๐งต /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:08:36 UTC No. 15968413
NOT FOR FLIGHT Edition
Previous - >>15966321
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:10:43 UTC No. 15968420
>>15968413
Bezos is so pathetic
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:12:05 UTC No. 15968425
>>15968413
not FOR FLIGHT
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:12:14 UTC No. 15968427
>>15968423
Berger is very cool
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:19:23 UTC No. 15968437
>>15968430
Good lord
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:19:27 UTC No. 15968438
>>15968435
>ULA shilling
Must be getting paid, dont hate the player. Hope he gets some money for a big telescope out of it
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:29:43 UTC No. 15968452
>>15968423
>there are dozens of galaxy spanning civilizations in the is one pic
>we'll never meet any of them
>they're laughing at us too
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:31:23 UTC No. 15968456
>>15968438
>Eric Berger is shilling for ULA now
Reusabros - we kneel
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:31:28 UTC No. 15968457
>>15968435
> In addition to the Vulcan launches, ULA plans to launch its final Delta IV Heavy rocket this year, as well as nine Atlas missions. That's a total of 16 launches, which would represent a significant step up from its total of just three in 2023. As for next year, the company's goal is for a total of 28 Atlas and Vulcan launches.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:32:12 UTC No. 15968459
>>15968457
>which would represent a significant step up from its total of just three in 2023
kek
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:48:45 UTC No. 15968485
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:53:52 UTC No. 15968497
>>15968493
this is probably the pic from where OP pic is cropped
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:56:52 UTC No. 15968501
way to ruin my excitement blorgin, fucking posers, years and all they have is a slightly prettier mockup than before.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:59:11 UTC No. 15968507
What is the purpose of it
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:00:58 UTC No. 15968511
>>15968507
'Test article'
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:03:57 UTC No. 15968518
>>15968423
do you think there is someone in another galaxy wasting their time on an image board just like us?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:07:22 UTC No. 15968526
This year's launch manifest for the Vulcan Death rocket. After it destroys Dream Chaser, just wite out the rest of the year:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:07:46 UTC No. 15968527
>>15968507
A test article that lets BO go through the motions of a launch to train staff and find out if they need to change things.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:08:15 UTC No. 15968530
>>15968523
https://www.starlink.com/updates
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:08:46 UTC No. 15968532
whats it for if not for flight? What does a rocket stage do other than fly?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:09:48 UTC No. 15968535
>>15968532
testing the operations like moving it around
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:10:28 UTC No. 15968537
>>15968482
Oh no he's retarded
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:12:44 UTC No. 15968540
>>15968485
typical big government old space thinking
why not leave the rocket there until it can be refilled and flown back
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:13:07 UTC No. 15968541
>>15968488
Fuck this guy lmao. Does he want a medal for copying everyone else? Newsflash, if you're 10 years late to the party none of that shit matters. Doesnt matter if you chose an architecture 10 years ago. You've achieved nothing
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:17:47 UTC No. 15968548
>>15968526
>Conclusively proven that Vulcan didn't damage the payload
>Astrobotic comes out and says so
>ULA employees shit posting here that it wasn't Vulcan
>Still coping that Vulcan launched successfully before Starship
It's getting embarrassing desu
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:18:14 UTC No. 15968551
>>15968426
>Lakiesha Hawkins, assistant deputy associate administrator
We're reaching India levels of bullshit job titles here
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:18:49 UTC No. 15968553
>>15968532
It can also just be a tanking test
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:19:13 UTC No. 15968554
>>15968551
I wonder what the org chart looks like lmao
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:21:12 UTC No. 15968555
>>15968554
Brown all the way down
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:24:13 UTC No. 15968561
>>15968548
Is Starship in the room with you right now?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:25:19 UTC No. 15968563
>>15968555
I was thinking more about how complicated it is and how much middle management there is
deputy associate assistant admin sounds pretty bad
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:27:25 UTC No. 15968569
>>15968423
Cool to think that despite the vastness of the universe, the only place life has ever existed is right here <3
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:28:55 UTC No. 15968571
>>15968569
>i transheart <3 emoticon
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:32:00 UTC No. 15968576
>>15968523
https://twitter.com/Gwynne_Shotwell
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:32:11 UTC No. 15968577
>>15968571
Trans people don't exist, only self-hating larpers
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:35:48 UTC No. 15968581
>>15968561
it's mostly at the bottom of the gulf
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:36:27 UTC No. 15968583
>>15968580
Its the same one that we saw years ago
LMAO. They work so slow
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:37:40 UTC No. 15968584
>>15968583
at least this is proof that a working article wont corrode over time i guess?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:38:40 UTC No. 15968586
>>15968584
Its been kept inside clean room, they better hope its corrosion proof lmao.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:49:03 UTC No. 15968598
>>15968576
phones are a dying technology. everyone will be replacing them with XR headsets soon.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:54:58 UTC No. 15968607
>>15968605
secret valve thread
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:57:31 UTC No. 15968613
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:01:23 UTC No. 15968618
>>15968605
>gate valve
I would think they'd use needle valves but idk I do water
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:06:51 UTC No. 15968629
>>15968618
Does any have a P&ID for a rocket laying around?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:06:52 UTC No. 15968630
>>15968583
Gradatim ferociter
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:13:36 UTC No. 15968638
>>15968629
Found one and lmao this one does use gate valves
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:33:58 UTC No. 15968659
>>15968603
Did they put some aerospace grade webcam on a rocket?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:52:03 UTC No. 15968692
>>15968659
Vulcan still uses the old, old cameras & video telemetry system that Atlas used. It's garbage.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:53:33 UTC No. 15968695
>>15968548
>ULA fanboys pretend to be employees to save face after their favourite rocket's first payload dies to shaken baby syndrome
>deflects to starship, a much more ambitious program, to hide the embarrassment.
wew lad
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:56:28 UTC No. 15968703
>>15968695
>Astrobotic says it wasn't Vulcan
>ULA says it wasn't Vulcan
>upcoming investigation will find it wasn't Vulcan
>their schematics for the probe show a flaw that would cause this exact problem regardless of launch vehicle
consider meds schizo
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:01:13 UTC No. 15968714
>1,400 m/s acceleration despite only a bit over half the propellant burning
>Probably had about 3 km/s of dV had it worked well, even more than a V2
Jesus J.J.Barrรฉ was a madman.
Cryogenic rocket (Gasoil-LOX) that reached 60 km high in 1945, made basically by himself, first with a shoestring budget under Vichy and then clandestinely in Algeria, this was basically a WAC Corporal, earlier, and made by a single guy in France.
Shame he was a loner who couldn't work with large teams and his next rocket was a disaster.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:02:35 UTC No. 15968719
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:03:21 UTC No. 15968721
The Vulcan FUDposting is cringe.
The Starship derangement syndrome is also cringe.
Bunch of losers
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:10:37 UTC No. 15968735
>>15968714
Heโs not discussed a lot, but yeah heโs based
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:21:15 UTC No. 15968746
>>15968721
Your jewish deception doesnt work here Tory. There is no playing both sides
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:24:13 UTC No. 15968752
>>15968721
Vulcan was obsolete 5 years ago, plain and simple
it seems to work fine enough but ULA won't survive long term
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:44:01 UTC No. 15968773
Is there a list of mothballed nasa projects? Like completed probes and shit that are just siting in a warehouse?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:06:03 UTC No. 15968804
Where's the faggot on here that said payload fairing sep fucked up the lander, you can see it does nothing of the sort in the video here, get fucked lol
https://youtu.be/Pqv7NedI0oI?t=327
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:09:34 UTC No. 15968811
>The National Research Council recently reported that U.S. and Russian systems on ISS demonstrate rates of hardware failures that would be unsustainable on a Mars mission
Quote is from circa 2015. But having heard how bad ISS maintenance currently is (even worse than it was eight years ago)โhow the hell do we expect to get to Mars soon?? The ISS was pretty dope in 1998, but now itโs inarguably a shitcan. Hardware headed to Mars, for human use, will need BEEFY life support + long duration dependability. We donโt really have that right now.
Source of quote below:
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-mars-fo
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:12:23 UTC No. 15968815
>>15968811
Starship means you can send a LOT of new hardware every 2 years.
Eventually mars will be self sustainable, in along time, transition between the two will be hard,but for the medium term the above applies.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:14:37 UTC No. 15968820
>>15968811
Sell Alaska and use the money to build a Mars cycler
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:15:13 UTC No. 15968821
>>15968811
Ill tell you how, without fucking NASA breathing down SpaceX's neck on every little fucking thing. Mars is supposed to be a SpaceX only deal in the beginning and that means it will be an operation more like Boca Chica right now where its test and fail with all the money they have until they get it working.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:21:26 UTC No. 15968828
When the journalists contradicts the headline deep inside the article. Kek.
>Vulcan rocket's debut brings long-awaited challenge to SpaceX dominance
https://www.reuters.com/technology/
>The starting price for a Vulcan launch is roughly $110 million, half that of its predecessor Atlas V, which anchored ULA's dominance for U.S. national security satellite launches since ULA's 2006 formation. SpaceX's reusable Falcon 9 is pegged at roughly $62 million per launch, but sometimes more for Pentagon missions.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:22:15 UTC No. 15968829
>>15968413
Nice water tower, Jeff!
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:23:15 UTC No. 15968835
Valve post
https://twitter.com/667e11/status/1
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:23:44 UTC No. 15968839
>>15968828
I mean it is a challenge
Just a weak one and only relevant for national security pretty much and maybe some autism probes
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:24:16 UTC No. 15968841
>>15968832
Performance off, but ball park. Understandable since proprietary. Doesnโt quite understand low energy vs high or their architectures. Did not avail large set of public pricing on NSSL P2. Vulcan substantially cheaper, with > than 30% price advantage in high energy:
Solid 6/10
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:24:52 UTC No. 15968843
>>15968430
ah the memories
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:25:16 UTC No. 15968846
muh high energy muh high energy
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:27:04 UTC No. 15968849
muh low energy muh low energy
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:27:52 UTC No. 15968851
>>15968832
Not sure why they had to do this graphic this way when >>15966426 had it pretty well
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:30:23 UTC No. 15968862
>>15968832
Single launch Reusable starship does get 0 tons to GTO, and even an expendable unmoddified starship is below expendable FH
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:32:34 UTC No. 15968865
>>15968811
by having way more redundancy and being much more competent, much greater iteration speed, a mission to make it self-sustaining, people in charge that are not afraid to make radical changes swiftly if it makes sense
the ISS is a rusting shitbox kept alive by the fear of embarrassment existing only as a legacy from the space shuttle and originally built so the space shuttle would have something to do
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:35:09 UTC No. 15968871
>>15968832
lol, why not show expendable modes? hmmm
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:38:08 UTC No. 15968879
>>15968426
>spacenews.com
The commentators there remind me of some local newspaper commebt section, boomers yelling at clouds and bitching about nuspace
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:38:15 UTC No. 15968880
>>15968841
bullshit
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:39:44 UTC No. 15968882
>>15968879
SLS delenda est
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:43:55 UTC No. 15968889
>>15968879
That's still much better than soiboys at arstechnica.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:46:20 UTC No. 15968895
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:46:44 UTC No. 15968896
>>15968889
Theres literally only Berger you fucking pansy he's the only one with good insider info and a proven track record dont give him shit.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:47:45 UTC No. 15968900
>>15968895
Take youre redditnigger meme and gtfo
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jan 2024 23:48:06 UTC No. 15968901
>>15968896
hes talking about the soiboi commenters with EDS in his articles
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:02:32 UTC No. 15968925
>>15968841
"High energy" is still a load of marketing nonsense.
