:42:13 UTC No. 15967508
>>15967504
SpaceX removed it because it would have delayed the project by 5-10 years.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:45:52 UTC No. 15967511
>>15967508
Clearly it delayed the project by at most a month and could've not delayed it at all if they'd assessed it in the PEA instead of putting "we'll have water deluge but we're not gonna assess it lol" in there.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:48:27 UTC No. 15967515
>>15967511
Not everything needs to be assessed
Reject ridiculous rules, roll back federal overreach
The EPA rules about wetlands are horseshit
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:51:38 UTC No. 15967521
>>15967511
>hehe just delay 2000 employees for a month, we are government employees who get paid no matter what :)
Then you wonder why "old space" existed
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:52:13 UTC No. 15967523
>>15967218
Where the fuck do you guys live? I bought an 8 pack of chicken thighs and like 1.5lbs of broccoli florets for ~$11 on Sunday. Meal prepped for a whole week of lunches plus sunday dinner with the addition of some rice out of the $1/lb bag I bought months ago
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:55:11 UTC No. 15967527
>DOOD JUST MEAL PREP DOOD
>JUST BUY IN BULK AND PREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP THE MEALS
>EAT CHICKEN AND RICE EVERY DAY EVERY MEAL
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 05:59:02 UTC No. 15967529
>>15967527
Anyone who says this should be shot.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:01:25 UTC No. 15967534
>>15967527
You can eat pasta and beef too, potatoes
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:01:58 UTC No. 15967537
>>15967529
BE SURE TO WASH YOUR RICE AND BOIL YOUR CHICKEN
ALSO ONIONS PROTEIN SHAKE FOR BREAKFAST
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:02:27 UTC No. 15967539
>>15967521
Maybe you can't read but it wouldn't have been a month delay if SpaceX had just done it earlier, but since they were too lazy they'd to do it then. This could easily be avoided by not being a fucking retard and thinking you can get away without it.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:09:32 UTC No. 15967546
>>15967527
>>15967529
>I CANT COOOOK
Your Uber Eats driver with the cold Wendy's will be here in 30-50 minutes. That'll $30 plus tip
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:12:08 UTC No. 15967549
>>15967546
I can cook my own food you stupid nigger I just dont like eating it cold out of the fucking fridge and microwaved like I'm some poor fucking hobo at a cafeteria. I WILL COOK MY OWN FOOD AND EAT IT RIGHT AFTER YOU FUCKING BASTARDS THERES NO NEED TO MEAL PREP STUPID SHIT AHEAD OF TIME I WILL ENJOY MY FUCKING FOOD AND YOU WILL NOT SAY A THING ABOUT IT FUCK YOU FUCK YOUR EATING PROGRAMS FUCK YOUR SCAM APPS FUCK YOUR DISGUSTING MEALS AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL FUCK YA MUDDAH
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:13:48 UTC No. 15967552
>>15967527
>>15967549
retarded
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:14:42 UTC No. 15967553
>>15967534
>>15967549
I literally made braised beef and mashed potatoes for dinner lol I just meal prep for my lunches for the work week
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:16:00 UTC No. 15967555
>>15967553
>slop'o shit
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:16:29 UTC No. 15967557
>>15967553
That looks fucking disgusting. Go eat your rotten mush and piss off, you wont dictate shit about how I cook my food
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:17:41 UTC No. 15967558
>>15967553
Anyways, well probably be eating onions paste for the first few decades on Mars anyways
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:17:49 UTC No. 15967559
/sfg/ - shitty food general
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:18:01 UTC No. 15967560
>>15967553
this looks like vomit anon
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:19:03 UTC No. 15967561
/sfg/ - Stupid Fuck General
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:19:38 UTC No. 15967562
dood check out my instant mash potatos and canned beef
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:21:08 UTC No. 15967563
>>15967553
MREs look better than this
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:21:35 UTC No. 15967565
>>15966899
>It's known that many thought
No fucking wonder ChatGPT doesn't want to answer you. It's been taught not to engage other bots.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:28:30 UTC No. 15967570
>>15967560
>>15967563
Sorry guys next time I'll sprinkle chives or some other decorative green shit on it to make it appeal more to the /sfg/ food critics. I'll have you know it tasted fucking great and I made it from scratch for less than $10.