>Because we use light weight propellants with a high specific impulse, our upper stage has a lot of delta-V relative to its stage mass as long as the payload isn't too heavy.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:05:04 UTC No. 15968926
>>15968841
>Performance off, but ball park
Falcon Heavy has literally done 9+ tons direct to GEO.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:06:18 UTC No. 15968929
>>15968926
when? you sure it wasnt gto?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:09:49 UTC No. 15968933
So really how much did the new toilet on the iss cost? forget the actual mission to get it up there, just the on the ground costs.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:12:02 UTC No. 15968939
>>15968926
>>15968929
Concur, Echostar-24 was a geostationary transfer orbit, rather than direct to GEO:
>35,504 km by 8,001 km, with an inclination of 10.39ยฐ
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:12:57 UTC No. 15968943
>>15968896
Berger seems to have mild EDS but is able to keep it entirely away from his articles
and I think he dislikes old space even more
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:19:09 UTC No. 15968963
>>15968943
He's definitely not a fan of Elon's Twitter antics, which shows that he has critical thinking skills, but he definitely hates oldspace so much he goes too far in sucking newspace and especially SpaceX's cock. There's a reason he has his own tier in that chart, he's got good sources but he definitely has his biases that sometimes make him write hilariously bad stuff.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:19:13 UTC No. 15968964
>>15968926
Falcon Heavy has demonstrated ~4 tons direct to GEO with USSF-44 and other direct to GEO payloads haven't been demonstrated. In this case, it seems ULA's advertising is "what the competitors (SpaceX) have actually done vs what our rocket can do on paper"
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:20:20 UTC No. 15968969
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:21:32 UTC No. 15968972
>>15968963
I think that is being short sighted, the "twitter antics" are ultimately going to benefit SpaceX but I guess that remains to be seen still and debating it is kind of boring
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:24:21 UTC No. 15968978
>>15968964
They then take that "what the competition has demonstrated" and downgrade the capabilities further to say that their highest energy mission is their upper limit for any BEO launches. It's worth a community note at the very least.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:34:54 UTC No. 15968998
>>15968964
And the "on paper" performance of a VC6 is not ~4x what FH has demonstrated.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:37:37 UTC No. 15969002
>>15968841
https://twitter.com/torybruno/statu
lol it was an actual tweet from Tory
was Vulcan actually demonstrably cheaper than FH? is that public information?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:39:46 UTC No. 15969006
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:40:44 UTC No. 15969008
>>15969003
Why do all their employees have such low energy
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:40:47 UTC No. 15969009
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:41:48 UTC No. 15969011
>>15969002
>was Vulcan actually demonstrably cheaper than FH? is that public information?
It's the opposite. Tory is lying again.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:42:03 UTC No. 15969012
>>15969002
Technically yes, IIRC it was in the first few launches that were awarded for the latest NSSL contract or whichever it was. Now people usually argue that that includes cost for the FH VIF that wouldn't be repeated, but the impact of that we can't know for sure and if you look exclusively at those awards, Vulcan was cheaper.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:43:35 UTC No. 15969014
>>15969011
>Where Vulcan lost b/c it wasn't performant enough
High energy bros...
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:43:40 UTC No. 15969015
>>15968477
Same desu
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:44:52 UTC No. 15969018
>>15969012
but looking exclusively at those is very dishonest
kind of had the impression Tory lying was a meme but what the fuck, this is pretty much a bald faced lie lol
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:46:05 UTC No. 15969020
>>15969002
>>15968841
>>15968832
https://twitter.com/torybruno/statu
replying to everday astronaut video
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:47:07 UTC No. 15969021
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:47:23 UTC No. 15969022
>>15969020
>here's some disinformation for you
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:48:09 UTC No. 15969027
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:49:11 UTC No. 15969029
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:49:18 UTC No. 15969030
>>15969020
This nigga
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:50:13 UTC No. 15969032
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:51:15 UTC No. 15969037
>>15969018
I like Tory but every once in a while he'll come out with one of these. Really hope once they're bought he can stop with that shit because it's retarded. Elon gets away with his SpaceX lies because they're generally just muh aspirational statements about timelines even if they're clearly so impossible they don't even get the "it's just employee motivation bro" benefit, but shit like this is just stupid. The worst thing is that if they made the numbers consistent with >>15969021 it'd actually be fine because except for disregarding refueling that one roughly checks out.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:52:54 UTC No. 15969041
>>15969032
>>15969029
>>15969027
>>15969021
>>15969020
SO MUCH ENERGY!!!1
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:53:34 UTC No. 15969044
>>15969012
The Elon haters also don't want to acknowledge the difference in SpaceX's pricing for NSSL vs. commercial launches, because that would mean admitting that SpaceX is price matching ULA.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:53:55 UTC No. 15969045
Can someone explain to me how a booster optimized for flyback would compare to a booster designed for the opposite? Seems that when you turn the knobs of system architecture in one way or another the rocket gets "better" for one mission or another. Does SpaceX have some kind of secret sauce that makes it good at both missions?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:54:23 UTC No. 15969047
>>15969045
Figure it out yourself, Chang
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:54:47 UTC No. 15969048
>>15969045
Dumb chink
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:54:58 UTC No. 15969049
>>15968998
Huh, yeah, they're lying about Vulcan's GTO performance and showing it's significantly higher than the actually claimed performance, even with hypothetical future upgrades.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:55:45 UTC No. 15969050
>>15969044
Or that it has to expend more booster cores to hit the USG missions, driving the cost up.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:58:10 UTC No. 15969055
>>15969037
It's in the same league as the "extremely complex & high risk" salt that Blue Origin started spilling after they lost the first HLS competition.
That being said, Blue does seem to be in the lead to buy ULA so "high energy & very accurate" posting might not stop even after the purchase.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:04:07 UTC No. 15969070
high energy = high price
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:04:43 UTC No. 15969072
>>15969065
I guess the only argument then is that the public payload user manual isn't the exact science that it's being used for here (or is out of date)
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:09:50 UTC No. 15969081
>>15969062
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:12:36 UTC No. 15969084
>>15969032
What's GTO Enhanced? An extra burn to raise perigee or something, basically leveraging surplus launcher capability to allow a smaller kick stage? Or is it a higher apogee to get to GEO faster, at the expense of needing a larger kick stage?
The bars make it seem more like the first.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:13:28 UTC No. 15969089
>>15969065
Can you imagine being overanalyzed and harassed by bored autists using OSINT "data" all day as the CEO when you have all the actual data but can't post any of it? What a nightmare of a job that must be
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:18:01 UTC No. 15969093
>>15969089
calling the handbook OSINT data with quotation marks is quite the reach
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:22:04 UTC No. 15969105
>>15969093
>>15969089
or are you saying that ULA doesn't give out accurate information and to get that you would have to call them and talk about some specific payload and orbit? I guess that could be the case
but if they do that, their propaganda marketing material is even more suspect and yet Tory Bruno keeps posting those as some kind of debunking material
there is a disconnect here
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:24:25 UTC No. 15969110
>>15969093
>>15969105
It's a public facing user manual. They're estimates at best. I'm sure that mission planning is more complicated than some table cooked up in the marketing department. These missions take years to plan with complex negotiations
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:25:23 UTC No. 15969112
the PE firm that is bidding for ULA is getting scammed lmao
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:26:53 UTC No. 15969117
https://twitter.com/waynehale/statu
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/202
Most important thing isn't safety as NASA claims over and over again. Its to go and stuff
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:27:31 UTC No. 15969119
>>15969110
>complex negotiations
lol, how is that going to affect the possible performance? The performance is what it is for a specific mass in a specific orbit, it shouldn't matter what the payload actually is or who the customer is
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:28:32 UTC No. 15969122
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:29:59 UTC No. 15969124
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:33:02 UTC No. 15969127
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:34:48 UTC No. 15969130
>>15969122
>>15969117
>guy who killed 14 people says safety isn't the most important thing
Usually I would agree but kek
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:36:09 UTC No. 15969133
>>15969127
What they don't mention is that MEO is a more expensive orbit to get to than a geostationary transfer orbit. Yet another douchey trick in the original chart.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:37:04 UTC No. 15969136
>>15969119
Yes I am sure that there is nothing more complicated to mission design than orbit, payload weight, and cost.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:40:49 UTC No. 15969144
>>15969127
F9 and FH ranges would be cool to see too
Barkun at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:41:50 UTC No. 15969145
>>15969144
Put ya clofez on
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:42:52 UTC No. 15969146
>>15969130
the fact only 14 died is a crime
we should be launching so often and recklessly that someone dies once per day on average AT LEAST
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:44:04 UTC No. 15969149
>>15969137
lol
performance/cost to these orbits on a logarithmic scale would be nice
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:44:26 UTC No. 15969151
>>15969149
log scale sucks
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:45:04 UTC No. 15969154
>>15969149
Log scale is for cowards.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:45:22 UTC No. 15969155
>>15969151
log scale would be much clearer in this case
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:45:48 UTC No. 15969156
>>15969021
>I'm making a callout post on my X dot com. Elon Musk, you got a small dick, it's the size of this walnut except way smaller. And guess what? Here's what my dong looks like: BWOWH That's right baby. All energy, no refueling, no RTLS. Look at that it looks like two balls and a bong.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:47:57 UTC No. 15969160
Imagine expending 747 after every flight
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:53:15 UTC No. 15969169
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:55:31 UTC No. 15969175
>>15969021
>staging altitude
Lol, I like ULA but they do need to be called out for this blatant marketing bullshit that has nothing to do with anything.
>Saturn V staged at 68km with a peak altitude of 110km
>clearly this show Vulcan can get more to GTO
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:30:09 UTC No. 15969230
>>15969224
it's the Chinastoga!
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:31:54 UTC No. 15969234
>>15969224
>Launch Platform
>Dongfang Hangtiangang
Let's cool it with making up fake, racist names for Chinese things.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:34:03 UTC No. 15969236
>>15969160
>t. Elon 2004 AD
Elon 2024 AD: Imagine flying in a 747 built and flown by DIE
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:35:17 UTC No. 15969238
>>15969137
He's a chart from the decadal planetary sciences committee meeting back in 2021. There's no C3 where Vulcan outperforms Falcon Heavy. I wouldn't be surprised if the VC6 ended up being more expensive anyway on top of all that.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:39:12 UTC No. 15969242
>>15969235
>7 year average ruler term in democracies
>no long term planning
We need to force everyone from all parties to agree to 10, 20, 50 and 100 year plans and failing to follow the plan results in the opposition taking power for a minimum of 5 years before the next election is held.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:41:23 UTC No. 15969246
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:43:29 UTC No. 15969247
>>15969242
Universal suffrage capped at 1 vote is completely retarded; a hacked together system of convenience. Successful offworld colonies will only be sustainable with a shareholder model.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:46:37 UTC No. 15969250
>>15969247
>shareholder model
Kek, 10 guys now control the "democracy" and funnily enough they all agree there should be no capital gains tax and income tax should be capped at $50k and used to give them handouts.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:48:32 UTC No. 15969251
>>15969250
And the alternative where they pull strings to dupe women and minorities into voting for dumb shit? Yeah, that's working real swell. Every company on the planet freely chose to adopt that model to great effect.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:49:14 UTC No. 15969252
>>15969224
These low effort chinese rocket scam names never get old
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:53:17 UTC No. 15969256
>>15969250
yes? then people will move away and they won't have any workers
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:54:11 UTC No. 15969258
>>15969251
The real solution is
>political lies are illegal with prison time
>political donations are illegal with tax dollars used to fund all campaigning
>news outlets are forced by law to accurately report immigration, crime, tax, debt and national spending rates before each election
The biggest issue is the people that decide the rulers are giving either no information or false information about the state of the nation.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:56:10 UTC No. 15969261
>>15969256
So your solution is instead of the people being able to vote out people they don't like they have to hope the rulers they can't vote out don't ban emigration and enslave them?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:56:41 UTC No. 15969264
>>15969252
Whoever is translating Chinese spaceflight names seems to consistently pick the worst of any available options. Yinli-1 sounds a lot better than Gravity-1 or Gravitation-1. We could have had Blue Arrow Aerospace Corporation but got stuck with "Landspace" instead. Tianbing Technology is a bit more graceful than the literal "Invincible Army Technology Co," but for some reason they decided to go with "Space Pioneer."
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 02:59:03 UTC No. 15969267
https://youtu.be/bQWZZ_fD50o
https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.09329
>Potential Perturbation of the Ionosphere by Megaconstellations and Corresponding Artificial Re-entry Plasma Dust
>Elon Musk is "going to kill us all with satellite debris"
This is bad. REAL bad
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:01:24 UTC No. 15969268
>>15969224
Will this be the first orbital launch from the sea?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:02:24 UTC No. 15969269
>>15969261
you are talking about a colony that the "shareholders" paid for in the first place
workers moving in and democratizing it to shit is not a good idea
democracy leads to people voting all the cash to themselves eventually and democracy won't stop people from voting to ban emigration and enslaving a portion of the people (look at communist countries for instance, soviet union banned emigration)
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:03:08 UTC No. 15969271
>>15969269
The USSR wasn't a democracy.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:05:56 UTC No. 15969274
>>15969267
seems like speculation and its based on there being 1 million satellites lel
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:07:02 UTC No. 15969275
>>15969268
Long March 11 has launched five times from a Yellow Sea barge since 2019. Ceres-1 made its first sea-launch last September.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:07:22 UTC No. 15969276
>>15969246
So, all four outer solids ignite successfully or just three?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:07:30 UTC No. 15969277
>>15969267
every time every single god damn time
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:10:44 UTC No. 15969280
>>15969274
What do you call 1 million satellites?
A good start.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:10:52 UTC No. 15969281
Any news on the schizodrive? Is it schizover?
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:12:19 UTC No. 15969284
>>15969281
Their experiment slot opens in a few days if the schedule is still the same as before the holidays.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:12:21 UTC No. 15969285
>>15969275
oh cool
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:13:22 UTC No. 15969286
>>15968811
ISS is in space, surrounded by vacuum. A Mars base will be on the ground, surrounded by raw materials and atmosphere (a bit thin but it's still atmosphere). Much easier
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:14:49 UTC No. 15969288
>>15969285
Here's the one from September. They don't seem to park the boat very far offshore so there should be some good photos from this launch.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:23:03 UTC No. 15969294
>>15968811
Space is justโ it's just hard OK????
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:25:19 UTC No. 15969295
Digging tunnels with diverted Starship static fires
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:28:12 UTC No. 15969297
>>15968799
Can't ULA afford better cameras? This shit looks so crusty it feels like I'm watching a vhs tape
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:29:15 UTC No. 15969298
>>15969288
China rules the seas
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:31:24 UTC No. 15969301
>>15969275
Is it called the yellow sea because ching chongs live next to it? because yellow skin? hate to say it but china is extremely strong for naming it that
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:33:22 UTC No. 15969303
>>15969298
>we could launch from anywhere
>but we're going to launch within catastrophe distance of the shore so we can get more shares on WeChat
If the wrong one of Gravity's boosters decides not to light and the rocket starts going sideways they better hope they have a good FTS.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:34:33 UTC No. 15969304
>>15969297
ULA spends their money on RND so their rockets don't explode on their first and second test flight lol
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:38:34 UTC No. 15969305
>>15969304
the rockets exploding is part of the RND
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:46:43 UTC No. 15969309
>>15969298
>The pirates of the Caribbean and the search for the raptors
sounds kino
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:50:36 UTC No. 15969313
>>15969312
building that close to the water should be illegal lmao...
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:54:22 UTC No. 15969317
>>15969313
The water there is a transient pool.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 04:05:50 UTC No. 15969331
>>15968435
>"There is no indication that the propulsion anomaly occurred as a result of the launch,"
so what caused it then?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 04:07:22 UTC No. 15969333
>>15969331
valve misbehavior. valves don't need a reason
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 04:10:24 UTC No. 15969335
>>15969331
Astrobotics hypothesis is that valve between the helium pressurant and oxidizer failed to reseal properly after initialization which lead to a pressure spike and subsequent rupture >>15966735
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 04:22:49 UTC No. 15969352
>>15969136
Correct
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 04:40:26 UTC No. 15969379
>>15969376
>will broadcast the first flight test of the Dongfang Space Gravity One (Yaoyi) launch vehicle through Unicom 5G live broadcast at China's only maritime launch home port, Dongfang Spaceport, to showcase the development of China's commercial aerospace industry.The live broadcast will also invite rocket technology experts to explain the technology and significance behind the world's largest solid launch vehicle.Let us witness together that the world's largest solid launch vehicle has taken off in China!
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 04:40:47 UTC No. 15969380
>>15969331
Valve Uncertainty Principle
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 04:41:02 UTC No. 15969381
>>15969340
psyche! it was a KZ-1A all along!
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 04:46:28 UTC No. 15969386
>>15969381
That's four Kuaizhou launches in the last 16 days. I know it's only 300 kg of payload but that's pretty impressive cadence.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:13:41 UTC No. 15969405
>>15969376
Well, they've certainly chosen a very picturesque day for their maiden launch
T-15:00
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:16:55 UTC No. 15969407
>>15969376
is Clear going to cover this launch?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:19:43 UTC No. 15969410
>>15969407
I don't think so? I wish she would. A youtube restream would probably be more stable
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:21:18 UTC No. 15969413
>>15969405
>file name
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:30:06 UTC No. 15969417
T-1m
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:32:21 UTC No. 15969420
>>15969405
>filename
only in the north
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:32:34 UTC No. 15969421
lagged just at liftoff, kind of laggy stream overall
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:35:03 UTC No. 15969423
>>15969376
what a shitshow of a livestream
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:35:45 UTC No. 15969424
>>15969418
stubby
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:37:45 UTC No. 15969425
>>15969421
>>15969423
We've all seen Arianespace do worse with much higher production budgets. I think they were trying to run their stream through some kind of sponsored 5G connection
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:06:32 UTC No. 15969453
Stupid american pigdogs cant do that. China #1 global hegemony
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:10:00 UTC No. 15969458
>it worked
>chink newspace company make Soyuz class launcher in 3 years from founding
Total humiliation
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:11:06 UTC No. 15969459
>>15969458
Buying existing solid rocket motors off the CASC and mashing them together expedites things a fair bit.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:14:29 UTC No. 15969461
>>15969459
>fresh American cope
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:18:31 UTC No. 15969463
>Company founded in 2020s
>All solid rocket
>Sea launch
>Debris flying everywhere
>It fucking works
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:20:10 UTC No. 15969464
>>15969461
Not really cope, the rocket just legitimately doesn't seem like much. Good for them getting it to work the first try and it's a neat configuration that has a lot of Kerbal-esque fun quality to it, it's just probably not going to be an impactful launch vehicle in the history of rocketry.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:26:06 UTC No. 15969470
>>15968598
And there's absolutely no hardware crossover there, right?
Not that those headsets are going to take over anytime soon.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:27:13 UTC No. 15969471
>>15969041
When all you do is build anemic rockets, you need high energy.