Moving forward, has there been any serious research done on space faring aquaculture? Love me a good fish fry
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:30:29 UTC No. 15967572
>>15967570
>costed him $10
You do know a pack of instant mash potatoes is $2 and that beef and slop is probably $4 right? And thats $6 for 4 meals? You fucking retard? Preaching to us about saving money TAKE A LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:35:25 UTC No. 15967579
/sfg/ - Super Fun General
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:37:13 UTC No. 15967581
>>15967579
You brought this on yourself by acting like a high and mighty ass hole dick weed. You think people respond well to you attention whoring in a place where youre supposed to be anonymous??
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:40:04 UTC No. 15967584
>>15967572
I must have cut deep with that Uber Eats jab. There were 4 blade steaks in the pack and I have a bunch of left over mashed potatoes because I bought 3 huge ones - who the fuck eats instant mashed potatoes who isn't in school/prison/military? I will grant that instant taters are the best option for space flight and I'll admit the red wine I braised the beef in was left over from a previous shopping trip and I already had onions and garlic on hand
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:43:55 UTC No. 15967588
What the fuck? Wasn't the original comment about buying lunch? When did this thread become about retards boiling potatoes to minmax their $/kg of a meal
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:46:59 UTC No. 15967594
>>15967249
>Metal from Vulcan booster
I don't get it. It obviously wasn't from a flown rocket. Is it from a test article? That doesn't really feel very special. That's like getting a shaving off one of the thousands of rings lying on the side of the road at Starbase.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:47:59 UTC No. 15967596
>>15967588
Diligence and discipline are what it takes to set up a Mars colony, not Uber Eats fast food
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:49:10 UTC No. 15967598
/sfg/ - Slapfight General
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:49:19 UTC No. 15967599
>>15967594
Cut chips (generally the first cut) are traditionally kept and given as gifts in trinkets like these
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:50:49 UTC No. 15967600
>>15967594
Metal shavings from milling out isowaffles.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:52:00 UTC No. 15967602
>>15967481
Reminder that the only reason why the Shuttle couldn't be automatically controlled (like Buran) was because the Astronaut Corps (read: Astronaut Union) were worried they were gonna be automated and lose their jobs.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 07:02:35 UTC No. 15967611
>>15967604
Colonizing Venus Pros:
>High atmospheric pressure
>Similar gravity to Earth
Colonizing Venus Cons:
>Lethal atmosphere
>Lethal surface temperatures
>Unfavorable atmospheric composition
>Deep gravity well makes orbital access on par with Earth for difficulty
>Planet's resources, such as they are, are inaccessible with all foreseeable technologies in this or the next century
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 07:13:28 UTC No. 15967623
>>15967604
Venus is archetypically female while Mars is archetypically male. We're all faggots here who like giant phallic objects (rockets) so we also want to colonize the male planet. Same reason why /sfg/ doesn't like Lunar colonization, because the Luna is a woman.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 07:17:46 UTC No. 15967625
>>15967623
>we
ever heard of spin launch?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 07:29:31 UTC No. 15967627
>>15967604
The only kinds of Venus colonies you can build without full terraforming (orbital habs) are only economically viable if Venus's location as a stopover "around" the sun is worthwhile to get a better launch window for going other places further out, like Mars, Jupiter, or the asteroids, so you need to colonize those places first. You'd think Mars would be the stopover point but transfer mechanics penalize the fuck out of travel between two bodies with very similar orbital speeds.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 07:52:36 UTC No. 15967633
>>15967625
meme concept that isn't scalable even if it were to work
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 07:57:32 UTC No. 15967634
>>15967633
You need to kill yourself immediatly
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:01:28 UTC No. 15967638
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:02:17 UTC No. 15967639
>>15967637
What u say bich
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:03:42 UTC No. 15967640
>>15967634
Face it, rockets will always be the superior option to get to space. Long and girthy, they can thrust hard enough to blast the seed of human civilization all over other planetary bodies. Spin launch could only put small packages into low orbit at best. Interplanetary societies will gawk at its small payload size.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:06:06 UTC No. 15967642
Astrobotic bros, Peregrine isn't showing up on the DSN website.
I've been looking throughout today and this is the first time I haven't seen it communicating.
Has it truely died?
https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:08:11 UTC No. 15967646
>>15967642
Yea they announced it. Shits finished
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:11:05 UTC No. 15967649
>>15967646
It was a success
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:12:03 UTC No. 15967650
>>15967642
DSN is gonna get raped when dozens of CLPS landers and cubesats all try to get network time.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:13:10 UTC No. 15967651
>>15967604
We do, but it will take so long for SpaceX to develop a blimp that can stay floating forever with little required maintenance against acid rain so we'll all be old as fuck by the time anything meaningful happens. Meanwhile literally the only thing preventing us from living on Mars is getting there.