Also, SRBs are the equivalent of training wheels.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:27:24 UTC No. 15969472
>>15969464
Literal cope
Americans could have made the same thing for the past 40 years by buying SRB and that never happened
Plus the stages are definitely not identical and off the shelf and tailor made for the rocket
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:30:12 UTC No. 15969478
>>15969472
Mostly because there aren't very many good reasons to use solid fuel rockets.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:39:20 UTC No. 15969488
Ovzon 3, which launched on a Falcon 9, is the first thing in orbit besides the ISS to use Roll-Out Solar Arrays. Personally I'm a huge fan of ROSAs because they unfurl more reliably than origami panels and should be able to re-furl for a spacecraft reentering so they don't have to be jettisoned. Space sails, basically.
https://spacenews.com/ovzon-3-succe
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:44:20 UTC No. 15969498
>>15969478
>what is conestoga
Buying solids was the baseline for private launchers for 1980-2015
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:55:34 UTC No. 15969513
>>15969498
Every last one of them is in the dustbin of history for good reasons.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 07:05:18 UTC No. 15969529
>>15969513
>chinese private companies can launch with SRB's without issue
>American private companies failed every single time
lmao okay nice cope
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 07:05:47 UTC No. 15969530
>>15969513
None of them even got to orbit (except Pegasus, but that was dubiously private)
Meanwhile this launcher has more thrust than a base Vulcan and is quite literally only meant to be investor bait for the development of their falcon 9 copy
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 07:06:27 UTC No. 15969531
Would it be annoying to play and sing to music while I jog in the Starship en route to Mars for 7 months? Im good at singing but still, I specifically exercise at night in the college gym so nobody is annoyed
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 07:30:16 UTC No. 15969554
>>15969529
>>15969530
Landspace already has a methalox rocket flying successfully, and a private liquid fuel launch vehicle is a much more important and impressive capability to bring to the table. I'm not really sure what value these solid fuel startups are bringing to the table, unless China's just that desperate for additional launch capacity to compensate for the limits of the Long March family, and it doesn't really seem like they are.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 07:33:00 UTC No. 15969556
>>15969531
>7 months
imagine the smell
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 07:33:41 UTC No. 15969557
>>15969488
We were robbed of the kino solar panel deployment technology
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 07:42:17 UTC No. 15969565
>>15969554
the Chinese development strategy recently has been to give lots of R&D knowledge and support to anyone willing to start a company and then let them duke it out
Excess launch capacity will lead to a few bankruptcies or consolidations in the future but that's a much smaller risk compared to not having enough. I also don't believe they're anywhere near market saturation
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 07:45:51 UTC No. 15969568
>>15969529
NTA, but the failure of shit like Conestoga eventually gave way to SpaceX and all of its imitators, so that seems like a pretty damn good outcome for American spaceflight to me. If Conestoga had actually succeeded, I'm not sure what effect that would have had on future private rocket development.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 08:05:18 UTC No. 15969580
Gravity-1 first launch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13e
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 08:06:28 UTC No. 15969581
Kuaizhou-1A launches Tianxing-1-02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-K
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 08:07:09 UTC No. 15969582
>>15969580
cool lil chode :3
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 08:10:50 UTC No. 15969586
>>15969580
*insert small chinese dick rocket joke here*
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 08:18:19 UTC No. 15969592
Einstein Probe launch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kaz
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:26:29 UTC No. 15969632
>SRB can't be scale and reusable
>SRB can't be scale and reusable
>SRB can't be scale and reusable
>SRB can't be scale and reusable
>SRB can't be scale and reusable
and fuck china
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:31:33 UTC No. 15969635
https://twitter.com/IV_Musketeer/st
reminder that could be your neighbor
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:38:43 UTC No. 15969639
>>15969635
Ow.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:12:10 UTC No. 15969672
>>15969632
Loved this post
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:32:13 UTC No. 15969768
Honest question...what will be the cope when Starship explodes for a third time and the Elon Mars Mission approaches 10 years behind schedule? At what stage to Elon Cultists just start drinking tainted Flavor Aid to ascend to the cosmos and commune with aliens? After the fourth explosion?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 11:42:11 UTC No. 15969782
>>15969768
Bit of a leading question there, chap. Say, have you ever seen the ocean? It's of a bit of a large size as far as bodies of water go.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 12:48:01 UTC No. 15969866
>>15969146
unironically.
Our civilization will only enter the sapace age when more people die in space operations than die in earther military conflicts.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 12:52:07 UTC No. 15969875
>>15969768
Cry into their 1km mega telescopes that btfoes bigbangers
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:09:15 UTC No. 15969888
>>15969768
I guess the 'cope' will be along the lines of Yeah well we can blow up five more and still be cheaper than a single flight of SLS
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:19:17 UTC No. 15969902
>>15968507
suborbital carnival rides just weren't gradatim enough
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:27:21 UTC No. 15969908
>>15968555
>>15968554
>>15968551
my apologies to anyone with eyes
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:29:10 UTC No. 15969913
>>15969881
But enough about Ariane 4
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:42:57 UTC No. 15969928
>>15969250
>let women and niggers vote
>government ruins everything
your "nightmare scenario" is significantly better than real life right now
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:59:51 UTC No. 15969947
>>15969768
Starship in a nutshell
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:59:55 UTC No. 15969948
>>15969258
>The real solution is
>>political lies are illegal with prison time
based retard not understanding that someone needs to judge that
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:03:25 UTC No. 15969951
>11 days into 2024
>only 3 falcon launches
it's over isn't it
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:05:50 UTC No. 15969955
>>15969021
fixed that for you again
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:06:09 UTC No. 15969956
Couple of red flags with Starship:
>if it was so successful why are long time spacex employees (mueller etc) leaving when they're about to achieve the crown jewel of aerospace?
>elon's raptor comments
>but perhaps the most serious issue that no one talks about is that spacex doesn't really attract senior managers and engineers, in fact most grads do a gig there and then trnasition into 'oldpsace' companies
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:10:15 UTC No. 15969960
>>15969956
I think it's pretty simple.
Working elsewhere is easier, not to mention you get paid the same or even more.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:16:38 UTC No. 15969966
why the fucking fuck do people keep making more, still wrong kits of the shittle or saturn V or the ISS
why is there NO FUCKING INJECTION MOULDED FALCON AT ALL
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:31:44 UTC No. 15969978
>>15968413
Ok, maybe spacex will succeed and it will be possible to mass produce starships and that they will be able to send payloads into orbit for a price of 10 dollars per kg, what now? Do we even have the production capacities to mass produce satellites, space probes, lunar and marsian infastrucure elements? Are there any plans to mass produce those things too?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:33:28 UTC No. 15969979
>>15969966
https://www.myminifactory.com/objec
Just print your own, all the official offerings are stupid expensive. I found a model rocket done up like a Falcon 9 and the fuckers wanted over $100 for it, nigger its a cardboard tube and a chute get fucked
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:35:54 UTC No. 15969981
People who want Starship to fail are traitors to humanity.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:36:25 UTC No. 15969982
>>15969956
>if it was so successful why are long time spacex employees (mueller etc) leaving when they're about to achieve the crown jewel of aerospace?
Mueller left because he was tired and no longer did anything. By his own admittance he hadn't worked on Raptor in quite a long time except to consult.
>Elon's Raptor comments
Who cares? Factory. Elon's being a doomer, this is nothing new. He's said that SpaceX is on the verge of bankruptcy a dozen times now despite that not being the case to any sane person.
>attracting senior managers and engineers
Good, fuck 'em. Why do you need outside retards when you can hire young and then promote from within? I know a guy who has been working at SpaceX for literally 12 years now and he's a team lead in their engineering department. There's no reason to give these worthless greybeards fucking golden parachutes to come work at SpaceX knowing full well they're going to wash out in a few years because of the workload.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:39:54 UTC No. 15969987
>>15969981
the least zealous muskrat
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:41:07 UTC No. 15969990
>>15969987
I can't fucking stand Musk, but if Starship can get going then it will be a quantum leap in space fairing capability
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:43:58 UTC No. 15969992
>>15969956
>doesn't really attract senior managers and engineers
Like Gerstenmaier or Lueders?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:46:07 UTC No. 15969993
>>15969981
Yeah it's one thing to not think the rocket will work, it's another thing entirely to want it to fail
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:48:55 UTC No. 15969997
>>15969990
how? you need 20 launches to refuel it just to go to the moon
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:50:21 UTC No. 15969999
>>15969997
The payload to LEO alone is a game changer
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:52:22 UTC No. 15970001
>>15969999
Yea, jews bombing terrorists from orbit.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:54:42 UTC No. 15970006
>>15969997
you mean 10 + or - 1 or 2
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:55:47 UTC No. 15970007
Has the memedrive sat still not done anything?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:00:43 UTC No. 15970013
>>15969990
Emphasis on capability
Youโll need 10 years for the DoD to adapt, and another 10 years for the free market to adapt, and finally 10 additional years for NASA to adapt
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:04:23 UTC No. 15970014
>>15970013
The industry is only JUST realizing the potential of Falcon 9, let alone Starship
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:05:43 UTC No. 15970016
>>15969768
As long at it gets farther and explodes for a new reason, that is progress
If the iteration speed slows down, it starts to explode for reasons that should have been solved and its like the 6th one I would start to get a bit worried
The improvement from IFT1 to IFT2 were pretty great, do you not understand how quickly that happened compared to the rest of the industry? Just months between the launches
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:08:38 UTC No. 15970022
>>15969888
That doesnt even make any sense, you are confusing dev with operations
Obviously dueing actual operations exploding rockets is very bad, though you can have dev after the main mission like with F9 landing attempts
It has been said ad nauseaum, but do you not understand how many failed landings they had before they started to get it right
And see where the programme is now
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:11:13 UTC No. 15970026
>>15969978
The mass production capability will happen
And yes, spacex is already mass producing starlinks
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:17:38 UTC No. 15970035
>>15970033
https://twitter.com/astrobotic/stat
>(2/2) Update #12 for Peregrine Mission One:
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:18:46 UTC No. 15970038
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:19:28 UTC No. 15970040
>>15970038
They're calling those bottle caps wheels?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:24:51 UTC No. 15970049
>>15970038
>>15970040
This looks like something that belongs on robot wars, not the moon.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:29:35 UTC No. 15970054
>>15970049
>>15970040
What's the issue?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:31:43 UTC No. 15970055
>>15970049
looks pretty awesome
was gonna ask how does it steer but it'll be differential
it's apparently slow as fuck though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chf
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:32:33 UTC No. 15970056
>>15970040
>>15970049
those "bottle caps" are going to last the next ten thousand years without significant degradation. I think you owe the engineers an apology
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:33:50 UTC No. 15970057
>>15970056
They look better than Curiosity and Perseverances wheels, but obviously they were dealing with much more mass load
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:41:44 UTC No. 15970064
https://twitter.com/CNSpaceflight/s
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:44:52 UTC No. 15970068
>>15970064
are there humans on that ship? they seem unnervingly close to the rocket should something go wrong
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:54:35 UTC No. 15970076
>>15969049
What is upgrade referring to? The rumored triple core?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:59:23 UTC No. 15970080
>>15970064
sea launches are cool
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:01:21 UTC No. 15970082
>>15969888
We could've actually had affordable SLS if the various contractors weren't so inept and corrupt:
>swap out space shuttle srbs for castor 1200s
>do NOT use RS-25s!!! use something like Soviet's RD-0120 which are basically cheap SSMEs
>don't use ICPS, use ACES from the get go with J-2X
>mass produce it to drive costs down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpd
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:01:25 UTC No. 15970083
>>15970076
The LEO performance doesn't change while the more distant orbits do, so it's presumably something different on the Centaur. I haven't found any elaborations on what they're planning to do to the systems beyond stuff about increasing the mission endurance and possibly changing the engines.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:06:16 UTC No. 15970088
>>15970038
>tfw you let alcoholics design your spacecraft and they spent all the budget on booze
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:08:32 UTC No. 15970091
>>15970082
honestly SLS would have been fine if it was actually like your gif
instead it was
>go through all the work of designing a new srb just to have "the same" srbs with an extra grain
>go through all the work of designing a new engine to have "modernized" rs25s
>go through all the work of designing a new fuel tank because shuttle's was designed to have the weight on the side
>design a new rocket from scratch but pretend you saved time and money by giving all the jobs to shuttle's contractors
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:08:39 UTC No. 15970092
>>15969461
Engines are the longest lead item for a rocket, so being able to buy engines from an established manufacturer makes things go a lot faster
The impressive part is that it worked on the first try - especially considering the very Kerbal nature of the rocket
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:11:19 UTC No. 15970099
>>15970093
65 is 20x 11?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:13:01 UTC No. 15970103
>>15970091
SLS would have been fine and become operational decades earlier if they had gone forward with Shuttle-C instead of an inline configuration.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:13:36 UTC No. 15970104
>>15970080
Good for them, genuinely
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:15:11 UTC No. 15970106
Musk SpaceX yearly meeting or SpaceX update today supposedly
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:17:39 UTC No. 15970108
>>15970103
>>15970091
well if we're gonna go there: we never should've retired the Saturn family
but yeah, shuttle -> sls is basically a new design
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:19:54 UTC No. 15970109
>>15970080
What's all the debris, is that the pad? Or is this one of those rockets with the fallaway insulation that comes off at launch like Ariane?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:20:08 UTC No. 15970110
>>15970108
Imagine a updated, modern Saturn V first stage coming in for a landing
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:20:40 UTC No. 15970112
>>15969478
>>15969530
I can imagine some reasons for using solid propellant rockets, apart from quickly proving oneself to investors as you mentioned
1.
Launch schedule flexibility. If you're a payload manufacturer and building a prototype payload, you do not know when the payload is ready, but when it is ready, you want to test it immediately. This allows you to iterate faster and bringing the product to market faster, saving money on engineer salaries and capital costs. Thus many customers might be willing to pay extra to have a rocket waiting just for them, either a dedicated rocket, or with other customers who pay less for being willing to wait.
To have high launch schedule flexibility, this inevitably means a low utilization of your launch sites, to avoid schedule collisions. Thus the cost of your launch sites becomes more important. Launch sites for solid propellant rockets are far cheaper than launch sites for liquid propellant ones.
2.
Economies of scale by using solid propellant missile production lines built for military needs, especially during those times when military demand temporarily wanes, such as when a new ICBM silo field completes construction.
3.
The ability to use rocket motors from obsolete or near-expired PLA missiles. I don't think this applies to Orienspace, however SQX-1, Ceres-1 and KZ-1A all use the same 1.4m diameter as the JL-1 and DF-21.
4.
Launching fast is important to prove yourself to customers and prospective employees. Companies probably want to avoid the situation of Blorigin, who decided to make a super-duper high-tech rocket as their first orbital rocket and is widely derided for the inevitable delays e.g. the infamous "can't get it up (to orbit)". That can't be good for morale or recruitment
5.
For the CZ-11, as well as the Kuaizhou and Jielong series, another benefit is wartime launch resilience for the military's needs
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:28:25 UTC No. 15970123
Guys we need to cut Tory some slack about lying on his latest infographics dude just wants to sell his shitty company and ride off like a cowboy into the sunset with his golden parachute you would do the same thing in his situation
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:28:31 UTC No. 15970124
>>15970112
The military considerations are reasonably plausible; the rapid launch availability options, probably not so much. Nothing space related has ever run smoothly with rushed or ad-hoc development practices, and the recent Peregrine mission failure is a prime example of what can go wrong when the vehicle's systems are not adequately understood.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:35:23 UTC No. 15970127
>>15970123
I will not allow you to sell United Scam Alliance without investors having the resources to fully know what they are getting in to Tory.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:37:11 UTC No. 15970129
>>15970124
>Nothing space related has ever run smoothly with rushed or ad-hoc development practices
That's exactly why you'd want a launch vehicle that waits for you. That way, you can launch when the payload is ready, without having to wait for months for the next slot because you previously "missed the boat".
And by launching the prototype quickly, it will fail quickly, so your engineers can quickly start using the test data to improve the design
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:40:45 UTC No. 15970135
>>15970129
Subsystems testing development is a thing, but multi-million dollar tests are still a big list item in the R&D budget for a risk-reduction action. Even with small launch making the costs relatively low, I don't think the demand is there for this particular service outside of dedicated technology development missions that test multiple prototype systems in one package.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:42:38 UTC No. 15970140
>>15970123
He's blocking people on X for questioning his infographics lmao
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:46:29 UTC No. 15970143
>>15970140
> He's blocking people on Twitter for questioning his infographics lmao
FTFY
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:47:12 UTC No. 15970144
>>15969635
>iphones
i thought adults worked at spacex?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:48:41 UTC No. 15970147
>>15970143
what's twitter?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:53:37 UTC No. 15970153
>>15970135
>I don't think the demand is there for this particular service outside of dedicated technology development missions that test multiple prototype systems in one package.
Testing is what I'm referring to, though not necessarily ones that test multiple systems in one package. It can be a single system as well, depending on what the system is and how important it is.
The price for most of these light solid rockets is <$10m. A KZ-1A launch can be bought for $5.6m. A few extra million $ in launch costs can definitely be a worthwhile price to pay if it shaves several months of your R&D cycle. It depends on what your monthly expenses on salaries and capital are, and how much value there is by finishing development sooner and bringing the product to market sooner.
I don't think it alone justifies all the solid propellant rockets of China, it is just one of several reasons that all combine to justify these rockets.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:55:35 UTC No. 15970156
>>15970153
Ceres-1 supposedly costs $4m, SQX-1 supposedly costs $5m
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:55:45 UTC No. 15970157
>>15970155
https://medium.com/@ToryBrunoULA/th
all of the 4 charts (these >>15969020
) seem to be from this article
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:58:33 UTC No. 15970162
Good that Vulcan can launch into meme orbits, but why would you even want to launch your payload there.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:02:50 UTC No. 15970170
>>15970143
How to trigger leftoids
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:04:38 UTC No. 15970172
>>15970162
cut tory a break. he can't compete with spacex so he needs to find *some* niche he can claim to fill
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:06:56 UTC No. 15970175
>>15970170
Shut the fuck up chud
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:11:36 UTC No. 15970184
>>15970165
>fagflag, trannyflag, ukraineflag
Elon should implement a feature that permanently autobans anyone using those in their profiles.
There is no reason not to, chase these people off the public square and into the dark where they belong. They can blog about it on tumblr if they want to, so long as they gtfo.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:18:02 UTC No. 15970193
>>15968413
yeah it's all dropping post hoc
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:19:04 UTC No. 15970195
>>15970184
Or you can continue to let them post, out themselves publicly as freaks, and let the public see them for what they are.
There's a reason discord is a hive of degeneracy, it's out of the way and private.
>>15970164
If I remember correctly, there's quite a few rockets that could theoretically perform SSTO operations, but the payload fraction makes the whole thing pointless outside of meme material
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:20:01 UTC No. 15970196
>>15970195
someone should launch one once for the memes
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:20:14 UTC No. 15970198
>>15970175
Seethe more lmao
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:22:04 UTC No. 15970201
>>15970157
> This difference is the first big driver for the architecture of the rocket. The fundamental differences, from the rocketโs point of view, are how long the journey takes and the โdivision of laborโ between the first stage and the upper stage. A Low Energy mission is usually a quick, 15 minute ride to space, with just a couple of upper stage burns. A really long LEO mission might still take only 30 minutes. Conversely, a High Energy mission will take from six to eight hours or more (10, 20, even 40 times longer!), involving many burns, long coasts, and complex maneuvers, which are executed at precise times and locations.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:27:29 UTC No. 15970207
> Last, but not least, the level of complexity of the necessary maneuvers means advanced avionics and an engine that can be started and stopped many times and left idle for hours at a time, in space.
these are kind of funny considering what kind of avionics propulsive landing on a shit at sea requires
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:31:01 UTC No. 15970213
>>15970201
Since Falcon Heavy has provisions for long coast phases, multiple starts, and complex orbital insertions, it must be a high energy launch vehicle too.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:33:01 UTC No. 15970220
I hope "spacefans" would move on from obsessing which obsolete rocket design is the best and just accept that Starship and reuse are going to be paradigm changing and start obsessing about different kind of spacetugs or something
what kind of propulsion system is best for in-space? chemical, electric thrusters, nuclear, something passive? lots of stuff to start autisming about
add in ISRU
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:34:05 UTC No. 15970222
>>15970213
> Once you have made your choice of target mission, youโre locked in. You can sometimes make minor adjustments like offloading propellant, but thatโs about all.
not so fast, if its not optimal it doesn't count clearly
also forget about total cost
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:37:03 UTC No. 15970231
>>15970220
But Anon, rockets are amazing
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:40:51 UTC No. 15970238
Starship $100 million cost, could launch 104 times a year according to NASA
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/upl
Page 28 of the PDF
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:46:08 UTC No. 15970251
>>15970238
Hnnnggg
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:46:34 UTC No. 15970252
>>15970248
>former nasa chief joins board of company vying for a nasa contract
C O R R U P T I O N
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:46:52 UTC No. 15970253
>>15970238
10 billion just for launches, how much is total system cost? I find it kind of hard to see how Congress would fund something like this
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:47:53 UTC No. 15970254
>>15970082
>>don't use ICPS, use ACES from the get go with J-2X
Defy the juggalo lobby? Are you serious?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:48:38 UTC No. 15970255
>>15970253
>>15970238
funding it through some kind of energy thing instead of purely research/NASA might be different though
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:49:02 UTC No. 15970256
>>15970248
Is he still in viasat
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:50:48 UTC No. 15970258
>>15970255
o'neill was writing about space based solar power back in the 70s and even with his insane launch cost handwaves it didn't sound like a good value proposition. I don't see it being any better today
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:51:11 UTC No. 15970259
>>15970253
ROI is gonna be orders of magnitude higher though
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:53:45 UTC No. 15970262
>>15969981
This but unironically.