Personally, I would like to attempt to colonize the Venus underground, but realistically I would now be discussing 2100 goals instead of 2050 goals and there is no way anyone here including me will stay around that long (Aubrey de Grey got MeToo'ed so it's over)
What does /sfg/ think the next target after Mars should be? Imo Titan is the most appealing
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:16:07 UTC No. 15967654
>>15967653
>putting SLS and the Shittle moneyburning/murdering machine in this compilation
Literally why? It makes the collage look insincere.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:23:03 UTC No. 15967658
>>15967654
>collage
i think you know why its there anon
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:30:22 UTC No. 15967667
>>15967654
It's a useful scale comparison and people know about them, so I think that's part of it.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:35:07 UTC No. 15967670
>>15967650
nah bro they are all programmed to die within a month anyway
5'10 245lbs Mountain of a Man at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:57:04 UTC No. 15967681
Was at the Tropical Smoothie Cafe in South Padre Island earlier. I was browsing /sfg/ while enjoying being near SpaceX during my sabbatical. After a long semester of harassing female college students, and telling my stories of working in the field as a data analyst for JPL. Looking forward, us members of the inteligencia will enjoy the successful starship test next month.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:58:50 UTC No. 15967684
>>15966321
What would be the point in going there? There's no other life in the solar system.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:01:37 UTC No. 15967687
>>15967684
you answered your question with your follow up
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:02:34 UTC No. 15967689
>>15967687
No I didn't?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:03:05 UTC No. 15967690
>>15967689
There's no other life in the solar system, that is the point in going
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:03:18 UTC No. 15967691
What would the edge of the universe look like? Genuine question.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:05:00 UTC No. 15967692
>>15967690
You retarded?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:05:52 UTC No. 15967693
>>15967692
No he isn't, you on the other habd
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:06:33 UTC No. 15967694
>>15967691
The edge of the observable universe is exactly the same as here with different galaxies, just more universe.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:08:17 UTC No. 15967696
>>15967691
What does the edge of the earth look like? There is no edge of the universe.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:08:19 UTC No. 15967697
>>15967694
Not the observable universe, dummy, I mean the whole entire thing. If it's not infinite, and it is flat, then there's necessarily a border somewhere out there where spacetime simply ends. What would that look like? How would particles behave when they hit the rim? I cannot imagine it.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:09:28 UTC No. 15967698
>>15967696
>What does the edge of the earth look like? There is no edge of the universe.
This analogy only makes sense if we're assuming the universe has positive curvature.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:09:38 UTC No. 15967699
>>15967693
Yeah ok, spending trillions of dollars to go to a dead moon with no life. That totally has a point.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:11:34 UTC No. 15967704
>>15967699
Conquer it, make it ours. Breed there.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:15:27 UTC No. 15967709
>>15967704
I don't think anyone would want to breed on a frozen ice ball.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:16:03 UTC No. 15967710
>>15967709
Inuit exist.
5'10 245lbs Mountain of a Man at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:19:07 UTC No. 15967716
>>15967699
Money isn't real when it comes to this level of technology. It is only real to the workers who make the equipment. They are so detached from what is going on they may as well be seals paid to clap and bounce beach balls on their whiskered noses.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:19:52 UTC No. 15967717
>>15967651
>What does /sfg/ think the next target after Mars should be? Imo Titan is the most appealing
To visit, possibly Ceres or another large main belt asteroid. To stay, Callisto
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:22:15 UTC No. 15967720
>>15967717
there is scripture on this
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 10:36:09 UTC No. 15967768
>>15967649
meme that aged like fine piss
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 10:56:05 UTC No. 15967777
>>15966333
Elon should've married her. He would have never gone mad
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 11:28:08 UTC No. 15967796
>>15967697
>then there's necessarily a border somewhere out there where spacetime simply ends
Not really actually. If the universe is not infinite then the most likely geometry is finite unbound, finite volume with no edges. If you kept going in one direction you would loop back to where you started, this is a closed universe. A lot like the surface of the Earth, which is finite but has no edge.