>>15969987
This but unironically.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:58:41 UTC No. 15970267
DeltaIV and Sbarky stop name dropping /sfg/ you fucking hacks I'm sick of retarded newniggers from twitter coming here. ESPECIALLY YOU DELTA
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:59:44 UTC No. 15970271
I hate Starship BUT i fucking love Musk
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:05:20 UTC No. 15970276
>>15969380
there should be a smug pepe face on that robot
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:05:31 UTC No. 15970277
I hate tory bruno BUT i fucking love vulcan
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:12:43 UTC No. 15970286
>>15970279
Lil chinker
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:23:41 UTC No. 15970298
Test
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:24:57 UTC No. 15970300
>>15970271
This but unironically
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:27:41 UTC No. 15970304
>>15970298
did it pass?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:27:57 UTC No. 15970305
>>15970267
based
total twitter faggot death when?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:27:58 UTC No. 15970306
>>15970298
Youre unbanned
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:29:00 UTC No. 15970309
>>15970304
>>15970306
new KurobaEx update worked!
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:32:01 UTC No. 15970315
>>15970267
nah fuck off. we need fresh blood on here
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:34:15 UTC No. 15970318
>>15970315
>we
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:35:34 UTC No. 15970321
>>15970238
$85M blockbuy
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:36:43 UTC No. 15970324
>>15970315
>we
ok so youre fine if i go advertise in /pol/ and /lgbt/?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:36:56 UTC No. 15970326
>>15970309
captcha solver still sucks anal drip
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:38:22 UTC No. 15970328
>>15970238
$425 per KG payload
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:40:54 UTC No. 15970336
>>15970328
I think the comparison should be nuclear instead of renewables
renewables need short term storage and seasonal stuff that isn't even a solved problem yet
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:42:58 UTC No. 15970341
https://twitter.com/torybruno/statu
Vulcan tower view
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:46:11 UTC No. 15970344
>>15970328
>launch a New Horizons mass probe for $200,000
>Probe builders no longer have to be autistic about mass or size requirements
Damn
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:47:36 UTC No. 15970346
>>15970093
At least someone finally used MT for MEGATons instead of mT for milliTons
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:23:26 UTC No. 15970391
>>15970361
Nice, this is a decade when heavyliftbros and superheavylifybros are finally feasting again
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:29:10 UTC No. 15970398
>>15970154
Tory loves to play wholesome chungus CEO on X
but under that cowboy grandpa facade, he's a lying snake
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:29:44 UTC No. 15970399
>>15970231
Sure, if they're manufactured by SpaceX
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:39:28 UTC No. 15970411
>>15970324
Less retarded and gay, respectively, than /sfg/
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:41:56 UTC No. 15970414
>>15970248
Big Jim
Big Starlab
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:55:24 UTC No. 15970439
Been away for several months. Happenings?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:59:02 UTC No. 15970443
>>15970439
Starship flight 3 in Feb
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:59:48 UTC No. 15970444
>>15970439
No Artemis II this year.
Peregrine launched and fucked up, but at least Vulcan launched and went okay.
Ingenuity is still hopping away on Mars after Perseverance.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:01:17 UTC No. 15970446
MMX delayed to 2026
https://spacenews.com/japanese-mars
>The launch of a Japanese mission to collect samples from the Martian moon Phobos and return them to Earth, previously scheduled for later this year, has slipped to 2026.
>The Japanese space agency JAXA confirmed the two-year delay in the launch of the Martian Moons eXploration, or MMX, mission, blaming it in part on the H3 rocket that will launch the spacecraft.
>โOwing to evaluate the demonstration results of the second H3 rocket test vehicle and considering the importance to ensure sufficient time for preliminary verification of MMX on the ground, the launch schedule for Japanese rockets has been reviewed,โ the agency said in a Jan. 10 statement to SpaceNews.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:02:52 UTC No. 15970447
DELAYS DELAYS DELAYS
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:07:25 UTC No. 15970452
>>15969557
As Lucy and Cygnus demonstrated, the fan is quite prone to deployment issues
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:09:28 UTC No. 15970456
>>15970447
Space is hard, chud
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:09:55 UTC No. 15970458
>>15970112
good post
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:12:44 UTC No. 15970460
https://spacenews.com/d-orbit-raise
>
D-Orbit currently provides in-space transportation services using its ION series of orbital transfer vehicles. Those tugs have launched primarily on SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets, such as the Transporter line of rideshare missions. The most recent ION, the 13th overall, was a secondary payload on the Falcon 9 launch of a South Korean reconnaissance satellite Dec. 1.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:15:00 UTC No. 15970464
https://spacenews.com/d-orbit-raise
> D-Orbit currently provides in-space transportation services using its ION series of orbital transfer vehicles. Those tugs have launched primarily on SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets, such as the Transporter line of rideshare missions. The most recent ION, the 13th overall, was a secondary payload on the Falcon 9 launch of a South Korean reconnaissance satellite Dec. 1.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:17:12 UTC No. 15970468
>>15970447
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNT
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:23:52 UTC No. 15970477
https://spacenews.com/orienspace-br
> The mission was the first launch for Orienspace which was founded in 2020. Gravity-1 consists of three stages and four boosters. It boasts the capability to lift around 6,500 kilograms of payload to low Earth orbit, or 3,700 kilograms to 700-kilometer sun-synchronous orbit, when using a kerosene-liquid oxygen third stage.
> Gravity-1 is capable of carrying more than twice that of the previous largest Chinese solid rockets, CAS Spaceโs Kinetica-1 and China Rocketโs Jielong-3 (1,500 to 500-km SSO). Both are spinoffs from state-owned enterprises. It is also more powerful than Europeโs Vega-C.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:25:10 UTC No. 15970482
>>15970477
>Oops! All Solids!
Cool, I love these actually. More firework than spacecraft, kickass.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:29:47 UTC No. 15970491
>>15970413
Impressive. Very nice. Now lets see Raptor-3 chamber pressure.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:31:17 UTC No. 15970493
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:32:37 UTC No. 15970494
>>15970493
Kys
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:37:35 UTC No. 15970503
>>15970494
Rude
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:39:10 UTC No. 15970506
Elons jet just lifted off, talk might actually be happening
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:39:46 UTC No. 15970507
>>15970506
Where?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:40:40 UTC No. 15970509
>>15970474
>>15970473
>not for flight
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:42:45 UTC No. 15970512
>>15970506
Are you giving hints about assassination coordinates?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:43:34 UTC No. 15970514
>>15970506
reported for distributing assassination coordinates of highly VIP people
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:44:42 UTC No. 15970517
SLS delenda est
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:46:30 UTC No. 15970523
>>15970507
starbase I guess
I wonder if its going to be livestreamed
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:52:27 UTC No. 15970532
>>15970527
>4 tons of CO2
Green retard, what a surprise
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:52:41 UTC No. 15970534
>>15970527
Holy shit I didn't know jet fuel was so cheap, less than $1 a gallon?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:53:08 UTC No. 15970537
>>15970494
Youโre mean.
Mean people get ugly faces from being mean.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:55:23 UTC No. 15970540
>>15970506
Talk about what?
If itโs anything other than starship iโm not interested.
Though it would be pretty based if he put up tory the snakeโs infographics on a giant screen behind him and proceed to tear them to shreds.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:55:38 UTC No. 15970541
>>15970493
cute
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 20:55:56 UTC No. 15970542
>>15970509
Lmfao
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:00:01 UTC No. 15970549
>>15970540
yearly update, so something like they posted previously
the one below is the 2017 update I think, not sure if they have these multiple times a year or once a year
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:00:56 UTC No. 15970551
>>15970549
>recap
we're not gonna learn anything are we
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:03:11 UTC No. 15970555
>>15970551
probably not
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:04:18 UTC No. 15970557
>>15970551
>>15970555
Holy grail of rocketry
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:05:35 UTC No. 15970558
https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa
Q4 2024 lets fucking go
Launching on November 15th is almost a 23 month stand down to fix an SRB nozzle
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:07:35 UTC No. 15970563
>>15970558
Shut the fuck up
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:08:20 UTC No. 15970564
>>15970563
Fuck you say to me nigga?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:16:17 UTC No. 15970576
That's what I thought.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:16:26 UTC No. 15970577
>>15970572
Government efficiency
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:16:28 UTC No. 15970578
>>15970493
i want to rape her
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:34:46 UTC No. 15970605
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:35:55 UTC No. 15970607
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:41:05 UTC No. 15970616
>>15970602
spiky!
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:54:35 UTC No. 15970636
https://youtu.be/1qOdGMiF4So?si=qni
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:58:57 UTC No. 15970645
>>15970636
blotches on the glass of the thermal camera
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:01:50 UTC No. 15970654
>>15970645
jellyfish
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:11:10 UTC No. 15970679
>>15970549
Is he gonna be on drugs for this one too?
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:15:10 UTC No. 15970685
>>15970679
yes
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:17:03 UTC No. 15970688
blue original makes orbit this year. imagine the seethe from the elon/spacex ball sucklers. already sls and vulcan made orbit before starship. already starship was beat to orbit by two other methane rockets (the china one). be-4 made orbit before raptor, and now mew glenn is gonna do it again hahaha
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:20:24 UTC No. 15970698
>>15970602
imagine falling on those pins and getting impaled
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:21:54 UTC No. 15970704
>>15970636
swamp gas
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:23:20 UTC No. 15970705
>>15970688
getting "firsts" is irrelevant, what matters is mass to orbit and $/kg to orbit
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:24:54 UTC No. 15970710
>>15970705
>the cope begins
LMAO
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:28:03 UTC No. 15970715
>>15970710
>cope
Rope
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:28:28 UTC No. 15970716
>>15970688
I want blorg to succeed. I want spacex to have competition. keeps them from getting complacent.
I don't see nuglnn being a competitor to starship. more like FH if it works well. if.
still better than nothing
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:29:10 UTC No. 15970719
>>15970708
fuck that means they'll use solids for Dreamchaser too even if it might not need it, and those solids might cause issues and vibration problems on it, maybe even the same ones that doomed Peregrine (valves being shaken)
FUCK, this is my biggest fear and concern that ULA only care about NSSL certification and will jeopardize the first 2 sacrificial payloads to receive it
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:30:31 UTC No. 15970725
>>15970710
wasn't new glenn and vulcan supposed to fly like in 2024? SpaceX keeps lapping everybody else and now when someone else beats SpaceX in some arbitrary metric, they win
lol
as I said, its irrelevant
what matters is cost and cadence, launching a SLS once every 3 years for 4 billion is a joke
if New Glenn starts launching a lot now and actually out competes Falcon 9 then that would be nice and impressive
the fact that they might get to orbit before Starship is not impressive and in fact I think it is unlikely
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:31:01 UTC No. 15970728
>>15970710
Every single mission laid out for vulcan/sls etc can be done for cheaper on Falcon architecture with mission adjustments. Only reason it isn't is political grifting and space x trying to quantum leap the industry
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:31:39 UTC No. 15970729
>>15970710
wasn't new glenn and vulcan supposed to fly like in 2020? SpaceX keeps lapping everybody else and now when someone else beats SpaceX in some arbitrary metric, they win
lol
as I said, its irrelevant
what matters is cost and cadence, launching a SLS once every 3 years for 4 billion is a joke
if New Glenn starts launching a lot now and actually out competes Falcon 9 then that would be nice and impressive
the fact that they might get to orbit before Starship is not impressive and in fact I think it is unlikely
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:31:50 UTC No. 15970730
>american and british forces are conducting airstrikes on houthi forces
not spaceflight, but maybe spaceflight if we get more exoatmosheric intercepts
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:36:22 UTC No. 15970734
>>15970679
If WSJ gets to lie in another smear piece.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:44:47 UTC No. 15970752
>>15970719
First, there's no evidence that Vulcan's SRBs were related to Peregrine's valve issue. Second, Dream Chaser would absolutely need boosters anyway because it weights well over twenty tons.
>FUCK, this is my biggest fear and concern
I remain unconvinced that you actually experience emotions. Your voight kampff response is probably a flatline.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:48:20 UTC No. 15970759
>>15970688
The ESL and thinly veiled China strong in this post suggests a wumao.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:56:11 UTC No. 15970766
>>15970759
my first impression after the first sentence but just saying "chang" is a bit too /pol/ for me
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:01:27 UTC No. 15970773
>>15970494
Polite
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:15:59 UTC No. 15970795
>>15970558
>europeanspaceflight.com
I laugh every time
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:16:21 UTC No. 15970796
Time between the founding of Orienspace and the first launch of their rocket:43 months
NET Time between the failure of Vega C and its RTF: 23 months
It would have taken at least half the development time of the Gravity 1 for Vega C to return to flight after a failure.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:17:43 UTC No. 15970798
>>15970715
>sneed
Feed
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:18:01 UTC No. 15970800
>>15970558
who would have predicted Ariane 6 would fly before Vega
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:19:05 UTC No. 15970801
>>15970796
Government provided SRB are a low hurdle.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:21:01 UTC No. 15970805
>>15970796
Orienspace is using motors purchased from the solid fuel division of CASC. No one has said that they were in some form of development before their sale to OS, but I wouldn't be surprised. Those guys tinker with new designs the same way Aerojet does.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:22:23 UTC No. 15970811
>>15970766
>>15970759
ไฝ ไปฌๆๆฏไธญๅฝไบบ!!
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:29:00 UTC No. 15970822
>>15969768
I want to see the cope from the shortbrains when the third flight goes perfect.
I know they're going to be all RAAAARRRRW BUT HE DIDN'T LAND THE FIRST STAGE ON THE GROUND!!!@1!!!!2@@@
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:30:36 UTC No. 15970826
>>15970822
its going to be moving goalposts all the way to mars and then about musk not achieving some colony goal in the over-optimistic time frame he gives
lol
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:43:01 UTC No. 15970850
>>15970361
IT'S REAL
>(NOT FOR FLIGHT)
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:44:32 UTC No. 15970854
>>15970832
Nobody was optimistic for these take your meds schizo.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:45:40 UTC No. 15970858
>>15970822
Cringe redditnigger typing and you didnt even green arrow it kill yourself and gtfo.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:45:59 UTC No. 15970859
>>15970832
I still have high hopes for that falcon 1 company. it wasn't great but I bet there next rocket will be special
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:47:28 UTC No. 15970862
>>15970832
>we
>optimistic
No. None of us gave a shit about any of them but SpaceX.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:50:51 UTC No. 15970868
>>15970805
>>15970801
Where the fuck do you think Vega's SRB come from?
The P80 was literally developped by the French Space Agency on their own then handed over to Avio who only do the casing.
AVUM is russo-ukrainian, Fairing is swiss, Only the middle two stages are by the italians and they're a complete disaster.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:52:09 UTC No. 15970873
>>15970527
This is literally the only time I've seen a threads link since its release and it's for something that got banned from twitter.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:52:22 UTC No. 15970875
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:53:15 UTC No. 15970877
>>15970873
I think it was the first time I went to threads ever, I don't have an instagram account so I couldn't open the pic there
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:53:38 UTC No. 15970879
>>15970875
>random muh chink accusation
i said gtfo redditnigger
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:56:45 UTC No. 15970898
>>15970868
Vega uses the P120 now. No one claims the older engines were commercially developed my wumao friend.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:57:15 UTC No. 15970899
>>15970875
Oh no he's from /pol/ and BEFOOORE was from reddit anon, you have to remember that little jump there. You have to be 18 or older to post here, but that wont stop you so just go back to your containment board
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:09:12 UTC No. 15970927
ELON WHERE ARE YOU COME ON
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:10:45 UTC No. 15970931
>>15970482
China respecting their heritage. Maybe one day we will see them human rate an all solids launch vehicle, in a nod to their legendary. (Or for cost reasons)
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:11:43 UTC No. 15970935
>>15970636
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:12:03 UTC No. 15970936
>>15970928
>>15970933
the other pic
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:23:18 UTC No. 15970953
>>15970931
>China respecting their heritage.
Laughs in Mao.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:29:57 UTC No. 15970964
NVSๅๆ็ญ(1ๅ)็จฎๅญๅณถๅฎๅฎใปใณใฟใผใฎใใฌในใซใผใ ใซๅ
ฅใใพใใใ13
ๅ็ใฏ8:40้ ใฎใญใฑใใใฎๆงๅญใงใใ
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:32:06 UTC No. 15970968
>>15970964
hi clear
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:32:49 UTC No. 15970972
>>15970708
It would be funny to learn that BO/ULA were timid about the BE-4sโand were running them on low power training wheel mode the whole flight kek
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:03:00 UTC No. 15971010
>>15970998
>Titan
That will be four billion dollars plus tip for an SLS direct ascent or you can wait for Starship.
>Mars
The atmosphere is too thin for balloons. Helicopters and fixed wing UAVs are the new meta now that Ingenuity proved out the tech.
>Venus
Oh hell yes, you're basically limited by how long your gasbag can maintain a seal without gases from inside seeping in or lift gases seeping out.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:05:54 UTC No. 15971014
>>15970998
It wouldn't be that hard. Getting a balloon to Mars or Venus is as simple as getting any other probe of equal weight. Getting to Titan is just as ass as any other gas giant mission.
Vega-1 and 2 both included Aerostat probes that they dropped into Venus' atmosphere, and ISRO's Shukrayaan probe is planning to carry another one. There have been a lot of proposals for a Martian aerostat, but it falls into an awkward middle ground between a rover which can get detailed measurements up close and an orbiter that can survey the whole planet. A French balloon was going to fly on Mars 96 back when it was still Mars 94, but ended up getting cut when that mission got scaled back in the post-Soviet collapse.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:06:56 UTC No. 15971017
Can Vulcanโs new GEM XLs make it to orbit individually?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:08:56 UTC No. 15971022
>>15971010
Zubrin seems to think ballons can be done on Mars. I haven't done the math on it, but the physical principles of bouancy are unchanged. Lighter than (Martian) air flight it certainly possible, you just wouldn't be able to loft very much weight with any reasonably sized balloon.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:09:08 UTC No. 15971023
>>15971017
GEMestoga!
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:14:43 UTC No. 15971033
>>15971023
With an SRBee core and propanos 2nd stage that might work. It'd be incredibly shitty and functionally equivalent to a garage built ICBM fueled by beeswax, propane, and auto boost kits, but I think the dV is there for a small enough payload.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:15:43 UTC No. 15971037
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsl
Eric Berger on off-nominal again
can someone listen to this and tell me if there is anything interesting, I find the hosts annoying
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:23:00 UTC No. 15971047
>>15971017
No, but if you put something like a Star-37 on top of one as a second stage you could get about double the Electron's performance to LEO.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:39:34 UTC No. 15971063
Does anyone have the original SRBee image(s)?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:41:14 UTC No. 15971066
>>15971063
Never mind, found it.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:53:20 UTC No. 15971082
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 01:55:04 UTC No. 15971086
I found the SRBee source data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrs
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-pedic
https://contest.techbriefs.com/2010
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 02:40:52 UTC No. 15971124
>>15971081
And what is the thrust to weight ratio on this since this is about space flight?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 02:40:57 UTC No. 15971125
>>15971010
>Venus
a solar balloon could do it without needing a gasbag: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien
>The concept of a hot air balloon relying solely on passive solar heating to achieve lift has existed for nearly half a century [8]. More recently the Centre National dโรtudes Spatiales (CNES) created a balloon that utilized solar heating during the day and infrared radiation from the Earthโs surface at night to remain aloft for over 60 days, circling the globe twice
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 02:48:58 UTC No. 15971135
>>15971037
Vulcan launch rate this year, ULA buyout, HLS date change caused by Orion issues, Starship launch rate this year, Bill Nelson being passive aggressive against SpaceX in that conference. Berger says this is the first time in his life that he's seen that aggressive response from NASA admin. But I recall Jim Bridensen making similar comments about "time to deliver" to Musk when Starship was being unveiled. So was Jim Free (current HLS admin) talking how commercial contracts are a failure. But I've only seen this type of aggressive response towards SpaceX. Never towards Boeing/ULA/Lockheed, even though they've all delayed programs for decades with cost overruns going well into hundreds of billions if not trillions for other defense contracts.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 02:54:09 UTC No. 15971139
>>15971135
It's politics. Pushing Artemis 2 to 2025 means Trump gets 2/3/4. First crew, first Starship landing, first Gateway, first blorp landing. That puts him solidly with Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ for best space Presidents.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:00:34 UTC No. 15971144
>>15971139
Thats the positive side of things.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:01:11 UTC No. 15971145
>>15971144
That's precisely why NASA is so butt hurt. They're getting leaned on from the White House to not let this schedule sllip.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:05:26 UTC No. 15971152
>>15971139
but kamala harris is going to be president in 2025?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:15:23 UTC No. 15971159
>>15971152
Ridin w/ Biden
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:16:53 UTC No. 15971161
>>15971159
I am a #WernherBurner how
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:22:41 UTC No. 15971166
>>15970850
real fake rockets
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:26:36 UTC No. 15971171
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:27:11 UTC No. 15971172
>>15971171
IVO CEO in the replies.
https://twitter.com/RaMansell/statu
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:27:38 UTC No. 15971174
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:28:14 UTC No. 15971175
>>15971168
>Crew 8 will launch before this, will probably get delayed even crew 9 goes before
Rumao
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:45:20 UTC No. 15971186
>>15970492
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sQ
T-1:00:00
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:47:46 UTC No. 15971187
>>15971186
omgggg! anime land is gonna launch a rocket? this is so kawaii desu uwu
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:06:49 UTC No. 15971207
>>15971037
Berger thinks Cerberus is gonna get ULA because the former Space Force general works there now.