That said given current data it appears that even if the universe were slightly closed like this you would never be able to to travel far enough to loop back. Most likely it's infinite though.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:15:26 UTC No. 15967886
>>15967882
Lots of shots from this morning
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:16:51 UTC No. 15967888
>>15967886
This is flight hardware
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:24:14 UTC No. 15967898
>>15967895
>Is there any truth to this?
If you use an outrageously light weight payload into a weird orbit, probably. ULA likes to advertise "energy" in their launch vehicles because it sounds important but doesn't actually mean anything. People should just pay attention to payload mass, delta-V calculations, and burn profiles.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:25:16 UTC No. 15967901
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:36:22 UTC No. 15967916
>>15967901
Milled orthogrid for the fin boxes and interstage is an interesting choice.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:47:38 UTC No. 15967926
>>15967886
It’s headed to LC-36, will it go vertical?
https://x.com/johnkrausphotos/statu
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:51:29 UTC No. 15967940
>>15967651
>Personally, I would like to attempt to colonize the Venus underground
It doesn't actually get cooler underground there. It's just hotter and hotter as you go down.
It only is semi cool shallow underground on Earth because it's the average of day and night temperatures.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:53:37 UTC No. 15967945
>>15966329
the surface gets irradiated pretty badly, but apart from the cosmic rays it's pretty low-penetrating stuff, so a couple meters of ice overhead eliminate the dose rates.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:54:01 UTC No. 15967946
>>15967709
Ur mom is a frozen iceball that's why we call her the Ice Giant
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:55:36 UTC No. 15967951
>>15966768
yes, easily. I work in a facility where we have cameras stuck down into holes that are soaking up over 1400 rem per day, every day. no issues.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:57:31 UTC No. 15967958
>>15967895
Vulcan, etc, are more mechanically efficient, while Falcon is more economically efficient. Vulcan can do it “better” but probably not cheaper
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:06:04 UTC No. 15967972
>>15966469
Adds like $20m per launch, and they need to pay to keep stage production going.
Conversely, Starship can just get a few Tanker reloads in LEO then drop off the payload in GEO & return. If SpaceX thinks ~4x Tanker launches will be cheaper than building ki k stages, they'll do the Tanker launches.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:14:21 UTC No. 15967982
>>15967972
If they even need that many: 150 tons of extra propellant gives a ship with a 7 ton payload an extra 2.8 km/s of delta-V. A GTO to GEO burn should be less than 1.6 km/s.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:16:45 UTC No. 15967985
>>15967901
In not-shit resolution and source: https://twitter.com/planetdeimos/st
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:33:51 UTC No. 15968008
>>15967985
>not for flight
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:44:33 UTC No. 15968023
>>15967958
mechanical efficiency which doesn't improve economic efficiency is a waste of effort.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:06:26 UTC No. 15968051
>>15967913
At least you aren't leaking piss
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:09:01 UTC No. 15968054
>>15967553
That looks pretty good, missing vegetables in some form though
Or is that mushrooms on top of the mash?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:11:28 UTC No. 15968055
>>15967553
say you're working in a classified location that's far away from hotspots w/ supermarkets/restaurants etc, this is the shit you get served right?
basically military rations
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:15:28 UTC No. 15968059
>>15967553
bunch of cooklets in this thread.