>>15971135
I think he was talking about in the context of a press conference. "It's time to deliver" was mentioned at another point in the show.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:09:32 UTC No. 15971208
>>15971207
>Berger thinks Cerberus is gonna get ULA because the former Space Force general works there now.
You know who else has a former Space Force general on staff? Amazon. They're not going to buy ULA when Blorp exists.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:14:30 UTC No. 15971215
How does New Glenn compare to Vulcan? Does it actually make sense to operate both? Vulcan is impressively cheap for an expendable rocket I guess.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:19:47 UTC No. 15971220
>>15971217
Don't worry, they'll bring back the accusation within the next year and a half, like clockwork.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:19:57 UTC No. 15971221
>>15971217
>isnt
KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:20:18 UTC No. 15971222
H-IIA rocket launch of jap spook sat live stream from some fatty, t-25 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/live/KMwSv5
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:21:41 UTC No. 15971224
Also, what the fuck is the meaning of this?
>Two Blue Origin officials told Ars that the company is not currently planning to perform a full-scale test-firing of an entire New Glenn booster, with all seven of its BE-4 engines, before the inaugural launch.
Doesn't SpaceX still hot fire Falcon-9s? I know they still do for some Heavy launches. Why would you be worried about testing your reusable rocket? I can't think of even a single reason that this would be a good idea.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:21:55 UTC No. 15971226
>>15971215
Smaller Vulcans might be more attractive for non-constellation missions that don't need New Glenn's oversized lifting capacity. Which models are still viable depends on where the sticker price for both of those rockets ends up.
Vulcan also has been contracted for a pile of NSSL launches, and the government loves proven and reliable things over newer more efficient things. If Vulcan shows that its capable it'll almost certainly get some NSSL-3 launches, which would mean it'll stay around until at least 2029.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:23:26 UTC No. 15971227
>>15971215
New Glenn has SEVEN BE-4 engines so it's going to be at bare ass minimum 3.5x as expensive per flight until they smooth out first stage reuse. Vulcan will also be easier to crew-rate for Dreamchaser or Shartliner if it's already NSSL certified (see Orion on DIVH and Shartliner on Atlas V). Also they've got a backlog of like 70 launches so it would be beyond retarded to cancel the rocket.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:24:51 UTC No. 15971229
>>15971215
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin
https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/
(yes its reddit, its the first thing that came up googling)
I guess the max performance of Vulcan would be somewhat better than BO with reuse
I mean perhaps it makes sense, I don't think BO really wants to expend New Glenn boosters, seem to be much less mass production focused compared to Falcon 9 boosters if they are planning to land it on the first launch
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:26:17 UTC No. 15971231
>>15971224
simulations bro
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:26:39 UTC No. 15971232
>>15971217
...what retard made that accusation?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:27:38 UTC No. 15971235
>>15971232
some mumbly old pedophile named Brandon
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:28:07 UTC No. 15971236
>>15971232
WSJ
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:29:52 UTC No. 15971238
>>15971222
t-15
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:31:56 UTC No. 15971240
>>15971222
Clear-chan is also streaming the launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOQ
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:33:05 UTC No. 15971241
>>15971229
these pics came up in the same search, lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:33:28 UTC No. 15971242
>>15971241
>2021
CRAWLING IN MY SKIN
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:34:08 UTC No. 15971243
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:34:36 UTC No. 15971244
>>15971241
>>15971243
EVERYONE failed
It's OVER
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:35:45 UTC No. 15971245
>>15971240
I don't speak rice and noodles
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:36:27 UTC No. 15971248
>>15971245
She's got a good camera angle of the launchpad and is going over the launch manifest PDF.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:36:57 UTC No. 15971249
>Ring of galaxies spotted that are currently unexplainable to current astrological understanding
>One option given could be a Kardashev scale IV civilization
>Faggots on this planet still arguing over 2 old men ruling part of a continent and how much gibs they can get instead of expanding into the solar system
Just fucking enslave/kill us already ayyys.. we are hopelessly fucked...
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:38:36 UTC No. 15971252
>>15971249
>>Ring of galaxies spotted that are currently unexplainable to current astrological understanding
*taps mic*
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:41:07 UTC No. 15971256
>>15971187
unironically me to be desu with you
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:42:12 UTC No. 15971257
>>15971245
Ill take 20
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:42:24 UTC No. 15971258
>>15971256
>be desu with you
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:42:51 UTC No. 15971259
>>15971249
>of course I'm an enlightened atheist who knows God isn't real
>that's why I always pray desperately to an inferior imitation
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:43:46 UTC No. 15971262
lol why are they counting down minutes before launch?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:43:48 UTC No. 15971263
Prop loaded, deluge next.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:43:50 UTC No. 15971264
>>15971252
QI does not adequately explain anything weird and no experiment with it has ever worked. Stop shilling this stuff until something actually changes.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:45:31 UTC No. 15971267
>>15971266
>spacex btfo as usual
lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:46:01 UTC No. 15971268
>SRB Barnout
lol esl much?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:46:40 UTC No. 15971271
>>15971258
Hello newfag. I see youve just learned about the wordfilter, maybe go back to teddit instead of shitting up /sfg/? You stupid fucking nigger?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:47:48 UTC No. 15971273
huh
never seen a dogleg maneuver before
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:47:59 UTC No. 15971274
>>15971267
NVM it looks like it failed whoops
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:48:30 UTC No. 15971275
whoa, that is one helluva dogleg....
[eurobeat intensifies]
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:49:09 UTC No. 15971276
>>15971271
honest is wordfiltered? I thought it was just the acronym of the phrase
to be to be honest with you is what it would have been un-acronymed and unfiltered, absolutely retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:49:51 UTC No. 15971278
>>15971274
did the fairing sep?
i didn't see anything fall off...
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:50:09 UTC No. 15971279
>>15971273
H3 pulled a pretty extreme looking Tokyo drift like this on its first launch. They might need a turn like this to miss something downrange when they're aiming for SSO from tanegashima.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:50:10 UTC No. 15971280
testing desu
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:50:52 UTC No. 15971282
lol why did they stop tracking?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:51:13 UTC No. 15971284
>>15971271
I knew it, you are a fucking retard
not surprised an animehomo is a faggot in general lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:51:40 UTC No. 15971286
>>15971282
It was one guy on the ground with a shaky camera, lost track of it.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:52:22 UTC No. 15971287
We have good separation/SES.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:53:05 UTC No. 15971288
>>15971287
why no camera or cheap cgi animation showing telemetry data?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:56:29 UTC No. 15971292
>>15971288
please understand
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:58:23 UTC No. 15971297
ok it actually was a really major dogleg and not the booster falling lol
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:58:57 UTC No. 15971298
>>15971257
I'm sure it's tasty, not really sure how you'd go about actually eating it. Do you just slorp it through the same hole you injected the water into?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 04:59:39 UTC No. 15971301
>tokyo drifting a booster
hehe nice
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 05:03:39 UTC No. 15971306
>>15971297
>>15971301
if they want to dogleg, they kind of have to. The hydrogen engine is low thrust so they have to turn the whole rocket. By comparison, when Falcon 9 doglegs out of Vandenberg, they can do it all with gimbaling.
(SECO and payload separation confirmed!)
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 05:03:51 UTC No. 15971307
Payload separation confirmed.
>Clear was learning what "MECO" and "SECO" stand for live on stream
amazingly cute
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 05:10:12 UTC No. 15971314
Why haven't we seen any serious proposal for an artificial gravity producing space station? Full blown ring habs are surely a ways off still, but why haven't we started a rudimentary demonstration project? We've spent decades learning the many ways that 0g is bad, but we have no data on the long term effects of 1/3g. At this rate we may as well go to mars (and the moon) first to find out.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 05:13:25 UTC No. 15971317
>>15971314
Spinning stuff is really risky.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 05:14:17 UTC No. 15971318
>>15971314
because they don't want to do that on the ISS for some reason (probably due to pork through one reason or another if I had to guess) and private entities have not been able to send space stations up due to prohibitive cost
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 05:14:29 UTC No. 15971319
>>15971314
Tyranny of the payload fairing. $/m^3 of hab space is way worse than $/kg even with expandables.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 05:21:23 UTC No. 15971325
>>15971306
You have to turn the rocket in the direction of thrust regardless. This is just a much more extreme dogleg than what you see with Falcon.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 05:28:26 UTC No. 15971332
>>15971317
No it isn't I spin stuff all the time
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 05:54:54 UTC No. 15971361
>>15971325
virgin japan doing an extreme dogleg to avoid one tiny island with a few hundred people
vs
chad china dropping hypergolic boosters straight onto heartland villages
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 06:06:25 UTC No. 15971373
>>15970602
barbed
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 06:18:13 UTC No. 15971381
https://twitter.com/VickiCocks15/st
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 06:22:40 UTC No. 15971385
>>15971381
>Cocks
Nice try
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 06:23:19 UTC No. 15971387
>>15971385
Oddly enough it's not a Krystal joke.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 06:37:55 UTC No. 15971400
Soooooo musk did a company talk today but he said something that is causing spacex to hesitate to release the footage...yikes
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:04:49 UTC No. 15971412
>>15971400
I bet this is a matter of autism and expectations:
>Question: When is the next SpaceX talk?
>Elon's answer: "Thursday."
This is where the public made a mistake.
This is the question the public read it as:
>"When is the next publicly facing SpaceX talk?"
This is probably the question Elon read it as:
>"When is my next scheduled speaking event about SpaceX?"
I don't think Elon ever understood the question as being centered on a public speech or talk.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:12:19 UTC No. 15971416
>>15971387
Very disappointing
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:12:49 UTC No. 15971418
>>15971412
>These will be posted publicly to @SpaceX and @Tesla.
Are you a fucking retard?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:13:58 UTC No. 15971420
>>15971418
Yes. I won't apologize.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:14:45 UTC No. 15971421
Nigger (derogaTORY)
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:19:40 UTC No. 15971425
>>15971400
This is really bad
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:32:59 UTC No. 15971431
>>15970558
you know what they say about Q4 Launch dates...
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:35:15 UTC No. 15971500
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 11:23:12 UTC No. 15971606
>>15971249
>unexplainable to current astrological understanding
>astrological
It depends on what sign they were born under.