looks like you'd expect and probably tastes real good.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:22:37 UTC No. 15968063
>>15967913
Don't be sad, we will still land a 50m skyscraper on the Moon in a few years though.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:22:52 UTC No. 15968064
>>15967979
There are quite a few working on spcaetugs, for example tom muellers company, vast bought launcher which has space tugs and I think there are some more that have flown on F9 transporter rideshare missions
Then you have many companies making thrusters and satellite buses (like spacex itself is doing too I guess) such as rocketlab to habe a side business
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:25:18 UTC No. 15968067
>>15968055
Have you ever cooled a meal in your life or do you subsist on fast food?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:27:24 UTC No. 15968071
>>15968055
What an embarrassing attempt at saving face
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:27:37 UTC No. 15968072
>>15968035
imagine if it blows up
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:28:14 UTC No. 15968073
>>15968072
>imagine
No need to
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:28:55 UTC No. 15968075
>>15968072
When was the last time a modern rocket blew up?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:31:02 UTC No. 15968078
>>15968075
*that's not the boondoggle giant steel trash can
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:36:47 UTC No. 15968087
>>15968075
As a /ULAchad/ I can't recall
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:41:43 UTC No. 15968096
>still no starshit launch
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:42:14 UTC No. 15968097
>>15968096
don't worry it will launch 4 times this year
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:43:25 UTC No. 15968098
>>15968097
in September, October, November, and December.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:43:33 UTC No. 15968099
>>15968094
>naming prototypes
>Freedom
boomer cringe
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:44:28 UTC No. 15968101
>>15968094
>Freedom
Nice gundam reference
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:46:10 UTC No. 15968103
Is it worth it to get an L2 subscription?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:47:47 UTC No. 15968104
>>15968094
Not going to be mass produced then
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:48:19 UTC No. 15968105
>>15968103
>paying to read lies from larpers
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:51:38 UTC No. 15968110
>>15968035
nope
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:55:42 UTC No. 15968115
>>15968103
Most specialized medias can give a very good appearance of competence while actually knowing nothing of subject matter at hand (looking at your spacedotcom and spacenews)
NSF is not much better desu
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:55:44 UTC No. 15968116
>>15966341
>mars colonization with a risk-averse attitude
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:03:41 UTC No. 15968126
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:10:26 UTC No. 15968132
>>15968126
Should've used mechjeb
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:24:00 UTC No. 15968151
>>15966341
nuclear is less risky on Europa than on Earth I'd say.
>>15966346
We should've canceled SLS a long time ago.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:26:06 UTC No. 15968154
>>15966768
yes for a few months. That's why NASA is avoiding a Europa lander and why Europa Clipper won't be orbiting but only doing flybys.
>>15967951
What sort of cameras do you use?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:37:21 UTC No. 15968169
>>15968160
>nose shape matching header tank
cool. the internal volume schizo no windows seether will seethe regardless.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:37:26 UTC No. 15968170
>>15967604
can't we spray white reflective shit on surface so it cools down so pressure goes down so we get to land and not dissolve in 10 minutes?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:39:03 UTC No. 15968171
>>15968160
Will it be more blunt?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:39:11 UTC No. 15968172
>>15968170
Probably not. I think most sunlight on Venus is absorbed by the atmosphere. However I think that releasing particles in orbit around Venus might work, but it would still take a very long time to cool down.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:41:55 UTC No. 15968175
>>15968172
>I think most sunlight on Venus is absorbed by the atmosphere.
hmm, yeah, then maybe reflective shit in the atmosphere.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:50:17 UTC No. 15968186
>>15968181
Two autists fighting.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:51:59 UTC No. 15968192
>>15968186
good description of /sfg/
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:53:55 UTC No. 15968196
>>15968192
kek
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:58:06 UTC No. 15968208
>>15968186
>>15968192
>>15968196
samefag.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:00:30 UTC No. 15968216
>>15968181
Inform leftists of the dangers of triggering another Ice Age. The last one is still in the final stages of ending but another one would last 10k years minimum and absolutely make Earth a shithole for that time period. Imagine everybody crowding around the equator because the northern and southern hemispheres are covered by mile-high sheets of fucking ice. We'd be begging for a little global warming then.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:06:33 UTC No. 15968232
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:08:10 UTC No. 15968236
>>15966342
thanks anon
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:08:39 UTC No. 15968238
>>15968232
incorrect
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:15:44 UTC No. 15968248
>>15968238
>>15968232
>>15968208
>>15968196
>>15968192
>>15968186
samefag
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:25:33 UTC No. 15968264
>>15968248
how does it feel being proveds wrong fucking pig?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:27:04 UTC No. 15968267
>>15968150
first stage comparisons
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:28:51 UTC No. 15968271
>>15968267
upper stage
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:33:57 UTC No. 15968276
>>15968271
payload to different orbits
Atlas 5 and Vulcan ranges depend on the number of SRBs
Falcon 9 and Heavy numbers depend on reuse (return to landing site as the lowest, and expended as upper)
though the GTO number with return to droneship is 7t (compared to 1.8t with RTLS), so I think the lowest possible given is kind of misleading, should have given 3 numbers
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:35:09 UTC No. 15968280
>>15968276
payload fairing volumes
Falcon Heavy extended fairing should come soon
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:42:49 UTC No. 15968289
>>15968280
price (with a lot of asterisks)
it kind of looks like Vulcan isn't really competitive with F9 and Falcon Heavy?
cheaper and with fully expended falcon heavies, they have larger payload to GTO (15.3t for Vulcan vs 26.7t for Falcon Heavy)
so much for high energy
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:47:09 UTC No. 15968294
>>15968289
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ3
though I remember that there were some specific situations where Vulcan might be cheaper
but the rocket seems to basically exist just to launch NSSL payloads and can compete there mainly because the military wants dissimilar redundancy
and then they get some business from Amazon due to Amazon not wanting to fund a direct competitor in the LEO satellite space
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:48:22 UTC No. 15968295
>>15968289
Vulcan is designed to do autistic course correction so that its a bit harder for the Chinese and Russians to deduce the orbits of military sats. It's tailor made for the military and Tory admits as such. ULA have ceded commercial space and didnt even try to retain it
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:57:34 UTC No. 15968304
Did NASA say much about the suits? Are they still delayed?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:58:13 UTC No. 15968305
>>15968169
The what?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:59:14 UTC No. 15968306
>>15968304
insider here. they arent worried about the suits because they beleive suits can be devloped in a number of months and that starship will be the key delay.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:59:21 UTC No. 15968307
>>15967926
>not for flight
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:01:27 UTC No. 15968311
>>15968216
I don't see why another ice age would be a bad thing.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:04:05 UTC No. 15968313
>>15968305
Not him, but there is a schizo that thinks that Starship won't have windows.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:04:12 UTC No. 15968314
>>15968311
Winter all the time everywhere would suck. I'd survive, you too probably, but it'd be uncomfortable for the rest of our days.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:07:00 UTC No. 15968318
>>15968311
no more EVs
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:10:12 UTC No. 15968321
>>15967926
where are the legs?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:12:01 UTC No. 15968325
>>15968311
Most of the good farming land would be gone
Also 8 billion people packed into a tiny area would be terrible in every way
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:12:11 UTC No. 15968326
>>15967565
I don't speak nigger english so I'm a bot? Suck the warts on my ass.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:14:50 UTC No. 15968328
>>15968325
>Also 8 billion people packed into a tiny area would be terrible in every way
7 billion of them would be dead before they got there
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:16:46 UTC No. 15968330
>>15968328
and whatever the fuck makes it out will be pretty weird after THOSE pressures.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:20:54 UTC No. 15968336
>>15968330
jews will win. thats why i think its a good thing.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:21:13 UTC No. 15968337
Good news for Rocketlab
28 million per satellite and launch could have ok margins
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/update
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:23:01 UTC No. 15968339
>>15968337
God i wish starship wasn't delayed so rocketlab would die quicker
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:23:41 UTC No. 15968340
>>15968264
samefag
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:24:01 UTC No. 15968341
>>15968337
I'm crossing my fingers for Neutron's development to go smoothly
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:25:53 UTC No. 15968344
>>15968336
Good luck getting expelled onto a fucking ice sheet
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:27:59 UTC No. 15968348
>>15968054
There are some mushrooms on the sautè.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:29:50 UTC No. 15968352
>>15968337
They only got contract to design and build them, so those satellites could be launched by SpaceX.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:31:05 UTC No. 15968355
>>15968350
SE ACABO
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:34:53 UTC No. 15968357
>>15968350
i was finally being optimistic about blorgin for once.
i realize that was a mistake.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:36:00 UTC No. 15968362
>>15968350
KEEEEEEEK THIS IS ALL THEY HAVE TO SHOW AFTER YEARS OF WORK???? ITS ABOUT TO GO THE SHITTER ISNT IT NO WAY
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:45:22 UTC No. 15968371
>>15968337
Elon's waifu is cute.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:53:34 UTC No. 15968380
>>15968352
Ye, they talk about vertical integration yet its not on Electrons launch schedule.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:54:10 UTC No. 15968381
>>15968350
>scrubbing pics for every bit of detail
seriously TOUCH GRASS
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:57:56 UTC No. 15968388
>>15968381
Hello, welcome to /sfg/, where anons autistically dig through every minute detail of spaceflight news. Please lurk 2 years before posting again.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:59:32 UTC No. 15968390
>>15968381
GO FUCK YOURSELF NEWFAG PLEBBITARD NOBODY BUT ZOOMNIGGERS FROM TEDDIT SAY TOUCH GRASS
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:06:23 UTC No. 15968404
>>15968054
Do you think potatoes are animal, or mineral?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:08:51 UTC No. 15968414
>>15968381
NO I WILL NOT TOUCH GRASS
everything is covered in snow
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:09:19 UTC No. 15968416